Comments on: Governor Backs Bipartisan ‘Dark Money’ Bill
Newest First
By Westside2 on 02-15-13 @ 2:10 am
Umm…Mr Essman, the vote on I-166 was a clear mandate from the people of Montana. Please doyour job and represent your constituents!
By RussCrowder on 02-15-13 @ 8:34 am
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 @ 9:31 am
Russ, this one strikes a chord doesn’t it? You have a history of not wanting to play by therules 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 @ 9:43 am
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 @ 10:11 am
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 @ 10:15 am
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 @ 11:33 am
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 @ 12:20 pm
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 @ 5:08 pm
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 @ 10:38 pm
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 02-16-13 @ 12:27 am
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 @ 11:26 am
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 @ 11:29 am
Sunshine is good. Enjoy your day as well pik.
By mooseberryinn on 02-16-13 @ 10:38 pm
I agree also. Does anyone suppose we may someday see such transparency from the Obama Regime?
By Craig moore on 02-17-13 @ 4:26 pm
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 @ 6:22 pm
Crap I was going to run next time and use Dark money.
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.