Jon Tester owes his election to some big money that came out of unknown places for a final slam before election day. The mis-named League of Conservation Voters ran a series of ads, really effective ones, urging voters to support Libertarian Dan Cox.
Cox’s support swelled from one percent to over 6 per cent, and that was enough to put Tester over the hump. It was a maneuver that even Max Baucus, the ultimate last-minute campaign snatcher, had to admire.
Where did the money come from? A group calling itself Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership Fund fronted for the donor(s), and that money was funneled through the “League of Conservation Voters,” a group that has long backed anti-environment Democrats.
Jon Tester has been ineffective so far in advancing his “Forest Jobs and Recreation Act,” a timber lobby-backed bill that would be a death knell for Montana’s remaining roadless lands. Developers and roadless backers have long been stalemated, a good thing. But lack of formal roadless designation meant that the lands were always in a precarious state. Tester is but the latest senator to attack them.
Tester’s bill was bottled up in committee by new Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman. With Bingaman’s retirement (probably to be replaced by Oregon’s Ron Wyden, another timber lobby man) there is little to stop the bill except resistance from grassroots groups in Montana.
Below are some comments by Tyler Evilsizer, a Montana Democrat and Tester supporter. I drew the comments from various posts at Intelligent Discontent, and do so not to single out Tyler, a bright young man who is soon to complete his schooling at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, but rather to highlight a mindset that embraces corruption when it serves party interests. The first set of quotes are in response to the funneling of $500,000 to Montana Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Hill from the Republican National Committee, real sources unknown:
- Accepting the $500,000 was both an ethical lapse and a strategic blunder for Hill. Was the campaign so cash-strapped that they needed to turn to anonymous (likely out-of-state) donors? Did they expect Montanans not to notice or care? And most puzzling, why didn’t they predict a fierce response from Steve Bullock, the champion who’s spent the last two years fighting an uphill battle against anonymous corporate money and Citizens United?
- If Hill is going to owe one-third of his election (and all of his final momentum) to any one source, I prefer it to be a Montanan.
- Both types of megadonors are abhorrent. I prefer contribution limits where no one donor can singlehandedly swing an election.
- But the actual donor providing money to the Rep. Party was just revealed as the Republican Governors Association, which has a complex series of PACs to hide the disclosure of a few wealthy individuals.
Tester’s money came from an anonymous source, likely out-of-state, and swung the election. Here’s Tyler’s take on that financial megadonor:
- I hope the $500K did make a difference. The election showed a clean sweep against money in politics, electing Tester, Bullock, and approving I-166.
Honestly, I don’t know if the comment about being against money in politics is just chicken dancing, or whether he really is that blind. But I did suggest that he enroll in the Kennedy School of Self-Awareness.
Piece of Mindful 