More problems with Sanders County Republican Central Committee actions

One of this blog’s favorite and most astute sources kindly pointed out that according to the minutes of the Sanders County Republican Central Committee referenced below and online here, as recorded by Republican Representative Pat Ingraham, the committee appears to have decided to illegally contribute to a non-partisan office race at that meeting, the non-partisan campaign of Nels Swandal for Supreme Court.

In what as known as the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices “Pink Book” Page 9 it says, “Another important distinction of a political party Committee is that it ‘may not endorse, contribute to, or make an expenditure to support or oppose a judicial candidate.’ [13-35-231, MCA]”

Excerpts from the official minutes:

Judy Woolley brought up the visit to the community by Supreme Court Candidate Judge Nels Swandal who is a conservative.  Bob Zimmerman moved that the party send Judge Swandal the maximum campaign contribution allowed by law, seconded by Greg Hinkle, discussion followed. When asked why Bob wasn’t at the Thompson Falls meeting for Judge Swandal, Bob Zimmerman withdrew his motion.  Pat Legard moved to reinstate Bob Zimmerman’s previous motion to give Supreme Court Candidate Judge Swandal the maximum campaign contribution allowed by law, seconded by Greg Hinkle; the motion carried.

And the screenshot.


10 Comments on "More problems with Sanders County Republican Central Committee actions"

  1. I was at that meeting, and the minutes are not clear in re-stating what was said.
    Members were encouraged to send in private donations, not that the group as a whole was going to make a contribution.
    Nevertheless, your title for this piece is catchy

  2. While I do not, necessarily, support or oppose actions of Republican Parties, I am curious as to YOUR motives.If the maximum allowed by law in such a case is ZERO, and thus ZERO “influence”, then where’s the “foul” you infer? You are, at best with inuendo, a useless puppet of anti-conservatism. Also, the union of 50 states is NOT a democracy, but a republic. And, finally, where in either the Montana or United States’ Constitutions is there a power for either to prohibit contributions or promotion of judicial candidates? Show us the article, section, and lines. You cannot. So, again, where’s the fire???

  3. A question was raised by a reader who passed this to me: who are YOU? We give you our names. What are you afraid of revealing about yourself that you hide behind a phony moniker?

  4. So, MTHalling and Jim Greaves, you both have different stories here. Which is true? Are the minutes wrong because someone made the motion that you give individually (do you need a motion for that?) or because you made a motion to give $0 (do you need a motion to give $0?)

    Just curious.

  5. How about some “inside dirt” on what the Demogogues – I mean Democrats – do in their local committee meetings?

    Without that “fair and balanced” news, how can any of your astute readers take anything you report seriously?

  6. George3 – I am not privy to anything other than what was reported here. I do not attend either “major” party meets, so cannot attest to what might be the proper thing to do, nor to what you might think one way or the other. Your question is absurd because it implies you care about law, when what you appear to be more concerned about is making the republ-ocrats look bad. If a motion, as I stated, is to give the maximum allowable, and it turns out that is nothing, then so be it. That does not make the motion a bad or good idea, but merely a motion to support. And as the MTHalling noted it appears the motion was to encourage others to give, not that the party committee would give. But, as I said, I wasn’t there. So, punt back to you and HT.

  7. George3 gives a phony “dialectic”: “Are the minutes wrong because someone made the motion that you give individually (do you need a motion for that?) or because you made a motion to give $0 (do you need a motion to give $0?)”

    A motion is often given in groups such as these to encourage members to give to candidates of THEIR choices, or even to those the group may like, but can’t in their own right, support financially. It is common practice among just about every non-profit group, from pro-life, to pro-abortion, to anti-wolf, to pro-snail.

    As I said, setting up a phony dispute is not any way to educate.

    I must suppose MTCowgirl is not really interested in educating anyway, but rather seeks to create controversy where there isn’t any. Possibly because a product of California-like schools??

  8. Well color me surprised; little Jimmy Greaves is butthurt online again. ~sigh~ Okay, from the top:

    1) Everything you’ve ever spewed online supports the actions of the Republican party. You are speciously correct only so much as it isn’t ‘necessary’ for you to do so.

    2) Cowgirl has made her “motives” very clear. She does not owe you any further explanation.

    3) You once again go flailing back to the Constitution with the same misunderstand you’ve promoted before. The Constitution (state or federal) is the foundation of law; it is not the whole of the law itself.

    4) No one in this post mistook our republic for a simple democracy. You’re arguing with the voices in your head again, Jimmy.

    5) You claim some moral virtue by your lack of anonymity and challenge Cowgirl’s standing based on that. Uhh, Jimmy, you kinda need to establish a morality before you pompously demand that others be subject to it. Guess you kinda missed that step, didn’t you?

    6) You really are somewhat dim about right and wrong, aren’t you? If it is possible as reported (the minutes) that someone violated statute, it is not necessary to analyze that in light of what a someone who opposes that first someone does. That’s not fair and balanced; that’s being a moron. Quit being a moron, and then maybe someone might take what you report seriously. Trust me, there’s a enough of us who already take the Cowgirl seriously. I take her more seriously now that she has a moron like you insulting my intelligence simply to attack her.

    7) You leap to Ad Hominem pulled directly from your butt faster than most any human I’ve ever known.

    Your question is absurd because it implies you care about law, when what you appear to be more concerned about is making the republ-ocrats look bad.

    No Jimmy, his question was not absurd, and you avoided it like the plague by creating a fantasy of someone else’s desires. That’s probably because it’s truly stupid to believe that a political committee would hold a vote to donate the maximum allowable amount if they knew it was nothing. It is much easier to believe that MTHalling is correct and you’re arguing out of your ass again. But if you can make up motivations for someone else (Ad Hiominem) then I guess it’s all good to you.

    8) Who the hell is HT? Are you off your meds, or doing a little hallucinatory recreation? I’m just askin’ …

    9) Kindly show me anywhere that Cowgirl stated that her intent was to “educate”. Kindly show me anywhere that says that’s the purpose of this blog. Kindly show me anywhere that that purpose is held by any blog that doesn’t expressly state the fact. Dude, you really don’t understand what your doing out here in these ‘Tubes, do you? So you’re making crap up. (As an aside, am I allowed to use scatological bad language on your blog, Cowgirl?)

    10) Ooohhhh! California schools! Feel the burn! Jimmy, there’s a reason we call you “wingnuts”. You’re screwed down, screwed up and really kinda crazy. You’re just not right in the head.

    Now I fully expect that your response to me, if you have the nads to make one, will be chock full of the same BS you’ve tried above with Cowgirl. In point of fact, I think you’re going to try the same weary wingnut trick of pretending victory when you’ve just been shown to be a colossal moron. The thing is, Jimmy, this wasn’t a fight, until you picked it. MTHalling had the perfect and appropriate response. But you just couldn’t resist those voices in your wingnut teabagging head. Here’s a piece of advice, Jimmy. Don’t start nothing, won’t be nothing. And if you do start something, don’t bring your fantasies to a reality fight.

  9. george d. stone | May 21, 2011 3:03 PM at 3:03 PM |

    Your site is very out of date, there is a new sanders co. republican central committie new officers etc.

Comments are closed.