Posted: October 22, 2012 at 7:01 am
Governor’s Race Takes an Ironic Twist
The big news this week is that Rick Hill, the GOP nominee for governor in Montana, was revealed to have accepted a gargantuan campaign donation of $500,000, directly from the Montana GOP who, in turn, received it from some unknown source. Generally in Montana, this is illegal.
He received this money during a bizarre, 6-day window a few weeks ago, in which Montana’s campaign donation limits were suspended, having been struck down by a right-wing federal judge. It was a shocking ruling, and, predictably, the laws were then reinstated by a federal appeals court. But in the six day interim, Hill decided to paint the town red and collect every corporate dollar he could.
In contrast, Steve Bullock, the Democratic nominee and current Montana attorney general, did not do so. Bullock, in fact, has been a national leader in the charge against the influence of corporate money in politics. He even argued a landmark case in the Supreme Court this summer, American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, in which he tried to defend a GOP challenge to Montana’s laws banning corporate money from politics. A national feature story out today on ATP’s work to dismantle Montana’s laws can be read here.
So when Rick Hill, the corporate slob that he is, was busy gulping down $500,000 of cash during the 6-day free-for-all a few weeks ago, Bullock was being a gentleman. He was acting in deference to the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, and in the belief that the federal judge who struck the law down would probably be reversed or stayed by a higher court. As such, he refrained from taking any contributions in excess of what Montana’s statutes (the ones that were temporarily invalidated) allow. He is to be commended for having done so, especially since his restraint has put his campaign at a financial disadvantage.
Bullock did the right thing, even if it cost him. Hill took advantage of a legal loophole, even though he knew, deep down, how wrong it was. Rick Hill acted like a piece of trash who finds a few thousand dollars on the sidewalk. A good American takes it to the police. Rick Hill puts it in his pocket.
But now we have a new controversy, articulated very clearly by Bullock at a debate in Kalispell a few days ago and in a new lawsuit he’s filed against Hill: When the donation limits were reinstated by the federal appeals court, did it immediately make Hill guilty of a crime? Mustn’t he now give the money back?
Bullock is making this case in court. Hill has tried to get the case transferred from state court to federal court, hoping to get a little Citizens United mojo from the federal judicial system.
A casual observer might think that the Hill campaign surely can’t be prosecuted for breaking a law that didn’t exist during a six-day window, when he committed the act of receiving the $500,000.
But the law, once reinstated, applies not to the prior act so much as to the current state of affairs. If a person is in receipt of funds, and a law is passed saying that to be in receipt of such funds is illegal, then the person must turn the funds over. Thus does Rick Hill need to reimburse the $500,000 donation to the GOP, who in turn should send it back to the shady characters who sent the cash in the first place.
More to the point, there’s a great irony in the notion that of all the elections in America, it was the Montana gubernatorial race in which a GOP nominee decided to put his hand in the cookie jar the way Hill has done. This is Steve Bullock’s issue, the issue that has made him famous in national political circles. In this sense, I believe Hill has made a mistake, and it will cost him way more than $500,000. Bullock can, and should, run with this controversy across the finish line. It is as important as any other topic in our society today, and should be debated in equal measure with other issues such as jobs and the economy. What Hill has done is outrageous, and shameful. And it exemplifies everything that is wrong with American elections.
Jeebus! Just how sleazey can one get?! Prostitution was legal for just six days, but that was ENUFF for Mermaid Munchkin Man to slip through! What a freakin’ shizerbag! There is NOTHING this sleazeball won’t do!
Hmmm Didnt Pam bucy also take a large amount during that time? hmmm i guess Facts do matter
Pam Bucy took a donation of $35k but then immediately returned it when the ruling was overturned.
so that makes it all ok? Whatever Jackwagon! nice try
I don’t know about “making it okay” but it certainly makes it legal, Jackass.
Ironically, this problem is one of Bullock’s own making. When he used DNC staffers in 2008 (at the time illegally), he did so knowing that the Commissioner of Political practices, (now Schweitzer’s union thug) could make it go away.
And Murray did, ruling that party “resources” could be given to a candidate and that it didn’t amount to a personal contribution. The laws then get even more watered down so that Schweitzer can use public employees and public resources for his “public service announcements” and yet this too is found to be OK.
So the GOP waits for the court to interpret it. The court interprets it. The GOP then follows the law that essentially came into effect to cover up Bullock and Schweitzer’s corrupt practices and now Bullock “gets served.”
Karma sure can be a bitch.
Sam Smiley
on October 22, 2012 at 2:29 pm said:
Keith:
“There has been a primary election challenger on both sides of the political aisle for more than 20 years running. Democrats and Republicans alike have always recruited, for lack of better terminology, primary opponents so their incumbent or top-challenger candidates can raise money that can then be held over for the general election. That standing practice is nothing new, and hardly rises to the illegal and unethical practice of Hill taking $500,000 — a gazillion times the legal limit — and then refusing to give it back despite the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Montana’s campaign limits are in effect for this election cycle. It’s like comparing apples and computers.”
What Sam said. Over at Pogie’s. You got nutin’, dude. And BTW, you CAN’T turn a shizerbag into a real candidate, but you Pubbies keep trying. Jesus man, don’t you morons have ANYbody better than Mermaid Munchkin Man?
I’ll preempt Larry by saying that I am a native Montanan, no I won’t say my name, yes I work for the state, and yes I’ll be illegally fired if I’m found out, and yes I have DOJ POC’s that are reputable and that personally saw the memo that showed Bullock how to break the law in 2008.
And finally, Larry you can spew all the stupid, kindergarten crap you want and I’ll just keep dishing out information on Bullock’s corruption. Sound good?
Oops! I forgot to add that Bullock even manufactured his own primary fight when one of HIS OWN CONTRIBUTORS (same household) suddenly “decided” to run against him with less than 24 hours left to file. It was a complete lie and a farse, and everyone knew it. And it was done so he wouldn’t have to return primary contributions. Even Don Pogreba called B.S. on that corrupt tactic.
So much democrat corruption…. So little time.
I did?
I actually heard about the thing with Heather Margolis joined the primary and how her husband donated to Bullock. Suddenly (and conveniently) having a primary opponent allowed Steve to keep much more money than he would have otherwise. I can’t say if it was strictly legal or not but it is sneaky and underhanded either way.
As far as legal… it was legal to drive whatever speed we wanted at one time. You can’t have a speed limit come into effect and say that everyone who did 90 on 94 between Bozeman and Billings should now get a ticket. It was legal back then. My understanding is the Hill people took the donation when it was legal. Underhanded and sneaky, maybe, but legal.
Psst, Out-of-state asshole, you mean I-90. There is no highway 94 between Bozeman and Billings. You might not want to make such mistakes in a public forum. The lefty marxists will jump on you for it. I promise I won’t let the lefties know how full of shit you are.
WHOOPS!
o.O wow… I grow up in Great Falls and make a simple typo and now I’m an “Out-of-state asshole”. Love the way you can’t respond to the idea of the post but have to resort to a 3rd grade personal attack on someone you don’t know. I’ll give you another chance, just in case you were having an off day or something.
AGAIN, back when there was no speed limit we could drive 97mph on the interstate if we wanted. Now it is illegal. We can’t go back and give people tickets for driving “over the speed limit” back when it was legal, so how is it different to accept a donation while it is legal and only when it is legal?
I’ll actually apologize for that one. Sorry. You gotta admit, though, some typos portray ignorance of subject one helluva lot more than others.
As to ‘legal’ and now ‘illegal’, it takes a legislature to change a law. An injunction doesn’t magically make an action “legal”. It simply means the relevant law cannot be enforced pending review, a review that the Montana GOP damned well new was coming. What the MT GOP and the Hill campaign did was definitely not legal, or even remotely ethical. The distinction you think you’re making doesn’t exist.
Jackass??? Are you dems EVER capable of even generating ONE SIMPLE POST without adding some kind of pointless, personal attack?? I’ve seen more professionalism at my kid’s lemonade stand. I’ve gotta tell you. I say corrupt because it IS Corrupt. You are a real piece of work…
Where is your school-marm costume when the person I was responding to used the insult “Jackwagon”? Are you Republicants EVER capable of even generating ONE SIMPLE POST without adding some kind of hypocrisy?
No. You’re not, hypocrite.
@Rob Where is the hypocracy in Keith’s first post? The one where he is talking about Schweitzer and some Commissioner? If Keith is a Republican (and he sounds like one) and they always have hypocracy in their posts… maybe its because I don’t know enough about what Keith is talking about but I don’t see it.
Excuse me. Are you discussing “Keith’s” or “KeithK” or some other anonymous person here? You are assuming they are the same. I see no evidence of any such thing, save that some folk here share the same trolling Republicant bent. It would be helpful if any of you could actually use your names when commenting … Hint?
It was subtle and tacit, but yes
So you
‘re agreeing that your hypocrisy was “subtle and tacit” but, yes, really there?
And to Rob, I don’t routinely see a barrage of grade-school profanity laden insults by conservatives on this site, whereas I see the exact opposite by your ilk. Besides, I’m here to talk about corruption.
KeithK, if you haven’t seen them, you haven’t looked. They are certainly here.
As far as the rest, you make a lot of accusations without any proof or backup. Given what you have said about your anonimity, it is hard to take your claims seriously.
The information about Hill’s donations are available on any Montana news site. It is likely that Hill will be in at least some trouble, especially givem that the director of Political Practices suggested to all candidates to not accept donations above the limit until the case was seen at appeals court. Sadly, whatever trouble Hill gets into (if he gets into any) will be after the election.
What is more important to me is that his actions indicate a low self character. I simply will not accept that in any elected official. What I know of Bullock (and can verify) leads me to believe that he has far more honesty, worth and ability than Hill does and for that reason, I have already voted for Bullock. The GOP would have been much better running a more worthy candidate. Hill is finished and should have simply retired.
And I’m here to discuss hypocrisy and cowardice. That’s exhibited almost constantly from the right around these parts. Isn’t it just funny that we don’t share the same goals, but you seem to think yours are all that, then some and a bag of chips, at website that is admittedly Democratic?
You have no authority or power here, idiot. That you think you do is pretty good evidence that you’re an idiot.
You kids can argue all you want, while Rick Hill is out there wiping the floor with this election…..Bullock’s up a creek, maybe Gov. Scheister can ‘turn some dials with those folks he knows in high places’ for SB like he did for Tester last time around, ’cause if the political wind doesn’t shift soon, Bullock is going to be opening up a private practice law office real soon.
I know that Larry K has already posted this in another thread, but it bears repeating…
http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/state-and-regional/article_ad7b61aa-2c1a-5201-b980-1c49bab60a74.html
Hill has been ordered to stop spending the illegal 500K and to cancel any ads he purchased with it until the case is seen in court on Monday. Further, it is likely that, if he were to win the election, his win could spur a lawsuit calling for special election between him and Bullock.