Posted: May 26, 2012 at 6:01 pm

Candidate Blasts Out-of-State Money in Attorney General Primary

It isn’t just Democrats that are following where the out-of-state money is flowing the in the AG primaries.  Sen. Jim Shockley, who is campaigning to be the GOP nominee for AG, is speaking out against the out-of-state corporate funders at the Republican State Leadership Committee. The RSLC is spending $108,217 to support Shockley’s opponent Tim Fox in the GOP primary for the state’s attorney general.  Shockley has and Op-ed and a radio ad out.  In the opinion piece, he writes:

I believe that the attorney general’s race should be decided by Montana voters with contributions from individuals. Let us tell out-of-state corporations that their money cannot buy a Montana election.

Click here to hear the radio ad: Jim Shockley – out of state money ad.

 

28 comments

  2. Jason Hughes

    recently at a repuglican straw poll in Shockley’s home turf of Hamilton, Tim Fox won by 18%. The shockling thing to me is that Fox needs more than $10 to beat the guy who- got an open container ticket while on his way home from Helena as chair of the Sen Judiciary Com. When he got back to Helena they were working on multiple alcohol related bills. Shockley is such a hypocrite!

    The guy couldn’t win a straw poll in his home town and his opponent wasn’t even there to win a few votes for himself. It was pretty much people voting against Shockley more than voting for Fox.

    I might feel bad for poor Jim if he didn’t have the personality of a cactus.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

      Easy there, dude. There’s a HUGE difference between an open container violation and a DUI. Some of us have a couple of beers every DAY on the way home from work. Jim and I are both old dudes. We’re from the open container era, and we just don’t fit too well into beer nazi Montana quite yet! ‘Sides, some nosey bastard turned Jim in! That’s un-Montanan! He wasn’t drunk, just drinking a beer!

      So, criticize him for politics. That’s fine. But I wouldn’t criticize him for doing what nearly EVERY working man, Dem or Pubbie, in Montana does.

      • Moorcat

        Larry,

        First, not every man in Montana is dumb enough to drink alcohol while driving. For that, I am thankful. I respect your right to express your displeasure at what you characterize as “beer nazi” rules, but as an ex-police officer, I will NEVER agree with you on this issue. Alcohol and driving will never mix.

        • Lynn

          After being hit by a drunk driver at 19, spending my 20′s learning to walk, talk and write again, drinking and driving don’t mix.

        • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

          Well, Moorcat, as a drinker, it was not too many years ago that it was perfectly legal to drink a beer and drive. And guess what? I didn’t kill anyone, nor did I even cause an accident. What has changed? Only the law.

          As I mentioned before, there is only a huge difference between an opener container violation and a DUI. Drinking responsibly does not kill anyone. Having a beer or two while driving home does not kill anyone. I can’t fault Shockley.

          • Moorcat

            You may not fault Shockley, but I certainly do. You will never convince me that drinking while driving is a good idea or can even be done “responcibly”. I have scraped too many people off the road that were “drinking responcibly”. As I said before, this is an issue you and I will NEVER agree on. I have seen with my own eyes people who did kill someone on the way while having a “beer or two”.

            • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

              Moorcat, one more post on this topic and then I’m done. Look, I’m positive that I can drink two beers on the way home and STILL be under the legal BAC. So, where’s the problem? I see none. Either you’re drunk or you ain’t! It’s simple.

              The open container law is arbitrary and silly. It’s simply a revenue raiser and nothing more. It has no purpose. Drunk people kill people, NOT people who are not drunk! End of story. Cops stop a car with an open container. A cite is issued. Revenue raised. And driver is set free! What’s the point, other than enriching the state by 365 dollars or so?

              And you’re right. On this one we will apparently not agree. I will continue to drink two beers on the way home, and I will continue to not kill people in the process. I don’t feel like an outlaw though.

              Again, the ONLY thing that has changed is the law, not me.

              p.s. And I turn in drunk drivers all the time, but I don’t turn in folks with an open container unless they’re drunk. I think it’s pretty easy to spot a driver that’s impaired.

      • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

        Sorry Larry Kinda My Feeling too. After work we used to find a warm safe place off the road, and have a drink or two and dinner twice a week, but no drinking and driving. One of our gambling dens has a Beer and cheese Burger w/fries for under $5.

        Then there is fishing and having a few at the campfire, at the end of a long day…..

        Montana just too pretty a place to enjoy a beer in the car man! wise up!

  4. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

    For the first time ever, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could put limits on the industrial carbon pollution that fuels global warming, makes smog worse and threatens the health of children and the elderly — and you can help make it happen.

    The EPA has taken an important first step by proposing a new standard to limit carbon pollution from new power plants. But this is just a down payment. Existing coal-fired power plants account for the largest chunk of carbon dioxide pollution emitted by stationary sources in the US, which is roughly on a par with the carbon dioxide pollution emitted by the entire transportation sector.

    PPL has made our state #8 in the nation for air pollution. I think they should be doing the same as new coal power plants. Imagine the Jobs that could come from watching to make sure they fall in line. And dont anyone tell me, it would be to hard on them…. Does anyone remember when:

    PPL Montana has tied up $35 million of local and state money in property tax protests spanning six years from 2000 through 2005. Judge Sandefur heard arguments Tuesday morning for an appeal involving the first three tax years of the case. Approximately $7.4 million in property tax dollars are at stake for those three years.
    The Revenue department asserted that PPL has told taxing authorities that the company was worth 16% less on average for the years 2000, 2001, and 2002, than it has told its shareholders the company was worth.
    As a publicly-traded company, PPL Montana is required by the Securities and Exchange Commission to maintain independently audited financial statements that shareholders and future investors can rely on when evaluating the company’s stock.

    Now they are trying to sue the EPA, to prevent the federal agency from releasing data about its Colstrip power plant to two environmental groups that want to know what upgrades the 1970s-era coal-fired plant has undergone.

    PPL claims in the lawsuit that the data the EPA plans to release includes 24 years’ worth of capital improvement projects that the company considers confidential, and the company’s competitors could use that information to gain market advantage. PPL Montana is part of PPL Corp.

    The Montana Environmental Information Center and the Sierra Club had requested the information through the federal Freedom of Information Act. “We just want to know what has happened at that plant over the last 20 years. What equipment have they installed?” Hedges said. “This is an old, filthy, out-of-date facility that deserves the same controls” as a newer plant. The first two units of the 2,000-megawatt power plant began operating in the mid-1970s, and two more units came online in 1984 and 1986. PPL’s website says the Colstrip plant is the second-largest coal-fired project west of the Mississippi and uses a rail car worth of coal every five minutes.

    Its about time we move to make sure eastern Montanans can Breath fresh Air again. The plant has been becoming a bureaucratic nightmare to people and natures health! If you want less money spent at a state level GOP, dont you think it is time we make sure companies stop making children sick.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/ppl-montana-colstrip-power-plant_n_1449096.html

  5. Jason Hughes

    Shockley is a lawyer, in fact one must be to run for AG. He is such a dimwit that he (a lawyer) didn’t know that he could not be arrested while coming from or going to Helena. Art V, sect 8 of the Montana Constitution.

    Whether he was drinking one beer or knee-walking drunk, he was breaking the law. period.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

      Breaking the law? Well, so do I and a lot of others. I break every law I don’t agree with in fact. I happen to think the open container law is beer nazi shit.

      I will criticize Shockley for other stuff, but not that.

  7. Old Line, Democrat

    Shockley would have not had protection from arrest.. If he wou;d have claimed to have been on official business i.e. going to a legislative hearing, he would have been followed to Helena and ticketed or arrested there, should he have used the constitutional language.

    More to the point, Shockley is not a deep thinker. His legislation is non-cooperative and barely meets constitutional muster. The only up-side to his potential for election is that he is not a true religious fanatic as is Fox.

    The only chance we have for a solid AG who will keep these guys in some check is Jesse Laslovich, who has stood up to these types for years in the Legislature and knows how to get it done.

  9. Mark Tokarski

    “Out of state money” is a standard campaign tactic. It’s interesting, as there isn’t enough money in Montana to support high-profile races, even with small audience markets as Montana TV stations serve. So to win, candidates who run successful state-wide campaigns us out of state money.

    The corollary is interesting too – “out-of-state”=bad, so that “in-state” money must be … virtuous? I’ve never understood why local bribes are of a superior moral nature.

    Anyway, from a national standpoint, senate and house seats in states like Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and Alaska, for example, are considered “cheap buys.” It takes relatively little money to buy a candidate here versus the more population-dense places. Ergo, our Baucus-Tester quality office holders. Easy buys.

  10. Hackety-Hack

    Glad to hear that this blog will now be criticizing all candidates on out of state donations and donations from special interests. Oh wait, you’re only going to use this information selectively, to attack Republicans primary candidates you oppose?  Not going to hold Tester or Bullock to the same standard?  Of course not, and that’s why this blog is so hack-tastic. 

    • Havre Voter

      Mr. Shockley is the one railing against out of state money. This post points out his opposition.

  11. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

    Democrats are not the ones signing friend of the court briefs like the republicans of this state are. National candidates have always had some leeway for national campaigns, but Citizens United has changed all of that for the worse! So your feigned BS is just that Bullshit!