The monthly reminder - let's please keep our comments relevant to the original post. Baseless personal attacks against Erik Iverson or Denny Rehberg will be removed.

Let me see if I've got this right... Art Noonan is a PAID staffer for the Montana Democrat Party as well as an elected (and monetarily compensated) official of the State of Montana and Mr. Harper doesn't see that as any kind of conflict worth mentioning?????? I guess I have a big problem with an elected representative being not only ideologically aligned with his party of choice, but financially dependent on said party. All republicans in Mr. Noonan's district can be comfortable in knowing that their representative is being paid to ignore their concerns and interests. Disgusting.

There's a clear difference... Art Noonan's is paid by taxpayers roughly $17,000 dollars for 90-some-odd days every two years to serve in the legislature. Erik Iverson is paid A PREMIUM (according to Legistorm, more than any House or Senate chief of staff in the 5 state area) to do a job that any politico knows is a more than a full-time job, yet he somehow spends a good chunk of time in the state "volunteering." I think that in the interest of the taxpayers who foot his $160,000 annual salary, he should publicly disclose exactly how much volunteering he does.

Clearwater - please check your facts - Jim Messina (Baucus's chief of staff) is paid more than Erik Iverson.

Regardless, you're getting off topic. The point isn't a comparison of how much someone makes, it's that a "reporter" with the Missoula Independent outright ignored basic facts in this story.

And you've got it completely backwards - Erik Iverson's role as chairman of the MT GOP is far from a job - in fact I can think of half a dozen of examples of Republican and Democrat state party chairs who've held down a full-time job in addition to being party chair. Erik Iverson is no different. By contrast, Art Noonan is being paid by the state Democratic Party to work a full-time job in Helena while he ignores his legislative district in Butte.

Let's leave the class warfare out of this and look at the situation objectively.

We don't have a professional legislature in Montana. Nearly every serving member (save for the retired) holds down a full-time job. At any given time Jim Messina is likely managing a staff twice the size that of Rep. Rehberg's office... He earns his pay. If he started showing up at every press hit in the state for the Dems, I'd once again question how well our tax dollars were being spent.

Ok - this comment is likely taking this topic down a different path for a bit - but Clearwater raises a couple of points that need further discussion.

First: "At any given time Jim Messina is likely managing a staff twice the size that of Rep. Rehberg's office..." Why - given that Montana has TWO senators - should Baucus have twice the staff of the ONE representative for the state? Perhaps the question of spending tax dollars might be better focused on Baucus/Messina.

Second: I've been watching Iverson in action. The man is pretty incredible - he can accomplish more in 10 minutes than most people get done in 10 days!!! Seems to me that the taxpayers of Montana are getting a huge bargain for the money on that deal.

Now to get back to the point of the post: It is exactly that Montana does not have a "professional" legislature that causes the disconnect noted here. The citizens of HD 73 are represented by a professional, full-time, paid partisan politician and the press doesn't see that as an issue.

One note Auntie Lib:

Senate offices are in nearly every case much larger (in terms of employees) than their state's congressional counterparts. Couple that with Max's leadership position and you've suddenly got a large, dynamic office. Perhaps Denny could issue another proclamation or something similar and pick up another part-timer to "volunteer" for the GOP.

And your point would be???? I fail to see where the comparative size of senate v congressional office staffing in other states justifies Messina's salary. I submit that as taxpayers we are getting a bargain with Erik Iverson and - based on the information you've offered here - we're probably getting hosed by Max and an unnecessarily bloated senate staff.

Oh, yeah - I forgot - Max's leadership position - where all those out-of-state corporate lobbyists feel compelled to donate huge sums to insure his re-election - certainly that justifies Max spending more taxpayer funds to have a bigger more highly compensated staff.

Carter - perhaps you could jump in here - how many of Max's big donors have vested interests in Montana?

According to the Billings Gazette 91% of the money Baucus has raised has come from outside Montana.
http://billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/01/16/news/state/25-baucus.txt

According to Open Secrets, 55% of the money he's raised has come from PACs.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?CID=N00004643&cycle=2008

Personally, I've got nothing wrong with Max raising money from outside Montana and from PACs. What bothers me is the self righteous attitude from Montana Democrats who buy into Brian Schwetizer's line about PAC money and out-of-state money and special-interest money being so evil. Schweitzer's a complete hypocrite on the subject (ask any of the lobbyists he shook down for the Governor's Ball) and a lot of Montana Democrats conveniently look the other way.

Right on Carter - "lobbyist" is not a four-letter word!

But BS and the Montana Dems beat Conrad over the head with that bat in 2006 and now it seems to me that since they picked the weapon, turn about is fair play. I believe a little exposure vis a vis where the money comes from and how Max voted on certain bills is well within the bounds of fair play. As constituents we have a right to know that our interests take priority with our Senator over some group from New York City.

Carter -

Could you please drop me an email at the address in your comment file? I have a couple of things I'd like to discuss with you.

Thanks,

Ken