Page 28 - Flathead Beacon // 4.1.15

28 | APRIL 1, 2015
LIKE I WAS SAYIN’ Kellyn Brown
OPINION FLATHEADBEACON.COM
TWO FOR THOUGHT
Same Topics, Different Views
Follow the Dark Money
By Tim Baldwin
Money has always corrupted politics. America is no different, and it will continue to until we pass bet- ter laws (whether through statute or constitutional amendment) to protect our political system. Not all corruption can be eliminated, but there are rules that can be implemented to mitigate and punish the ten- dencies of corruption.
The Citizens United decision may have ruled that corporate spending for political advocacy is free speech (and thus protected by the First Amend- ment), but it did not rule that states cannot require politicians to disclose who contributed money to their campaigns and how much, nor did it decide that states cannot regulate how much money persons can contribute to political campaigns, putting every per- son on equal footing regarding monetary influence.
Seeing how money corrupts politics (and thus lib- erty), many Americans are pushing for better regula- tions regarding monetary contributions to political campaigns. Many states, including Montana, already limit political contributions and mandate disclosure. However, the need for these kinds of regulations ex- ists to a much greater degree on the federal level giv- en the natural inclinations for them to be corrupted by corporate money and foreign-national influence. Congress normally resists limiting its own power, however.
They say, “follow the money” to learn of corrup- tion. Well, the states and federal government can make “following the money” easier so people can be better informed and so politicians will think twice about accepting “dark money.”
By Joe Carbonari
Where to begin? Let’s try the sandbox. There, “dark” anonymous money can be lik- ened to the big boys. If you are being pushed around or mistreated, physically or psycho- logically, you ask “who” and “why.” If you do not, you are more vulnerable and have less control of your life.
If I am being attacked, physically or psy- chologically, by sticks and stones, or words, I want to know the who and the why. I want to protect myself and my beliefs. I do not favor laws that make knowing the who and the why more difficult. The “big boys” do not need, nor deserve, the protection of anonymity. It is dangerous to our wellbeing.
In elections where only a small portion of the eligible voters actually vote, as in our primaries, and where those votes are cast by the most political among us, as in our prima- ries, the result, on the whole, is representa- tives who are more politically “invested” and less prone to compromise than the people as a whole. This dynamic is at work in our coun- ties, in our states, and nationally. Dark money is exploiting this by big spending in little pri- maries.
Backing a like-minded local? OK, but who are you, and why? Attacking an incumbent, anonymously? Even more strongly, I ask, Who? Why?
GUESTCOLUMN | GregHertz
Communication at the Commission
FLATHEAD COUNTY COMMISSIONER GARY Krueger is irked that his fellow county commission- ers are sending letters to the state Legislature with- out the public’s knowledge, or his for that matter.
Over the last few weeks, Commissioners Pam Holmquist and Phil Mitchell have sent signed letters to lawmakers sup- porting House Bill 496 and House Bill 630 and reaffirming their opposition to Senate Bill 262.
In a recent interview, Holmquist maintained the com- mission was working within its rights. She doesn’t believe the letters needed to go on the agenda because the board is a “representative form of government. We represent our con- stituents.” After all, Holmquist and Mitchell are elected of- ficials.
Krueger countered that whether sending a letter or pass- ing new laws, “it must be on the agenda when decisions on the commission are made.”
Legalities aside, let’s take a look at what these bills are all about.
SB 262, which Holmquist and Mitchell oppose, is the controversial Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes wa- ter compact. In a previous 2-1 vote, which was very public, both commissioners agreed to send a letter to lawmakers saying the compact “will be harmful to Flathead County, as well as the rest of Montana and neighboring states.” The most recent letter simply reiterated that.
The pair’s support for House Bill 496, however, was news to me. The legislation would set up a task force to study the feasibility of transferring federal lands to state control. The land transfer proposal has been a point of contention for months. Supporters say the state could better manage pub- lic lands, especially for natural resource development. Op- ponents argue that it is economically unfeasible and would lead to selling off a national treasure. HB 496 has since died in committee.
The other letter of support, regarding HB 630, also in- volves water. It’s “an act generally revising water laws; re- taining state authority to allocate, administer, and protect state water resources; authorizing an interim study.”
There may be other letters, and the two commission- ers believe its well within the duly elected board’s purview to send them. Krueger does not, at least without telling the public.
But the latest dispute speaks to a larger problem among the most powerful board in Flathead County – that the com- missioners simply don’t communicate with each other. It’s one thing to send letters to the Legislature without putting them on the agenda and quite another to send them without showing them to the full commission, as Krueger claims.
If this column reads familiar, it’s because I’ve written about this issue before. Communication among our com- missioners and indeed the general public is not a new prob- lem. Previously, Holmquist claimed she hadn’t received pertinent information before a vote to fund a new Agency on Aging building.
Then there was the slope mitigation project on Whitefish Stage Road, which, after a four-year effort to get a $400,000 grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, two commissioners voted to terminate despite the county not having to pay any matching funds.
In that case, residents whose backyards have been slid- ing away and who have led the effort to pursue a grant, sued. And earlier this month a Flathead County District judge overturned the commission’s decision, calling it unconsti- tutional, and ordered the board to move forward with se- curing the money.
Regardless of the commissioners’ decision regarding the slope mitigation, the larger issue was that they really never explained why they would stop pursuing the grant. There is a persistent lack of communication that has continued far too long.
Political Maneuvering Brings Bad Bill to House Floor
On the House of Representatives Floor last week we debated SB289, otherwise known as the “Dark Money Bill.” A group of legislators used parliamen- tary maneuvers to get this bill passed and the end result will face court challenges, limit free speech and violate privacy rights.
In fact, this supposed dark money fix from Gov. Steve Bullock still allows him to raise unlimited, undisclosed corporate cash in his role as chair of the Democrat Governors Association. Bullock con- tinues to fundraise for his campaign advisors’ 501 (c)(4) group that advocates for his agenda, all with- out revealing donors. Bullock’s hypocritical actions show that this legislation is simply a self-serving ploy designed to give him an edge in his reelection campaign.
The bill and its journey is a reflection of what hardworking, honest Montanans don’t like about politics. It was crafted by the governor’s attorney in conjunction with a handful of legislators to benefit their individual campaigns.
The bill was removed from the speaker’s desk before he had a chance to assign it to a committee and was then voted into a committee, which has nothing to do with election law and is made up of several of the legislators who are working with the governor. But when the governor realized that some amendments he didn’t like would be placed on the bill in committee he teamed up with House Demo- crats and used one of the six silver bullets to “blast” the bill from the committee to the House Floor.
This does two things – it strips all amendments off, and requires only a simple majority to pass. Exactly what the governor wanted.
This bill is in terrible shape and desperate- ly needs to be amended – work that a committee would generally do. However, since this bill did not follow the normal process we spent almost two hours on the House floor trying to amend and im- prove the bill. Sixteen amendments were presented and only one passed. Most amendments failed on a 49 to 51 vote with 10 Republicans who cut a deal with the governor joining the 41 Democrats.
Even more amendments were prepared that could have improved the “Dark Money Bill” but it was obvious that the deal had been made and no matter how good an amendment was it would not be accepted.
One of my final amendments would have no lon- ger allowed political candidates or political com- mittees to call you at home if you are on a state or federal do not call list. Most Montanans I talk with do not want to receive these unwanted phone calls interrupting their personal time at home. So the next time you receive a political call you can thank those 51 legislators (10 Republicans and 41 Demo- crats) who believe that their ability to get elected and to play backroom politics is more important than your personal privacy at home.
Greg Hertz is a Republican representative from Polson.