$500,000 in sketchy money greasing a Montana election (no, it's actually Democratic money, and it's in the Senate Race)

I commented several months ago about the silliness that is involved in every Montana campaign season regarding campaign finance regulations and other picky campaign rules. Are other states as filled with the same kind of tedious sniping about who gave what and whose lettering on which signs are the proper size? For the sake of the Republic, I hope not.

This season, there was a major blow for sanity when a judge struck down Montana's laws limiting the contributions that campaigns could receive in this state. I understand that there are a lot of people who think that the problem with campaigns today is that there is too much money and that the answer to this "problem" is to restrict the size of donations and make picky regulations that require full-time professionals to keep up with them. To which I respond: over a four year period Montana's GDP is roughly $150 billion -- is it really unreasonable to spend three or four million dollars over that same period on a campaign that decides who the governor will be? I don't think so. Montanans probably spend more than that in a single month paying their cable TV bills. Is a month's worth of reality TV really just as important as who heads up our state's executive branch? To ask the question is to answer it.

In another post back in July, I had this to say:

Outside organizations have always been able to pour money into races, and this election cycle is no exception...

Furthermore, since outside groups can’t coordinate with the candidate, the candidate has no ability to control the message -- increasingly, the truly greasy things are done by outside groups so the candidate can shrug his shoulders and say “I had nothing to do with it -- in fact, I’m not even allowed to talk to them.” There is always mud slung in campaigns, but when big money is forced into outside groups, the candidates don’t have to take responsibility for any of it.

And indeed, there has been a great illustration of this recently. Rick Hill's gubernatorial campaign accepted a $500,000 donation from the Montana Republican Party during the period of time when a judge had ruled that it was legal to do so. Another judge has subsequently (and inexplicably) prohibited Hill from spending that legal money.

Consider, however:

First, that donation leveled the playing field between Hill and Bullock when it came to money. Hill and Bullock have matched each other practically dollar for dollar when it comes to raising money here in Montana in the ridiculously low amounts required by state law. Bullock has, however, outstripped Hill when it comes to raising out-of-state money. Don't think that this is because Democrats all over the country just happen to know about Bullock and are itching to write him $630 checks right and left. Such things are organized and bundled by professional fundraisers, and the money tends to come from wealthy donors who write similar checks to Democratic candidates all over the country. Big money, in other words.

The $500,000 that Hill received came from similar sources on the Republican side, just in a different way.

Second, note that the money came from Republican Party organizations -- the Montanan Republican Party and ultimately the Republican Governor's Association. Contributions to political party organizations, I would point out, are reportable and the information is available to the public, if you care about such things. I really don't, but Democrats make a big noisy deal about how important it is, so I mention it.

I happen to be old-fashioned on the subject of political parties. As a Burkean, I think political parties play a moderating and mediating role because they have an interest in promoting consensus candidates and issues that can win elections at every level in a state -- and not just in one election cycle, but in the next, and the next... When parties can control the purse strings to a certain extent, more extreme candidates are unlikely to get as much support. As the financial power of political parties has been increasingly hamstrung by election laws, our elections have only gotten uglier and more negative.

Third (and here I reach the main point of this post), note that an identical amount -- $500,000 -- is being spent by a Jon Tester-friendly group on a sleazy campaign tactic: running ads urging voters to choose the guy they style as the "real conservative" in the U.S. Senate race in Montana -- the Libertarian Party candidate. Since every "real conservative" who is persuaded to vote Libertarian is a voter who has been peeled away from Denny Rehberg, the motivation is clear, and the tactic is cynical, to say the least.

Leaving aside the question of whether fringe libertarian candidates in Montana are actually more conservative than mainstream Republicans in Montana (in my experience they are not) "the ad is funded by the Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership Fund, a political-action committee financed earlier this year by the League of Conservation Voters, a leading conservation and environmental group backing Tester."

Keep in mind that the Libertarian Party advocates the private ownership of wildlife, the privatization of all public lands, National Parks, etc. Add to that the fact that no-one (especially the Montana press) seems to have really done much "fact-checking" on who this Libertarian guy really is. Is he the kind of person that the folks running these ads would choose to manage Montana's wildlife and public land? Does the "Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership Fund" seriously want public land to be privatized and wildlife to be privately owned? Please. This tactic is completely legal (although we wonder where all of that money is ultimately coming from, given Democratic preaching about "transparency" -- have they released a full list of donors and amounts?)

It is legal, but it is also completely cynical in its approach to our electoral system -- and I would predict that not a few Montanans will view it with disgust.

For the richest irony of all, Sen. Tester doesn't have to take responsibility for this slimy tactic. Not one bit. After all, he's not spending the money, and isn't allowed to coordinate with the group. (Wink, nudge.)

By contrast, the $500,000 that Rick Hill's campaign received from the Montana GOP is money that would be spent on ads ending with the words "I'm Rick Hill, and I approved this message." Would the Tester campaign take out a message urging people to vote for the Libertarian candidate and have Sen. Tester finish it off with "I'm Jon Tester, and I approved this message?" I don't think so.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm sick and tired of ads from groups of unknown origin that tell us to "Call So-and-So and tell him that he's a blithering idiot" -- since the structure of such organizations are built around issue advocacy that make attack ads the way to go. Most candidates would much rather have donations given directly to them to spend as they see fit rather than having "helpful" groups flooding the airwaves, and most big donors would probably rather give their money to a candidate they support rather than to a Super-PAC.

Again, it's all legal, and it should be. People should be able to spend their money however they want, exercising their rights of free speech. But why can't that money go directly to candidates if the donors want it to? Let them spend it, let them take responsibility for the content. That money is going to be spent one way or another in these races -- let's maximize the chances that it will be spent in a way in which candidates will be answering directly for distortions and lies in their own ads.

Rick Hill and the Republican Party are wanting to spend money and take responsibility for the content -- and a hostile judge shut them down. Meanwhile, Jon Tester and the Democrats -- or, excuse me, "independent groups" -- are spending an identical sum on a tactic that subverts a clear and straight-up choice facing Montanans in our U.S. Senate race. I suspect justice will ultimately be served, but it will be thanks to Montana voters siding with Denny Rehberg, and no thanks to certain Montana judges or our state's campaign regulation bureaucracy.

Coal state Democrats -- does Montana follow the pattern?

A lot of coal state Democrats are running from President Obama and his stances, which can only be reasonably described as hostile to the coal industry.

Some (but by no means all) high-profile Montana Democrats have not tended to follow that example. Gubernatorial candidate Steve Bullock has broken with his fellow Democrats on the land board on a number of occasions, voting against coal development. Senator Tester has likewise been pretty quiet about President Obama's EPA, and indeed has doubled down in defending EPA policies that other coal-state Democrats have condemned as unreasonable. As we noted before in our "between a frack and a hard place" piece, one plausible explanation for Montana Democrats being timid about going all out for coal is matter of just who is writing the checks to their campaigns.

As a Charles Johnson article noted today, Steve Bullock's lead in fundraising this cycle is completely a function of his high percentage of out-of-state donors. As always, Johnson's article is good, straight reporting. It is interesting that the Helena Independent Record's headline emphasizes Bullock's money lead, whereas the Billings Gazette headline emphasizes the fact that his lead results from out-of-state money. Given that the Gazette caused near-coronary events in Republican households across their readership area by endorsing Republican Rick Hill in Sunday's paper (is Hill poised for a more comfortable victory than we have been led to believe?), perhaps this headline is meant to give a little justification for that endorsement.

Getting back to money, Bullock's lead in fundraising demonstrates just how a dependence on out-of-state money puts Democrats in red states like Montana in a bind. Public sentiment is strongly in favor of natural resource development here in Montana -- and not just with Republicans.

And yet, when red state Democrats toe the environmentalist line insufficiently, they run the risk of losing all of that out-of-state money from liberal activists around the country who want some return on their investment.

Red state Republicans and blue state Democrats have no such conflict: any out-of-state conservative donor, for instance, will tend to have similar concerns as the average (right-of-center) Montanan on things like energy development.

Rehberg and Tester spar on Obamacare; Plus -- Money in the governor’s race

First of all, let’s get this out of the way. The Billings Gazette published articles that covered the views of Sen. Tester and Congressman Rehberg toward Obamacare. Mike Dennison writes that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is "known by detractors as ‘Obamacare.’”

Actually, it isn’t just detractors who call it that. None other than President Obama’s key advisor David Axelrod had this to say recently:

David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, sent out an email saying: "I like Obamacare. I'm proud of it -- and you should be, too. Here's why: Because it works. So if you're with me, say it: 'I like Obamacare.’”

The way I see it, if David Axelrod can call it Obamacare, so can “detractors.”

Like it or not, “Obamacare” has entered the political lexicon permanently, and no amount of revisionism is going to be able to get rid of it. Given what a budget-buster it will be if fully enacted, calling it the official name of the “Affordable Care Act” deserves scare quotes more than does Obamacare.

Dennison is to be commended, however, for discussing, later in the piece, Republican Congressional proposals for health care reform that Rehberg supports -- it isn’t just about saying “no.” All of this may be moot, however. The fact is that Obamacare is one of the most sweeping and expensive pieces of legislation in decades. It is deeply unpopular in Montana, and Tester voted for it anyway. Had he bucked the President and voted with his constituents rather than with his party on this issue, there is a good chance that he would be coasting to re-election rather than fighting for his political life.

* * * * *

Unsurprisingly, AG Steve Bullock has a big lead in funds on hand compared to former Congressman Rick Hill. Hill had a bruising 7-way primary and took some sharp hits from his fellow Republican candidates along the way -- it costs money to win contested primaries. Charles Johnson, in his piece on the subject, predicts that Hill will make up a lot of that ground -- the question is not where things stand now, but what will happen with fundraising from here on out.

The most depressing part of the article is the statement that both Hill and Bullock are probably spending 96% of their time on fundraising. Based on what I have seen of statewide races in Montana, especially for governor, this is spot-on. Needing to raise more than $1 million in increments no larger than $500, candidates for governor literally spend months on end doing nothing but being personally on the phone, asking for donations. Yes, they speak at party gatherings and what-not, but these are mere interruptions in their primary job, which is to be glorified telemarketers. I ask you, is this any way to elect our statewide officials? If contribution limits were to be brought into the 21st century (or better yet, eliminated altogether), candidates could actually spend more of their time actually campaigning -- talking to Montana voters, studying the issues, and preparing policy statements.

Contribution limits are supposed to keep large contributors from “buying” elective office for their candidates of choice, but what average person has the time to live on the phone for months on end, asking for contributions? Increasingly, elective office all across the country is becoming the realm of the wealthy, who can afford to have their working lives stop for a year or more while they fundraise and campaign (mostly the former), and in many cases the truly wealthy can underwrite much of their own campaigns.

Outside organizations have always been able to pour money into races, and this election cycle is no exception, but in general these organizations will only invest money when the candidate has proven an ability to raise money himself. Furthermore, since outside groups can’t coordinate with the candidate, the candidate has no ability to control the message -- increasingly, the truly greasy things are done by outside groups so the candidate can shrug his shoulders and say “I had nothing to do with it -- in fact, I’m not even allowed to talk to them.” There is always mud slung in campaigns, but when big money is forced into outside groups, the candidates don’t have to take responsibility for any of it.