Legislation seeks to curb influence of ‘dark money’

2013-02-09T22:15:00Z 2013-02-10T05:42:02Z Legislation seeks to curb influence of ‘dark money’By MIKE DENNISON Missoulian State Bureau missoulian.com
February 09, 2013 10:15 pm  • 

HELENA – In Kalispell state Sen. Bruce Tutvedt’s primary race last year, he was targeted by 10 separate campaign mailers attacking the longtime Republican as a tax-raising, job-killing friend of “Obamacare” and a tool of big utilities.

“I have no idea who their supporters were, who they really were, or what their issue was,” he says. “They just threw mud as hard and as fast as they could.”

The attacks came primarily from obscure nonprofit groups that don’t disclose their donors or, in many cases, their spending – so-called “dark money” groups that have become a growing part of politics in Montana and the nation.

Tutvedt wasn’t the only Montana candidate targeted by dark-money attacks, which went after candidates of all political persuasions, including Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock.

That’s why Tutvedt and others are hoping the Legislature – and Bullock – will support an upcoming bill to force dark-money groups to report their donors and spending, and, in the long run, put candidates more in control of their own race.


Republican state Sen. Jim Peterson of Buffalo is sponsoring the measure, which will substantially rewrite Montana’s campaign finance and reporting laws.

It not only would require all groups that spend money on elections to report their donors and spending, but also would allow individuals and political parties to give more money directly to candidates – money that is more easily tracked and reported.

“What we’re trying to do here is find some bipartisan ground, that we can all land on,” Peterson says. “We’re trying to level the playing field and make sure everybody is operating in the sunlight, and essentially eliminate the dark money.”

Peterson has been working on the bill for several weeks and may introduce it this week.

He’s also been talking with Bullock and his staff, with the hope of getting the governor’s support.


Kevin O’Brien, deputy chief of staff for Bullock, said Friday the governor’s office has been in “active discussions” with Peterson about the bill, and that Bullock is committed to enacting legislation that brings “dark money” out into the open.

“There is much more agreement than disagreement,” O’Brien said of the governor’s talks with Peterson about the bill. “The governor believes he and Senator Peterson have shared values and a strong desire to protect our elections and our democratic process, and have found a great deal of common ground.”

Under current law, groups often avoid campaign reporting requirements by financing “issue” ads or mailers that attack a candidate but don’t say explicitly to vote for or against them.

The groups argue they’re merely educating voters, rather than advocating for or against a candidate, and therefore aren’t subject to reporting requirements.

Peterson’s bill, however, will say any group financing any ad, mailer, telephone call or other “electioneering communication” that mentions any candidate within 60 days of the election must report its donors and spending.

Peterson also wants to raise the contribution limits for people, political committees and political parties giving directly to candidates for state office. For example, the current draft of the bill raises the ceiling for a single contribution to a gubernatorial candidate from $630 to $2,000, and for state Senate candidates from $160 to $500.

Raising these limits will reduce the role of secret money from outside groups, because candidates will be able to raise more money from sources that must report their donations, and less in need of help by outside groups, Peterson argues.

“We are raising the contribution limits to make it easier for candidates to raise money, and not feel like they have to go to the sidelines to raise money,” he says. “It allows a candidate to run his own show.”

Whether Republican leadership in the Senate will support Peterson’s bill remains to be seen.

Senate President Jeff Essmann, R-Billings, said in a recent interview there needs to be a “level playing field in terms of campaign finance reform,” but that he hadn’t seen the details of Peterson’s bill.

A spokesman for Essmann said Friday Senate Republican leadership will present its own bill addressing “campaign finance-related concerns that have been raised,” but provided no details.


Sen. Jason Priest, R-Red Lodge, is the treasurer of Montana Growth Network, a nonprofit group that last year spent money on ads criticizing Supreme Court candidate Ed Sheehy and supporting some legislative candidates.

It did not report its fall spending on the Supreme Court race, saying it was educating voters about an issue and therefore doesn’t have to report. It also does not reveal its financial supporters.

Priest said he’s not opposed to “changing the rules” on campaign finance reporting, as long as the change affects everyone equally. He said he wouldn’t speculate on what campaign finance bill he might support.

“If you’re asking me if disclosure (of campaign spending and donors) is a good thing, my gut tells me disclosure is a good thing,” he added. “It’s especially a good thing if everybody plays by the same rules.”

Tutvedt said last week he’ll be a strong supporter of Peterson’s bill and thinks it can attract bipartisan support.

“It goes at the core of dark money and the lack of transparency,” he says. “If you want to attack or advocate for somebody, you’re going to have to attach your name or have a transparent donor list to show who is advocating for or against a candidate, or an initiative. …

“I think the citizens of Montana are tired of all the mud and dirt that’s being thrown, and we’ll see a bipartisan effort to make this a more transparent, information-based election process.”

Copyright 2015 missoulian.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

No Comments Posted.

Missoulian Civil Dialogue Policy

Civil Dialogue Policy for Commenting on Missoulian.com

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Comments can only be submitted by registered users. By posting comments on our site, you are agreeing to the following terms:

Commentary and photos submitted to the Missoulian (Missoulian.com) may be published or distributed in print, electronically or other forms. Opinions expressed in Missoulian.com's comments reflect the opinions of the author, and are not necessarily the opinions of the Missoulian or its parent company. See the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Our guidelines prohibit the solicitation of products or services, the impersonation of another site user, threatening or harassing postings and the use of vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language, defamatory or illegal material. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability or other classification. It's fine to criticize ideas, but ad hominem attacks on other site users are prohibited. Users who violate those standards may lose their privileges on missoulian.com.

You may not post copyrighted material from another publication. (Link to it instead, using a headline or very brief excerpt.)

No short policy such as this can spell out all possible instances of material or behavior that we might deem to be a violation of our publishing standards, and we reserve the right to remove any material posted to the site.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Missoulian Poll


Do you favor four-day school weeks?

View Results

Search our events calendar