Return on Investment

Many have argu…okay, no, really it was just Mark. But I do believe that he represents many non-voters who don’t vote because they believe that large corporations buy politicians and that therefore there is no difference between different candidates. The specific statement was – why would JP Morgan invest in Tester if they didn’t think they’d be getting something back?

I don’t see why that logic is any less relevant when applied to, say, the League of Conservation Voters, Tester’s actual largest donor? They aren’t stupid. They probably don’t agree with everything Tester does (like, supporting Keystone XL). Nonetheless, they recognize he is a better bet than Denny Rehberg. Or his second largest contributor, Thornton and Naumes, a law firm that makes a living getting suing extractive corporations that hurt people (you know, the sort of corporations that might contribute to Denny Rehberg).

In short? I’m not an expert, nor even particularly well educated, on domestic politics. But the folks making these ‘investment’ decisions probably are. Perhaps there’s a reason to expect that Tester will continue to be the better candidate for both the environment and for the people.

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

The Polish Wolf


Click here to post a comment

Please enter an e-mail address

  • You must admit the stakes are incredibly small given slight differences. So I see it shaking out like this: You think that generally Mr. Tester's impulses are good and are willing to make a bet that generally, you'll be better served.

    I don't see him making decisions. I see him as a man who is under extreme pressure and has capitulated, and now seeks only to hang on to office, as life in DC is far better than what he had before. He'll never be a farmer again. Get real.

    Rehberg will make the same decisions, and is less challenged by ideology, as his base has no nasty progressives who criticize him. So he's got it comparatively easy.

    However, when Rehberg holds office, progressives AND Democrats will be nipping at his heels. The Forest Jobs Recreaction Act, for instance, would not be taken seriously.

    I conclude that partisan politics is pointless, and that movement politics has impact, though we are all at the mercy of power and money so that victories are rare.

    We have few means of making a difference, party politics is the least useful.

  • League of Conservation Voters is a Democratic Party front group and PAC. J.P. Morgan is a money-making machine. One wants to look into the mirror and smile, the other wants less regulation, less taxes, less responsibility, less risk, and they want a man who says "how high" when asked to jump. One launders money and votes for their guys, the other launders money for drug cartels and human-trafficking rings. Is there anybody Tester would not take money from to get reelected? Not likely.

  • "You must admit the stakes are incredibly small given slight differences."

    The league of conservation voters apparently thinks the stakes are actually pretty high – $61,000 high. Murray Energy, Devon Energy, and Cloud Peak Energy all seem to think that the stakes are worth at least 10,000 bucks a piece on Denny winning. Do they know more about politics than you? Yes, and they put their money where their mouths are.

    "However, when Rehberg holds office, progressives AND Democrats"

    Both of which he can safely ignore. Tester needs to pay some attention to his base, while moderating his stance to keep the conservative majority happy. But, Denny need only answer to his base, and those more conservative than his base. After all, progressives will never be a majority in Montana, so he doesn't even need to pretend to be moderate.

    • If he thinks so little of us, why should we vote for him? If he offers us nothing and your only talking point is that you think he's better than the other guy (douche bag versus shit sandwich?), aren't we perfectly justified to ignore him? If he needs our votes to get elected, shouldn't he offer us something in return? Why are progressives, and we alone, expected to toe the party line for no good reason?

      You did not read LB's comment re LCV – they shilled for Baucus for years, giving him hefty credit for doing essentially nothing.They are fake green, professional Democrats.

      But I agree that the system is corrupt and bills have to be paid and being corrupt is the only way to pay them bills. I do hope that you're not telling me that the people paying his bIlls expect nothing in return, because that would be very wrong. It would be like voting for him and expecting nothing in return.

  • "If he thinks so little of us"

    He probably thinks relatively little of progressives (following your definition) because – surprise! They are a small percentage of the Montana population. Want to know why that group remains so small? Because many environmentalists, while well educated and technically correct on many issues, use that correctness and education as an excuse not to compromise, and tend to go not to the elected lawmakers but instead to the judicial system for their decisions. This is annoying to the majority of Montanans, and undercuts the possibility of ever getting legislative majorities.

    "(douche bag versus shit sandwich?),"

    More like wolves de-listed where hey are no longer in immediate danger, versus wolves de-listed everywhere. The only other option, the one preferred by all those 'real' greens, is to spit in the faces of the majority of Montanans. And if you remember, when wolves were de-listed, the enforceability of the Endangered Species Act was slipping away as states considered effectively nullifying it to shoot wolves.

    "LCV – they shilled for Baucus for years, giving him hefty credit for doing essentially nothing.They are fake green, professional Democrats."

    Again, Mark, the difference is clear. First off, LCV gives money to candidates, and criticizes candidates from both parties from both parties, though they obviously favor Democrats. Why do they favor Democrats? Why would they give a Democratic Senator in a very conservative state a relatively free pass? Because they know the difference a party makes. If you don't, I'll refresh your memory.

    Again, it's just a correlation, but it's a consistent enough one to use inductive reasoning to establish a causation. You and ladybug are part of a small minority who can't pick up on that. The environmentalists who invested in Tester, and the energy groups investing in Rehberg, have figured this out, and are confident to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Latest PostCast

Support Our Work!

Subscribe Via E-mail


Which Democratic Candidate for Governor Do You Support Today?

Send this to a friend