Yesterday a reader commenting on the "Cotter, trial lawyers, and money" story asked:

"Didn't the trial lawyer from Billings, Cliff Clint(?) Edwards set up some sort of special PAC in the past in order to pour a lot of his own money into some of these judge races? I don't remember ever seeing a good explanation of how that could happen."

We figured the answer to that warranted a stand alone-post for an answer.

The PAC that this person is thinking of is actually the Montana Trial Lawyers Association PAC, called the Montana Law PAC - the same one referenced in the Cotter story from yesterday.  I don't have numbers handy this morning on contributors to the MT Law PAC for 2000, but I do have their 2004 campaign finance reports, and these figures should raise some eyebrows.  Their major 2004 contributors include:
Alexander Blewett, Great Falls, $20,000
Cliff Edwards, Billings, $50,000
James Hunt, Helena, $10,240
Gene Jarussi, Billings, $10,240
L. Randall Bishop, Billings, $10,226
Tom Lewis, Great Falls, $10,000
Peter Meloy, Helena, $10,185
David Paoli, Missoula, $10,229
J. David Slovak, Great Falls, $10,240

These nine individuals accounted for $141,360 of the total $337,859 that the trial lawyers raised in 2004.  Incidentally, you'll likely find most of their names on some major plaintiff's cases that have come before the Montana Supreme Court in recent years.  Most of that money, $308,171 was spent on independent expenditures on behalf of Judge Jim Nelson.  To put that in perspective, Nelson's re-election campaign raised only $231,790.  The Trial Lawyers actually spent more to get Jim Nelson elected than he did himself!  (To be fair, a conservative PAC, Montanans for Justice, was set up to help challenger Cindy Younkin, but that PAC raised only $39,850.)

To answer the second part of the question, Montana campaign finance laws allow unlimited contributions from individuals to PACs.  And PACs are allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money on expenditures for candidates as long as there is no coordination with the candidate.

This campaign finance system should work as long as contributions and expenditures are reported and the public has easy access to the information.  If an individual wants to spend $50,000 to help a candidate get elected, he should have the right to do it...but the public needs to know about it, and that's where the Montana press is failing us.  Contributing $50,000 to a PAC is a big deal.  Cliff Edwards knew exactly how his money was going to be spent.  And Jim Nelson knows exactly where that $50,000 that helped him get elected came from.  But the most important people, the voters, had no clue what was going down.

When large sums of money are being tossed around like that, the only safeguard we have is public scrutiny.  A search of the Billings Gazette archives yielded no stories on the huge sums of trial lawyer money connected to Jim Nelson's re-election (if you can find such a story, please set me straight).  It's accurate to say that the trial lawyer's "bought" Jim Nelson's election in 2004, and Chuck Johnson, Mike Dennison, et al turned a blind eye.

The frustrating part is that we know these reporters have it in them to write these kinds of stories.  Remember in 2006 when Mike Dennison pressed hard to find the funding source for the Montananas in Action campaign?  That was a good bit of investigative journalism.  The only difference I can think of between the Montana Law PAC and Montanans in Action is that the former is a liberal group and the latter was a conservative group - yes, that old charge of liberal media bias rears its ugly head. 

Let's hope they can do better in 2008 when the trial lawyers attempt to buy another term for Pat Cotter.

One of the sleeper races in the 2008 election cycle is currently the Associate Supreme Court Justice seat currently held by Judge Particia Cotter. Typicall, Supreme Court races fly under the radar of most voters in Montana, but this cycle it looks like a real donnybrook could be brewing.

Cotter's vulnerability is her leftist record on the bench. She has consistently sided with liberal special interest groups well outside the bounds of mainstream Montana. For instance, of the six Montana Supreme Court cases where the ACLU filed an amicus brief during Cotter's tenure on the court, she agreed with the ACLU's position five times (see below for a list of cases referenced).

Her record with the Montana Trial Lawyers Association (MTLA) is even worse. Of the twenty MT SupCo cases that MTLA filed an amicus brief, Cotter supported their position 17 times. (see below for a list of cases referenced.)

Don't let Cotter's allegience to MTLA shock you too much. During her 2000 race, MTLA's PAC spent $102,543 in independnet expenditures to help get her elected - that's not the money she received from trial lawyers directly, that's just the money expended directly out of the MTLA PAC. Click here for an accounting of the MTLA PAC expenditures.

We don't have numbers on the legal fees that MTLA-member lawyers racked up for their role in these cases, but one has to imagine that the return on the $100,000 Cotter investment was well worth the effort. Expect them to be prepared to make a major investment in buying this seat in 2008 as well.

American Civil Liberties Union :

Highlands Golf Club v. Ashmore, 2002 MT 8 – Amicus brief from ACLU, Cotter signed favorable opinion

State v. Logan, 2002 MT 206 – Amicus brief from ACLU, Cotter signed favorable opinion

State v. Mount, 2003 MT 275 – Amicus brief from ACLU, Cotter signed unfavorable opinion

Wheat v. Brown , 2004 MT 33, ACLU supported Wheat, et. al., Cotter signed favorable opinion

Snetsinger v. Montana University System, 325 Mont. 148 – Amicus brief from ACLU, Cotter signed favorable opinion

Matter of T.L.S., 2006 MT 262 – Amicus brief from ACLU, Cotter signed favorable opinion

Montana Trial Lawyers Association:

Swanson v. Hartford Insurance , 2002 MT 81 – Amicus brief from Montana Trial Lawyers, Cotter wrote favorable opinion*

Kloss v. Edward D. Jones & Co ., 2002 MT 129 – Amicus brief from Montana Trial Lawyers, Cotter signed favorable opinion

Dorwart v. Caraway , 2002 MT 240 – Amicus brief from Montana Trial Lawyers, Cotter signed favorable opinion

Stavenjord v. Montana State Fund , 2003 MT 67 – Amicus brief from Montana Trial Lawyers, Cotter signed favorable opinion

Hardy v. Progressive Specialty Insurance , 2003 MT 85 – Amicus brief from Montana Trial Lawyers, Cotter signed favorable opinion

Trustees of Indiana University v. Buxbaum , 2003 MT 97 – Amicus brief from Montana Trial Lawyers, Cotter signed favorable opinion

Lane v. Montana Fourth Judicial District , 2003 MT 130 – Amicus brief from Montana Trial Lawyers, Cotter signed favorable opinion

Wild v. Fregein Construction , 2003 MT 115 – Amicus brief from Montana Trial Lawyers, Cotter signed favorable opinion

Shilhanek v. D-2 Trucking, Inc. , 2003 MT 122 - Amicus brief from Montana Trial Lawyers, Cotter wrote favorable opinion that supported half of the amicus*

Christofferson v. City of Great Falls , 2003 MT 189 – Amicus brief from Montana Trial Lawyers, Cotter wrote unfavorable opinion*

Hiett v. Missoula County Public Schools , 2003 MT 213 – Amicus brief from Montana Trial Lawyers, Cotter wrote favorable opinion*

Dambrowski v. Champion Int’l Co rp., 2003 MT 233 – Amicus brief from Montana Trial Lawyers, Cotter wrote favorable dissent*

Graf v. Continental Western Ins. Co ., 2004 MT 105 – Amicus brief from Montana Trial Lawyers, Cotter signed favorable opinion

Orr v. State, 2004 MT 354 – Amicus brief from Montana Trial Lawyers, Cotter wrote favorable opinion*

Reesor v. Montana State Fund , 2004 MT 370 – Amicus brief from Montana Trial Lawyers, Cotter wrote favorable opinion*

Dempsey v. Allstate Insurance Co ., 2004 MT 391 – Amicus brief from Montana Trial Lawyers, Cotter wrote favorable opinion*

Carter v. Mississippi Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. , 2005 MT 74 – Amicus brief from Montana Trial Lawyers, Cotter wrote unfavorable opinion*

Frontline v. American Economy, 2006 MT 344 – Amicus brief from Montana Trial Lawyers, Cotter wrote favorable opinion*

Seltzer v. Morton , 2007 MT 62 - Amicus brief from Montana Trial Lawyers, Cotter signed unfavorable opinion

Sunburst v. Texaco, 2007 MT 183 – Amicus brief from Montana Trial Lawyers, Cotter signed favorable dissenting opinion

An Associated Press story carried by the Bozeman Daily Chronicle today has some interesting spin from the gov's office on who's to blame for spending cuts for fire suppression. The story finishes with this: "(Budget Director Dave) Ewer said he thinks lawmakers should remember that Schweitzer asked to have more money on hand to fight fires, a task that appears to be getting increasingly expensive for the state.  The measure, carried by a Republican, died in the GOP-led House."

The big question is, why are we even pointing fingers?  The legislature has historically not funded fire suppression to the extent needed because it's impossible to forecast exactly how much money will be necessary.  The usual method for funding fire fighting is to "borrow" money out of agency budgets, primarily DNRC, and pay the agency back later through supplemental appropriations.  But this governor smells blood in the water and he just can't resist playing partisan games.

Since he brought it up, let's talk about who cut fire suppression funding.

There were two stand-alone bills to increase funding for fire fighting, both sponsored by Republicans.  The first, HB 66 by Rep. Ray Hawk would have established a fund for fire suppression costs set at $25 million using state and federal money.  The second, HB 150 by Rep. Jack Ross, would have increased the Governor's Emergency fund to $25 million, but it was not earmarked for fires, which is part of why it was killed.

Both these bills found themselves on the scrap pile because House Republicans preferred to fund firefighting costs through the main budget bill, HB 2.  Republican Rep. Rick Ripley amended HB 2 to add $10 million for firefighting costs.  When that bill reached the Senate, Democrat Senator Dave Wanzenried amended out the $10 million for firefighting and reallocated $9.8 million to the Dept. of Revenue and $0.2 million to the Historical Society.  Here's a copy of the Wanzenried amendment.

Again, this whole blame game is pointless in our book, but since Schweitzer started the spin on it and wrongly accused Republicans of cutting fire suppression costs, we thought we'd set the record straight.  What's really going on here is that Gov. Schweitzer is gearing up for a special legislative session to pay the bills for this year's wildfires, and he's trying to set the stage to blame Republicans for not funding fire fighting.  We think there's no blame to spread around in this case since this legislature treated fire funding in the historic method.  We just hope the Montana media gets it right this time and recognizes the gov's blatant partisan attitude for what it is.

Everybody needs to have a catchy tag line.  For the Montana Democratic Party, their current tag line featured on their web site is "Montana's on the move."  That's pretty good.  So good that the Governor's Office of Economic Development has picked it up and is using it on official state documents. 

Now there's nothing wrong with a little copy-catting, but usually public officials try to keep their politicing a little bit more separated from their governing.  Gov. Schweitzer changed all that by turning his administration into the most partisan office since the days of William Andrews Clark.  He got one thing right, it really is a new day in Montana.

There's no need to reiterate the news accounts of the newest Hollywood movie to be filmed in Montana.  Suffice it to say, the tax incentives implemented by Gov. Schweitzer and the legislature are having a positive effect on attracting film companies to Montana.  And thanks to the Gov's diligence in making sure every single Montana film project is promoted to the utmost in the Montana media, we have plenty of data to prove that these tax incentives work.

So why has the Gov been so adamant in opposing tax incentives for most other Montana industries?  During the last session, the Gov opposed (and Democrats killed) proposals to cut property taxes for Montana businesses and to cut the business equipment tax.  Meanwhile, Montana slipped to 42nd in the nation in Forbes magazine's "Best States for Business" rankings.

Having Hollywood make movies in Montana sure does feel good, but it doesn't do much for the average Montana family.  Our tax and regulatory environments are putting Montana at a severe disadvantage in new business development.  If tax incentives are good for movies, then the should be good for everything else.

A press release from the state Department of Revenue yesterday took an interesting take on the term "tax relief."  Under the title, "Owner of fire-impacted property, forestlands may qualify for tax relief," the release quotes Gov. Schweitzer saying, "Our hearts go out to those Montanans whose homes, lands, and other property have been damaged or destroyed by this year's wildfires.  We want them to know that we can provide some relief on their upcoming property tax bill."

The release goes on, "A property owner whose home or outbuildings were partially or totally destroyed by wildfire, rendering the property unsuitable for its previous use, may be eligible for property tax relief.  The tax relief is prorated on the number of days in the tax year that the property was unusable....Property owners must complete Form AB-25 to apply for the property tax relief.  Property owners are encouraged to complete the application form by the end of the year, to ensure that the property's taxable value can be adjusted for the next tax billing cycle."

Duh.  If your property burns up, it doesn't have the value that it did in its original form, thus you don't owe as much tax on it.  But can you really call that "relief"?  The usual connotation of tax relief is a reduction in taxes owed.  In this case those taxes aren't owed because the property was destroyed or damaged.

Alerting taxpayers to the fact that they must complete a form to ensure that they won't be taxed on the original value of the property is a good thing.  But the Gov shouldn't pretend that he's doing anyone a favor here; his claim that this is "relief" is patently disingenuous. 

This remind us of last year when the Gov claimed that he cut taxes on "16,000 small businesses" when what he actually did was increase the overall business equipment tax for most Montana businesses.  It all just goes to show that with this governor, the rhetoric usually doesn't match reality.

The election audit released by the Legislative Audit Division revealed that much more needs to be done to protect the integrity of elections in Montana.  Not surprisingly, no fraud was detected by this audit.  However, if you didn't get caught cheating on Election Day, you're not going to get caught by an audit months later.

There are always reports of questionable activities that go on on Election Day, but the frustrating part of election fraud is that it's very difficult to prove.  The advantages lie with the cheaters, not the regulators.  Unfortunately, some involved in party politics have an attitude that election fraud as a game, and it's not wrong unless you get caught.

Kudos to Secretary of State Brad Johnson, who has been an advocate for measures that will protect the election process.  Democrats have been very aggressive in recent years in attempting to weakening Montana election laws and some fear an ulterior motive in these attempts is to help facilitate additional election cheating.  It just goes to show why it is so important for Montana to have a strong Secretary of State who puts election integrity as a top priority.

On Tuesday of this week, The Helena IR put out this editorial highlighting the perceived conflict between the Montana Department of Revenue and business organizations.  The IR is notorious for blindly following where the gov leads them, but usually they stick to the general facts.  Not this time, unfortunately.

The IR writes, "Just last week a war of words erupted between the Montana Taxpayers Association and Revenue Director Dan Bucks over a multi-state pact giving people who owe out-of-state taxes a break on penalties and interest if they voluntarily agree to pay up." It is true that MonTax and Bucks had a very public disagreement last week, but it wasn't about the merits of the Voluntary Compliance Issue.  The "war of words" was about the sneaky, misleading method that Bucks used to initiate the program.  In fact, MonTax supports the VCI program.  The way that the IR presents this issue, they'd have you believe that MonTax is the bad guy when in reality, Dan Bucks is the only one to have done anything wrong.

The IR continues, "All this angst is mysterious to most Democrats, who wonder what's wrong with getting people to pay taxes they rightfully owe."  It's obvious from that statement that the IR editorial board has a very poor understanding of what the so-called "tax cheaters" legislation actually does.  DOR already has the tools they need to track down people who owe taxes; they've demonstrated time and again that they know exactly who falls into the non-compliance categories.  The truth is that this legislation would have made it more difficult and expensive for ALL Montana taxpayers to file their taxes.  That's exactly what opponents to the legislation have said from day one.  It's a mystery why the IR continues to ignore this fact.

The IR also presents this issue as pitting Republicans against Democrats.  In fact, the opposition to this bill was bi-partisan.  Senator Kim Gillan (D-Billings) led the effort in the Senate to amend-out some of the more objectionable aspects that it contained.

And finally, the IR had this gem, "Sometimes, the answer to whether strengthening the state's ability to collect taxes is a common-sense goal or a sinister power grab may lie in the size of the beholder's net worth."  Again, this legislation would have affected EVERY taxpayer in the state.  There was nothing in the bill that specified certain income levels, nor did the bill exclude Montanans - a lie that Dan Bucks continues to spread.  This statement from the IR is just a blatant, ugly attempt to induce class warfare, and it has no place on a editorial page.

 

Governor Schweitzer's new multi-million dollar "blue collar" mansion on Georgetown Lake is a perfect example of one type of growth that radical environmentalists tried to shut down during the last legislative session.  What's interesting, though, is that the Schweitzer administration actually supported the so-called "streamside setback" legislation that would have prohibited his home from being built.  Are we the only ones that see a little bit of hypocrisy in supporting bans on certain types of building near bodies of water during the legislative session, and then buying a huge mansion next to a lake just a few months later?

The bill in question, SB 345, ended up in a version that would have applied only to major rivers in Montana, but an early plan also included reservoirs and lakes.  This bill would have prohibited building within 250 feet of the body of water; judging by the photo included in the Great Falls Tribune article (linked above) it appears that the Schweitzer residence would fall inside this limit.  The bill also requires a "vegetation buffer" within 100 feet of the water; that means no walking path, no law, no out buildings, etc. within that limit.

The bill failed on a 20-30 vote in the Senate, but not before Schweitzer's chief policy advisor Hal Harper showed up in committee as a proponent of the measure.   We're left wondering if BS's supporters in the leftist environmental community are at all concerned about the gov's double-standard on streamside setbacks. 

Just one more example of the gov's tendency to practice "do as I say, not as I do."

We came across this great press release from the Montana Republican Party this morning:

Schweitzer Administration Is All Talk, No Action On Energy Development
Another Missed Opportunity Points To Schweitzer’s Anti-Business Policies

Helena, MT: The Montana Republican Party (MT GOP) today urged Governor Brian Schweitzer, who claims to be pro-jobs and pro-business, to work to produce real results for Montana in terms of energy development and small business issues. Specifically, the MT GOP pointed to a recent announcement that Montana missed yet another opportunity to create jobs through energy development. Late last week, Westmoreland Power notified state regulators in North Dakota of its plans to build a 500-megawatt power plant just across the Montana border in Southwestern North Dakota, leaving Montanans asking why the Treasure State wasn’t selected. According to the MT GOP, this development points to a growing problem in Big Sky Country, and one that several top business groups are talking about. Namely, Montana simply isn’t a friendly place to do business and that it's becoming increasingly clear that Governor Brian Schweitzer's administration is a big part of the problem.

"Unfortunately for Montana's working families, Governor Schweitzer's rhetoric doesn't match his record when it comes to energy development,” said Montana Republican Party Chairman Erik Iverson. “Montanans want results when it comes to creating jobs and developing our economy. Instead what we're getting from Helena is a bunch of hollow promises. When a respected group like the Montana Chamber of Commerce gave Governor Schweitzer a zero rating on business issues, that's a strong indicator his policies are just plain bad for small business."

Iverson pointed to legislative testimony by Evan Barrett, the Governor’s chief economic development officer, who spoke strongly in opposition to HB405 – a bill designed to increase natural resource development and low cost energy. According to the Montana Chamber of Commerce, the bill was designed to “remove procedural barriers to new energy projects without lowering environmental standards” (MT Chamber 2007 Voting Review, pg 17). This legislation, according to the MT GOP, is exactly the kind of measure likely to encourage companies like Westmoreland to look to Montana as a place to do business. In addition, an Associated Press article reported that groups who seek to halt development, “are finding allies in state agencies under Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer.” (Billings Gazette, 8-6-07, http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/08/06/news/state/24-grouse.txt )

Iverson also noted a recent analysis by Forbes Magazine that showed over the last year Montana has dropped from 38th to 42nd in its ranking of the best states in which to do business. Even more disturbing is Montana’s ranking when it comes to our regulatory climate, where Forbes listed Montana as the fourth worst state in terms of burdensome government regulatory hurdles. In contrast, Forbes ranked North Dakota as the 9th best state in which to do business, and rated it 16th best in terms of regulatory climate.

“We need more good paying jobs in Montana, and to do that we've got to foster a regulatory environment that's small business friendly,” said Iverson. "Instead of fixing the problems outlined by the Montana Chamber and Forbes Magazine, Governor Schweitzer only seems interested in talking about economic development. Montana needs a workhorse in the Governor's office, not a showhorse."