Sec. State Brad Johnson -- Montana Headlines interview, Part 2 of 2

Read Part 1 of the interview here.

Part 2:

MH: The Secretary of State's office oversees a wide variety of governmental functions, all of which are important, but most of which are out of the view of the average Montanan. Could you, for the benefit of readers who aren't familiar with what your office does, give an overview?

Brad Johnson: Elections are, of course, the one that everyone notices. But the Secretary of State's office also serves Montana's business community as a filing office. When a new business gets started, they register their name here so no one else in Montana can use it. Corporations and Limited Liability Companies file annual reports with us, so the public can be aware of contact information, who's on their board of directors, and more. After business filings, we also preserve records for the rest of the state, we publish that state's Administrative Rules, we oversee Notaries Public, and more. That's one of the reasons I like the Secretary of State's office: it's an office of government that does humble, quiet work. It really is a place to serve the people.

MH: You mention filing and reporting for corporations as being a role of the Secretary of State's office -- are there things under the purview of your office that you think could be changed in order to create a more business-friendly climate in Montana? Will you be advocating for any legislation in the upcoming session?

Brad Johnson: This office definitely improves the business climate in Montana. The first step has been to hold fees down. Not one business reporting fee has increased during my term. The second is to reduce paperwork, which we did by shifting to online annual reports and which we’ll continue doing by bringing more services online. We’re improving the methods by which we deliver information about administrative rules, which many businesses need to do their job. Those are just a few of the areas where I hope to make even more improvements over the coming years.

MH: Let's turn to politics. You are one of only two Republicans holding state-wide office right now, and the only one in Helena. This has thrust you into a high-profile leadership role in the state party that you probably didn't anticipate having 4 years ago when you defeated Bill Kennedy for the Secretary of State position.

What has that been like, and what are your thoughts as a leader about what we Republicans will need to do in order to recover from the losses we have sustained in the last couple of election cycles?

Brad Johnson: I wholeheartedly believe that the excited, committed crop of Republicans we have this year is ready to come roaring back in 2008. We've got so much excitement at the grass roots, it's really moving. I try to think of myself as a resource to them. I believe there's an understanding out there among the activists that it was never offices or numbers or majorities that made this party great -- it was our beliefs. Our beliefs will make us great again.

We don't need to think about being in power; we need to think about being in the right. As long as we are, and we stay that way, we will be a great political party. Fiscal conservatism, the values of the American family, a strong nation with a strong defense, liberty and individualism -- we stood for those things once, and we were great. If we stand for them again, we will be great again.

MH: Speaking of your new high-profile role, part of the package deal is that you've drawn fire from the left here in Montana -- we've certainly seen it in the blogosphere. You've also had to have felt a bit isolated as the sole Republican member of the state land board. We're not giving away any big secrets here when we say that you are being targeted by the Democrats in this election. How does this affect day-to-day life in doing your job as Secretary of State?

Brad Johnson: I've had my share of criticism from the Democrat party, that's true. But I just don't let it affect the job. While I'm there, the Secretary of State's office will not descend into partisanship. I've actually got an elected Democrat serving as my elections deputy -- Lisa Kimmet, former Clerk and Recorder for Prairie County. Many people don't know that, but to me, it's a guarantee of high quality elections for everyone. We have a Republican Secretary of State and a Democrat who's working right alongside me to make sure Montana's elections remain among the cleanest, fairest in the country.

MH: Funny thing -- one struggles to think of examples where the leftward bloggers in Montana, let alone the mainstream press, commends you for having hired a Democrat as your elections deputy.

Brad Johnson: I admit it’s a bit frustrating. People on the other side of the aisle line up to sing Schweitzer’s praises for having “Republican” John Bohlinger in his administration, but they’re dead silent when our side does something similar. But I try not to let those frustrations come up too often. The truth of the matter is, you don’t do the right thing for credit, you do the right thing because it’s the right thing. And an election that both sides can trust is absolutely the right thing.

MH: One more question on attacks from the left: we've heard stories about a nationwide effort on the part of Democrats specifically to take over Secretary of State offices at the individual state level, presumably to have more control over the election process. Have you had evidence that you are being targeted on a national level?

Brad Johnson: We’ve had some interaction with the national Democrat and left-leaning organizations. Their “Secretary of State Project” wrote about my race once, and have been said to have an interest in it. We encountered MoveOn.org, too, believe it or not. They sent us a bunch of petitions urging Montana to move to paper ballots. Of course, we passed that law in 2005…

MH: Yes, that was an amusing illustration of how out-of-touch MoveOn.org is, once they get away from the coasts.

One more political question -- you were an early supporter of Gov. Mitt Romney, who was successful in winning the Montana Republican Presidential Caucus. Have you been asked to be involved in Sen. McCain's presidential campaign here in Montana -- and regardless of whether you will be actively involved, how would you suggest that the Montana Republican Party can transfer some of that Romney grassroots energy to John McCain?

Brad Johnson: I've already been advocating the importance of electing John McCain to the White House. I haven't been involved in the campaign yet, but I'm spreading the word on a personal level as much as I can. As far as transferring some of the Romney enthusiasm to McCain, I think there's a relatively simple formula that will work: Romney earned a lot of his support simply by showing up. He came here, he listened to Montanans, and he treated us like we mattered.

Frankly, we saw the same thing in the supporters of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Those two were here a lot, and their supporters were very enthusiastic for that reason. That's what the party and the McCain campaign need to do to transfer the Romney enthusiasm. Treat individual voters with respect. Listen to their ideas. And give them some time. They will respond. Chairman Iverson is already doing this at the party level; I have every confidence that we're going to see it from the McCain campaign as well.

MH: Let's leave politics and for the final question go back to the job you've been doing as Secretary of State. You've overseen a major modernization of the Secretary of State's office during your 4 years. Tell us a little about some of the things happening behind the scenes in your office that might not be making front page news.

Brad Johnson: When I ran for this office, I committed to bringing the Secretary of State's office into the 21st century. It's going well. We've got online candidate filing now, a statewide voter registration database, business annual reports are mostly online, we've just upgraded our Administrative Rules system into an easily searchable online database, we've established a steering committee to guide statewide policy on electronic records and information management, and more.

Right now we're in the middle of a project to completely revamp the office's computer system, with an end goal of making all our records available electronically, and all our reports submittable electronically. We've saved over a hundred thousand dollars with the online annual reporting. Electronic services cut down on paperwork and time for the citizen and the fee-paying business, and they're cheaper for the state to provide. It's a win win situation for everyone.

MH: A "win-win" situation is a good note to end on. Secretary Johnson, thank you very much for spending time with us here at Montana Headlines. Good luck in the campaign.

Sec. State Brad Johnson -- Montana Headlines interview, Part 1 of 2

Note to readers: please see our introductory comments on method and ground-rules that we published with our interview with Republican State Auditor candidate Duane Grimes.

____________________________________________

MH: Secretary Johnson, first of all welcome to Montana Headlines, and thank you for agreeing to do this interview.

To start off, Montanans read in the newspapers last month that you just finished visiting the election offices in all 56 Montana counties in your capacity at the chief election administrator of the state. That was quite an undertaking.

Share with us, if you will, some of your impressions about the state of elections in Montana. What are we doing well, and what are some of the challenges that we face in what promises to be one of the biggest primary and general elections that Montana has seen in quite some years?

Brad Johnson: Montana's elections are some of the cleanest and fairest in the country. When I meet with other Secretaries of State from around the nation, they're always envious of how smoothly elections proceed here. One of the first reasons for that is our paper ballot requirement. While other states around the country are dealing with all the security risks of electronic voting machines, every single vote in Montana is on paper where we can count it by hand if we need to. That was bipartisan legislation for which I was proud to be the first proponent.

Another reason Montana's elections work so well is our system of local control. County election officials make their own decisions about whether to count ballots by hand or using a machine. County Commissioners make their own decisions about ordering a hand recount if they believe there's a problem with the total. We have some of the best election administrators anywhere in the country, and I'm proud to call each and every one of them a colleague.

That was one of the best things accomplished by the tour. I had the chance for real face-to-face interaction with the people on the front lines of our electoral process. County election officials had the chance to tell me directly what they wanted form the state. When they asked for more training on the statewide voter registration database, they got it. When they asked for more communication, they got it.

There are still areas we can fine tune. In the last legislative session, my office worked with Rep. Brady Wiseman on legislation to require random audits of some counties vote counts after an election. That didn't pass, but we hope to return to that issue in the next session. Overall, we've got a great election system here -- one that other states look to as an example.

MH: How did the June primary go from your perspective, given the record turnouts, especially on the Democratic side?

Brad Johnson: There are a number of important points to observe about our primary election. The first is that, for the first time ever, Montana endured the rigors of full fledged modern Presidential campaign. The result? Short, well-managed lines, no challenges to the counts, and timely reporting of the results. In brief, this election proceeded nearly perfectly in process. I think a large share of the credit for that goes to the outstanding local election administrators, who trained hard, worked hard, and delivered results for the people of Montana.

Another important point that I’m happy about is that this year, for the first time ever, the Montana Secretary of State’s office delivered accurate, up-to-the minute results on election night. In years past, our “final unofficial count” has been available at some point the day after. But the simple fact of the matter is that the people demanded better. We delivered it, and I was pleased by that.

Voter turnout was great – just a percentage point or two shy of our office projection. And, I might add, the highest since Congress made changes in how we measure voter turnout.

I think every Republican has to look at the turnout figures on the Democrat side and say some version of, “It’s time to get to work. That’s a large number of people voting in the Democrat primary. Obviously the high visibility of the Obama vs. Clinton contest was driving that, combined with the McCain nomination being long-since settled, but even so, we have to look at those numbers and respond with more work and more ideas. We can take nothing for granted.

MH: Was there anything in the results in Bob Kelleher's win in the Republican Senate race or John Driscoll's race in the Democratic House race that raises any red flags for your office, given how unexpected these results were?

Brad Johnson: We certainly did have questions from some folks shortly after the primary. There were a few who wanted to blame the Kelleher situation on some problem with vote counting machines. But Montana has a number of counties that count their ballots by hand. The simple fact of the matter is that the results of the Senate primary in hand-count counties essentially mirrored those in the machine count counties. Kelleher won. Driscoll won. Figuring out why will be a great opportunity for professors and analysts. But they did win, and it was not a problem with the count.

I will take a moment here to say I believe that’s a trend which is highly destructive to democracy. On both sides – Republican and Democrat – when the results are not what we wanted, we blame the system rather than admit we could have lost. Democrats did it in 2004 in Ohio, a few Republicans have been doing it now in Montana… but what happens if those efforts succeed? What happens if the public comes to believe that the only legitimate election is one where your candidate wins? People will lose faith in the system of self government. That’s something I think we all want to prevent.

MH: You took some flack from the left during the last legislative session when you advocated for election workers and their reasonable proposal to close registration a mere two business days before the election. Did we see the kinds of backed up lines and overloaded staff on election day that we did in the fall of 2006? Will you be advocating for such legislation again, or do you think that we are just stuck with voter registration loading down our election offices on election day itself?

Brad Johnson: In the political world, we have a big debate going on about “everyone should be able to participate in an election, even if they forget to register up until the last minute” vs. “Voting is a responsibility, if you can’t be bothered to pay attention you should not take part.” I believe in voting as a responsibility, and I work every day toward increasing people’s informed, prepared participation. I also believe in increasing participation. That’s why I think HB281 in the 2007 session was such a good compromise. It still opened up the process much more – from 30 days before the election down to three. But it asked for just a little bit of prior preparation.

But none of that takes into account the technical part of election work. One thing that frustrates election workers everywhere is how little people outside the business understand what we do. The simple fact is that late registration is very, very hard for county election workers to implement in a way that preserves a smooth election process for the rest of the voters and also maintains the integrity of the process. But people outside don’t see that. They just see the “participation vs. responsibility” debate.

I have a responsibility to see the election workers’ perspective though. And their opinion was near-universal. 55 out of 56 county election administrators wanted to roll back the date of late registration. I won’t name names, but HIGHLY partisan Democrat election administrators wanted to see that deadline rolled back. On the other hand, relatively politically inactive Democrat election administrators also completely supported rolling back the date for late registration. As well, Republican election administrators supported rolling back the date. Election administrators of no party also supported it. Among the most highly-regarded election administrators in the state – of all political stripes – all said the deadline should be rolled back.

It’s not that I don’t understand the Democrats political position. What I don’t understand is why they were so unwilling to listen to a universal consensus from the people in the field.

And after all that, it absolutely must be said: we did far, far better this year. My office undertook a campaign of public service announcements – that never used my name, face or voice, I should add – encouraging voters to register early. As well, the major Presidential campaigns were all working on getting voters registered early. County election offices worked on getting voters registered early. And the team effort worked. Lines were shorter to non-existent in some counties. They moved faster. It was a good result. But we’d have an even better result if we closed registration on the Friday before the election.

MH: Some states are enacting measures to decrease the chances of voter fraud, such as photo ID's. Another concern in many states that isn't yet an issue in Montana but that may become one in the coming years is the possibility of illegal immigrants voting in our elections. Do you have any thoughts about these and other voter fraud concerns in Montana and how the legislature might take action? It is the position of Montana Headlines that every fraudulent ballot cast disenfranchises a voter who followed the rules. Any thoughts on that?

Brad Johnson: In the last legislative session, I testified on behalf of a bill that would have made it a felony to knowingly falsify information for the purpose of registering to vote. The Democrats killed it. That’s one step the legislature could take right away that would address many of the concerns you mentioned. I share your position that if voter fraud happens, it disenfranchises honest voters.

It should be pointed out that the non-partisan Legislative Audit Division identified instances of individuals who attempted to vote more than once, but those attempts were thwarted by the statewide voter registration database. The numbers of such attempts were small, but recent Montana elections often include very close races. Just this June, we had a House primary decided by one vote. Every attempt at violating election law is significant, and I would like to see the Legislature strengthen the penalties for it.

MH: A final election followup -- how far away are we from going to vote-by-mail in Montana? We've heard some pretty convincing arguments that fraud would actually be more difficult to perpetrate with an all-mail system as opposed to our current mix of absentee ballots, in-person voting at the precinct level, and early voting at election offices.

Brad Johnson: Montana’s local election officials tend to be strongly in favor of mail ballots. I think their arguments have merit – especially in regard to the savings to the taxpayer that could be realized. But I also think we don’t want to be too hasty about this. There are questions that need to be answered. Is the county paying for the return postage? Or the voter? If we make the voter pay for the stamp, is that the same thing as charging people money to vote? If not, then where does the money for postage come from? And does the expense of postage eat up the hoped-for savings?

More than all that, I’m not sure we can completely take away a traditional in-person polling place because it offers accommodations for Montanans with disabilities that simply can’t be offered with a mail ballot. And finally, there are just some folks like me who like doing things the old fashioned way, and voting in person.

So there are two sides to the story, and we don’t know the answer yet. I’d like to see us be quite thorough in studying the issue before making any decisions.

Read Part 2 of the interview with Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson here.

Duane Grimes -- Montana Headlines interview reprise-- full text

In May, Montana Headlines ran a 3-part series with Republican State Auditor candidate Duane Grimes as the first of a planned set of interviews with the Montana Republican Party's major candidates for state-wide office. One of our intentions at the time was to put the entire interview into a single post for ease of linking to it -- here it is in that one-post format.

Coming up this week is the Montana Headlines interview with Secretary of State Brad Johnson. We have made arrangements for further interviews -- stay tuned.

______________________________________________

MH: First of all, welcome to Montana Headlines, and thank you very much for agreeing to do this interview.

Let's start with a basic question: What is a State Auditor, and why does Montana need one?

Duane Grimes: The State Auditor regulates the insurance and securities industries in the state of Montana. Every state has a similar position, though in many states it is called the Insurance Commissioner and is actually an appointed rather than an elected position. The responsibilities of the Auditor have everything to do with the affordability and accessibility of the things you depend on to protect your family, business and future. In election years, the race for Auditor often gets overshadowed by races ‘higher-up’ on the ballot such as U.S. Congress or Governor, which is unfortunate given that decisions made by the Auditor’s office affect the daily lives of nearly every Montanan.

My 9-year-old daughter earlier this year had to go to school and tell her teacher and classmates what the State Auditor did, so I had to boil it down. I told her that the Auditor "makes sure insurance companies keep their promises." She wrinkled up her nose because she didn't know what an ‘insurance company’ was. So I boiled it down even further, saying, "the Auditor helps people with some of the problems they have when they get in accidents or go to the hospital."

And that's what it is. Insurance is the promise of financial protection and allows us all to assume the inherent risks in life, anticipated or not, with some sort of safety net. The Auditor is your first line of protection to ‘insure’ that safety net is as promised. Most people I talk to say about the same thing, "When I needed the Auditor, I really needed help!"

Montana – and every state – needs some form of Insurance Commissioner to ensure that honest businesses can provide a variety of quality insurance options to consumers at reasonable prices, and that unscrupulous businesses are stopped and prosecuted.

MH: How many years has it been since Montana has had a Republican State Auditor? Why have Republicans not been as successful in recent years as Democrats in getting elected to this statewide office?

Duane Grimes: Well, it has been 16 years since we had Andrea Bennett, a Republican. She succeeded Sonny Omholt who had the job since before the 1972 Constitution. (As a matter of fact, some folks involved back then have told me it was Omholt's reputation and friendliness that caused the position of Auditor to be retained in the massive state government reorganization of the early 1970's.) Since term limits, for the last 16 years we have had Mark O’Keefe and John Morrison.

The candidate that initially ran against O’Keefe was an insurance agent and long time legislator from Stevensville, Fred Thomas, who was accused by O’Keefe of being the "fox in the henhouse," because of his insurance affiliation, and that is probably the reason Thomas lost. For his first term, Morrison ran against a Republican who didn't campaign at all, and then I lost to him in his reelection bid 4 years later in 2004. I later found out that no incumbent in a ‘mid-tier’ race like this has ever lost a re-election! Now the seat is open again in this 2008 race and I think I have a very good chance to win the race.

MH: So our Republican Sec. State Brad Johnson should be feeling pretty good right now, if no incumbent in a mid-tier has lost, historically?

Duane Grimes: Historically, sure, but I’m certainly not going to jinx Brad’s campaign by making any predictions! It also used to be true that you had to win Yellowstone County to win a statewide race: both Brad and Jon Tester broke that truism. The political landscape in Montana continues to change, and candidates can take nothing for granted.

MH: You are not an insurance agent, so you can't fairly be accused of partiality towards the insurance industry, but your reference to O'Keefe accusing Fred Thomas of being a "fox in the henhouse" just because of what he had done for a living is rather amusing.

This is not to make light of any unfair criticisms that Thomas had to endure. Rather, what is interesting is that Democratic candidates for Attorney General are often closely tied to the Montana Trial Lawyers Association -- and that Democratic candidates for State Superintendent routinely are very closely tied to the Montana Education Association. And yet, we don't tend to hear "fox in the henhouse" comments about those particular races. We are told that their opinion should have particular weight since lawyers understand the law and educators understand education. And yet if someone with experience in the insurance industry is interested in being what amounts to an insurance commissioner, it is automatically assumed that a nefarious scheme is afoot.

Don't worry -- you don't have to respond to that -- it's just some MH editorializing.

Getting back to your own situation, you clearly see the Auditor's role as being an advocate for Montana consumers of insurance and investment products -- and that is as it should be. But to play devil's advocate for a moment, aren't consumers best served by having a climate where insurance companies see Montana as a good place for them to do business? Most insurance companies seem to want clear ground rules that aren't going to turn into shifting sands, which includes a stable regulatory climate. If Montana is seen as a stable place for insurance companies to do business, won't there will be more of them competing to offer better products at lower prices?

Having a stable, open, and businesslike environment to encourage good insurance companies would seem to be important. You don't need to have a stance toward insurance and investment companies that is adversarial from the outset in order to do your job as Auditor to help Montana consumers, do you?

Duane Grimes: I believe that the best help an Auditor can bring consumers is by ensuring that there is a stable marketplace; the two go hand-in-hand. If honest businesses are able to operate in Montana and be successful, more businesses will open or move here and thus increase competition, ultimately making consumers the big winners.

Interestingly, my opponent has already begun to accuse me, in her words, of being “all too happy to carry the industry’s water,” in an attempt to portray me as ‘anti-consumer.’ I believe that an effective insurance commissioner should have open lines of communication with the small-business community rather than be reflexively combative from the start simply as political posturing. Arbitrarily treating small business – which is what most local insurance agents are – as the enemy is the wrong way to go about being a successful regulator and successful advocate for consumers.

MH: You've been running a positive campaign, not criticizing past State Auditors or the current Auditor's office, and that's one of the reasons that Montana Headlines has been particularly supportive of your candidacy. We like positive approaches to politics and government.

But for the benefit of readers, let's talk in general "compare and contrast" terms. For instance, the average educated Montana voter can make some fairly accurate general predictions (regarding basic things like taxes, spending, and government regulations) about how a "mainstream Montana Democrat" would approach, say, being governor, when compared to a "mainstream Montana Republican." That same educated Montana voter probably couldn't do the same, though, when talking about the State Auditor position.

Given what the Auditor's office does and given the current philosophical and policy positions of the Republican and Democratic Parties in Montana, could you -- as a reasonable mainstream Montana Republican – give some generalizations about how a Republican might approach the office of the State Auditor differently from a Democrat?

Duane Grimes: The simple answer to this question is in the general perceptions about the role of government that the political parties take: government solutions (Democrat) vs. private sector solutions (Republican). To a point, this may be valid. For instance, in the huge area of health care reform it is critical that we foster free market solutions rather than big government approaches. Those free market solutions really do work by the way, and help hold down costs. There are many ways the free market is not being allowed to function properly and I look forward to collaboratively addressing them.

But to back up a minute, in the bigger picture…this position is one of a regulator, so really the political affiliation is much less important than the personal philosophy and approach that a particular candidate has to the position. The State Auditor must be tough, fair, and impartial in their duties, working for the betterment of all Montanans, regardless of political affiliation.

The second thing, which also is apolitical and so vitally important, is how the next Auditor will administer the agency. The Office has a staff of great people, but I believe that they need to be recognized, understood, and engaged with the organizational leader to operate efficiently and strategically for the benefit of the consumer. The office currently averages over 700 complaint calls per week, and I intend to take some of those calls personally to ensure I stay engaged with the daily concerns of Montana consumers. A hands-on, knowledgeable approach to administration of the office will be crucial to the effective operation of this regulatory agency.

MH: This is an important point -- the job of State Auditor is to regulate the insurance and investment industries in Montana. Sometimes detractors of the Republican Party think that just because we believe in the power of free markets and individual liberty, that Republicans somehow won't do the jobs they were elected to do if they involve government regulation. This is simply not the case -- most Republicans elected or appointed to positions like these tend to be "strict constructionists," so to speak, faithfully and fairly following the letter and intent of the laws passed by state legislatures.

Duane Grimes: Agreed. Belief in a free market economy is not a belief in no regulations and no laws. We have an established legal framework; businesses that do not abide by these laws should be shut down. Let me be clear: Businesses that attempt to cheat or defraud Montanans will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This is an area where I believe the current Auditor has done a commendable job.

MH: You have been rightly critical of the Bush administration for taking steps to federalize some aspects of insurance regulation. You stated: "To have all the states regulated by a central federal bureaucracy is bad for Montana because all our oversight would be west and east-coast driven. Montana consumers would be caught in the middle, ending up losing the most."

Montana Headlines is all for state and local control whenever possible, so this news was disturbing. For those who aren't familiar with this recent move by the federal government to usurp what has traditionally been the prerogative of individual states, could you give some examples of how this change in federal regulation (which it sounds like is being done solely by the Executive Branch, and not even by Congress) will affect Montanans?

Duane Grimes: Fortunately, this is currently simply a proposal from the U.S. Treasury Department and many of its components need approval of Congress before being implemented. This would include the establishment of an Office of Insurance Oversight within the Department of the Treasury. While the proposal has many strong backers, there are also many, like me, against such federal takeover of an industry that, I believe, works best when regulated at a state level.

MH: To follow up on that, is there anything that Montana can do -- and specifically the office of the State Auditor -- either to reverse this decision or to mitigate its effects on our state?

Duane Grimes: There are things Montana’s State Auditor can and should do to ‘mitigate its effects on our state.’
Our current State Auditor has spoken out against this proposal and I will uphold that stance should I be elected; additionally, the Auditor has a great deal to do with how federal policy changes are received by the State Legislature as well as has input into the national model legislation.

It is extremely important for the Auditor to understand the technical issues and driving forces behind proposals such as this, as well as be very engaged in the process in order to help direct the policy in the direction that best impacts all Montanans. Working collaboratively with, instead of against, good companies that want to do business here is the best way to ensure that consumers have good insurance options available to them, and Montanans should be able to meet face-to-fact with the person who is their ‘first line of defense’ rather than having to call a 1-800 number in Washington, D.C.


MH: You've been traveling the state for months, going to every county Lincoln-Reagan Day Dinner to talk to Republican party faithful, and meeting Montanans of all political persuasions. Are there any common themes that you are hearing from voters that have affected how you are thinking about the job of State Auditor and about what the next Auditor needs to do to respond to those concerns?

Duane Grimes: As I have talked with folks across the political spectrum including small business people, families, ranchers, and seniors, I have come to truly appreciate the depth to which the actions taken by the State Auditor’s office affect every single person at the core of their (financial) security: one’s ability to receive healthcare, making an honest living, becoming financially independent, ensuring their families’ and their children’s futures.

This race is easy to overlook when compared to such high-profile ones as President or Governor which are also on the ballot, but it has humbled me to realize how vitally important a tough, fair and impartial regulator is to the daily lives of every Montanan.

MH: You were the first Montana Republican candidate, at least that we noted, to make a point of reaching out to bloggers on your website. How have you seen the Internet affect your efforts to get your message out in 2008, compared to your previous run for State Auditor and your previous legislative races?

Duane Grimes: My two sons think this whole blogging thing is great and are excited that Dad is finally getting into it. This race isn’t as high-profile as others; we don’t get the media coverage others do. But it’s extremely important for voters to know how the State Auditor’s office affects their daily lives and blogs are a great outlet.

In that way, it has been night and day the difference I’ve found that the internet, including websites, e-mail, and blogs have provided the ability for myself as a statewide candidate to reach so many more voters. Hopefully, in a small way, this has helped voters be more informed about the issues of the Auditor’s office and feel they can reach out directly to me as a candidate.

MH: To end on a lighter note, there has been a great war of ideas "raging" in the Montana blogosphere in recent days about "Operation Chaos." At the risk of putting you on the outs with Rush Limbaugh and at least one Montana blogger who feels differently, can Montana Headlines ask whether you want Republicans to turn out on June 3rd to vote for Duane Grimes in your (unopposed) primary -- or whether you think your candidacy would be better served by having Republicans vote for Hillary Clinton to foment chaos in the Democratic ranks?

There's no right answer to this question -- but the future peace and tranquility of the Montana blogosphere does depend on it.

Duane Grimes: Frankly, I don’t think having Republicans vote for Hillary Clinton and potentially fomenting ‘chaos’ in the Democratic ranks would have a huge impact on the race for Montana State Auditor! (Nor would being on the outs with Rush Limbaugh bother me too much… but it would be good campaign press…!)

This may sound like the politically-correct answer, but Montanans have the freedom to choose which ballot they want to vote in the primary. While I am all-for promoting ‘peace and tranquility’ in the Montana blogosphere, I need every vote I can get!

This is a great opportunity for folks to get in the habit of voting Grimes!

MH: It's funny that you say that -- a contemplated MH post at one point was going to be the announcement of "Operation Practice Voting Republican." It doesn't sound as exciting as "Chaos," though, so that post never got off the ground.

So, any final comments for MH readers?

Duane Grimes: Yes, and thank you. I would like to take the opportunity to directly address an aspect of the healthcare debate: how do we stem rising costs?

There are many ideas out there about how to see that all citizens have access to health insurance, and addressing this challenge is a key issue in the race for State Auditor.

But let’s backup a minute. Isn’t the primary cause of the lack of access to affordable health insurance the ever-rising cost of healthcare for all of us? This is the root of the problem and until those in a position to do so – such as the State Auditor and others – take a stand to fix the system, basic healthcare for Montana families and citizens both young and old will only become more out of reach.

One of the biggest factors in rising costs is the lack of free-market competitiveness in our health care system. But how can these costs be stemmed? I believe that one way is by adding transparency to the process.

We know the costs of virtually everything else we pay for – a loaf of bread, an oil change – but have a hard time getting prices and out of pocket costs when we need vital healthcare. If we actually know those costs we would be able to compare prices and be more informed consumers. Transparency of costs would allow for a more competitive health marketplace.

There are a number of efforts currently involved in transparency, led by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Leavitt and the National Institutes of Health at the federal level, as well as the health care forum and legislative committees here in Montana, all of which I will work with to make our health care system and its costs more transparent to every citizen.

Frankly, the State Auditor has the ability to be a key player in the health care costs equation and, in fact, has a responsibility to Montana citizens to ensure a balanced marketplace of health insurance options. By improving the insurance climate through tough but fair and impartial regulation, consumers will win by having a better choice of affordable insurance options and honest businesses will want to do business here. These are the best means to work toward long-term solutions to holding down the costs of health care for everyone.

MH: That's a very interesting angle to approaching health care costs through the Auditor's office. It will be good to watch as these and other issues develop during the course of the campaign. And that's a good place to wrap things up for now.

Thank-you again for taking the time for this interview -- it would be nice to do an update a few months down the road if you have time. Good luck in the campaign.