Redistricting the Montana legislature -- surprise... Democrats get much of what they want

There are some mixed messages in Mike Dennison's recent article on legislative redistricting. The headline reads that the GOP is "looking hard to beat." Yet that hardly describes the reality as outlined in the article itself.

It seems that what happened in the redistricting process is that the rural-urban divide favored by Republicans (and common sense) prevailed, so rural districts will not be diluted by urban precincts that tend to be more Democratic. On the other hand, it appears that districts within the cities themselves were drawn according to the principles of Democratic gerrymandering expert Joe Lamson. Lamson believes that districts should be drawn in such a way that give Democrats the best chance of winning control of the state legislature. At least he's honest about it.

What this means is that in a city like Billings, Democratic leaning precincts will be mixed in with Republican leaning precincts to create districts in such a way as to give Democrats the most winnable districts. Whether a legislator (of either party) who narrowly wins such districts can do a good job of representing all of his constituents is quite another question.

The Democrats also appeared to have won significant victories in the creation of Senate districts, since Dennison says that Republicans will have "42-47 relatively safe seats in the House, and another six or seven that clearly lean Republican... (while) Democrats can probably count on 32-39 House seats as safe, and another seven that lean Democratic." In the Senate, however, Republicans will have 21 safe seats, while Democrats have 19 or 20 safe seats. Translation: Senate districts have been created by often pairing Democratic House districts with Republican house districts in a way that gives Democrats an edge.

Republican member of the redistricting commission Jon Bennion has this to say:

“As the plan stands now, Republicans would certainly lose seats in the House, not because of their ideas or their candidates, but simply because of lines that were drawn based on political data and election results..."

While the gerrymandering was not as bold and in-your-face as it was 10 years ago, it appears that Democrats have again made significant gains with the help of the redistricting commission. The losers will again be those Montanans who find themselves thrown into districts where the lines were drawn to give Democrats a shot at winning, rather than according to principles of similar constituent interests.

The silver lining? Montana Republicans were dealt about as bad a hand in the last redistricting as possible -- and yet, in all but the 2004 election, they managed, through dint of sheer effort, to win control of one or both legislative bodies. Even the 2004 election was stolen from them by the Montana Supreme Court. It wasn't enough that the Supreme Court handed the redistricting commission to the Democratic Party -- they also had to step in and hand a decisive contested seat to the Democrats by fiat, under the most specious of reasoning.

In short, while Republicans have again been dealt an unfair hand in the current redistricting, they will have their destiny in their own hands. If they recruit strong candidates who work hard and smart -- both in campaigning and in serving their constituents in Helena, Republicans should be able to control the legislature more often than not. If Republicans act with (ahem) indiscretion in Helena and run candidates who are looney, lazy, or both, then Democratic governor Steve Bullock may soon have a Democratic legislature with whom he can partner to run the state into the ground...

Montana governor's race: Steve Bullock's 11th hour conversion on oil and gas taxes?

We were happy to learn that Democratic gubernatorial candidate AG Steve Bullock has had, at this late point in the campaign, an apparent conversion experience on oil and gas taxes.

In a recent debate, Bullock stated that he did not favor repealing the tax "holiday" by which new horizontal wells pay no taxes for the first 18 months of production. Keep in mind that Democrats opposed this holiday, which makes Montana oil and gas taxes regionally competitive, and that they have proposed legislation to repeal the holiday in pretty much every legislative session since it was first instituted in the 1990s.

Let's pose a hypothetical here: suppose by some miracle, Democrats retake control of both houses of Montana's legislature sometime in the coming 4 years. And suppose that Bullock is elected governor. Are we to believe that Bullock would veto legislation to raise oil production taxes if a Democratic legislature passed it?

Montana voters who want to promote oil and gas production in our state need to decide whether they trust Bullock's sudden enlightenment on this subject. Bullock, of course, doesn't really need to worry about such matters, since the Montana legislature would appear to be safely in Republican hands for at least the next couple of cycles. Oil and gas taxes aren't going up as long as the GOP is in control of the legislature, so he can safely say pretty much whatever he wants to about this.

We do, however, already know how Bullock votes on the state Land Board when it comes to oil, gas, and coal development issues, and he is definitely to the left (to the extent that left and right have meaning in this context) of his fellow Democrat, Gov. Schweitzer. If you thought Gov. Schweitzer dragged his feet on traditional energy development even while saying all of the right things, then you will likely be even more unhappy with Steve Bullock as governor. If you thought that Gov. Schweitzer got it just about right, well... you'll still be unhappy with a Gov. Bullock.

In that same debate, Rick Hill pointed out that he was working as an adviser for Gov. Racicot's office when the concept of the oil and gas tax holiday was being developed. Bullock snarked back that Hill was trying to "take credit for the oil and gas boom."

Not really, Mr. Attorney General. The point is that when voters are trying to decide whose promises to believe on this issue, they will look at past behavior and past associations. There is nothing in Rick Hill's record and associations that would indicate anything but that he will promote a safe and responsible development of traditional energy sources like oil, gas, and coal. There are disturbing indicators in the Bullock record and associations that point toward obstructionism and toward favoring the positions of radical environmentalists.

Voters will have to decide what they want.

Billings Gazette causes emergency room visits for coronaries to soar -- endorses Rick Hill

Well, shivver me timbers, but I was wrong. Big time. Last week I predicted Gazette endorsements for Democrats in both of our high-profile races in Montana (for governor and U.S. Senate.) That prediction was based on past endorsement patterns and what has seemed like general editorial attitudes that lean toward AG Bullock and Sen. Tester (and against former Cong. Hill and current Cong. Rehberg.)

But the Gazette endorsed Rick Hill, shocking me, and doubtless many others. (The headline is, of course, a joke -- but there must have been more than a few stunned Republicans staggering around on Sunday morning -- and Democrats having chest pain from sudden attacks of heartburn.)

It isn't the first time I've been wrong and won't be the last. I'm happy to be wrong in this way (just as I will be happy if it turns out that I'm wrong that Gov. Romney was always destined to be a sure general election loser -- I'm actually beginning to believe that there is an outside chance at sanity prevailing in the Presidential race.)

The Gazette endorsement was far from a tepid one. In fact it was downright enthusiastic, which made it all the more remarkable. Just as with other GOP endorsements in this electoral season, the prose doesn't read to me quite like most Gazette editorials. The Romney endorsement in particular was so unlike most Gazette editorials that I wondered aloud to the beloved over breakfast whether the publisher had written it himself rather than having one of the editors write it. But maybe it's more in how I'm reading things than in how they were written...

The cynical, tinfoil-hat-wearing gnome sitting on my left shoulder whispers in my ear that this is a sign that polling data is looking even more favorable for Hill and other Republicans in Montana than we may have thought. Are we looking at a comfortable 6 or 7 point spread for Hill in November? Let's hope so. The pocket-protector wearing gnome on my right shoulder whispers in my ear that I need to stop being paranoid and stop imagining that there are gnomes on my shoulders whispering contradictory things to me.

Anyway, I am now doubling down on my prediction that the Gazette will hold true to its Democratic convictions in the most important race of the season in Montana and endorse Sen. Tester. If I am wrong, I will happily (exuberantly, even) publish a post entitled "I WAS REALLY, REALLY WRONG," and even begin cautiously to harbor hopes that a new editorial endorsement era has arrived...

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.

Coal development in Montana and surface rights

There were recently a couple of articles that highlight some competing interests regarding coal mining in Montana. The first is a Daily Interlake editorial decrying the "war on coal" by the EPA, spurred by the closing of a PPL Montana coal plant, with ownership citing EPA regulations as the proximate cause of rendering the plant unprofitable to keep open.

The story is a familiar one -- the plant would have to be refitted to the tune of $38 million in order to meet current regulations. As someone who breathes the air in this part of the Yellowstone Valley and who has experienced some respiratory problems that were new to me until I moved here, I confess that I would want to know a bit more about just how out-of-date the plant is with regard to emissions before completely dismissing the EPA's standards as unreasonable.

Still, it seems inescapable that the editors are correct that the current bunch at the EPA have "declared war" on coal.

Rick Hill landed a nice body blow to Steve Bullock in the debate the other night on this very topic:

Hill used his question to attack Bullock’s record on coal development, asking why Bullock failed to join 24 state attorneys general from coal-producing states this year when they challenged new Environmental Protection Agency rules Hill said would harm coal-fired power plants.

It seems as though Bullock has a problem choosing which battles to fight. He could tilt at windmills by trying to take down Citizens United singlehandedly. But he couldn't be bothered to file a brief against Obamacare in spite of that law's unpopularity in Montana, and he wouldn't join in challenging EPA coal regulations in spite of his claim to support coal development.

I digress, however. The other article that was interesting to note was this piece in the Washington Post regarding the conflicts that some Montana ranchers are having over coal development.

The strip mining of coal is, without a doubt, the most unpleasant kind of energy resource development to have in one's backyard, since its footprint is so large. It is not a permanent footprint, given modern regulations about the restoration of the soil and landscape, but for a given generation, it probably feels like forever while it goes on.

The fundamental problem, however, is the American system of decoupling surface rights from mineral rights. I am fortunate to own the rights on my own ranch, but not all ranchers are blessed in that way. One thing is certain (at least to me) -- nothing, and I mean nothing, should be allowed to compromise the long-term viability of agricultural activity on anyone's land. Oil wells will eventually run dry, coal beds will be stripped, natural gas will be bled off. But as long as the rain falls and the sun shines, and as long as the soil is pure and ground water is uncontaminated, agriculture can go on -- theoretically forever, if things are taken care of. It is the ultimate renewable resource.

The point here is that while perhaps our legal system shouldn't allow a limitless veto power to surface owners, they should have a powerful say about what mining and drilling happens on land they own -- precisely because they and their descendants will be ranching and farming that land long after the resources beneath the ground are gone. If ranchers are trying to block coal development, it seems pretty clear that they as surface owners aren't being compensated fairly and their concerns aren't being adequately addressed.

While readers of Montana Headlines know that I am pretty bullish on traditional energy development, this is one place where I have to cast my vote with the sometimes curmudgeonly Cattle Queens (and Kings) of Montana.

Steve Bullock and the pipe-dream choice between high-tech and oil/coal

There's not a lot of burning news in the Montana energy world this week that I felt worth commenting on, so how about discussing Attorney General Steve Bullock's recent comments?

He is trying to play the old "high-tech vs. extraction industry" game that Democrats love. Democrats don't want to be accused of being entirely anti-business, and yet they want to keep their base happy, which is largely anti-business in practice. So what to do?

For one thing, talk a lot about alternative energy and all of those ethereal "green jobs" they think could be created if only enough government funding could be thrown at it. I've already expressed my opinion on what I think about trying to force alternative energy technologies into mass production that aren't ready for prime-time, so I won't go on about that.

The other game to talk up is the "we want high tech" thing. Here's Bullock:

There’s no way Montana shouldn’t be leading the nation and being the next Silicon Valley...

Well, duh... who doesn't want high-tech jobs in their states? Name one governor who doesn't want to have "the next Silicon Valley."

A couple of states spring to mind as ones who are making serious strides. Texas for one, and North Dakota for another. Here is an interesting quotation from the latter article:

Doug Burgum, known locally as the godfather of software for building Fargo’s Great Plains Software into a billion-dollar business, told attendees at a conference last week that the absence of “massive socioeconomic problems” makes North Dakota an ideal place for tech companies to grow.

“We have a state with a surplus. We can invest in the future,” Burgum said. “If you’re in Illinois, you are not having this conversation because you’re talking about the possibility of the state actually being bankrupt.”

Exactly. As I have pointed out before, there are two important factors needed to attract companies -- high-tech or otherwise. One is an overall healthy climate for business from a tax and regulatory standpoint, and another is bursting state coffers. To quote myself:

There are those who want Montana to try to attract "green jobs," high-tech industry, or even manufacturing instead of promoting the grubby business of extracting coal, oil, and natural gas from the ground. The reality is that in order to attract business, a state needs a "grub-stake," as the old time prospectors used to call it.

"Only" 25% of state revenue comes from energy in North Dakota, but what that revenue allows for is tax structures that promote other kinds of business development in the state. Broad-based economic growth requires a positive attitude toward business in general, and the North Dakota experience is proving that.

So let's come back to Attorney General Steve Bullock, who unlike the current governor has voted against developing Otter Creek coal. In general, he has made the obligatory symbolic gestures to act like he is supporting natural resource development like coal, oil, and gas, but when it comes right down to it he is far more anti-energy than our current Democratic governor and can therefore be reasonably expected to accomplish even less in terms of energy development -- and Montana is being left in the dust as it is.

Montana does indeed need to continue to look for ways to further diversify our economy, including encouraging high-tech and other non-energy related industries to start or relocate here. Doing so, however, requires a commitment to across-the-board business development, including robust traditional energy development. Think Rick Hill.

Absent that, Bullock and Montana Democrats can indulge in all the pipe-dreams and empty rhetoric they want to about wanting to be "the next Silicon Valley."

As 49 other state governors would say, "good luck, and get in line, bud..."

Montana’s judiciary strikes again on capital punishment

Montana Headlines last addressed the issue of capital punishment in the context of Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s contemplation of granting clemency to one of our two death row denizens here in Montana. Now, one reads that a Montana judge has put a stop to executions in Montana by claiming that Montana’s lethal injection policy amounts to “cruel and unusual punishment” under both the U.S. and Montana Constitutions.

I don’t know what the situation is with the Montana Constitution, but it is a joke that it could be contrary to the U.S. Constitution, given that lethal injection is the most widely used means of execution in the U.S. -- and the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t shown any inclination to stop it.

In addition, there were as recently as 2010 an electrocution in Virginia and a firing squad execution in Utah. The U.S. Supreme Court stopped neither of these. Are we supposed to believe that a lethal injection is more “cruel and unusual” than these -- no matter what specific technique is used for the lethal injection? According to the AP article, the judge thought that there were inadequate procedures for "verifying that the inmate is unconscious and incapable of feeling pain before administration of the death drugs.”

Given that those felons in Utah and Virginia weren’t anesthetized before their shooting and electrocution, respectively, it seems ridiculous to require that there be an incapability of feeling any pain whatsoever prior to execution for it to be constitutional.

The Washington Post article states that "State District Court Judge Jeffrey Sherlock did not question the constitutionality of the death penalty in Montana" -- only the methods and procedures. One wonders if this isn't a distinction without a difference, however, since the net effect is to stop executions in the state. Judge Sherlock reportedly claims that the problems he found could be easily fixed by the state legislature. Maybe so, but only until the next technicality is found that some judge or another will sign off on.

The next question is whether the Montana Supreme Court will embarrass itself yet again in front of the U.S. Supreme Court by upholding this ruling (assuming that Attorney General Steve Bullock appeals it -- something that could get him into hot water with his liberal donor base.) Perhaps it would be good if they did -- while Montanans may be less than interested in how the Montana Supreme Court works backward from result to argumentation in campaign finance or insurance law cases, everyone understands murder. Everyone understands that Ronald Allen Smith didn’t render his two victims “incapable of feeling pain” before giving them a gentle and “humane” death sentence of his own.

There is a proper way to remove the death penalty in Montana, and it is using the political process -- an act of legislature, a Constitutional amendment, whatever. I’ve outlined in the past why I think that this would be a good idea. But judges shouldn’t be laws unto themselves, deciding on their own to abolish the death penalty in our state.

More campaign finance silliness

Yes, it is a fact of political life that campaigns have to snipe at each other with accusations of political malpractice, of filing the required forms incorrectly, of failing to make the disclosures on yard signs large enough (hint: you still can’t read them from your car as you drive by even when they are the specified size), etc., etc. They have to -- it’s in the official “Campaign Operatives Handbook."

This sort of thing is why summer is called the “silly season” in political campaigns. The sad thing for the public is that as campaigns become interminable, the silly season gets longer and sillier.

Matt Gouras’s AP piece on the Montana GOP lawsuit against AG Steve Bullock lets us know just how turned around things can get during the silly season. It turns out that Bullock was raising money for an “unspecified office” for a long time (still deciding whether to run again for AG or to run for governor.) In fact his website allowed donors to give up to $1200 for 3 months prior to having declared for the governor’s race.

The significance there is that Bullock hadn’t declared for the governor’s race, and could reasonably be assumed to be seeking reelection as AG -- but $1200 is a gubernatorial campaign contribution limit and well above the amount allowed for contributions to an AG campaign. The numbers in the AP story aren’t quite self-explanatory -- the max donation this year for the governor’s race is only $630, which would translate into $1260 only if a candidate successfully wins the primary and can accept another $630 for the general election.

The Montana Commissioner of Political Practices already ruled against the protest, but the Montana GOP has taken the case to court. They have a point -- Dave Gallik, who was Commissioner at the time that the GOP filed their complaint with that office, was a contributor to Bullock’s AG campaign and can reasonably be assumed not to have been an unbiased participant. Adding to the difficulty of weeding this particular garden is the fact that the judges in Helena all know Bullock (Helena is a small town -- no surprise there), and so the case had to be moved to Lewistown, where Judge Wayne Phillips will hear the case.

As to things being turned on their head, Gouras points this out:

Bullock, who has fought in the other lawsuits for more transparency as he seeks to preserve Montana’s campaign finance laws, has argued he did not need to disclose which office he was seeking last year while he was raising hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Indeed, we have had to endure Bullock’s stentorian and moralizing pronouncements on electoral transparency, and now, he claims that the GOP protest has no validity. Silly.

Less convincingly, Gouras intimates that the GOP is also being hypocritical, since "Montana Republican Party attorney Jim Brown has argued in federal court that many Montana campaign finance laws are onerous and unconstitutional.” True enough, but the point that the Montana GOP has made in the past is that campaign finance rules are onerous and cumbersome. In this case, however, they are saying that if we are going to have these onerous rules on the books, then everyone needs to be held to the same standard.

Think of it like this: I often challenge my liberal friends who favor higher taxes to go ahead and pay more in taxes. There is nothing stopping them. You don’t even need to write an extra check. If all Democrats who want higher taxes simply don't claim the exemptions and deductions allowed to them by law, then presto -- they will all be paying the higher tax rates they say they want and the government will have more of the money they say it desperately needs to spend. After the sputtering ends, the reply usually boils down to this: the fact that they advocate higher tax rates for all doesn’t obligate them to pay more voluntarily in advance of such tax rates going into effect. Fair enough.

The same thing applies here. Just because the GOP believes that certain election laws are onerous doesn’t mean that Republicans are obligated to look the other way when Democrats skirt them. If Bullock and the Democrats believe there is nothing wrong with raising large amounts of money without the basic transparency of saying what you’re running for, they should lead the way to change the law.

As has been pointed out here at MH before, Montana’s contribution limits are antiquated and force candidates to spend inordinate amounts of time raising the amount of money that modern statewide races require. In other words, not only should Bullock (like every other candidate for statewide office) be able to raise money without declaring what office he is running for, he should be able to take in contributions as generous as someone is willing to give him. All of the filing and record-keeping absorb huge amounts of time and energy that candidates could better spend doing other things. Some campaign operatives skilled in such arcana might lose their jobs, but there is plenty of work to be had elsewhere. We hear they’re hiring for all sorts of jobs in the Bakken.

Best of all, we citizens would be spared having to hear the nit-picky campaign finance accusations that both parties dutifully hurl at each other during the interminable silly season.

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.

Montana Democrats -- caught between a frack and a hard place

Three recent pieces in the press give an indication of just how and why Montana Democrats are torn over how to approach traditional energy development in Montana.

The first appears to be the account of another local success story in the making. Jan Falstad provides another fine article in the Billings Gazette on Bakken-related business development, this time telling the story of two Montana brothers, Sivert and Richard Mysse, who put their farm-boy know-how to work in developing a new truck for heating fracking fluid. After noticing how many trucks were needed to heat water at a fracking site in the Bakken oil fields, they got the idea of constructing an innovative truck that they say is "twice as big, one-third more efficient, and safer than the competition," according to Falstad’s report. By heating the water for fracking, fewer chemicals are needed, and the entire process is more efficient. The brothers sold some ranch land near Ingomar and used other “creative financing” to build the $2 million truck, and they are now marketing their services in the Bakken.

Whether their enterprise will be a financial windfall for the brothers remains to be seen, but this is the kind of entrepreneurial spirit -- seeing a need and coming up with an innovative way to meet it -- that is inspiring. We suspect that given the demand for services of every kind in the Bakken, they will indeed be successful. Small businesses like this are the lifeblood of a healthy economy. Concerns that employ a half-dozen people here and there add up quickly.

Meanwhile, we have a guest editorial in the Helena Independent-Record decrying the fact that the Montana Land Board voted 3-2 in 2010 to take another step toward finally developing the Otter Creek coal reserves. The lead author of the op-ed is Montana writer Phil Condon, and he was joined by 3 other Montana authors (including William Kittredge,) actress Margot Kidder, and the chair of a Livingston-based liberal women’s activist group.

The authors criticize Gov. Brian Schweitzer, Sec. State McCulloch, and State Auditor Monica Lindeen for “siding with Big Coal.” They state that Attorney General (and Democratic nominee for governor) Steve Bullock and Secretary of Public Instruction (sic) Denise Juneau oppose the permits, which indicates that there will be a change of attitude in the state house if Bullock is elected governor. While we have been critical of what has seemed like 8 years of foot-dragging on the part of Gov. Schweitzer, at least his rhetoric has often been there, favoring coal development of one sort or another. And in this case, his vote seems to be there as well.

I’m not familiar with most of the authors of this editorial, but have enjoyed a couple of William Kittredge’s books (even while failing to share some of his cynical attitudes toward the West in which he grew up.) As public intellectuals, their voice has a certain influence in Montana and they deserve to be heard out, as do all who express their opinions thoughtfully.

In my recent American Spectator piece, I made the observation that many Montanans of a certain bent seem determined to be stuck in the past (hard to believe that I as a pretty old-fashioned conservative am even writing that,) noting that AG Steve Bullock’s arguments in the Citizens United case seem appropriate for 1912, but not really for 2012. The Copper Kings are long dead and they aren’t coming back -- the alphabet soup reasons (EPA, OSHA, DEQ...) why the landscape has dramatically and permanently changed when it comes to “Big Mining” of any sort are well-known to everyone. And yet, predictably, the Condin piece leads off with the “Copper Kings.” Pretending not to know how irrelevant this argument is in 2012 amounts to an inexcusable rhetorical mendacity on the part of skilled and experienced writers who know exactly what they are doing with their words.

The authors’ concerns about contaminating water supplies used by ranchers find great sympathy here at MH. What one would rather see, however, is an attitude that seeks both to strictly protect water supplies while also encouraging mining and development. Instead, the real argument is found deeper into the piece -- coal mining’s purported effect on global warming. Take away the global warming argument, and the pressures to find a “win-win” situation are inescapable. Include it, and any rhetorical weapons -- relevant or not -- are justified in the fight to save the planet, whatever the cost to individuals or to local economies. The intended audience of this article really consists of just three people, just as many of those ranting articles in the media leading up to the Obamacare decision were really only being written for one reader. In the latter case, the pieces were being written for Chief Justice John Roberts. In the former, the piece is being written for the three Democrats who are perceived as favorable to proceeding with the coal leases -- only one would need to flip a vote to stop the development cold in its tracks. But the calculus is more complicated than that for Montana Democratic politicians.

Which brings us to the third article -- a Washington Post piece that centers on Montana’s Democratic Senators, Jon Tester and Max Baucus, and their support for the Keystone XL pipeline. Sen. Baucus has, according to this report, been particularly open to lobbying for the pipeline. Sen. Tester has been supportive but seems more muted. The financial politics of Senate races play a significant role here, one would think. Baucus, with his role as head of the powerful Finance Committee, has an endless stream of people and entities in the financial sector who are lining up to line his campaign's pockets. Baucus doesn’t have to worry about money -- he just needs to worry about votes, should Montanans (who overwhelmingly support the Keystone XL pipeline) decide they care more about energy development than about what Baucus’s seniority can do for the state.

Sen. Tester, on the other hand, is heavily dependent on the sort of bicoastal left-leaning fundraising that gave him an edge when he took on then Sen. Conrad Burns. At the same time, he also needs those votes. So Sen. Tester seems to be trying to navigate the shoals carefully -- give enough support to the Keystone pipeline to satisfy Montana voters, while being quiet enough about it so as not to dry up his out-of-state funding sources. Whether out-of-state fundraising is playing a role in AG Bullock’s decision not to support Otter Creek is an interesting question for which there is not, as yet, an obvious answer.

One thing would seem likely -- entrepreneurs like the Mysee brothers and their employees will likely cast their votes for those who at the very least are not hostile and obstructive when it comes to traditional energy development -- while Condin, Kittredge, Kidder, et al. could play havoc with Democrats’ ability to raise money from liberal sources should they continue to push the issue.

As the title above says, Montana Democratic politicians in high-dollar races are indeed between a frack and a hard place.

Don't like Obamacare? Fire Senator Jon Tester

Update: Read this piece at "The Fix" at the Washington Post, in which Sen. Tester is prominently featured. It seems that Sen. Tester is quite aware of the unpopularity of his vote for Obamacare and is trying carefully to thread the needle.

________

It's Wednesday, and time for a little Montana politics to celebrate Independence Day.

There is a lot to dislike about the recent Supreme Court ruling upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare, and since this is a blog that sticks to Montana politics, the urge to wax overly eloquent will be resisted. A couple of things stand out, however:

First, one is liable to get whiplash from following liberal opinion about the Supreme Court. Prior to the ruling, the left was preparing to discount the very legitimacy of the Court -- thinking it was going to rule against the constitutionality of Obamacare. Now, they are back to having the Supreme Court as bosom buddies, and the once-hated Chief Justice Roberts is now an exceedingly wise rock star -- Confucius meets Bono. Go figure.

On a related point, one notices that the left is accusing the right of being whiners and crybabies. Some expressions of outrage have perhaps been unseemly, but how would the left be acting right now had Roberts voted the other way? We got a pretty good preview from the full-court press bombarding the Court from Democrats and the mainstream media prior to the decision. Chief Justice Roberts was about to experience his own high-tech lynching had he decided otherwise, and he knew it.

But really, that isn't the proper analogy, is it? No, the proper analogy would be this: imagine that Justice Roberts voted exactly as he did, but that Justice Sotomayor had a last-minute change of heart, voting with Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy.

That's the real analogy. Think about it -- has there ever been a single major case in which a justice appointed by a Democratic President has broken ranks and cast a deciding vote with a conservative bloc on a hot-button issue? Once? Ever? I’ve been Court-watching for decades and can't think of an example. Were it ever to happen, the wrath from the left against that traitorous Justice would make current conservative hand-wringing pale by comparison. For if there is one thing we know, it is this: Republican-appointed Justices break ranks, evolve, whatever... Democratic appointees never do. Democrats know exactly what they are getting in their Supreme Court picks -- Republicans just have to hope.

George Will , Charles Krauthammer, et al, are wrong that Chief Justice Roberts somehow slyly stole a march on the left by voting as he did (you know, limiting the commerce clause, giving the political fervor to Romney rather than Obama, neutralizing liberal claims of a politicized court, gaining cover for future groundbreaking decisions, yada, yada...) One can't blame them for looking for a silver lining, but it is a joke to consider this as anything but a disaster for traditional conceptions of what the Constitution is supposed to do -- namely to limit the power and reach of the federal government. Roberts has instead given the federal government a roadmap for doing basically anything it wants to do -- just incorporate a tax into anything you want to do, and you'll have his vote and that of the 4 liberal Justices. (Unless he plans to go into even greater contortions next time to undo his thinking.)

Let's be generous to Chief Justice Roberts and assume that he is playing at a high-level chess game, of which this move is 6 steps ahead on a long-term strategy. If so, Roberts is trying to be too clever by half, and it won't work. Leaving aside the fact that his legal contortions are underwhelming, he is forgetting the real point to being a Supreme Court Justice: to protect and defend the Constitution. He didn't do that, and let's not pretend that he did, even if we can come up with some theoretical short-term advantages to be gained from all of this.

The true silver lining, such as it is, is this (and here, we return at long last to Montana politics): the Supreme Court didn't mandate Obamacare. Hence this decision in no way ranks with the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time -- this ruling doesn't create law out of whole cloth in the manner of many earlier Court decisions, but rather allowed a law passed by Congress and signed by the President to stand.

Which means that the law can be (and must be) repealed and/or gutted by the same democratic process. Chief Justice Roberts said, in effect, "you elected these jokers, you get to clean up the mess or live with the consequences." For Montanans, that means a number of things:

1. Montana needs to do its part in retaking control of the U.S. Senate, firing Sen. Tester, who voted for this monstrosity and would be a reliable vote to uphold it. He would be a vote against conservative judges and justices or for liberal ones (depending on the outcome of the Presidential election.) There are a number of paths to taking control of the Senate, but most involve Congressman Rehberg winning this race. We just need to get it done.

2. We need to elect Steve Daines as Montana's U.S. Congresman. While control of the House is not in immediate jeopardy, every hand is needed on deck to keep the GOP majority a comfortable one with plenty of breathing room. He will vote to repeal Obamacare, and his opponent would vote to keep it.

3. We need to elect Rick Hill as governor. States will have some discretion in implementing provisions of Obamacare, and we need someone who will stand strong with a conservative Republican legislature. We know from the fact that AG Steve Bullock refused to participate in the lawsuit against Obamacare that he supports it. We just don't need any more of that in the governor's office.

4. We need to elect Tim Fox as Montana Attorney General. Republicans and conservative-leaning independents in this state have for too long had a tendency to treat the AG office as a "gimme" for the Democrats, who always want it more badly than we do. There may not be more lawsuits challenging this or that aspect of Obamacare (and other items of federal overreach,) but if they do happen, I want Montana's AG being a part of it. (Living mentally in the 19th century and pretending that the Copper Kings are still running Montana doesn't count.)

In short, we just have to win this fall, here in Montana and all across the country. Elections have consequences.

Tim Fox charges ahead

It’s Wednesday, and time for a little Montana politics.

We were happy to see Tim Fox win the GOP primary for state Attorney General. He made a strong run against Steve Bullock in the last election, something that may have gone largely unnoticed, given that 2008 was a blood-bath for Republicans up and down the ticket. It’s pretty common for candidates to have to make a couple of runs at an office before winning, and we’re glad that Fox took the plunge again, putting to use everything he learned in that last race, building on his grass-roots organization from four years ago.

What a difference just two years makes, though. Had Fox run in 2010 rather than 2008, he might very well have been won the election, with political winds at his back rather than in his face. That is, of course, in the realm of the unknowable. What can be discerned, however, is that 2012 promises to be another good year for the GOP if the primary vote was any measure of enthusiasm.

It may not be as difficult for Republicans as getting elected Superintendent of Public Instruction, but the Montana Attorney General position is a tough nut for the GOP to crack. Every AG candidate knows that the last person to win from the GOP was none other than some guy named Marc Racicot (and does even he really count -- wasn’t he a Democrat before that run?)

There are a couple of reasons why Republicans have such a hard time getting elected to the AG position. One reason is just statistics: the AG has to be an attorney (probably isn’t legally required to be, but who would vote for one who wasn’t?) And since there are only 13 Republican lawyers in Montana, the bench is a little thin for our side. The same goes for the Superintendent position -- generally has to be an educator, and there are, at last count, only 73 Montana educators (home-schooling moms don’t count) who are Republicans, and only half of them will admit to it.

Reason two is that the Montana lawyers who are Democrats (2,945 of them, I believe -- bet you didn’t know that we have one active lawyer for every 338 residents, did you?) have a keen interest in who the AG will be, just as they care more than anyone who is elected to Montana Supreme Court positions. So Democratic candidates have a much easier time raising money for their races than do Republicans. If there were "State Rancher General" with a seat on the Land Board, you can be sure that the Montana Stockgrowers would weigh in pretty heavily on that race. And really, why not? The lawyers get a seat and the teachers get a seat, which means that in most years the GOP has to run the table on the governor, Secretary of State, and State Auditor positions in order to win a majority. Why not a seat for the ranchers, and another one called "State Driller and/or Miner General" for those poor fossil fuels guys (excuse me, Big Oil and Big Coal.) But, as usual, we digress.

The GOP has a great candidate running in Tim Fox, and we wish him all the best. He is playing some smart cards so far, highlighting the fact that AG Steve Bullock refused to have Montana join the suit against Obamacare, in spite of the law’s deep unpopularity in Montana. He also is drawing attention to the role of the AG on the 5 member state Land Board, and the role it plays in developing Montana’s natural resources and thus in our state’s economic development.

As the race develops, there will doubtless be more coverage here on Montana Headlines. Until then, a warm good luck to Mr. Fox.