Archive for the 'Montana Legislature 2007' Category

Ordinarily, this type of thing wouldn’t mean much of anything.

A state board has ordered Rep. John Sinrud, R-Bozeman, to quit practicing architecture until he obtains an architect’s license or he will face court action.
-
The Board of Architects unanimously issued a cease and desist order against Sinrud Oct. 15.
-
It vowed to seek a court injunction against him if it finds he continues to practice architecture without a license.

Apparently, after repeated warnings that he could not practice architecture because he was not licensed to do so, the state board has done what we pay them to do. Sinrud does not have a degree in architecture and claims that he is not “engaged in the ‘the practice of architecture,’ thereby needing a license”. It is possible that this is true.

Truthfully, I hope that the man can get this cleared up and get back to work, if he indeed isn’t working as an unlicensed architect, but his response to the issue is far too reminiscent of the fear and loathing in Helena:

Sinrud, one of Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s harshest critics, charged that he is the victim of a political witch hunt that’s depriving him of his right to earn a living.
-
“It was nothing but political, absolutely and completely political,” Sinrud said Monday. “It’s a political hit because I caused the governor some problems.”
[snip]
“They crown themselves king and declare themselves dictator,” he said.

I could go on a long rant about what seems to be delusions of grandeur, an inflated sense of self worth and a persecution complex, but then I would just be recapping the 2007 legislative session.

Anyway, I think that Brian defended himself rather aptly:

“It would be delusional,” Schweitzer said. “I didn’t even know what he did for a living.”

I have been watching the Sinrud fire blogswarm with more than a little interest. The video of Sinrud’s comments and discussions started popping up Friday. Left In The West, Intelligent Discontent, 4&20. The Coup De Gras was a front page appearance in a post by Kos himself.

I didn’t jump on the band wagon here because of two reasons. First, I think that the quote was taken out of context from the larger conversation, but mostly because I am conflicted on where I stand on the issue. You see, I kind of understand where he was coming from. Hear me out.

On one hand, when I see where someone has built a vacation house mansion way back in the woods, I think about fires. It is just the first think that comes to my mind. If there is a fire, some young fire folks fighters might end up in danger trying to protect a stupid summer home. An area that might have benefited from a small, contained fire now requires valuable resources just to protect a stupid summer home. Whose financial responsibility is that? We all know these arguments. We have been having them for years.

On the other hand though, there is a plethora of arguments in the other direction. First, consider the home that is ‘way’ back in the woods not because it is a stupid summer house but because it belongs there. This is Montana, there are still hunters, trappers and people who just prefer the remote lifestyle and they have an ancestral right to such. Second, can’t we equate fire and police services? Could we deny someone police support simply because they moved into high crime areas? Third, fires happen pretty much anywhere here, not just in high fire danger and remote areas. French town?

I think that we can chalk Sinrud’s comments up to just another poorly thought out thing John Sinrud has said. I don’t think that it was the worst statement ever made, but I think that it was said in a poor way. In my mind the jury is still out on this issue so we ought to be having a debate on it. I am not sure that the emotional video really facilitates that.

Wait though, there is more. Rebecca Schmitz has an excellent post over at 4 & 20 that really hits the nail on the head:

The furor over Rep. John Sinrud’s “Why not just let them burn?” comment shows what happens when Republicans get into a head-on collision with reality. They constantly have to walk a fine line. On the one hand, this member of the party of private property rights, less government spending, and self-reliance has a point: if people are going to build homes in the wildland-urban interface, they have to accept the inevitable. Their house might be destroyed by wildfire and, according to Sinrud, it’s up to homeowners to buck up, deal with the loss, and learn from their mistake by building somewhere else in future. It’s not unlike federal assistance for people who continually rebuild their homes in Tornado Alley or the Mississippi River floodplain; at what point do we as a society stop subsidizing bad decision-making skills? On the other hand, there’s reality. People want that assistance, and rightly so. When push comes to shove and a fire is just over the ridge, few Republican homeowners in its path stand up and say “Hey! Our state and national budget can’t support these firefighters! Let it burn!”

You see, this is a real fine line that they walk and when push comes to shove, they want the support from the government too. There might be real life evidence of that… What was it that former Republican senator from Montana Conrad Burn’s yelled at those visiting firefighters about? Hmm, let me do a quick google search on that… Oh yeah:

Burns approached the firefighters and told them they had “done a poor job” and “should have listened to the ranchers,”
[snip]
Burns also said he had heard from one rancher that fire crews on the Bundy Railroad fire put a strip of fire retardant on the edge of Bureau of Land Management land, implying that firefighters were more interested in protecting public land than private.

I am sure that the blogs are completley covering the abdication of the Attorney General’s seat by Alberto Gonzales today.  One Win.

The Republicans, I mean the insiders, got together this weekend and decided (72 to 14, yeah 96 people decided for you) that they don’t care about their party members and loyalists don’t matter to them, only the “up to 3,000″ or so party officials votes matter.  Don’t bother to show up at the primary, the decision will be made for you on February 5, 2008, as to who will represent the Republicans in the Presidential Race of 2008.  *Pats on head* You poor ignorant voter.  Just vote for who we have already decided is the best candidate.  You don’t know enough to vote for yourself.  Time to defect?  One Loss.

Why should you Hold Onto Your Hats?  Well, I might be remembered as someone who did some in-depth coverage of the initiatives last election season.  (Toot Toot).  The infamous Trio of Doom (CI-97, CI-98, and I-154 (which Wulfgar covered much better than I did)).

So I sit here today, and I see that the Governor has called a Special Session of the Legislature to appropriate funds from our savings to cover the costs of this fire season.  I have choked on smoke for the past couple of months; not being able to see the Sleeping Giant, or the Valley, and on the terrible days, even Mount Helena; the time has come to address the issue. 

Why does this come to mind?  Well CI-97, Stop Over Spending Montana, had it not been thrown out of the Courts as unconstitutional, would have left all us Montanans swimming in smoke.  We would have had to wait until the next statewide election, to vote in some money to deal with the issue.  Wait, when is the next statewide election?  Oh yeah, choke on that Montanans.

“Rumor has it” (the name of a game created by an old friend) that Howie Rich will be back in action in the election season of 2008.  Whether or not he trusts Trevis Butcher with it again, or can find anyone to support him remains to be seen.  Unfortunately, I know he will be back, trying to shove his ideas down Montanan’s throats again.  You heard it here first.  Hang Onto Your Hats, and remember to watch what is going on.  Better yet, look at things as they might have been had Montanans passed that proposed initiative.  Now do you understand?

Things will be more complicated this time, as I am headed to law school, but I promise to maintain my contacts, and keep fighting the good fight in the name of truth.

WOW… The R’s are very good at shooting themselves in the foot aren’t they? Seems our Lt. Governor is not welcome at the dinner table at the GOP convention because WHY?

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/06/20/news/state/25-bohlinger.txt

Of one thing I am sure, come election time you are going to see a LOT of the GOP leaving the door! And, that is a good thing as they have proved that they don’t have the maturity to hold office.

Governor Scweitzer signed the eminent domain bill into law today. The measure was sponsored by Senator Christine Kaufman (Helena-Democrat) and disallows government from forcing land sales for the purpose of increasing tax value. This is a good solid bill, likely the best thing to come out of this session.

The issue is at the heart of a debate following the U.S. Supreme Court’s so-called “Kelo” decision, named after a Connecticut woman who fought to keep her home from city plans to turn it over to private developers.

“The government ought not pick winners and losers,” Schweitzer said after signing the bill.

The bill received near unanimous support.

We take this break from regularly scheduled LSAT preparation study time to bring you the following breaking news report: (deet deet deet deet dee dee deet)

***********************************

I just couldn’t sit still while studying tonight, and when I got out to my car, I heard “We have Shane from Helena on” *hat tip* and I will let him tell his own story.  On to mine.

Earlier in the day, I had read an article in the Missoulian:

If Schweitzer sets the special session for within seven days of the end of the regular session, which was Friday, its one-time setup costs are $20,000, she said. These one-time setup costs rise to $65,000 if Schweitzer brings legislators back more than seven days after the regular session concludes.

about the costs of starting up the special session.  Seeing as the Governor is the man with the calling to session power, I wondered what he would have to say about the issue.

So I called up YPR, and said that I had seen the article above, and asked him “What are the benefits for starting the special session on Monday, as opposed to the benefits for starting it at a later date?”

As I dove across my kitchen to turn my radio back up to hear his answer, I heard him saying you just have to allow time.  He pointed out that it would be penny wise and pound foolish to bring people back to Helena immediately at the cost of about $38,000 per legislative day, when tempers hadn’t simmered down enough to be able to have civil discussion.  Allow the legislators some time outside of Helena, working together, getting some ideas going, and coming close to a consensus prior to being called back to Helena for the special session.

What a great way to think of it, and very wise in my opinion. 

Don’t forget to contact your legislators, from both sides of the aisle, and remind them that while we don’t always agree, their jobs as legislators is to find the common ground and get a budget passed.

***********************************

*Returns to the Logic Reasoning Bible, sigh*

Remember the good old days of Fear And Loathing? I thought it was bad then, but Matt Singer points out how bad it can get.  I am not going to get into all the details here, just give you some select quotes from Montana Republican Representative Michael Lange made after Governor Brian Schweitzer approached him about a bill compromise.
You can read the full report in the Billings Gazette article titled Budget dealing jolted by expletive laden tirade .

The governor can go straight to hell as far as I’m concerned for trying to do that

I’m pissed off at that SOB on the second floor (Schweitzer) that thinks he’s trying to run the state like a dictator. What matters is your integrity.

So my message to the governor is: Stick it up your ass! Stick it up your ass!

And Scweitzer’s response?

“I think that Representative Lange is a great representative. He’s been a very good legislator. He’s a great family man.”

Regardless of whether you think that Schweitzer’s response is how he really feels about Mike Lange, you must admit that at least he is in control of his actions and knows how to act like a grownup.  I seriously think that Mike Lange has become  increasingly unbalanced and the whole state would be better served if the grownups in the Republican caucus to back over control of the show.

Seriously a good listen on all that I have been talking about lately. (about a 45 minute listen)

You hear from the legislators their own ideas and solutions to constituency accounts.

From the Senate there is Sen. Carol Williams, Sen. Steve Gallus, and Sen. Roy Brown.
From the House there is Rep. Diane Sands, Rep. John Sinrud, and Rep. John Ward.

The link isnt live yet that I know of, but here it is.

Not to give away the ending, but there is more to come on this bill.

This one goes without saying, but since I am very vocal in criticism, I will say it.

Good Job Governor,  Senators and Representatives from both sides of the aisle in rejecting the national ID. It is only right that a state as proud and unique as Montana be the first to stand up and say ‘We reject your continued intrusions into our rights”. Why use my words though?

“The best way for Montana to deal with the federal government on this issue and many others is to say ‘No. Nope. No way and hell no,’” Schweitzer said.

I want to thank the bills sponsor Brady Wiseman, Democrat for taking on this fight in Helena.  A thanks to every single member of the state house and senate for voting for Wiseman’s bill. A thanks to US Senator Jon Tester, Democrat, says that he will continue the fight in Washington by pushing to repeal the Real ID act.

Montanans are speaking loud and clear on this issue and its time for Capitol Hill to listen

Even Dennis Rehberg is on board. Though he originally voted for and supported the Real ID act, he has now recanted that support and says he is ‘also against it’. Maybe through public pressure and elections like last November, we are starting to repair some of the damage done by knee jerk reactions to 911.

In what I would call a truly progressive move, Rep Kendal Van Dyk has initiated the steps to extend tax rebates to renters. I might even go so far as to say this is a bold move by a motivated populist. Since I consider myself first and foremost  a populist , this is a compliment.

“If we’re going to be talking about tax relief and giving reductions and rebates, it is important to me that we extend that to renters,” Van Dyk told the House Taxation Committee.

This makes a lot of sense, 60% of the people in his district are renters. My question is: did the budget surplus come just from property taxes?  Didn’t renters pay  income, auto and usage taxes too?  Don’t renters pay property taxes in a round about way anyway? What am I missing here?

Good work Kendal.

If 85% was a score on a test that would not be a bad thing…OR…if you watch the TV bladder ads that ask if you have a “going” or a “growing” problem those too are not too hard to understand.

However, this is not the case. In this scenario, 85% of the women being held behind bars at the Montana Women’s State Prison are there because of METH! So one can then assume the other 15% are there because they did something really wrong. Before you jump to the conclusion that I am saying Meth is not wrong – I’m not.

I do question however why we are spending so much money on this growing problem. Sure you hear all of the ads on TV and in the newspapers about all of the bad things this drug problem causes, but I’m fairly sure that these individuals could be handled in a way that did not cost the taxpayers near what it does to house these women in our state prisons.

I’m also aware of the protesters on Billings south side who did not want the old Howard Johnson’s hotel being converted to house the women that were close to being released back into society. The fact is they have to be somewhere but I do not think that these individuals should have warranted prison as the first choice in punishing them.

Also, it is common knowledge that while they may have quit the drugs because they were incarcerated and it is also realistic to know that these individuals will certainly return to using and selling drugs to our kids here in Montana once released.

The bottom line is that it is somewhat pointless to keep the revolving door swinging when both education and treatment for those affected is surely less expensive than sending them to prison where there is NO treatment. Oh sure they have mini-programs while they are there and many only do it to either get out of their cells or cut some time off of their sentences. The state simply does not have the money to have these individuals participate in a in-house program AND pay to send them to prison as well.
I’d hazard to guess that putting them into drug program(s) 1st – the state would save a hell of a lot more money than the direct prison costs. This would be more cost effective than throwing them into prison.
Again 85% are in the prison for drug use. This folks, is not a “going” problem it is a “growing” problem that truly needs solutions if we intend to turn this around. Like I mentioned earlier, I am not against putting criminals behind bars but I am against using our prisons as an answer to “house the problem” in a manner that it often referred to as “out of sight is out of mind” and that is NOT a solution nor should it be an acceptable course of action.

We simply can’t build enough prisons nor can we afford it!

update 4-10-07

A worker at the Women’s prison said she did not know what the statistics were at the Men’s Prison.  However, she also said “The 85% figure in the stop meth ads can be misleading, as not all 85% have a conviction relating to meth sales.  They might be convicted of theft, forgery, assault etc that is related to their meth use.” 

Just this week, a new Meth treatment facility opened in Boulder for meth users, it is longer than the program at MCDC, and should lead to more folks being treated for their addictions, and not just incarerated (where we all know treatment isn’t very
successfull), and that was her 2 cents worth on this topic.

Perhaps this won’t come as news to you as it did me, but the flavor of Montana politics that I have been observing since January has struck me as several things:  immature, uncivilized, nasty, etc.  Apparently, however; I have been wrong.  According to Majority Leader Michael Lange, up until this point, politics in Montana has been “nice”.  Don’t believe me?

A Republican leader gave Gov. Brian Schweitzer and his fellow Democrats an ultimatum Thursday: Sign the GOP’s proposed property tax cut and school funding plan into law, or see state agencies forced to operate on a bare-bones budget for the next two years.

“We’ve been nice for weeks,” said House Majority Michael Lange, R-Billings. “Now, we’re not going to be so nice.”

Emphasis mine, of course.  Honestly, this is frightening.  I don’t need to point out the specific instances of rancor spouting up in our state government over the past few months, so the notion that such battles have been the ‘nice’ Republicans’ really makes me worry about what the not-so-nice variety looks like.  Why are Lange and his fellow Republicans taking off the gloves?  Because they aren’t getting their way anyplace outside of their own chamber.

Before anyone starts dusting off their thesaurus and looking for other words for hypocrite; perhaps citing some of the Democrats’ tactics at the federal level, I would like to add something.  It is not the Republican aim I take issue with here; we are well aware of how they would like to handle the surplus/tax situation, and they are fully entitled to their ideas about how this should go down.  I don’t begrudge them that, but they do need to accept that they only control one chamber and the citizens of this state elected them to act with a certain level of professionalism, and this constant barrage of threats and strong arm tactics is anything but.  Certainly, there will always be this type in government, but I hope that Republican voters of this state see how their party was led this session before they vote again.

As for Michael Lange, perhaps someone will remind him of a certain saying about flies, honey, and vinegar.

I don’t know quite how it happened, but it did, and it made my day.  Something I have been working on in spare time over the past few months was finally examined for what it was.

 
After my report on Monday, I was discouraged.  I just didn’t know what else Common Cause could do to explain the situation.  And the feeling coming out of that hearing was simple outrage.  I was upset with the fact that the truth could be laid out, plain and simple, and Democrats and even Progressive Democrats would vote such amendments into being.

 
Whatever happened to clean elections?  To telling the truth about where the money came from, to a level playing field for all, I thought that these ideas is what we were about.  I was especially disappointed in the “youthful” legislators, for not only signing on to a bill, then ignoring the facts, and THEN voting them in.

 
HB 462 late, even later Wednesday, in debate on the floor, things came to light.

 
The Senators were asking for a one page update on the new amendments, and what Common Cause thought of them.  I read the changes, and threw up my hands in frustration.  I didn’t even know where to start on a fact sheet.

 
-         A person can run a campaign on a campaign account.

-         Once elected they can open a constituency account.

-         But they have to close the campaign account.

-         Constituency accounts must be quarterly reported;

-         Contributions to a constituency account cannot be accepted during the legislature.

(Isn’t when the need for constituency outreach at it’s height during the legislature?)

-         Constituency accounts are exempt from Montana’s current gift ban law, just like campaign funds are.

-         Then when you declare that you are running for office, you must not use the constituency account, open the campaign account, and only operate from that one account.

-         Oh, and current constituency accounts are exempted from all these regulations.

 
Could this be more complicated?  It would still, with all these regulations create a system of two contribution limits for an incumbent, and leaving only one limit for a challenger.  An equal protection issue, surely to be challenged.

 
Well I only edited a couple things to the one page fact sheet we sent out.  And I thought all hope was lost.

 
Then our lobbyist, bless her, put in the long hours, handed out the sheet, talked to everyone she could, and in the end created a revolution.

 
Yes constituency accounts are necessary in Montana, we have always said that.  But if we are going to have accounts, let them be above board.  Let them be fair, no matter what your party, contributors, or affiliation.

 
Then Senator Brown, noted on a reading, that current constituency accounts were exempted from these regulations.  People got up and spoke, and questioned more, someone stabbed himself in the foot, and MAN, before you knew it, HB 462 was amended, and passed 46 to 4. 

 
Across party lines.

 
What was it amended to?

 
What we had been advocating all along. 

 
Leftover Campaign funds can be rolled over, on a one-time basis, from funds that have already been through the reporting process.  These funds can be used for constituency outreach.  The expenditures have to be reported.  No new contributions can be accepted.

 
How much cleaner can you get?

 
Thank you to everyone who got it, fought for it, and put their reputations on the line for what was right.  Clean elections and politics.

I am a little conflicted on the issue of reregulation. On the surface, it sounds like one of the best ideas to come down the pike in years but I am concerned. You see, those that oppose the senate bill claim that they believe that this is a move by Northwestern to prop up theor stock value and have the tax payers front the bill for new power generation plants.

“We have an ill-conceived bill that comes out at the last minute with amendments that put consumers at risk, all so the utility company can prop up a stock to facilitate a sale. Sound familiar?” said Sen. Roy Brown, D-Billings. “I say let’s not do that again.”

The so-called “re-regulation” proposal would primarily allow Northwestern Energy to build new power plants. In exchange, the company would have to sell the power to consumers at regulated, cost-based rates.

Sponsor Sen. Jesse Laslovich, D-Anaconda, said deregulation has become a bad word in Montana, and has swayed many elections since 1997. He said it is time to start chipping away at the deregulation law and perhaps let regulators hold more sway over energy prices.

“This bill does not end deregulation. It’s an attempt to get at prices and stabilize them for the long term,” he said. “This bill is a small step to try to reduce the impact to consumers and their energy bills.”

I wrote here about my concern with Northwestern’s seemingly direct control over our state legislators. We all know what a dirty word ‘deregulation’ has become in this state and I have a bit of concern that senators are voting for this bill just because it has the opposite name of ‘reregulation’. You see, I am a bit shell shocked over the last 6 years of federal bills with names that mean the opposite of the bills content (think ‘Clean Skies’ and ‘Clean Range’) and I would hope that is not the case here.

I remain conflicted on this one. Mostly, I know that the system that we have now is broken but I am concerned that this bill will create an even tighter monopoly for Northwestern or whatever foreign company buys them out.

You know that bumper sticker that reads “Speak your mind, even if your voice shakes”?  Turns out that applies to nervousness as well as age.

I took the afternoon off of work to go to the State Administration Senate Committee to hear a few bills before the committee.

A few reports before I get to the meat of it.  HB 351, Sponsor Sinrud, essentially saying that a Legislator cannot accept a state job while in office.  I gained an appreciation for Senator Vicki Cocchiarella, who objected to the bill quite stridently, based on her own experience of being a Legislator, and who accepted a job with the state about a year and a half ago, and said something to the effect of such legislation being a personal insult to her service.  Not to mention the fact that it would disallow a whole segment of the population from getting promoted while in a state job.  Other members talked about working at the Universities from time to time, and pointed out that such work would be prohibited should 351 pass.  I was impressed with the interest and engagement of the Senators with the tabling of this bill.  (7 to 4 by my count, I might be off).

HB 316 called for the full title of a bill to be published on campaign material.  The talk and testimony centered around the fact that everyone received negative mailers in campaigns, and that a full title would be prohibitive to inclusion in campaign materials.  HB 316 was also tabled in committee, after Sinrud passed around a mailer he had received at his own home. 

I admit that I wasn’t paying much attention to HB 619, also sponsored by Sinrud, which ended up also being tabled.

HB 520, dealing with a whole lot of election law, was also heard.  Mostly there were editorial changes to the bill.  The part I was interested in dealt with same day registration for voters.  Apparently, the current language still allows for same day registration, but the day prior to the election, offices will shut down from noon to 5 pm to allow for printing of the registered voters.  There is another bill being heard sometime this week that also deals with registration, and Laslovich is on that committee, and apparently I don’t know enough about bills or how they work to understand what happened, but HB ended up with a “Bill Concurred” status after today’s hearing.

HB 783 is the one I got up to speak about.  It says it is to revise election laws, but the bottom line is it would make it a felony if you registered to vote, and weren’t eligible.  Montana law already provides for a misdemeanor charge.  I talked about the cost it would bring to the state, and the fact that someone who thinks they are a citizen, and registers and votes, would then be a felon.  Laslovich asked about how many complaints had been brought at the current misdemeanor level, and it was reported that there were none (score one for Laslovich).  Senator Larry Jent gave my favorite response in action, he said {paraphrasing} “we don’t even charge felons with a felony if they vote, I can’t allow this to pass”.  Senator Jent called to table the bill, and it passed.  HB 783 was tabled in committee.

*****

Now to the reason I took the afternoon off.  HB 462 is the only remaining bill that deals with constituency accounts.  On Friday, Montana Common Cause delivered a letter to each of the Senators, invoking Montana’s ethic’s laws, which basically said, if you have a constituency account, you should disclose it prior to voting on HB 462.  Clean elections  and government people!

Representative Sands got up and explained briefly all of the last minute amendments that were proposed to 462.  Only the committee had the amendments in their hands, so excuse me if I misrepresent or miss one.  The first amendment would allow for constituency accounts out of left over campaign funds only (Williams SB 91); the second amendment would allow for left over campaign funds and one time contributions to the accounts of less than $50, thereby circumventing Montana’s gift ban; the third amendment, as I understand it, would allow contributions up to contribution limits allowed to campaign accounts.  

League of Women Voters got up and said they support 461 with a big IF. One, no new contributions while in office; and Two, not allowing two accounts (campaign and constituency) while in office.

Then Montana Common Cause ( in the interests of disclosure, I am a board member of MT Common Cause), had Jon Motl get up and talk.  Jon pointed out that while he is an attorney, he was not getting paid for this testimony, and was at the hearing on a volunteer basis.  He mentioned four options. One, don’t do anything, table 462 in committee; Two, pass 462 with language only allowing for surplus campaign funds to be deposited into accounts; Three, allow surplus campaign funds and deposits of under $50 from contributors into accounts; and Four, accounts with the same limits provided for campaign accounts.  Jon said any of the four, except for the fourth one would comply with current Montana law.

The Commissioner of Political Practices also got up in the informational portion, and brought a list of possible problems with 462 as written, he had not seen nor had access to the amendments, but understood that the proposed amendments dealt with a lot of the problems he had written.  in a funny quote the Commissioner also mentioned the ethics disclosure law, saying “the cat is out of the bag”.

Senator Balyeat had a lot of questions about the whole $50 gift ban issue.  He couldn’t comprehend where the $50 limit came from.  2-2-102 MCA. 

In action, there was a lot of confusion, understandable given the number of possible amendments, and the need to get back to the floor.  Senator Cocchiarella proposed a vote on amendment 2 suggested by Representative Sands, allowing for surplus campaign funds and one time contributions under 50$, while Balyeat initially said he would support amendment 2, he voted against it.  They then voted to pass amendment 3, allowing for new contributions.

Confusion arose over not getting to vote for no new contributions, option 1.  By voting on amendment 3 first, amendment 1 was no longer on the table.  Everything happened so quickly, I couldn’t tabulate the votes quickly enough.  The results will be out later.

So the bottom line is 462, passed :Bill Concurred as Amended. 

Just don’t think I will be in any way surprised when the Constitutionality of HB 462 is challenged, and when the Senate votes on it, take careful note of who complied with the ethic’s laws by disclosing their own accounts and interest in it’s passage.

Montana Common Cause has actually gone to bat for the necessity of constituency accounts, and advocated for clean accounts.  HB 462, as it currently stands are not clean accounts, and create unfair advantages for people currently in office*.

I will update with who voted what way in the morning, when I know for sure.

(*I still have not seen the amendments, so I am going on what I heard today)