Republican to voters: “Screw you”

You know, I still don’t know exactly where I stand on lobbying.  I understand how the system works, but the reality is, I am disgusted in the amount of money that goes into elections and much of that comes from lobbyists and their clients.

Nonetheless, I think the voters were clear in their intent in November: the Montana lobbying initiative passed by an overwhelming majority.

Laural Republican Dan McGee’s answer to the will of the voters?  Overturn it!

Of course, this can’t be about him, right?  He says no.  “The reason I bring this bill because I believe that the current law is unconstitutional on its face,” says Dan.

I know that government is apparently not his strength, but that’s not your job Dan.  You legislate.  The courts?  They get to decide the constitutionality of a law.

Perhaps I am feeling smug right now but I just haven’t seen a lot of clever strategy from the Republicans this session.  As lame as “Handshake with Montana” was, they went from a smart, unified strategy to picking poor leadership, looking like sore losers, and spitting in the voter’s collective faces.  Oh well.  All the better for the forces of good…

powered by performancing firefox

If you appreciate an independent voice holding Montana politicians accountable and informing voters, and you can throw a few dollars a month our way, we would certainly appreciate it.

Subscribe to our posts

About the author



Click here to post a comment

Please enter an e-mail address

  • Oh, I think that you are right on the lack of clever strategy.

    One sure way to tick voters off is to tell them that you don’t care about what they voted for.

    I would think that overturning a constitutional initiative is the epitome of disrespect for the voting public.

  • Well, the legislature actually does have an obligation to follow the Constitution. Of course, Republicans left anti-sodomy laws on the books well after they were actively ruled unconstitutional in order to “send a message.” As for McGee’s argument, I’ve heard arguments that the measure is unconstitutional, but I have yet to hear one that it is an open-and-closed argument. It has to do with whether some rights are waivable. And most courts seem to agree that quite a few rights are waivable. In fact, by running for office, folks partially waive their right to privacy by waiving the expectation.

    Of course, I’m not a lawyer, so what the hell do I know. But I don’t think this is unconstitutional on its face.

  • Let’s pretend for a moment that it is a more open-and-shut-case and the law is very constitutional. Just because the legislature has the obligation to follow the constitution, it still doesn’t mean it is their duty to step forward and declare a law unconstitutional. The only arbitrator of constitutionality are the courts.

  • It’s okay for the gov. to take advantage of the knowledge and experience one gains as a legislator but no one else can do it.

    I say, fire Hal and David Ewer and he might look less hypocritical.

    Further, rather than sending the three stooges to oppose the bill they should have simply sent a letter saying the gov. supports the will of the Montana people. No, instead larry, moe and curly insult McGee and ramble on inappropriately and loudly.

    The halls are FULL of former legislators, it’s Helena not D.C.!

  • I wanted to visit and let you know how really I appreciated discovering your web blog today. I’d personally consider it a honor to work at my workplace and be able to make use of the tips contributed on your web page and also participate in visitors’ remarks like this. Should a position of guest article author become offered at your end, remember to let me know.

Latest PostCast

Support Our Work!

Subscribe Via E-mail


Which Democratic Candidate for Governor Do You Support Today?

Send this to a friend