Rehberg flies his chopper through a loophole.... not

The Gazette put a notice on the front page pointing to a article in the State and Local section about Rep. Denny Rehberg. It says, as does the first line of the article, that a "loophole" in the new House ethics guidelines allows Rehberg to fly his helicopter around the state on official business and be reimbursed for it, while Congressmen who are fixed-wing pilots are not allowed to do the same when flying personal aircraft.

Reading the rest of the article, it is clear that there is no loophole involved. The definition of a loophole is "an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded."

This is manifestly not the case in the matter of Choppergate -- what Rehberg will be doing when piloting his chopper is following the intent of the ethics rules. It is the poor schmucks who can't fly their airplanes who are prevented from following the intent of the law because the ethics rules were so poorly written. (Is this there a name for this, such as a "reverse loophole?)

It should be pointed out that the Gazette article does not imply that Rehberg is doing anything unethical (although the word "loophole" was misleading and inappropriate, as noted above).

The matter will be corrected by better-written House rules, but it is another example of why hastily written laws and rules are not a very good idea -- the inane "first 100 hours" plan of Democrat Speaker Pelosi is currently Exhibit A for anyone who wants to make that case.

Who pays the bill for election challenges?

When Rick Jore's 2004 legislative race ended up in a tie, then Gov. Judy Martz cast the deciding vote for him, as Montana law gave her the authority to do. Gov. Schweitzer was poised to cast the deciding vote for the Democrat in an initially tied House race in Laurel this past election, until a recount revealed that Krayton Kerns had actually narrowly won the race. That's the law.

The Democrat candidate successfully sued to have several ballots invalidated in the Jore race in 2004, and in a fact not widely known, the only way she could do it was to personally sue Jore himself. Montana law also allowed for the winner of the challenge to sue the loser of the challenge for court and legal costs (which in this case amounts to about $18,000 -- a lot of money.)

This is indeed a crazy law, since Jore wasn't the one marking the ballots or deciding which votes were valid. Sen. John Cobb, R-Augusta, has proposed a bill to change this unfair law by having the state pay the bill. The Secretary of State's office (from whom the money would come) understandably wants a different solution, namely to have the one filing the suit pay for legal costs regardless of the outcome. The Secretary of State has a good point, since the state could be on the hook for any such suit, regardless of its merit.

A combination of the two would probably also work: if the challenger wins, the state pays, since a court has decided that the officials counting the ballots did it wrong; but losing challengers should pay the legal bill, since the burden of proof is really on them.

Party switching and recounts -- Montana election law bills introduced

Sen. Dan McGee, R-Laurel, has introduced legislation that would add party-switching to the list of reasons why Montana elected official can be subject to a recall election.

The subject is obviously fresh in Republican minds, because of the Kitzenberg switch that threw control of the Senate to the Democrats this session.

Kitzenberg's switch was dirty politics, but then that is probably a redundancy. There have been many high-profile party switches, and nationwide, Republicans have been the beneficiaries far more often than have Democrats in the modern era.

It is still a reasonable law, since many people calculate the question of which party they want in control into their vote. Were this not so, Democrats would have no reason to crow (as they are doing) that the Republican party's performance received failing marks in the last election. If every election were simply about which person voters wanted into office, the last election cycle could only be read as a large series of individual failures by Republican U.S. Representatives and Senators.

A good case can be made that this was actually true to a large extent. If one were to remove races that turned to a large part on public or private scandals (as Montanans know as well as anyone), the Republicans would still control the U.S. Senate and be very close in the House.

The only way to find out what voters really want is in an election where all of the facts are laid before them, and a recall election is one way to do that -- albeit a risky one, since if the party asking for the recall loses such a high-profile recall election take an even bigger political hit.

There is also always the old-fashioned way: simply take the hit, let public opinion work its magic, take time to evaluate why the switch happened, and then trounce the opposing party in the next election.

"Left" is right, again

While Montana Headlines hasn't done a comprehensive enough review of the current session's legislation to agree that Rep. Mike Lange's parental rights bill is The Worst Bill of This Session, Left in the West (along with the Billings Gazette editors) is right that the bill is a non-starter.

While Rep. Lange's concerns for parental rights are to be commended, one finds it hard to believe that anyone who has had any kind of exposure to the real-world reasons why children are in foster care would come up with a bill like this. One wonders how many foster parents the bill's sponsors interviewed in the process of preparing it.

In some states, social services departments are intrusive, bullying, and overfunded. But not in Montana, as far as can be seen.

The only conceivable reason for such a bill would be if there were evidence that a particular religious upbringing itself was being used as evidence for abuse or neglect. No such evidence is being offered -- and even if there are individual cases where the state has acted with a high hand toward parents whose children are being taken away, the proper redress is through providing legal assistance to the wronged parents.

A legislative (let alone constitutional) solution would only be in order after a pattern of governmental abuse has been clearly established. Unless Lange and other bill supporters can establish such a pattern, this bill deserves to die a quiet death.

If this is an attempt at "wedge issue" politics, then it isn't a very well-conceived one.

Who is in the middle on global warming?

The Billings Gazette's headline tells us that the Montana delegation takes middle ground on global warming.

When viewing the extremes on global warming, this is probably true, but the information in the rest of the article is instructive regarding the varied thinking of the three members of the Montana delegation to Washington.

Democrat Senator Max Baucus seems to take the approach of having his cake and eating it too. He voted against a 2003 bill to restrict greenhouse gas emissions because it was too strict, and he voted against a later bill proposed by President Bush because it didn't go far enough.

With the former, he keeps out of trouble at home, and with the latter, he keeps out of trouble with his national Democrat fund-raising sources. This vacillating approach (and it seems to be a modus operandi on a variety of issues) drives liberals as crazy as it does conservatives. This isn't middle ground, it is no-man's land.

The quotations from our new Senator Jon Tester seem calculated to stay out of trouble with the Moveon.org people who poured money into Montana to get him elected: Conservation and alternative energy sources. There's nothing wrong with either -- in fact, much more is needed of both. But the topic is greenhouse gas emissions, and unless Tester plans on Montanans going without gas in their trucks and electricity in their homes, he is going to have to commit to what he thinks is an acceptable level of emissions.

Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg seems to be the one with the truest middle ground as quoted in this article, since he specifically states the need for a comprehensive solution that doesn't punish just one industry, and which takes a global approach -- lest companies just move overseas seeking countries with lesser emission standards.

All three are certainly in the middle when compared to national extremes, and Montanans can be grateful for that. Look, however, for Sen. Baucus, who faces reelection sooner, to be the Democrat more to the right. Tester, on the other hand, has 4 years to vote quietly with the left and then 2 years to swing back to the right just before his own election.

For the primary difference between Barbara Boxer's positions and that of the Baucus/Tester Senatorial duo is not in philosophy, but in the nature of the electorate each has to face.