Statewide Candidates Reveal Finances

The statewide candidates turned in their fundraising numbers today.   Here are a few items of interest:

The Governor’s race:

Steve Bullock raised twice as much as Rick Hill during the latest reporting period ($100,000 for Bullock to $54,000 for Hill).  Bullock also has a war chest of more than double the unspent funds still in the bank.  Hill used to bring in amounts much closer to what Bullock has been raising, but Hill’s financial support continues to weaken as the word about his past continues to circulate.

Neil Livingstone also brought in $90,000–although the entire amount came from a donation Livingstone made to himself. In an email to supporters, Livingstone said he has used the money to put up “the largest statewide media buy, both radio, and TV” of any of the candidates.

Livingstone says openly what many are privately thinking.

“Rick cannot beat Attorney General Steve Bullock in the general election.”

He then proceeds to go negative on all of this opponents.  I’ve pasted the entire email from “Neil and Ryan” asking that voters “join the revolution” below the fold.


Attorney General primary:

The AG race continues to be tight.  While Jesse Laslovich reported raising $7,000 more than Pam Bucy for this period, the money appears to be “bundled” oil industry donations from out of state.  “Bundling” occurs when an industry collects donations from its management, employees, and their relatives and sends them in a lump “bundle” so the candidate knows exactly who’s paying the bills.

Laslovich’s report today includes $7870 (a third of the money he raised this quarter) from out of state donors–all affiliated with the oil industry–primarily from Texas, Connecticut and Maine.

The Texas contributors look like employees (and their relatives) of a company that makes chemicals used in oil drilling. The corporation is called DX Chemicals. Guy Mossman and William Hixon, VPs of DX Chemicals, gave.  The Connecticut contributors are affiliated with a venture capital corporation called American Bailey–a private investment firm specializing in fuel and energy development.  (J. William Drake, VP of American Bailey, and Douglas Bailey, President, are contributors).  Other Texas money comes from Charles Kerr and Corbin Robertson, VPs of Quintana Minerals Corporation, a private oil and gas exploration development company.

Also of note, all of this money came in on May 16, the last day to collect money for today’s report. The contributions were all for $320 (weird number to contribute since the limit is $310). There is also an expenditure for a wire transfer to a bank, so I’m guessing this all came in last minute.

Certainly the oil industry would like greater influence over the land board. The corporate executives may also be concerned because Citizens United is going to be a key issue for the next AG.  Bucy raised $20,000 over the most recent reporting cycle.


Superintendent of Public Instruction:

Republican Sandy Welch is lagging further and further behind current Superintendent Denise Juneau, a Democrat.   Welch raised about half what Juneau did for the most recent reporting period–$6,300.  However, she has only $19k in the bank to Denise Juneau’s $89k.  This, combined with Juneau’s recent staggering earned media streak, probably means the GOP has already given up on taking Juneau’s seat.

Creating a Conservative Political and
Economic Revolution in Montana

As we enter the home stretch on the gubernatorial race, we are surging across the state. We have major defections from all of the other campaigns. The leading conservative blog in the state has endorsed us and is trying to unify conservative support behind us to defeat Rick Hill. We have done the largest statewide media buy, both radio, and TV. Our ads are extremely popular. We need, however, more money to get to the finish line. Anything you can do would be appreciated. If you don’t trust Rick Hill to win the nomination, send money today otherwise we run the risk of the six conservative candidates splitting the vote among each other and Rick Hill, who is NOT a conservative, getting the nomination. This would be a disaster for Montana because Rick cannot beat Attorney General Steve Bullock in the general election. Private polls say that only Neil Livingstone and Ryan Zinke can do so.

     Ken Miller is dead in his tracks facing potential criminal charges for campaign violations. Just this week he illegally made robo-calls across the state, including, unbelievably, to the office of political practices. He has misrepresented support from the TEA Party in Montana, and needs to recognize his chances of winning are zero.

     Bob Fanning has little support and is not a viable candidate. 

     Jim O’Hara is a wonderful person, but cannot beat Bullock and won’t win the nomination. 

     Cory Stapleton has also been accused of campaign irregularities and at the Whitefish gubernatorial forum was asked ” why was he even in the race ” because he has so little support. 

     Jim Lynch is a Democrat.  

     Please join with us in creating a conservative political and economic revolution in Montana. If you stay on the sidelines at this critical hour, Montana is likely to elect an Obama style leftist lawyer as the next governor of the state, and someone who will make us wish we still had Schweitzer. 

     Individual contributors may give up to $630 each in the primary and the general election, and contributions should be made out to Neil2012 and sent to P.O. Box 1727, Helena, Montana 59601. Please include your occupation and employer for state Political Practices reporting requirements. We also accept credit cards on line at our web site,

Best wishes.

Neil Livingstone
Ryan Zinke


116 Comments on "Statewide Candidates Reveal Finances"

  1. You left off one of my favorite races: Derek Skees v. Monica Lindeen. Please note that Skees has somehow convinced people to give him $2,000 bucks. Perhaps his relatives. Lindeen raised $13 grand.

    • Also this. Livingstone said on MTPR that he donated $90 grand to his own campaign and that he has 10 ads up on the air. Where are they? I checked his website. Nothing. I checked you tube. Nothing. How am I supposed to entertain myself if I can’t get my regular dose of “Neil and Ryan” antics.

  2. In the age of Citizens United and corporate control of our elections, I would hope that at least Democrats aren’t beholden to out-of-state corporate interests. Sadly, I guess that isn’t the case for Laslovich.

  3. Jennifer Davies | May 21, 2012 9:25 PM at 9:25 PM |

    Go BULLOCK! Woot! YOU CAN DO IT!. (Apologies for the caps.) This is great news!

    • I was so proud to call him my next governor today, 22 states joined the case for clean elections! Steve is a true fighter for Montanans.

  4. Bengi Waukesha | May 21, 2012 9:36 PM at 9:36 PM |

    So laslovich is getting money from the corporations who support citizens united. I guess that explains why PPL thru him a fundraiser. And I would assume that he told them that he is the best candidate against fox. What a joke. He touts the fact that he worked heavy construction but fails to mention it was non union firm in Anaconda. His union end

  5. Bengi Waukesha | May 21, 2012 9:38 PM at 9:38 PM |

    Jessi has sold out to the repubs. He was a scab operator in anaconda and and fundraisers from PPL. Pam is the true Dem with experience

  6. I’ve been a Jesse supporter from the beginning. I would suggest that if you haven’t already made the mistake of voting for him that you switch teams as fast as you can. What a cop out. He doesn’t deserve to call himself a democrat.

    I hope this joke of a man doesnt fool enough people and win and then sell us all out to these so called contributors.

  7. Jennifer Davies | May 21, 2012 9:56 PM at 9:56 PM |

    What is the status of our Supreme Court case? Will Bullock still be AG for the resolution it or will it get passed on to the next person?

  8. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | May 21, 2012 9:59 PM at 9:59 PM |

    The family values crowd strikes again! They’re Dopey’s people!|topnews|text|Frontpage

    • Oh. my. (!!!) Great catch Larry. So much for law and order Republicans. As a sidenote, Barkus was an insurance industry flack like Rick Hill. This is classic.

  9. Here I am, using my real name. And this latest collection of Astroturfcomments are yet another reminder of one of the definitive reasons why I can’t support Pam Bucy for AG.

    For anyone to believe that all these comments attacking Jesse Laslovich were spontaneously generated by actual people within minutes of this post going up defies belief. That were accompanied by equally anonymous comments on Twitter within moments also defies belief.

    It would certainly be nice if the Bucy supporters online a) had the courage to use their names, b) didn’t need to respond to scurrilous personal attacks not based in truth, and c) didn’t feel the need to insult the intelligence of people who follow politics.

    This behavior is beneath the dignity of their candidate, the office she seeks, and the work Democrats do every day for progressive causes.

    It’s just sad.

  10. I think the GOP industry groups have given up on getting a Republican in the AG seat and have decided to settle for the next best thing. This would explain the insurance industry donations, the PPL fundraiser, etc.

  11. I’m using my real name too. Not my last name of course as I value my privacy. I’m entitled to my opinion whether you agree with it or not.

    • Private or not, just baseless accusations that are not only insulting to Mr. Laslovich, but to all of the labor groups who have endorsed him.

      • I haven’t said anything insulting to unions, as you can see from my comments. Respectfully, I resent the fact that you seem to believe i’m not entitled to disagree with you. Sigh.

  12. This whole theme of “anyone who disagrees with me is a fake and a fraud” is tiresome. If folks want to defend their candidates actions, on the merits, lets discuss it.

    • Do spurious, untrue accusations fall in the category of “the merits”? Just curious.

      • What has been untrue, or should we just take your word for it?

        • I think Don is talking about my comment that “I think the GOP industry groups have given up on getting a Republican in the AG seat and have decided to settle for the next best thing. This would explain the insurance industry donations, the PPL fundraiser, etc.”

          I’ve offered my opinion on why oil execs from other states might be involved in this primary. Apparently, this is not permitted.

          • Maybe the oil execs are contributing because of Laslovich’s strong record on consumer protection, conservation, and women’s health issues.

      • My two cents. Wouldn’t the way to make that point be to state what you are saying isn’t try, state why, and offer evidence? That’s what I would do if I wanted to make that point and had the evidence to do so. If I couldn’t back it up, would I just attack anyone who disagreed with me and hope no one called me on it? Nope.

        • How would you like me to disprove a negative? I’d say that the burden of proof is on the person(s) who claim that a candidate received a wire transfer from an oil company, for instance.

          That’s flatly untrue.

          That Mr. Laslovich is going to be a tool of the GOP is also absurd. His record in the Legislature makes that abundantly clear.

          Can’t supporters of Ms. Bucy simply promote their candidate without flailing from attack to attack against Mr. Laslovich?

          • Seems to me the wire transfer is irrelevant. Who cares how the money came in? The point is the source of the money. I don’t understand “wire transfer” inclusion in the post.

          • i don’t any claims that a candidate “received a wire transfer from the oil industry.”

            The post says the finance report included “an expenditure for a wire transfer to a bank, so I’m guessing this all came in last minute.”

            That means the recipient spent the money on a wire transfer, not the oil execs, since they don’t file reports. It means the candidate transfered money somewhere, probably for a media buy.

            • Don, I retracted and admitted I read too much into Cowgirls post about a wire transfer, it’s late, not sure what else to say about that. Looks like you’re taking your ball and going home before taking about the real issue, the oil exec money. It’s a perfectly reasonable thing to question for any candidate.

              • If you’re apologizing to me Avery I must say I see no need. I meant no offense, I only intended to point out my read on the post. Cheers.

  13. A correction to my above comment. Line 2: to state what you are saying isn’t true.</em? Ideally all points would by free of typographical errors ;)

  14. So Livingstone’s going after Stapleton now? Really!? He writes that Stapleton was asked why he was still in the race at a Whitefish debate, but he doesn’t say if it was the debate moderator, an attendent crowd member, or Livingstone himself who asked the question. Weak sauce.

  15. I really know little about Laslovich vs Bucy – I understand that NARAL has given Laslovich (slightly) less than perfect marks, and I read Hasque-Hausrath’s opinion on the likely immigration stances of the two. That’s the limit of my knowledge, and so I’ve never written about the race.

    But when I write a post, I try to put in links for any statements I make that not only support my position, but inform the readers. This post, I notice, has plenty of links in the section about Mr. Laslovich, but none of them are relevant – they are links to various companies. When there’s no link to documents, and no details or links at all regarding Pam Bucy’s funding, it tells me that the blogger is not dedicated more to convincing us than informing us. No one ever said blogs need to be unbiased, but they need to be informative and not hide information in order to make a point.

    • The rancor, misdirection and outright lies perpetrated by the supporters of Bucy have more than driven me off the fence for this race. I am catagorically supporting Laslovich and I doubt I could support Bucy even if she wins the primary. I will be making a similar statement on my own blog tomorrow about this race.

  16. I am pretty ashamed of certain democrats right now, if what good people are saying is true. I see the time stamps of these certain COMMENTORS and I see an orchestrated attack on one of our own.

    This is not what a Yellow Dog Democrat or Kennedy Democrat like me, will stand for folks.

    We do not attack or eat our own… ever.

    I had to go out and pull a Yard sign down tonight. Somebody better have a damn good reason for their republican-like antics here tonight…. Cause I’m not saying another thing positive till we have a butt to kick, and an apology.

    EXCEPTION: No I am not mad at you Cowgirl, It is your blog and you have a absolute right to print an opinion… just dont expect me to buy all of it, all the time.

    Enuff said!

  17. There have been a lot of inflammatory comments on both sides of this race online. Seems like some have been true and some not. There’s a number of guest posts by someone named ” M Storin” on Intelligent Discontent that attack Bucy. Seems unfair to write either candidate off for comments made online that I assume neither candidate coordinates. We should feel comfortable questioning the values of people in our own party, and to me the oil and gas money coming in for Laslovich against an MCV endorsed candidate, in a primary where SHE has taken some risky and admirable progressives stances, is cause for concern. Let’s talk about the issue and stop whining about who is being mean to who. Since when is politics about please and thank you, and since when is criticism of a “democrat” off limits? I’m basing my vote on what the candidates say and their actions (like who they take money from), not what commenters say who choose to be anonymous for whatever reason, and there are good reasons.

    • You “two” should really spread out the comments a bit more. It would probably look less obvious what you are doing.

      Care to identify these bold progressive stands that Ms. Bucy has taken during the primary? I certainly haven’t seen her publicly take any positions that I would consider to be more “progressive” than Mr. Laslovich. I’d really like to know.

      • Jessica Peterson | May 22, 2012 8:07 AM at 8:07 AM |

        As someone who’s new to this site, it seems fairly obvious that what we have here is a case of people who can’t or won’t defend how Laslovich’s campaign is funded (the actual subject of this post) and are instead attacking commenters who support Bucy by labeling them as “bucybots” to dehumanize them.

        Of all these commentors, not a single Laslovich supporter spoke in defense of the oil industry donations. Meanwhile, not a single Bucy supporter launched personal attacks on the Laslovich commentors.

        • Who cares! It is all legally obtained in his case. Your Jessie problem is supposed to be issues BTW. Not legally gained Money!

          If this is the only argument you can make, and then you sprinkle it with BS and Conjecture, do you think you tainted argument will grow??? Just saying

          And what Kind of Democrat are you when you bash that fellow Democrat you need to help paddle upstream?

          • I don’t think anyone said it was illegally obtained. I read too much into the comment about wire transfers and retracted as soon as I realized my mistake (made late at night after a long drive, sorry, but contrary to what has been said here, I’m human, not a robot). We, on the progressive side, talk about the influence of money in politics all the time. It’s what makes the Citizens United issue such a big one. I’m not sure, but I think the Tim Fox money is legal too, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with its source. People who contribute do so because they share values with a candidate. My values are not in line with out of state oil executives, most of the time. If Jesse and his campaign and supporters are comfortable with his contributors, then I don’t know why everyone is getting so defensive on this site. Norma, I appreciate your willingness to talk about the issue of campaign contributions, you seem to be the only one who is. We can disagree about the meaning or impact of those contributions, but that is the main issue of this post. Disagreement doesn’t mean I’m a bot or whatever, and this issue isn’t off-limits to discuss. I just don’t think that carrying a D behind your name makes you infallible. Plenty of Democrats have made mistakes and if we can’t question them on a blog, then where can we?

            • Probably the defensiveness comes more from purposely inflammatory comments like:

              “In the age of Citizens United and corporate control of our elections, I would hope that at least Democrats aren’t beholden to out-of-state corporate interests. Sadly, I guess that isn’t the case for Laslovich.” “Jessi has sold out to the repubs. He was a scab operator in anaconda and and fundraisers from PPL. Pam is the true Dem with experience.”I would suggest that if you haven’t already made the mistake of voting for him that you switch teams as fast as you can. What a cop out. He doesn’t deserve to call himself a democrat. I hope this joke of a man doesnt fool enough people and win and then sell us all out to these so called contributors.”

            • People who contribute do so because they share values with a candidate.

              If there is one pernicious lie in politics that needs to die a swift and brutal death, that’s it. “People” (which according to the SCOTUS now includes corporations) donate for any number of reasons, which may or may not include anything to do with “values”. It is a general statement of fallacy, guilt by association.

              • When it comes to fallacy, claiming that SCOTUS calls corporations “People” is right up there with the best of them. I believe you know that and persist in the lie for political purposes.

                Not all persons are people under the law. However, all people are persons.

                Corporations have rights because they are a collection of human beings who act in concert for a united purpose. Human beings do not lose their rights through united action.

                • ~yawn~ What fallacy did I commit, Craig? State what you know.

                  • Rob, you made the fallacious claim regarding SCOTUS calling corporations people. Prove it.

                    I expect the smoke of obfuscation, personal insults, and other dodging antics to billow mightily because you can’t.

                    • Craig, you still don’t understand the word. What was “fallacious” about my claim? What fallacy did I commit? I don’t need to prove anything to you. You claim I commit fallacy. I ask again, what fallacy did I commit?!? Then we might have a conversation …

                    • You have nothing. That’s hardly surprising.

                    • Craig: ” But with the stroke of his pen, Court Reporter Davis moved corporations out of that “privileges” category – leaving behind all the others (unions, governments, and small unincorporated businesses still don’t have “rights”) – and moved them into the “rights” category with humans, citing the 14th Amendment which was passed at the end of the Civil War to grant the human right of equal protection under the law to newly-freed slaves.”

                    • While the events listed in the article you reference are only part of the story that led to corporate personhood, it is one more of the long chain of events that resulted in the abortion we have today. What slays me about this whole thing is the utter stupidity of it.

                      Craig is trying to maintain that corporations should have a say ” because they are a collection of human beings who act in concert for a united purpose.” If that is the case, Craig, each individual HUMAN BEING in that corporation has the guarenteed right to donate to the candidate’s campaign in keeping with the law. Making the corporation a “person” allows these same people to donate AGAIN as a corporation with less limitations or reporting required. This is utter bullshit and you damn well know it unless you are a lot dumber than I think you are.

                • Craig, you are wrong on an epic scale. If you actually knew something about the history of “personhood” for corporations, you would realise that the whole idea is based on a mistake and a misquote. I find it sad that you would attempt to denigrate someone for a “logical fallacy” while quoting eronious information.

                  • Moorcat, I do know something of the history and I stand by what I wrote. In the federal statutory scheme corporations and other legal entities are within the definition of “person” for various purposes including taxes.

                    But again, back to the fallacious claim SCOTUS calls corporations “People” Let Rob prove his claim.

                  • Michael Searalika | May 22, 2012 6:54 PM at 6:54 PM |

                    Moorcat , is right Craig it was and has always been considered a law clerk mistake of the supreme Court case in “Dartmouth College v. Woodward,” early 1800’s

                    Corporations have the same rights as people to enforce contracts. But they are not People! There is noting living or breathing in a corporation, it is and will always be a cllection of papers and promises made between people only. A promise is not a person.

                    As far as person hood status, I would go a step further and allow certain apes elephants whales, and dolphins a personhood status over that of corporations!

                    • Thank you, Michael, but I was actually hoping that Craig would have done the research himself and found out the truth before he made even more of an ass of himself. Even though my respect for Craig has decreased sharply this year, I still think that he has the capability for rational thought and I was kind of hoping he would at least realise that he was arguing the wrong side of this issue. While the Dartmouth College VS Woodward decision and the clerk’s mistake were only part of what led to the modern Citizen United decision, it was a significant part of the problem. When you actually research the idiocy that led to the idea of Corporate “personhood” you can only shake your head and wonder how something so wrong could have gone so far.

                    • Thanks Michael. I didn’t know that.

                    • Robert Reich on Corporations and the First Amendment

  18. I believe that voters have a right to know about a candidates positions and from whom they draw their support. It is not “off limits” to discuss a candidates campaign finance reports.

  19. More on the statewide finances from Sanjay Talwani:

    Good investigative journalism here compared to the usual. So and so raised this amount and the other guy raised this. Talwani is rumored to be a candidate to replace Chuck Johnson when he retires. If you haven’t heard of him yet, google his reporting on the shady practices of St. Peter’s Hospital in Helena!

  20. Conjecture should be left to Novelists not candidate supporters. People who throw wildly dihonest punches do so, because the race is tight and in frustration they say nasty shit they really have no business saying,. 2) we Have GOP trolls here who spread that kind of reasoning all the time. Why would we do the same? You see we are supposed to make a stark difference from the fringe folks.

    There is nothing wrong with private donations from citizens outside the state, especially the 320.00 which is a legal donation until the end of May folks. Bundled or not with other people who work for any company. They have the same rights as a union member does in New York to send me money because I believe in Unions. This was sensationalism about Jessie nothing more. Because People work for oil companies they are not allowed to make a donation??? I do not knock oil workers from making a choice with their pocketbooks. They want their jobs protected too.

    So far everything I have seen in Jessies donations looks straight up to me. He has a page up on Act Blue, a national democratic clearinghouse of donation money just as I do( though mine doesn’t see anything LOL), and these receipts seem to have come from that site. the majority of money 2/3s come from Montanans out of his 24,000 dollars this reporting period.

    Some of our Democrats buddies have to stop acting like Little kids. SERIOUSLY!

  21. Norma’s comments are right on.

    Pam should be mad at Cowgirl/360. Their affiliation with the baseless venom spewed by cowgirl and her bots are hurting Pam’s campaign and making more democrat enemies than friends. Jesse has run an above the board campaign, and it has been about what he has to offer. Pam’s campaign has been incredibly negative (at least among Helena insiders) and seems to focus on pointing out Jesse’s short comings instead of what Pam has to offer.
    I agree with Pogie, the vitriolic and disrespectful behavior from cowgirl/360 has reached such an insulting point that if Pam wins the primary I will leave the AG race blank on my ballot for the first time in my voting life.

    • WHOA I am not mad at Cowgirl, she had the right to bring up an issue on her blog, even if I consider it a non issue. Jesse did nothing wrong is my Mantra on this. I saw what I feel was a coordinated attack last night on Jessie for legally obtaining dontaions. Making shuff look bad that wasn’t. Frankly you antics here are no better!

      Democrats should be worried about JOBS, Services for veterans, JOBS, Services for education and teachers, JOBS Taxing the rich for their far share, JOBS, putting more money in the pockets of Middle AMerica, Healthcare for all…. ETC!

    • To be clear, my comments were directed primarily at the army of commenters, perhaps an army of one.

      I take some issue with the argument implied in the post, but the real gutter arguments came in the comments.

      I just wish they’d stop.

  22. The issue is the Attorney General’s office. The question really should be who has the practical, hands on experience and will better represent the state in existing and potential court actions.

    I’m a Bucy Bot but only after checking out the two candidates qualifications. I had certain criteria that I wanted the next AG to meet. I wanted someone who can/will carry on with the Citizens’ United fight (MT Corrupt Practices Act), someone who would continue to fight the PPL decision and the whole “navigable river” issue, someone who would defend MT labor laws, our state constitutional right to privacy, and someone who would try to protect our kids from on-line predators. And, equally important, I want someone on the State Land Board who will make informed, unbiased decisions regarding the use of Montana resources and our state constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment. Coupled with her actual, hands on courtroom experience (another concern of mine) Pam met my criteria for those issues. And my decision has been supported by her endorsements from labor unions, womens health care groups, law enforcement professionals and conservation agencies.

  23. Taking the citizens united angle against Laslovich for receiving these contributions seems pretty weak. What are we talking about here a couple thousand dollars total? So does that mean Laslovich (or Bucy) are going to also be “beholden” to me if I send them a check for the limit of $320 or whatever it is? Are we supposed to believe that Bucy or any politician would have returned these checks if they had been sent to them?

    While I get the visceral reaction against “oil company” money without the oil and gas industry Montana would probably be suffering through the same massive state debt crises that others are enduring throughout the country. They obviously need to be watched and regulated closely like any extractive industry but the hysterical reactions on here are hard to take seriously. Can’t we all just get along? And stop making it horrible for the children? I’m looking forward to the end of primary season.

    • The oil and gas industry contribute taxes of roughly $100 million to the State’s General Fund and they have for a few years now. The $100 million was not unexpected in the 2013 biennium. At the same time they also pay about another $100 million to county gov’ts and local schools. Even the loss of all of those dollars would still leave the state general fund with a +$250 million surplus and we would still be in better financial shape than almost all other states. Loss of those revenues locally would be much more devastating as homeowners and others would have to make up for the lost revenue.

      The issue with the oil and gas company/individual contributions is that the O&G folks would like to lower their tax bill (zero taxes might seem reasonable to them). By providing contributions to candidates they appear to be “greasing the skids” to ensure that can/will happen. It’s not so much the dollar amount of the contribution as the access the contribution might provide.

      And, while the state may be able to weather the loss of those dollars because of other tax revenues, county gov’ts and local schools would be hit very hard with little choice for replacing those lost revenues. Someone on the State Land Board needs to also look after the interests of the counties and local schools.

      • Everybody would like to lower their tax bill. I don’t think the attorney general’s office gets to vote on setting tax rates, maybe there is some role to be played in serving on the Land Board in setting collection amounts on these companies but I don’t know to be perfectly honest. So are you saying the interests of the counties and local schools would be supported by someone on the land board who is supportive of oil and gas development right? I’m not seeing the connection between that and how these contributions are such a horribly bad thing.I would agree the contributions are made obviously because these individuals perceive their interests to be furthered by it but their perceptions and reality are not neccesarily the same. All you and I are doing is guessing at their intentions. For all we know they may have had their mind set to donate to someone and only sent it at the last minute to who they thought was going to win. My point was that to somehow infer Laslovich would not support the State’s efforts against CU because of these tiny donations is laughable.

        • I was not referring to your 11:32 post as laughable btw it was the above comments by others. I’m pretty sure both candidates meet your criteria, I’d be happy to support whoever wins. I would give Bucy the edge in experience for sure. Although to be frank I have some concerns about Bucy’s commitment to the State Constitution’s Right to Privacy after reading the column by Shahid Haque Hausrath (excuse spelling). I don’t think thats a small deal although the details of it are probably too obscure for many to follow. Its not much of a stretch to see the conspiracy theorists on the right extraploting that to mean she is going to give away gun info or whatever else to the feds as well. From what I read it seems she could have handled it better. I haven’t decided who to vote for in the primary. All I really care is that whoever wins freight trains Fox again (or old man Shockley if thats the case).

  24. Ok what this post tells me. Lindeen will easily beat Derek Skees. No questions, Lindeen will win.
    On the attorney generals race, yes I confess I am partial to Jesse Laslovich, but at the same time, I like Pam Bucy, and if she beats Laslovich in the primary, I will vote for her in the fall, no questions asked. But what this shows me is that in an era of Citizen’s United, coporate spending on politics is on the rise, and trust me 2012 is the tip of the ice berg. Wait till 2014 and 2016, when the machine is in full swing. No average citizen will be able to compete in an environment where big multi national corporations will be able to donate unlimited resources to politics. Case in point could Kendall Van Dyk have won his senate seat back in 10 if Exxon Moblie would have been able to spend on the race? Or what about Jon Tester in 06 if Wells Fargo would have known he was going to lead the charge on banking reform? Basically if you want capitalism regulated you have to vote Democrat, otherwise the middle class and the poor working class, they get the shaft.
    On the Governor’s race, I would say Neil is partially right, and partially wrong. I would say with my drives around mostly eastern Montana, Ken Miller and Rick Hill are going to be the top vote getters. Ken may get a slap on the hands for his political stunts but still, if he wins so what. I know I do not want to wake up on the morning of November 7th to Governor Elect Ken Miller. I also believe that this governor’s race is going to show a split in the teaparty in Montana. And is going to split the Republican party, just like the presidential race has nationwide. Trust me right wing dyed in the wool Republicans, don’t like Mitt Romeny, and moderates dont trust him anymore cause he stabed them in the back.

  25. Well… I don’t think that accepting O&G campaign donations will make Jesse beholden to the industry players any more than the lack of it would make Pam antagonistic towards them. The tax and environmental policies that apply to these entities is not set by the AG and only in part by the land board. To imply that a handful contributions to either candidate would influence their decisions on the land board is really a disservice to both.

    It seems to me that much of this “controversy” has arisen in part because we have two talented, qualified candidates. Lacking glaring differences on the issues, we look for specific details of their background or experience, and since we live in Montana, can shake their hands and look them in the eye.

    I had no opinion of either candidate at the beginning of the race. I’ve attended several forums and fundraisers for both. Jesse and Pam have both been working hard on their campaigns by participating in Democratic events, trainings, parades etc. So, I’ve had the opportunity to speak with each several times.

    All things being equal, I would vote for a woman because we are so underrepresented in elected office. But, I won’t vote for a candidate simply based on gender either. To me, the most important things are presenting a viable candidate that can win in November, and that the candidate is qualified, knowledgeable and will fairly discharge their office. Both candidates fit the bill in that regard, so my choice boils down to a couple of issues.

    First, I’m not enamored of using a marketing and lobby firm to run a campaign. I’m not so naive as to think that candidates and campaign rely solely on local volunteers and don’t take advantage of professional consulting and other services. But when I spoke to Bucy campaign staff, I got the vague impression of the Borg collective, a team of dispassionate wonks that chug along a predetermined path to victory. I guess I’m old-fashioned, but I prefer a more organic approach to building a campaign, where individuals fill roles of campaign manager, field, communications etc. I feel that the Strategies 360 approach may diminish accountability and transparency and reduces that candidate to a product, rather than a person. I’m not saying the Bucy campaign is doing anything nefarious, it’s just a not a model that appeals to me.

    Second, I think of heading the DOJ as akin to being Secretary of Defense. There’s a reason the DOD is head a civilian. So while it is important that the AG have the cooperation and support of law enforcement,. I’d rather see the office held by someone without such close ties to law enforcement. The first commitment of the AG should be to the citizens of Montana as a whole, not a particular spacial interest. In that regard, I feel that Pam Bucy has been less consistent on the issues of medical Cannabis and would lean towards the position of the police rather than the people on this issue. (I’m not saying Pam will be influenced by her donations from law enforcement, but that she has a different perspective because that relationship.) While both Jesse and Pam have expressed support for voter approved medical; marijuana, some of Pam’s statements in the past have been less positive.

    Third, the AG has the responsibility of providing legal opinions to the legislature. I feel that Jesse’s experience there will be valuable and help him have a productive relationship with the state House and Senate members.

    So, I’ll be voting for Jesse in the primary, but I’ll gladly support either candidate in November. Contested primaries are be a good thing, it shows that the party is active and that we can present qualified candidates. It’s great when individual candidates can inspire and motivate their supporters. But, we shoot ourselves in the foot when primaries turn vicious and the rhetoric ramps up to snarkiness and outright hostility. It’s OK, and necessary to point out a candidates shortcomings, but it should be enough to cite to one’s record, rather than extrapolate a complete world view from one vote or position statement.

    You’ve probably already heard that “Democrats need to fall in love, Republicans just fall in line.” But, just because we “love” one candidate mean that we have to hate the other. Withholding your vote in November might give you some personal satisfaction, but it doesn’t’ do out party any good, and since we ARE the party of the people, the people get the bone too. Remember to breathe everyone, and cultivate the love.

  26. Prediction: Bucy beats Laslovich in the primary, then Fox beats Bucy in the general. Laslovich goes on to have an extraordinary career because he is an amazing, smart, compassionate and honest person. I mean Governor, Senator, dean of UM Law School, whatever he wants. Bucy takes over NARAL for Nancy Keenan. Fox serves two terms as AG, then one term on Supreme Court and retires. Now why can’t we all get along?

    • Interesting prediction… How much acid did you have to drop to get there?

      At this point, I would call the Bucy/Laslovich race a tossup. I personally hope Laslovich wins (I am certainly endorcing that) but it is close either way.

      Fox is going to go down in flames, regardless of who wins. The mailer I got from him is indicative of why he will go down in flames. He is just another wingnut trying to use a position of authority to institute his own personnal wingnut agenda. That is the LAST thing we need as AG. Moreover, that same wingnut agenda would keep him from being named to teh Montana Supreme Court.

      I would have to agree that regardless of the outcome of the primary, Bucy and Laslovich will both go on to distinguished careers. Both are smart, honest and hardworking.

      • I’ll put you in the “independent” column? And who needs acid when you are high on life?

        • Ok finally I agree with you on something yes Laslovich is a smart guy, in fact I have one of his campaign signs in my yard as we speak. Where I disagree with you first I think Bucy or Laslovich would beat Fox hands down. No Fox is not going to the supreme court if you think that your dreaming. I think the race between Laslovich and Bucy is a toss up at this point, Im pulling for Laslovich, but I would be happy if Bucy won. But I did not get to vote for Laslovich cause I voted in the Republican primary. Here is my take on the elections this fall Romeny will win the electoral votes of Montana all three of them enjoy. I can predict who will win the presidency. Steve Bullock will be the Democratic nominee for governor, the Republican will either be Hill, Miller or Livingstone, at this point I cant tell. So hence I can not tell how the race will go. Monica Lindeen will beat Skees easily and serve a second and last term as state auditor. Linda McCuhlloha (and I know I spelled her last name wrong no offense) will beat who ever the Republicans nominate, and they will not nominate Brad Johnson, he is done in politics in Montana. Attorney General either Bucy or Laslovich will be the next attorney general. Senate it will be a close race with in 2000 votes but Jon Tester will beat Denny Rehberg and Rehberg will go on to become a lobbiest. Steve Danies will get the nomination from the Republicans for the congressional seat, and I do not know who wins the Democratic nomination, but it will not be Jason Ward, or Sam Rankin, or Diane Smith. Although I like Sam Rankin. It will either be Strohmeier or Willmar or Gillian, and if it is Gillian she loses to Steve Danies.

  27. I ran across this article about democratic party candidates in the primaries, its kind of an interesting read:

  28. OK, I’m seriously considering taking back my support for Bucy if she is the candidate in the general. Just had first hand experience with unsavory campaign strategy. Very disappointing and sooooo transparent.

  29. WTF is this? If you have an ax to grind take it elsewhere. No one wants to read this shit. So tiresome.

  30. What I find tiresome is candidates that manipulate situations to campaign in ways that are not appropriate. Also anonymous comments. Tragic, in fact. Do you object to an “axe” only depending on the way it cuts? Obviously you didn’t read my earlier post. Simmer down.

    • @ Elizabeth – Your making charges about Pam Bucy with out providing details, ie time, place (facts) about

      “Just had first hand experience with unsavory campaign strategy. Very disappointing and sooooo transparent”

      So exactly WHAT happened? Or are you just spreading rumors?

  31. Gosh, that would be terrible if people were making unfounded accusations online about a candidate without supporting details and facts.

    The lady doth protest too much.

  32. Well, this is what I get for blogging when pissed. No details here, glad to share in person. Elizabeth in Butte, I’m not that hard to find.

    • I think chances are, your Mark T, from Colorado

      • Only Mark T would say “here’s my first name, find me in a town of 32,000 people.”

        • Yes, I’m sure it would be hard to find an active Democrat that is on FB and tweets. You’re just being lazy. My name is Elizabeth Wasson, come on down to Butte and we’ll chat. Perhaps not everyone is as duplicitous as some anonymous posters on this thread, or Mark T, whoever the hell that is. Let me know when you plan to visit.!/onthedivide

          • Havre? Buddy, Elizabeth is a real person person.

            Not a M. Toad!

          • Hey, Elizabeth glad your real.

            My issue is I keep seeing veiled references to these horrible things the Bucy campaign is doing with no details…

          • Elizabeth,

            I too am glad that you’re who you say you are, and thanks for the disclosure. Like Lynn and others I’m interested in the “first hand experience with unsavory campaign strategy” from the Bucy campaign. Please provide details.

        • Weak troll attempt at discrediting comments by accusing Elizabeth of being someone else. Game on Adam P….I mean Havre Voter. You should probably get back to work on the Bucy campaign over at cowgirl360. Oh wait, anonymous trolling on cowgirl is part of the Bucy campaign, sorry my bad.

  33. From what I see, the Bucy campaign has been accused since Nov of posting comments maligning Lasovich. Is there a chance that it’s not the Bucy campaign but the Fox Campaign behind this? or the Shockley campaign?

    • Guess what Lynn I heard from some good friends today. Both told me some the same thing, “It is not Bucy, but it is her campaign staff. In fact, it was disturbing enough for me to drop my endorsement of Bucy today, because she should know what her staff is saying to people.

      I will be voting for Jesse!

      • As was said over at Pogie’s: if the earth haters will run as Democrats in Ravalli County, expect the worst.

  34. Jesse is a show pony. Relatively little legal experience; jumping from job to job. No comparison between his legal bona fides and Pam’s. Jesses running as a means to higher office, whereas, Pam has served the public for twelve years. Pam has done what Jesse talks about accomplishing: prosecuting sex offenders, establishing and improving the sex offender registry, arguing in front of the Ninth Circuit. Montana needs a workhorse like Pam not a prancing show pony. Hard to understand why folks like Pogreba can’t see it.

    • Yeah , and this is exactly the kind of comment that seems characteristic of the Bucy supporters. You can’t support your candidate without disparaging someone else? There is no other way to express your preference for what you see as her superior experience than by name repetitive calling. Sounds desperate to me. Gee, and we wonder why people are disgusted with politics. Grow up!

      • Comparison is about the only way that people can distinguish between candidates. The choice of words will carry different meaning between the writer and the reader but a comparison is valid.

        The thing about Pam is that she’s done her job very well for years with no expectations of public recognition. She was, to put it simply, in the trenches doing her job and I appreciate that. And her pro-bono work and volunteerism speaks volumes and has been done, again for years, ‘cuz it was stuff that needed to be done. That tells me something about her as a person, about her work ethic, about her values.

        Her experience in the courtroom outweighs Jesse, that’s a fact. And when deciding who should be our next AG, that has to be a consideration. But her other experience seals the deal. In my opinion, Pam has “walked the walk” and is more than deserving of my vote.

        • Now this is an opinion and style that I can respect. Thank you, Dallas. You sound like an attorney, and I appreciate your analysis (even if you’re not). This is the kind of information that helps voters make a reasoned decision. No name-calling, and I don’t have an icky taste in my mouth. Model civic behavior.

    • If you really believe your candidate is so much stronger on her resume and politics, you wouldn’t need to resort to the sleazy attacks.

      As I have mentioned a number of times, I wasn’t sure which candidate to support at the outset. The behavior of the Bucy bots and her campaign staff made the choice a lot easier. The fact that Mr. Laslovich is very qualified, more likely to defeat Tim Fox, and a better campaigner came later.

    • This isn’t the first time I’ve read the accusation of ‘Jesse being a show pony’. What has me leaning Laslovich is how contrary to fact that is given what I see as a rather irksome bit of show-boating by Pam Bucy. As I clarified in this comment to this post by Pogie, I am underwhelmed whenever a politician claims ownership over a program they had little or nothing to do with developing. It struck me at the time as resume padding through showboating. The online behavior of Bucy supporters, especially attacking Laslovich for activity I have seen clear evidence that Bucy engages in, has done absolutely nothing to impress me with Bucy’s resume or accomplishments.

      To be very clear, I want the person best able to legally represent the state of Montana. Experience is only part of that ability. As I clarified before, hailing oneself as an innovator while standing on the shoulders of giants is not the kind of experience that impresses.

      • @Kailey: dude, it’s fine if you are friends with Jesse, to support him. But you have really got to be kidding as a progressive, to try to defend it as something other than helping a buddy. have you seen who laslovich is taking money from? it is a who’s-who of republican corporate lobbyists, including tens of thousands from insurance industry folks whom he regulates. that’s not what progressives believe in. in fact, it’s not what anybody should believe in. sure, he’s not a bad guy. but he is Mini Max. no beliefs other than his own advancement politically And we don’t need a young max baucus. one is enough.

        • Gumbo, you predicate your statement on something totally ridiculous. I don’t know Jesse Laslovich. I’m not his “friend”. Such ludicrous statements are exactly why Bucy supporters offensively come off as Bucy-bots.

          Now, as a “progressive”, do you care to justify to anyone why Bucy is show-boating about eSm@rt Kids? Or do you think yourself sm@rt enough to shame other progressives with false equivalence and Straw Men? If the latter, then take a hint – you’re not.

        • Hey “gumbo”–who I suspect it just the latest pseudonym from the one or two people who keep doing this—tens of thousands of dollars from the insurance industry? Really?

          I know it’d be hard for you to substantiate a claim like that, but I’d love to see you try.

          Just tell the truth. Just stop being so sleazy. You’re doing more damage to Ms. Bucy than help. Honest.

        • JUmbo you do not know crap about Jesse and are by no means his spokesman. Stop putting word in his mouth, and tying his abilities to your lackluster opinions. Anyone can see you for the sleaze you are, by calling down a Fellow Democrat.

          This state doesn’t need EMOPROGS Ever…. and calling out BS on Max, one of the best Democrats our state has ever had, in making this state purple is Low scummy stuff, I thought only GOP Operatives were capable of. You are an embarrassing and disenfranchising Middle of the road Democrats with your remarks! STFU!

  35. Pam has far more legal experience than Jesse. She has tried cases at all levels. The attorney general’s office is the state’s law firm. Pam has in-depth knowledge of the office and the people that work there. The legislature meets for 90 days every other year, accordingly, it’s a minor part of the ag’s work. However, keep in mind, that Pam has spent a fair share of time in the hallowed halls of the leg, knows countless legislators and has worked on major legislative proposals that subsequently became law. It’s beyond me why folks don’t think legal experience is important.

Comments are closed.