Friday Apr. 25, 2014
Comments on:
Bullock said state politics has been flooded by "nasty, shameful and misleading" attack ads
Let’s be civil.
The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), accuse someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail webmaster [at] flatheadbeacon.com.

The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.

  Newest First
By Westside2 on 02-15-13 @ 1:10 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
8 up | 5 down


Umm…Mr Essman, the vote on I-166 was a clear mandate from the people of Montana.  Please do
your job and represent your constituents!
By RussCrowder on 02-15-13 @ 7:34 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
5 up | 14 down


So, if this is adopted, groups would not be allowed to, “mention candidates names”?  Why waste time
having elections?...Lets just say that all incumbents are automatically returned to office and be done
with it.
By Westside2 on 02-15-13 @ 8:31 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
13 up | 5 down


Russ, this one strikes a chord doesn’t it?  You have a history of not wanting to play by the
rules in the sandbox of politics.  It is not surprising that you want to be able to throw sand
in the face of others with no teacher to punish you.  Sorry, but this might be your dream, but
it isn’t the dream of Americans in Montana.
By Johnny on 02-15-13 @ 8:43 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
12 up | 2 down


Where do you get not allowed to mention names from?  You are allowed to say anything you want,
just let everyone know who is doing the talking.  There is no lying and hiding anymore.
By RussCrowder on 02-15-13 @ 9:11 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
5 up | 15 down


Sorry Westside but the obvious attack on free speech represented by this, “Bullock/Tutvedt Incumbent
Protection Act” will only soil the “litterbox” of politics further.  P.S. :  Thank you Senator Jeff Essmann
for staying focused on the issues that are important to all Montanans, not just a select few.  If you
want to thank the Senator too, he can be reached at:  jeff@jeffessmann.com.
By ManUp on 02-15-13 @ 9:15 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
11 up | 2 down


Where were Senate President Essmann and Majority Leader Wittich during the press conference?  No
wonder Essmann offered such a tepid response given the well documented ties between he and
Wittich and the “dark money” from ATP.  Let’s see if they even give the bill a hearing.
By mooseberryinn on 02-15-13 @ 10:33 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
4 up | 8 down


On the surface, or at least as publicized here, this bill would seem to favor Republicans.  In any event, if
we can limit the regime’s deceitful influence here in (still) ‘Free Montana”, all the better.
By Mark W. on 02-15-13 @ 11:20 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
2 up | 12 down


Outside of foreign government intervention, there should be a means of keeping donor information
private.  Without a means of donating or influencing in a private way, only the status quo
perspective is heard.  There is a cost to dissenting not associated with agreement.  For the debate
to be as open as possible, those costs should be kept to a minimum.  Privacy of advocacy allows
this.

 

 
By pik20e4me on 02-15-13 @ 4:08 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
10 up | 3 down


There are quite generous campaign contribution limits at this time.  For individuals:  $32,400 to
the National Party, $2600 to each individual candidate, $123,200 total biennial limit.

Here is a link to a chart: 
http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_general.shtml#How_much_can_I_contribute

Methinks that should buy quite a bit of speech to start with.  That we need to donate more and
hide behind anonymity suggests to me that we would be trying to buy something.  I doubt that
we can ever control money in politics, but sunshine has always been healthy in any endeavor.
By mooseberryinn on 02-15-13 @ 9:38 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
2 up | 14 down


So that’s how the Most Holy and magnificent, the Anointed One of all Marxist moronic economics
policy got so rich!  He just got a herd to keep giving him their money!  hey…. He still wants the same
thing.
By Mark W. on 02-15-13 @ 11:27 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
4 up | 11 down


So pik, with all the secrecy and corruption in government, the most important place we’re currently
interested in bringing sunshine is on the private individuals who hold the deeply suspicious desire of
not wanting their political affiliation broadcast or not wanting to give to a Party?
By pik20e4me on 02-16-13 @ 10:26 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
5 up | 3 down


Mark W.  Thanks for your question.  Part of my answer is embedded in your query.  I strongly
advocate in complete transparency of money used in an attempt at political influence.  It’s like a
ball game—the rules are agreed upon by the players and coaches and then everyone plays on
the same court with referees.  Society gets to set the rules for politics in a similar manner.  My
personal belief is that the influence of money in politics is uncontrollable, but at least with
transparency we have some comprehension of what the louts are doing.  So, yes, I think the
greater good of society transcends the individual’s right to privacy in this instance.  It may be
negotiable to allow you to donate some dollar figure anonymously.  Would you be satisfied with
your choice to donate, say, $50K a year anonymously, with disclosure above that number? 
Give me a dollar figure that would protect your interests or the interests of the deeply
suspicious.  And appreciate that we can continue to differ.

Is this the most important place to give our attention with all the other secrecy and corruption,? 
I did not indicate that it is such, as you suggest in your question. Instead, I advocate for
sunshine in ALL elements of government.  That is why we have open-meeting laws, etc., and
why it is worth currently debating this issue That is why I feel we need more sunshine
regarding the use of drones in warfare.  That is why we shouldn’t have such things as
anonymous holds on legislation or appointees in the Senate.  That said, from the greatest
perspective, sunshine in money used to influence politics may be the most critical of all.

Enjoy your day.
By Mark W. on 02-16-13 @ 10:29 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
4 up | 2 down


Sunshine is good. Enjoy your day as well pik.
By mooseberryinn on 02-16-13 @ 9:38 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
4 up | 6 down


I agree also.  Does anyone suppose we may someday see such transparency from the Obama
Regime?
By Craig moore on 02-17-13 @ 3:26 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
4 up | 0 down


Here’s a little ray of sunshine on Bullock.
http://montana.mediatrackers.org/2013/02/04/bullock-campaign-held-conference-calls-with-firm-coordinating-independent-expenditures/
By Fast on 02-20-13 @ 5:22 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
0 up | 0 down


Crap I was going to run next time and use Dark money.
 
Kellyn Brown
Kellyn Brown17h
@kellynbrown
Former pro skier has plans for an academy for young adults looking to train in the outdoors http://t.co/YFOI9pdVVf http://t.co/R8NCamjqUD
Dillon Tabish
Dillon Tabish12h
@djtabish
Young Lakers eager to prove themselves this legion baseball season http://t.co/0kqbOczmeK #mtscores http://t.co/D5jukSZQJt
Molly Priddy
Molly Priddy13h
@mollypriddy
@Slate Jealousy?
Tristan Scott
Tristan Scott12h
@tristanscott
@hike734 Thanks, Jake!
Flathead Beacon
FB Headlines11h
@flatheadbeacon
NRA Seeks Universal Gun Law at National Meeting http://t.co/774jGB5cYS