This leaves the door open for Democrat Brian Schweitzer to step through, and also leaves leadership of the Senate Finance Committee up in the air, assuming Democrats hold onto their majority in 2014.

As usual, the mainstream outlets like ABC News have framed this as a terrible, terrible thing for Democrats.

Baucus, who has served in the Senate for 36 years, intends to make his announcement this afternoon. The decision surprised - and angered - some Democrats, given his vote last week against expanding background checks in the gun debate - a top priority of President Obama.

Of course, Harry Reid could simply bring up the bill again if he chose to, and Baucus could now change his vote to one that appeared principled, even if it's just for appearances.

Here's why I'm doing the happy dance: Obamacare. Max Baucus did everything he possibly could to make sure the Affordable Care Act was as complex as could be. When he was done making it complex and delaying the meaningful provisions for four years, he had the nerve to dress down Kathleen Sibelius last week for it being a "train wreck."

Just for review, the House sent over a bill that had national insurance exchanges, not state-based. Their bill had a public option, it had better rate bands and it had a more coherent effective date schedule. After Baucus sat on it as long as he could, he rolled out a bill that ultimately became law which included state-based exchanges, less favorable rate bands, and then opposed all efforts to negotiate drug prices.

I'm grateful the Affordable Care Act passed. But for him to sit in a committee hearing and dress down the people tasked with actually implementing it without giving so much as a wink and a nod to the insurers who are using every last loophole HE wrote into it to make it unnecessarily complex? It's classic Baucus and it's why I'm glad he's leaving.

See ya on the other side, Max. I'm sure Big pHRMA has a nice warm seat waiting for you.

DOWNLOADS: (312)

PLAYS: (6515)

Embed

In all of the smoke and mirrors and true protests and political posturing over the Keystone XL Pipeline, one of the least-reported issues has been the conflict between the state of Nebraska and the United States government.

That debate has not yet been settled, as Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer patiently explains to an incredulous, disbelieving Neil Cavuto.

Back in October, Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman called a special session of the state legislature. The purpose of the session was to discuss the Keystone XL Pipeline route through the state and whether the state should exercise its right to withhold approval of the route through Nebraska, since it seemed apparent at that time that the State Department was moving toward approval before the end of 2011. Since Heineman couldn't be certain that the Obama Adminstration would delay their decision, Nebraska chose to exercise their rights to block, or at the very least, delay, approval of the pipeline.

Two bills were passed as a result of that special session. The first is the Major Pipeline Siting Act, which requires pipeline owners to submit their plan to the state for approval. From the Nebraska legislature, this explanation:

LB 1 adopts the Major Oil Pipeline Siting Act, which sets out a procedure for pipeline carriers to follow. An application must be approved by the Public Service Commission prior to beginning construction of a major oil pipeline in Nebraska. One or more public hearings would be held. In making the decision as to whether the pipeline is in the public interest, the Commission can evaluate evidence of the impact due to intrusion upon natural resources, including evidence regarding the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of land areas and connected natural resources and the depletion of beneficial uses of the natural resources. The Commission can also evaluate the reports submitted by related agencies, as well as the views of the governing bodies of the counties and cities in the area of the proposed route. The Commission is preempted by federal law from looking at safety issues when making their decision. Furthermore, LB 1 requires the approval of an application prior to the use of eminent domain.

Continue reading »

The Montana Supreme Court issued a ruling last week that could possibly cause a Supreme Court challenge to the Citizens United decision. In a 2-1 decision, the court barred corporations in Montana from making contributions to campaigns.

Via SCOTUSblog:

The Montana majority, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Mike McGrath, said that a closely similar ban could withstand the Citizens United ruling because the Supreme Court had left open the possibility that a “compelling interest” would allow such a measure, and the majority found that interest in Montana’s past history and its present economic and political climate. Corporations are more likely to have corrupting influence with their political spending in Montana, the majority said, because it is a small state, its economy still depends upon outside corporate interests, and its political campaigns are not very expensive so they do not bring out heavy donations by individuals to compete with vast corporate treasuries.

The dissenters, the majority noted, had interpreted the Citizens United ruling as declaring “unequivocally that no sufficient government interest justifies limits on political speech.” Disagreeing, the majority said that the decision put a burden upon government to show that such a restriction satisfies a “compelling state interest.” It concluded: “Here the government met that burden.”

The McGrath opinion provided a vivid chronicle of the days in Montana’s past when the so-called “Copper Kings” bought and sold politicians and judges in the way that other people buy and sell consumer goods (a comparison that the majority attributed to Mark Twain). It noted that the states’ voters had had enough of that corruption, so they used their newly acquired initiative power in 1912 to pass the ban on corporate political spending.

I am in the process of reading through the ruling (found here). It's a fascinating read, walking through the history of mining and other industries in Montana. It emphasizes Montana's unique history, where outside corporations came in and transferred resources out of the state, courtesy of the politicians they bought.

The primary legal challenge is to the premise of the Citizens United ruling which suggests corporate influence in politics does not directly correlate to corruption. While I haven't read through everything yet, it seems clear that the Montana court was striking at the core of Citizens United with the strength of their unique history behind it.

It remains to be seen whether a challenge will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court or they'll just summarily strike it down. Stay tuned.

DOWNLOADS: (1378)

PLAYS: (2053)

Embed

[From KTVQ-TV.]

That horrifying oil spill on the Yellowstone River in Montana is bad enough. But of course, Exxon/Mobil officials had to go and make it worse by minimizing the damage done to the river and making only the most tepid of cleanup responses:

An oil spill in Montana's Yellowstone River surged toward North Dakota on Sunday as outraged residents demanded more government oversight of Exxon Mobil's cleanup.

An estimated 750 to 1,000 barrels, or up to 42,000 gallons, spilled overnight Friday through a damaged pipeline in the riverbed, Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers said. The break near Billings could be related to the river's high water level, officials said.

More than 100 people were working on the cleanup late Sunday, Jeffers said. But local officials said that, because of the raging floodwaters, only a handful of crews were laying absorbent pads and booms to trap oil along short stretches of the river between Billings and Laurel. In some areas, residents said, oil may be flowing underneath the booms and continuing downstream in the murky water.

Jeffers said most of the oil was believed to be within 10 miles of the spill site, and Exxon crews were flying over the area late Sunday to assess how far it had spread.

But Montana's governor disputed the estimate.

"Nobody can say definitively," Gov. Brian Schweitzer said. "It's too early. We need boats on the water," not only flyovers. Boats were potentially unsafe because of the high water, however.

Montanans don't let just anyone mess around with their rivers. After all, this is A River Runs Through It country, and every summer the state's blue-ribbon trout streams draw a steady stream of fly fishermen who spend lots of tourist dollars. It's a big moneymaking industry -- maybe bigger than oil in the state.

As the story observes:

Oil was reported as far as 100 miles away near the town of Hysham, Yellowstone County Commissioner Bill Kennedy said.

Although the spill is downstream from Yellowstone National Park and the fertile Yellowstone fly-fishing grounds frequented by tourists, some officials worried about harm to the industry that draws 11 million annual tourists a year to a state with a population of 980,000.

"We take our rivers very seriously here in Montana," said Schweitzer, a soil scientist who planned to visit the spill site Tuesday. "We will not allow this catastrophe to affect the $400 million trout industry in Montana."

Of course, Exxon Mobil officials claimed there had been no sign of harmed wildlife so far:

UPDATE 7 a.m.: Gov. Brian Schweitzer says statements from ExxonMobil officials that no injured wildlife had been found were premature.

"For somebody to say at this early stage that there's no damage to wildlife, that's pretty silly," Schweitzer told the Associated Press on Saturday. "The Yellowstone River is important to us. We've got to have a physical inspection of that river in small boats — and soon."

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (293)

PLAYS: (1047)

Embed

Militiamen are really a bunch of bad pennies who just keep popping back up:

LOLO - A former militia leader who went on the run Sunday after allegedly shooting at Missoula County sheriff's deputies seems well-equipped for a long sojourn in the woods, given the caches of weapons, food and gear already discovered, Undersheriff Mike Dominick said Monday.

Some 65 county, city, state and federal authorities combed a 30-square-mile area west of Lolo on Monday for David Burgert, who once led Project 7, a Flathead County militia group accused of plotting to assassinate judges and law enforcement officers in hopes of provoking a war with the federal government and NATO.

Burgert holds intense anti-government views, and has survivalist skills, Dominick said.

"He has that type of mentality where he believes in training, in preparation," he said. "... This guy seems to have had a plan."

Authorities discovered ammunition in the Jeep Cherokee in which Burgert originally fled on Sunday and also located a second car, loaded with ammunition, food and camping gear, that they believe belongs to Burgert. They're searching for yet another that Dominick described as a tan or red Jeep Wagoneer-type vehicle dating to the 1980s.

I reported on Burgert's original spree back when it happened:

Kalispell made the news last year when a militia outfit called Project 7 was broken up by local police. Its leader, a 38-year-old named David Burgert, was arrested for jumping bail on an earlier conviction for assaulting an officer and resisting arrest; when captured, officers uncovered him in possession of an arms cache of about 30 weapons and some 30,000 rounds of ammo.66

What was even more disturbing was the simultaneous discovery of his plans for this materiel: To run amok in a killing spree against local authorities. Burgert had organized a team of about 10 people to target some 26 city and county officials, including some of those same police officials, mayors and judges who came out for the potluck last summer.

Burgert, who received support from the usual far-right suspects, eventually pleaded guilty to federal firearms charges in the case, and faces a maximum 10-year prison term when he's sentenced in September. But no one has ever been charged in the alleged conspiracy, partly because any evidence that the plot extended much beyond Burgert's fantasies was not very strong. He has countered by filing a lawsuit against the FBI and Montana's state Division of Criminal Investigation.

Of course, we've been reporting for quite some time now that the Patriot movement of the 1990s is fully resurgent in 2011, thanks in large part to its close associations with the Tea Party movement. Indeed, we've reported that places like Montana are significant hotbeds for this kind of extremist revival.

David Holthouse at Media Matters observes that Burgert's fugitive run is occurring in the context of a fully resurgent extremist right in western Montana:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (816)

PLAYS: (3281)

Embed

We've reported previously about how Republicans in Montana's Legislature, completely overrun by some of the most extremist of all the Tea Party elements, have been going nuts this session, passing a variety of bills that have been so obviously unconstitutional and frivolous (not to mention downright insane) that last week the Democratic governor felt compelled to make a very public display of his vetoes -- with a branding iron.

But the problem isn't merely with the legislation they're passing. There's also a problem with the legislation they're refusing to pass.

For instance, last month a Democrat offered up a bill that should have been uncontroversial: It would have officially repealed the state's primitive anti-homosexuality law, already long overturned by the state's Supreme Court. But no: the Tea-Partying Republicans running the House committee overseeing the bill simply killed it in the crib.

So one of those Republicans last week explained to the Missoula Independent exactly what his thinking was:

The legislature's inaction was not, it turns out, another non-priority falling off the too-long to-do list. Rather, it's homophobic lawmakers subtly suggesting that homosexual acts should still be outlawed, the Supreme Court—and equal rights in general—be damned. In fact, at least one lawmaker, Rep. Ken Peterson, R-Billings, an attorney, argues that the archaic law may still apply in certain situations.

Which situations? According to Peterson, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, there are at least two prosecutable offenses—felonies punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine. One is the "recruitment" of non-gays. "Homosexuals can't go out into the heterosexual community and try to recruit people, or try to enlist them in homosexual acts," Peterson says. He provides an example: "'Here, young man, your hormones are raging. Let's go in this bedroom, and we'll engage in some homosexual acts. You'll find you like it.'" Peterson hasn't actually seen this happen, he says, because "I don't associate with that group of people at all... I've associated with mainstream people all my life."

The other offense, in Peterson's legal opinion, is the public display of homosexuality, since he believes the Supreme Court's decision only applies to private acts behind closed doors. Being gay in public, he says, is a wholly different matter:

"In my mind, if they were engaging in acts in public that could be construed as homosexual, it would violate that statute. It has to be more than affection. It has to be overt homosexual acts of some kind or another... If kissing goes to that extent, yes. If it's more than that, yes."

He went on Billings TV a little later and defended the remarks:

Peterson says the law in question, which was ruled unconstitutional in 1997, still has merits. He says the Montana Supreme Court's decision had a narrow scope limiting prosecution only in private settings.

"I feel the law can still have some potential application," he said Friday, "I don't think it was repealed with the Grayson case, anyone that says it was repealed hasn't read the case and doesn't understand the case."

He says gays and lesbians can and should be prosecuted for overt sexual acts in public, and for "recruiting" members of the straight community.

However, he also tried to claim that he did not say something that he in fact plainly said:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (1380)

PLAYS: (2793)

Embed

Now here's a dramatic way to make a point -- Montana style:

"About 96 people think they know better than the 990,000 people in Montana," says Governor Schweitzer.

Governor Schweitzer had the veto brands hot. Covering the gamet of issues important to Montanans, Schweitzer vetoed bills having to do with air and water, jobs and healthcare.

"When I swore to uphold the constitution, I meant it. There's some in this building who say, we don't care about the constitution and we don't care about the will of the people."

Now I'm sure right-wingers will rush to their fainting couches and demand Schweitzer apologize for being so violent and uncivil with his branding imagery.

But they'll have to explain why Montana Republicans tried to keep up with Schweitzer by bringing their own brand to the gathering:

Republican Senator Jason Priest, who had three bills vetoed Wednesday, says he wasn’t impressed with the theatrics.

"Consistently throughout this session we see the Governor making light of the bills that are coming across his desk instead of taking these proposals seriously," says Priest. Priest brought a prop of his own. "That's why we got this brand today. We think Montanans are getting a bum steer and that's the BS on this brand."

And while it may have been a stunt, it was a stunt with an important point:

But Senate Democrat Cliff Larsen says the demonstration gave Schweitzer a platform to tell people about bills that could really hurt.

"The Governor used the opportunity to really make a statement about a lot of the bad bills that came through because there are a group of extremists in the Republican party that have pushed some of the agendas," says Larson.

Indeed, as we've reported, a group of far-right extremists took over the Montana Legislature this year under the banner of the Tea Party, and they've been running amok. Schweitzer torched a number of their bills today:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (354)

PLAYS: (2220)

Embed

Douglas Kennedy eagerly filed this report from the wilds of Montana this morning for Fox News, describing the exploits of a Montana Tea Party Republican legislator named Greg Hinkle, from Thompson Falls -- just coincidentally the home of the Militia of Montana ...

Hinkle is a Republican state senator from Thomson Falls, and he recently proposed a law, likely the first of its kind, asking federal law enforcement to first seek approval of county sheriffs before any federal intervention in the state of Montana. He calls it “The Sheriffs First Bill.”

“I believe that before any federal agency does any action within a county,” he explained, “they should cooperate with the sheriff, coordinate with the sheriff and go to him and say this is what we need to do in this county.”

For instance, Hinkle would want the FBI to first notify a Montana sheriff before executing a search warrant or making an arrest in the state of Montana.

At one point he allowed for arrest of any federal agent who didn’t comply, but has since taken out that language. He also reluctantly added a line that allows for federal agents to notify sheriffs “after the fact,” in order to get the bill through the Montana House of Representatives.

Nonetheless, legal observers still call Hinkle’s bill “a clear violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.”

“The federal government does not have to ask or even inform local law enforcement about what they are doing,” said James Cohen, a constitutional law professor at Fordham Law School in New York. “Sometimes they do because it’s convenient, but they do not have to.”

Hinkle points out that the bill has already passed the Montana State Senate (with the original language) and is expected to pass the House in the next couple of weeks.

He also says there’s a lot of support in Montana, a state which he says well remembers the deadly federal raids at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992 and Waco, Texas, in 1993.

Funny that a parachuting reporter would forget this, but in reality, Montanans remember even better the longest armed standoff with federal agents in history: the 81-day FBI standoff in Jordan with the Montana Freemen. (Yes, yours truly was there.) As Jim Lopach, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Montana, put it in a retrospective piece:

Lopach said the real legacy of the standoff could be that it gave people a reason to consider how far and how deep devotion to political individualism should go.

"It might be a moderating thing," he said. "It might be that they saw the dangers of extremism."

In reality, Hinkle's bill is one we've known about for awhile. It was one of a package of bills that Montana Patriot-movement leader Gary Marbut announced last September in Hamilton at a gathering I covered. (You can watch the video of Marbut describing it here.)

Tonight Marbut wants to talk about a new piece of sovereignty legislation he plans to promote in the state legislature, something he calls Sheriffs First. The bill would make it a crime in Montana for a federal officer to arrest, search or seize without advance written permission from the county sheriff, Marbut explains, to enthusiastic applause.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (622)

PLAYS: (4009)

Embed

A couple of months ago I traveled out to Montana as part of a project examining how the extremist right -- particularly the Patriot movement -- has embedded itself within the Tea Party movement, particularly on a local level in rural areas where elements of the 1990s militia movement were still lurking. This includes Hamilton, Montana.

The piece is now up at AlterNet:

"We Are at War": How Militias, Racists and Anti-Semites Found a Home in the Tea Party

Maybe it's the gun-making kits that are being raffled off as door prizes. Or maybe it's the fact that nearly everyone inside this hall at the Ravalli County Fairground is packing heat. But most of all, it's the copy of Mein Kampf sitting there on the book table, with its black-and-white swastika, sandwiched between a survivalist how-to book on food storage and a copy of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

It is obvious: This is not your ordinary Tea Party gathering.

Mind you, they don't explicitly call themselves Tea Partiers. Their official name is Celebrating Conservatism. But their mission statement is classic Tea Party -- "to restore our country, counties, and cities back to the Republic and the Constitution of the United States" -- and Celebrating Conservatism is listed as a member of the national Tea Party Patriots organization. Everyone in Hamilton, Montana -- the whole of Montana's Bitterroot Valley, for that matter -- knows them as the Tea Party's main presence in town. Once a month or so, the group holds a potluck dinner at the county fairgrounds that typically attracts a couple hundred people, which in a place like the Bitterroot is a sizeable presence.

Of course, you should read the whole thing.

To accompany your reading, you can view the above video, which I shot at the gathering as I covered it.

A big shout-out to The Nation Institute's Investigative Fund, which financed the project.

In their efforts to prove to the world that no, they really aren't riddled throughout with extremist nutcases, leaders of the Tea Party movement in Montana this week actually managed to demonstrate that, well, yes they are.

First came the comments of state Tea Party chairman Tim Ravndal on Facebook, via Montana Cowgirl:

Tim Ravndal: “Marriage is between a man and a woman period! By giving rights to those otherwise would be a violation of the constitution and my own rights”

Kieth Scranton: “How dare you exercise your First Amendment Rights?”

Dennis Scranton: “I think fruits are decorative. Hang up where they can be seen and appreciated. Call Wyoming for display instructions.”

Tim Ravndal: “@Kieth, OOPS I forgot this aint[sic] America no more! @ Dennis, Where can I get that Wyomingprinted instruction manual?”

Oops! That was too much for the now PR-conscious movement:

The president of a Montana tea party group has been kicked out of the organization for an exchange on his Facebook page that appeared to condone violence against homosexuals.

The Big Sky Tea Party Association's board of directors voted Sunday to remove Tim Ravndal from the group after members learned of the online conversation in July that began with a comment about an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit over rights for same-sex couples.

Ravndal, who was elected to the position in August, apologized over the weekend after being contacted by The Great Falls Tribune, which first reported the story. That didn't halt the board's decision.

"We continually make it known that we will not tolerate bigoted dialogue, behavior or messages at our functions, our meetings or within our ranks," chairman Jim Walker said in a statement. "If a person demonstrates bigotry relative to sex, ethnicity, etc., they are not welcome in our organization. The Tea Party movement is about standing up for individual freedom for everyone."

Well, this just infuriated Ravndal's friends and supporters -- notably Kristi Allen-Gailushas, who happens also to be the Republican nominee for a state legislative seat:

Kristi Allen-Gailushas, secretary of the Big Sky Tea Party Association and Republican nominee for a Helena-area legislative seat, is quitting the group following its removal of president Tim Ravndal for anti-gay comments made on his Facebook page.

Continue reading »