Utah

Posted on by Fritz Pettyjohn

We’re looking good in the Beehive State.  Sponsor Rep. Kraig Powell thinks we can pull it off.  Last year was a last minute rush job, and we came up five short.  Turnover in the House was very good for us, and Kraig has been diligently educating the new members, apparently to good effect.  Kraig’s the best; a young version of Hal Wick  — and that’s high praise indeed.

Lou Marin succeeded in getting the Utah College YR’s involved, and they’re all fired up.  Candace Daly of NFIB has managed to motivate a bunch of her members, and their involvement is very welcome.  These are just regular Utah small business people, and their views will be given respect.  Kasich’s visit worked out well in Utah.  Sen. Lee, whose father thought Article V was the work of the devil, has even come around.  Hatch was always with us, but he’s a moderate in Utah, and not as influential with legislators.

Kraig has arranged for Bill Fruth to present before the entire Republican Caucus on the 17th, and we’re up in committee the next day.  I don’t have to go.  Bill doesn’t need any help, and his presentation is more effective than mine.  I’m a lawyer, and talk about law and politics.  Bill’s a numbers guy, and he scares the crap out of people.  I’m betting Kraig’s able to get a good crowd, and Bill will seal the deal.

I wish it was that simple.

An absent member meant we came up short in the South Dakota Senate, on a 17-15 vote.  You need 18.  We’ll do it again in a week.  Hal got the Governor aboard last night, overcoming the opposition of his Chief of Staff.  We should be OK.

When it passes I’m going to try to convince Hal to call in to the Mark Levin Show, and report the news.  #25.  Levin is big on the CoS plan, and hasn’t done anything for us.  Getting our 25th will get his attention.  When we get our 26th we’ll have our sponsor call in to report, and the 27th, and the 28th and so on. Eventually Levin will realize he backed the wrong horse, and that we have an honest shot at 34 this year.  If he chose to he could make his program a sort of Article V News Central, reporting on our progress, and our difficulties.  He could put us over the top.  He’s a patriot, and a very bright guy.  I think he’ll do it.

But when?

The fight is joined

Posted on by Fritz Pettyjohn
We always knew the left would come after us.  Back in the 80’s it was Walter Mondale and big labor.  They used Phyllis Schlafly and the Eagle Forum as their stalking horse.  This time around it’s George Soros and his Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.  One of their subsidiaries is the Montana Budget and Policy Center, headed up by Heather O’Loughlin, a former Baucus staffer.  Schlafly is now in her 90’s, and in poor health, so she’s not available.  So they’re relying on the John Birch Society to carry their water.
O’Loughlin did something really dumb.  She emailed the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee a bunch of talking points to use against us.  The email is set forth in full below.  She basically wanted them to lob softballs to the Birchers who were testifying, giving them support for their idiotic interpretation of Article V.  What she apparently didn’t know is that Democratic Representative Ellie Hill is pushing an Article V Resolution of her own, calling for campaign finance reform.  Hill has to fight these crazy Birchers just like we do, and she, and a number of her Democratic colleagues, did not appreciate the email.  At all.  They’re trying to get the Soros’s, and the Kochs’, influence out of our politics.  We’ve got a chance to get out of committee tomorrow, and if we do it could be because these Democrats are pissed.
We’ll know in the morning.
——— Forwarded message ———-
From:  Heather O’Loughlin  <holoughlin@montanabudget.org>
Date: Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:21 AM
Subject: JUDICIARY HEARING  TOMORROW – calling a constitutional convention

House Judiciary Dems:
As you know, Rep. Monforton’s HJ4 is up for a hearing  tomorrow. This resolution calls for a federal constitutional convention to pass a balanced budget amendment. Attached, you will find our one-pager raising concerns about this proposal.  And below are some suggested questions that you may want to consider.
Former UM professor Rob Natelson will be testifying in support. He is considered the “expert” on this topic and has been pushing a constitutional convention in states across the country. The resolution itself was drafted by ALEC and other out-of-state conservative organizations.
On the other side of this debate is the John Birch Society, a conservative organization with strong opposi tion to opening up the constitution.  We had hoped that UM law professor Anthony Johnstone would be able to come over to oppose, but unfortunately, he has scheduling conflicts.
We strongly urge committee members to AVOID talking about a balanced budget amendment, instead focusing on the lack of certainty in calling a convention. We also strongly urge that you resist asking Rob Natelson questions and instead direct your questions to the John Birch Society.

Topline message:

1. We have no idea what a Constitutional Convention will produce. There is no precedent for limiting the scope of a ConCon. 

2. Congress will have significant control over a ConCon. You cannot assume a ConCon will circumvent a Congress that hasn’t been listening; rather, Congress will have substantive control over the scope, the process, and number of delegates.

3. Montana’s voice will not be heard through a ConCon. We will likely have just a handful of delegates, and large population states will have ultimate control.

Some suggested questions:

Q:  We have only held a Constitutional Convention once – in 1787. What was the intended scope of that convention, and how does that compare to what happened?
[ Answer: The 1787 convention was called by the Confederation Congress for the “sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.” As we all know, that is not what happened. The convention completely rewrote the constitution. Further more, we have never called an Article V convention, so we have no precedent for what may happen.]

Q:  Some argue that states have final say on what comes out of a convention, because states have to ratify the amendments. How did this play out in 1787?
[ Answer: Before 1787, amendments to the constitution were required to be ratified by ALL states. However, Rhode Island refused to attend the convention and opposed any amendments. So convention delegates rewrote the ratification rules, to require only 3/4 approval by states. There is no certainty that the current ratification rules will survive.]

Q:  According to your research, how many delegates would Montana likely get?  Follow up, how many delegates would California get?
[ Answer: We do not kno w how many delegates states will get (or how they would even be selected), but it is likely Congress will follow the number of votes within the electoral college. This means Montana would get 3. California would get 55.]
Q:   What is the status of this out-of-state effort to call a convention?  How real is this?  [This question can be directed to myself, Heather O’Loughlin, MBPC:]
[ Answer: This is very real. According to the out-of-state interests pushing this, 24 states have called for a convention. Some did this decades ago, and in fact, many of these states are now considering resolutions to rescind that call. It takes 34 states to call for a convention, and then Congress is obligated to call it. Some states, like South Dakota and Utah, have recently rejected these resoluti ons, because legislators  rightly feared that a convention – once called – could not be controlled by the states and could result in sweeping and unforeseen changes to the Constitution.]

Today

Posted on by Fritz Pettyjohn

Matthew will do a hard count and decide if he’s got the votes.  If not, he’ll have the bill tabled and we move on.

Because the Birchers are such laughable whack jobs, it’s embarrassing to lose to them.  But if we lose, it’s not funny.   I can live with the fact that a couple Republicans on the committee are so dimwitted that they buy in to Bircher bullshit.  What sets me off are the votes we may lose because of simple cowardice.  Pathetic.

Sarah Palin and HJ 4

Posted on by Fritz Pettyjohn

Montana sponsor Matthew Monforton continues to believe that a couple phone calls from Palin would carry the day.  Rep. Randall Pinocci is from the little town of Joliet, up against the base of the Beartooth Range in southern Montana.   Rep.Seth Berglee is from Great Falls, Stephanie Hess is from Havre up by the Canadian border, next to the Rocky Boy Indian Reservation.  These are the kinds of places where Sarah Palin’s star still burns brightly.  They fell for her when she ran for Vice President, and they continue respect and admire her.

These three are not Bichers, but they have a significant Birch presence in their districts.  They’re concerned about getting primaried if they vote for HJ 4.  If they can tell their constituents that their vote was as a result of a personal appeal from Sarah Palin, we’ll get their votes.  Sarah just has to make the call.  I have no doubt she would if she was aware of the situation.  We have to get her the message.

Sal Russo of the Tea Party Express has access to her, and has supposedly asked for her assistance in the Article V movement.  Aside from a supportive Facebook posting back in May, I don’t believe she’s been willing to involve herself.

I’ve decided to try a different form of communication.  Back in the 90’s I was on KENI as the first talk show host in Alaska with a strictly conservative political show.  I had more impact as a talk show host than I did as a legislator, where I was always in the minority.  For instance, I played a key role in the passage of concealed carry by the legislature, and in convincing a reluctant Gov.  Wally Hickel to sign it.  There are still people in the radio business who remember me, and my previous legislative career.

There are now three more or less conservative talk stations in Anchorage  — KENI, KFQD, and KBYR.  I emailed the programming manager at all three, asking to appear on their station in order to try and get in touch with Sarah Palin, or at least make her aware of how she could help in Montana.  I explained the BBA had 24, needed ten more etc.  So I’ve got three lines in the water.

Sarah lives in Wasilla, 30 miles from Anchorage as the crow flies.  She may not listen too much to these stations, but a lot of her friends and neighbors do.  I’ll ask them to contact her for me, and tell her that her help is needed.  They’ll convey the message, and that’s all I can do.  When she becomes aware of our appeal I don’t know what she’ll do.  She may feel imposed upon, for all I know.

I think she makes the calls.

Kasper of North Dakota

Posted on by Fritz Pettyjohn

Jim Kasper set a world record yesterday in his committee, passing out four Article V bills in one day.  The BBA, CoS, Compact, and a new one are on the way to the floor.  We knew North Dakota was kindly disposed to Article V, but this is ridiculous.  We always figured we’d get North Dakota.  This is nice confirmation.

Herman Cain should be on the air in a 60 second spot across Montana by Tuesday.  That and a grassroots phone campaign are all we’ve got going.  Matthew and I both requested that Kasich put through a request to Sen. Daines.  We know he’ll try.  Daines could be a difference maker.  If we get out of committee we’ve got to come up with a game changer.  What we’ve got going for us now won’t be enough.

If, in fact, Biddulph gets the radio spot on the air, I’ll follow up by attempting to get on the local program on each station, particularly Great Falls.  Actually, if we could talk Herman Cain to do it, it would be far better.

He might.