Three weeks after American voters lowered the boom on Howie Rich’s so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights and almost all of his ballot measures for “regulatory takings,” he’s still getting press coverage, and it’s not positive. His man in Montana, Trevis Butcher, has resorted to filing a federal lawsuit to protect the guilty – er, to avoid exposing the names of those fundings his, ahem, Montanans in Action. Looks like his brethren at the Maine Heritage Policy Center may face the same dilemma thanks to one dogged Mainer. Without the use of Eric O’Keefe as his Wisconsin connection, Rich has apparently set up shop of his own in that state but hasn’t received given a business license yet. And a state representative targeted and defeated by Rich’s ideological kinfolk in South Carolina has signed on to help the state superintendent who beat the Rich machine’s pro-voucher candidate. How’s that for poetry? Even folks in New Jersey are using him as a bad example. Poor Howie.
But why not let’s start with Trevis Butcher of Winifred, Montana; he makes such good copy.
So Butcher, the Montanan in Action, runs Rich’s ballot measure campaign in Big Sky Country. He fails miserably when his army of paid petition circulators turns out to be Keystone Kops. Good Montanans everywhere begin asking where the usually loquacious Butcher’s dough came from, but on that topic he’s mute. Intrepid crimefighter Jonathan Motl forms his own committee under state law to find out, but Butcher parries still. (That’s a fencing term, TB.) He’s defiant even under questioning before Montana District Court Judge Dirk Sandefur, as we all watched on PBS NOW. (Check it out here, y’all: http://www.dailykos.com/... And thanks, Ms. Hinojosa.) So while he’s got his back up, hissin’ like a cornered possum, the Montana Political Practices Commissioner Dennis Unsworth opens an investigation to see if Butcher – or, maybe, Howie Rich? – has violated any Montana laws by playing coy with the flow of funds out there.
(I know, I know. That one threw you. Trust me, ‘tis a racket. Take a moment, gentle reader, and familiarize yourself with the phenomenon here http://en.wikipedia.org/... Apologies for any offended sensibilities.)
O, land. If you thought there was hissing before, listen to this: Butcher has now filed a FEDERAL lawsuit against Unsworth, a Montana state official doing his duty under Montana law, asking the FEDERAL government to block this investigation.
And I thought Libertarians believed the federal government only existed to provide a military defense of the nation and to protect their rights to profit off the sweat of poor people’s brows. Apparently, there’s been a revision of the platform.
Associated Press reporter Mike Dennison tells us the tale here http://www.helenair.com/... “The suit, filed last week by conservative activist Trevis Butcher of Winifred, says state Political Practices Commissioner Dennis Unsworth’s investigation is violating free-speech rights of Butcher and his affiliated political groups. Filed in U.S. District Court in Billings, the lawsuit sought to block Unsworth’s requests that Butcher provide extensive information on Montanans in Action, a group that spent $1.1 million to promote three ballot measures.”
This is priceless. You can’t make this stuff up.
“Butcher is also treasurer for Montanans in Action, a new group that provided nearly all of the campaign funds for the ballot measures. Montanans in Action has not revealed its financial backers, and Butcher has said the law does not require their disclosure,” Dennison writes. “During the campaign, a rival group filed a complaint with the state Office of Political Practices, alleging that Montanans in Action is required to disclose its funding sources. Unsworth, appointed as the new political practices commissioner in September, had said investigating the complaint is one of his top priorities.”
As well it should be. Either state law is sacrosanct or it ain’t.
This possum isn’t finished hissing, Dennison advises us. Cue up the violins, if you please: “The lawsuit filed by Butcher, Montanans in Action and the ballot-measure campaign groups said Unsworth, the state Democratic Party and others are using the investigation to harass and stymie Montanans in Action. Subpoenas issued by Unsworth’s office are violating free-speech and free-association rights because they will force the group to reveal its political associations and strategies, the suit said.”
Trevis Butcher is stymied by all these questions, essentially. For Pete’s sake, the average viewer could see that on the PBS NOW report, even with the volume turned down.
Is Unsworth doing something wrong by following Montana law?
“We’re simply trying to get some information so we can investigate a formal complaint,’’ Unsworth tells Dennison. “This investigation has to do with whether campaign contributions and expenditures were reported accurately, complete and in a timely way.’’
Sounds like a legitimate course of action to me. And the editors of the Great Falls Tribune agree with me. They write here http://www.greatfallstribune.com/... “We understand the frustration of Trevis Butcher and his supporters. They carried the petitions for three initiatives that qualified for Montana ballots, but court rulings before the election nullified the initiatives. Without factoring in a single thing about the bases for the court rulings, we could have predicted that the petitioners would scream bloody murder, and they did.”
“...another questionable assertion has surfaced relative to the initiatives. It is Butcher's claim, filed in federal court in Billings, that his free-speech rights would be violated if he were forced to reveal the sources of the initiative drives' financing. The state's Office of Political Practices seeks the information, in response to a complaint by the initiatives' opponents. That complaint says Butcher's Montanans in Action, which spent $1.1 million promoting the initiatives, should have to disclose its funding sources.”
“The group's federal-court claim has less to do with its freedom to speak than with its freedom to not speak, and in that sense someone might find some logic. But beyond the legalities, we feel compelled to ask what Montanans in Action is hiding? Why wouldn't it want to operate transparently? Could it be that most of its money is coming from a New York real estate tycoon/libertarian who has been pushing such issues nationwide? Doesn't Montanans in Action want us to believe the initiatives are part of a grass-roots, Montana-based campaign? If that were the case, why wouldn't the group just tell us where it got its money? If the effort isn't Montana-based, could it be that Montanans in Action knows real Montanans don't want New York moguls trashing their government with deceptive, populist-sounding initiatives?”
“Montanans in Action should reveal its funding sources.
Mm-hm. I oughta be an editor.
Well, I know a handful of folks in Maine who are going to watch Butcher’s case closely. Bill Becker and the lesser lights of the Maine Heritage Policy Center are facing a similar pickle, thanks to a complaint by native Mainer Carl Lindemann, as the Associated Press writes here http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.co... “Back in October, Carl Lindemann filed a complaint with the state ethics commission, targeting the Maine Heritage Center, the think tank that drafted the Taxpayer Bill of Rights proposal. Lindemann, a self-described citizen watchdog, said the center was campaigning for TABOR but wasn't disclosing its finances to the state. Commissioners took no action on his initial complaint, and Lindemann said he was advised to come back with some solid evidence in hand.”
Here it comes.
“That is what he did Monday, submitting an 11-page report to the commission, including documents that Lindemann says prove that the policy center broke election law and deceived ethics commissioners.”
Bam. But those wily Policymakers were ready: “An attorney for the center responded swiftly, saying staffers there broke no laws. He also criticized TABOR opponents for engaging in dirty politics after the November election.”
Ooh, you dirty tricksters, you Mainers who asked questions about a ballot measure imported from elsewhere and sold like snake oil to you Mainers, you. Don’t you know it’s dirty politics to continue asking your questions after you trounce the ballot measure by 54 to 46 percent? Jeezly Crow, that’s dirty. And then to bring evidence of wrongdoing to light, too. What were you thinking?
Say, what sort of evidence was that, anyway?
“Lindemann's report included four attached documents: A $125 personal check made out as a donation to the Maine Heritage Policy Center, specifying support of TABOR; a handwritten note from the donor voicing support of TABOR; a form letter from the center, thanking the donor for the check; and a handwritten thank you note signed by Maine Heritage Policy Center president Bill Becker. The name of the donor was David Briney, listing a Denver, Colo., home address. Messages left at a Denver telephone matching that name were not returned by Monday night.”
Wowsa. That’s some pretty solid evidence, all right. But evidence of what?
“Lindemann said the documents show the center was directly lobbying for TABOR and accepting donations earmarked specifically for its passage -- allegations that leaders of the center have denied.”
O, that’s right. Because Becker and the gang work for a non-profit and can’t engage in that sort of business, else they jeopardize their non-profitness and might be stripped of certain protections, like shielding the names of their contributors...
I especially love this part: “At the Oct. 31 meeting of the ethics commission, attorney Dan Billings, representing the center, said staffers had not solicited or received any contributions to influence the outcome of the TABOR vote. That was one reason why the center should remain exempt from financial disclosure laws, Billings said. He also said the center is exempt because it is a public policy institute concerned with education, not campaigning.”
“On Monday, Billings said Lindemann's report was a political set-up, designed to smear the reputation of the Maine Heritage Policy Center. He noted that the donation check and letter were dated Nov. 1, the day after his statements at the ethics commission meeting. ‘The timing of this is not a coincidence’."
Heh heh. These cattle rustlers relieved a rancher of his herd and then claims it was dirty for the rancher to have left his gate open, thus facilitating the relief by the rustlers. Downright comical. How hard is it just to admit getting caught? So a lot could be riding on Trevis Butcher’s federal lawsuit. Hope he’s got a better attorney for this one than he had for the last one.
But the AP writes, “The case initiated by Lindemann returns on Dec. 12 for further review by the state Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices.”
Mm. I don’t think Butcher’s case is going to be decided by then. It may be up to those commissioners themselves to see through this crime and take action. UnLESS Becker and the boys file a federal lawsuit of their own. O, fudge.
Funny, though, that in Nebraska, this shoe was on the other foot a couple of weeks ago and Rich’s crowd seems to find it a good fit there. You may recall, as your faithful Sandlapper told you here http://www.dailykos.com/... that President James Milliken of the University of Nebraska issued a letter to students and alumni informing them of TABOR’s likely impacts on higher education in that state, based in part on the experience of universities in Colorado and in part on economic projections produced right there at home. Information, pure information.
Well, it seems that, from the perspective of Mike Groene, Rich’s man in Nebraska, sending that letter “violated the spirit of the law.” As reporter Melissa Lee writes here http://www.journalstar.com/... “One of the initiative’s sponsors, Mike Groene of North Platte, said Monday he’d forwarded Milliken’s e-mail to a lawyer for review. He didn’t know whether legal action would be pursued. Either way, Groene said, the e-mail violated at least the spirit of the law.”
“I don’t think it’s proper etiquette,” Groene told Lee. “This isn’t what we hired (Milliken) to do. I expect him to be managing our college. The taxpayers own the university. Not him.”
That’s perfectly true. No one owns President Milliken. Glad that was pointed out.
This is the same Groene, Lee reminds us, who “filed complaints with the state Accountability and Disclosure Committee alleging that public school officials had used tax dollars to fight the spending lid. Among the allegations were that officials from the Ashland-Greenwood School District and Valley County had used their public e-mail accounts and time at work to dissuade people from voting for Initiative 423. Now he says that Milliken’s actions, legal or not, were highly improper.”
“Milliken’s ‘slanted’ e-mail is an attempt to scare young, impressionable college students into voting against the initiative by threatening them where it hurts most, Groene said — their pocketbooks.”
“For his part, Milliken said communication is one of his most important duties as NU’s leader. And he said students, faculty and staff would’ve been shocked if he hadn’t provided some sort of analysis on a ballot proposal that could significantly impact NU.”
“Part of my job is to identify what resources are needed to support the University of Nebraska,” Milliken told Lee. “I want to fulfill my obligation. I can’t imagine the reaction if I had said nothing.”
Well, with or without President Milliken’s letter, Nebraskans spoke on Election Night. “Nebraska voters soundly rejected the state spending lid proposal and its threat of higher property taxes or cuts to services. With 100 percent of the statewide vote counted, 70 percent of voters cast ballots against the amendment...,” writes reporter Nancy Hicks here http://www.southernblackhillsweeklyg...
And who was behind the Nebraska TABOR initiative, Ms. Hicks?
“Groups with connections to wealthy New Yorker Howard Rich helped fund those voter initiatives and tried unsuccessfully to get similar lids on ballots in six other states.”
O, I remember now.
Apparently Howie Rich and those orbiting him took the Election Night news hard. That’s the only thing that would explain an article in the National Review giving comfort to the fallen, balm to the beaten. What’s most pathetic – in the old sense of the word, from the Greek ‘pathos’ – is that they had to rely on someone on their own ideological payroll (I’ve no evidence he took real money for this dribble, dear reader) for their medicine. The writer, Michael J. New, is an assistant professor at the University of Alabama, but he also bills himself as – and I can’t imagine what this means – an “adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.” Faith and begorrah. I think it means the reader should hold the nose while tiptoeing through these tulips.
New offers his analysis here http://article.nationalreview.com/... and leads with his anticlimax – so as to have nowhere to look but up! – “Fiscal conservatives suffered a setback earlier this month when all three state-revenue-limit proposals modeled after Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) suffered defeat on election night. At the beginning of the year, many were optimistic. In fact 2006 was the first year that TABOR style fiscal limits were under consideration in multiple states.”
Then come the villains, but New quickly offers his heroes succor: “However, in four states, hostile judicial rulings prevented limits from even appearing on the ballot and in the other three states, revenue limits were defeated at the polls. However, fiscal conservatives should not despair. Campaigns from both this year and previous years can still teach fiscal conservatives some important lessons that might well lead to future victories.”
Yes, lessons: “While TABOR lost by substantial margins in both Oregon and Nebraska, it fared significantly better in Maine, winning over 46 percent of the vote in a blue state during a tough election for conservatives and Republicans nationwide.”
So, it’s once more into the breech in Maine, right, lads? We begin there in 2008 and claw our way to victory? New explains, “The relatively strong showing in Maine is due to a few factors. First, the campaign was spearheaded by a local activist, Mary Adams, who had been working on enacting TABOR for over two years. Furthermore, TABOR activists succeeded in winning endorsements for TABOR from a number of candidates and newspaper editorial boards, including Maine’s largest daily newspaper, The Portland Press Herald. This strong local support made many Maine voters more comfortable with the idea of a fiscal limit and less susceptible to the scare tactics used by TABOR opponents.”
Aha. So New is giving us a battle plan to lift the spirits! Take note. One, find a local activist, a grandmotherly/grandfatherly sort, and prime ‘em, prime ‘em, prime ‘em. You want ‘em cranky enough to stick to the plow, but not so cranky they turn off the ‘lectorate. It’s fine line, soldiers. Two, work the mainstream media circuit well ahead of time. Take ‘em doughnuts; they love the sugar. Third, anesthetize the citizenry: Botox the ballot box. You can’t just tell the sheep it’s slaughter-time and expect ‘em to come runnin’; you have to draw ‘em in with some sweet feed.
“[I]t seems that voters in Maine, as well as in Oregon and Nebraska were concerned that TABOR’s revenue limit would hurt state services,” he writes.
No joke, Sherlock. Senior citizens were seeing their daily Meals on Wheels drop to a weekly jar of strained peas. Prisoners were petitioning for restoration of voting rights so they could vote for the blasted thing and win early release because of overcrowding. Town councilors were putting off budget decisions ‘til they could see what money they’d be working with to hire the necessary policemen. One town manager in Maine quit because he foresaw danger in the crystal ball. This wasn’t rocket scientry, perfesser.
He continues, “Not surprisingly, TABOR opponents were of course all too eager to trot out horror stories from Colorado.”
You’re joking. Like people with half a mind should turn that half off, too. And horror stories? When university students vote to raise their own student fees to finance $57.5 million for construction of new facilities at the University of Colorado because lawmakers wouldn’t/couldn’t/didn’t undo TABOR and pay to build the buildings themselves, that’s not a horror story, that’s history. And it’s written on the walls of those buildings, as I reported here http://www.dailykos.com/...
But New soothes away the pain of Colorado reality, writing, “Of course, Colorado’s recent fiscal pressures were largely due to a revenue crash caused by a severe drought and a mandate requiring sharp annual increases on K-12 education spending. Unfortunately, making this case to voters unfamiliar with the nuances of Colorado fiscal policy is a difficult task. Consequently, instead of talking about the revenue limit, a better strategy for TABOR advocates might be to emphasize TABOR’s voter approval requirement for tax rate increases. This strategy was effective in Colorado in 1992 and might be effective elsewhere.”
So back to the battle plan, Point Four: If the sheep won’t eat their feed, mislead.
In the end, New recommends, stay strong. “Overall, despite the losses, fiscal conservatives would do well to be persistent. In Colorado, Douglas Bruce tried and failed to enact fiscal limits similar to TABOR through the initiative process in both 1988 and 1990. It was not until 1992 that TABOR received majority support. Perhaps an even better example comes from California. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, Howard Jarvis was able to win some victories for taxpayers in southern California. However, prior to the passage of Proposition 13, most of his statewide efforts were unsuccessful. In 1976, he even failed to collect enough signatures to get a proposal for property tax relief on the California ballot. It was not until he joined forces with Paul Gann of People’s Advocate in 1978 that he received enough signatures to put Proposition 13 on the ballot. The rest of course is history.”
“Even though TABOR advocates lost a few battles on Election Day, fiscal conservatives have already achieved a larger and more important victory in that we have finally found a strategy that is actually effective at limiting the growth of government. There is plenty of evidence from the state and federal level that statutory budget caps do very little to halt government growth. Furthermore, when voters successfully use the initiative process to lower taxes, state and local governments often respond by raising other taxes. However, TABOR’s combination of a low, constitutional limit on revenue growth and immediate rebates of surpluses, gave TABOR enough visibility and popularity to enjoy long term success in Colorado. This model can be successful elsewhere — if fiscal conservatives do not give up the fight.”
Hey, do the taxpayers of Alabama know they’re paying a fella to advise ideologues on using the ballot box to reshape public policy his way? If not, Alabamians needs Mike Groene of Nebraska, who’s well-versed in attacking those know-it-alls in their ivy turrets who subvert the popular will at taxpayer expense.
By the way, I have to get this out of the way now because New Jersey hates to be kept waiting. For lack of a good spot, just file it in the better-late-than-never box. Reporter Heather Kays, writing last week about eminent domain arguments in the Garden State here http://www.northjersey.com/... gives Howie Rich a quick shout-out.
It appears that attorney William Ward of Florham Park is handling a lot of eminent domain condemnation cases and is watching the State Senate review its eminent domain laws. The issues has become skewed, he told Kays.
"Developers are really misusing the public's outrage over eminent domain to justify their attempts to get rid of government regulations regarding land use," he told her, adding that the eminent domain ballot questions in some of the 12 states would lead to many lawsuits against the government that would benefit the same developers who are currently taking advantage of residents. "That's wrong," he concluded.
“An example, he said, is Howard Rich, a wealthy Manhattan real estate owner and longtime supporter of Libertarian causes, who has donated millions to support eminent domain initiatives and other campaigns that could potentially curb government and strengthen private property rights.”
"I am against the abuse of eminent domain," Ward told Kays. "But I am not against all government land use regulations such as zoning laws. People like Rich are hiding behind the issue of eminent domain."
From New Jersey, we go to Wisconsin. Though I usually rely most heavily on mainstream reporters for my reading pleasure, this little note caught my eye and I’m pleased to share it. It tells us that Rich and Company have put down stakes in Madison, Wisconsin. Blogger Mike McCabe writes here http://www.wisdc.org/... “Our friends at the national Center for Public Integrity are reporting that Howard Rich has located two of his tax-exempt political organizations in Wisconsin and appears to be operating them illegally in our state. Sure enough, the groups – the Parents in Charge Foundation and the Legislative Education Action Drive – list their addresses as 10 East Doty Street, Suite 800, Madison, WI 53703. And as of today, neither organization has been authorized to conduct business in Wisconsin by the state Department of Financial Institutions, the agency with which all nonprofit corporations must register if they are going to operate in Wisconsin.”
“Both of these private school voucher advocacy groups pulled up stakes across the border in Illinois and ran from the law there before landing here.”
“Who is Howard Rich? He's a New York real estate magnate. Friend of Grover Norquist. Godfather of the national movement to put a ‘Taxpayer Bill of Rights’ in state constitutions. Sugar daddy to state puppet groups, like-minded candidates and a dizzying array of shell companies – Club for Growth State Action, Fund for Democracy, U.S. Term Limits, Americans for Limited Government and America at its Best. The list goes on and on.”
“He clearly likes to play dress-up, creating organizations around the country that sound like grassroots citizen movements but are actually pure Astroturf. There's ‘Oklahomans for Good Government’ and ‘Colorado at its Best.’ And ‘Missourians in Charge.’ Also ‘Montanans in Action’ and ‘Oregonians in Action.’ And ‘South Carolinians for Responsible Government.’ Then there's my personal favorite: ‘Protect Our Homes Idaho.’ All of them are really One Multimillionaire New York Real Estate Mogul with a Right-Wing Agenda.”
I think I’ve found a new favorite poet, readers.
And speaking of poetry, let’s talk about poetic justice.
Ken Clark, a crisp, no-nonsense Navy veteran transplanted to South Carolina in retirement and serving as a moderate Republican in the South Carolina House, made the tactical error of bucking his pro-voucher Governor, Mark Leadership Sanford, and voting against Sanford’s agenda to dismantle the public schools in that state. So a gang called South Carolinians for Responsible Government – a happy band of eye-pokers who redefine “contrarian,” which is saying something in the first state to secede from America those many years ago – targeted Clark for defeat in his primary. Clark lost to a candidate who may check more closely with Governor Leadership before voting on such matters. Is SCRG funded by Rich? Who knows? The public doesn’t know, because SCRG doesn’t tell such things and the law protects its right to evade public inquiry. Heh heh. And Sanford and his bookkeeper, Richard Eckstrom, wield enough power to block any use of public funds to dig for that answer. Heh heh. That’s Sanford and Eckstrom, both of whom collected tens of thousands of bucks in campaign contributions from Rich and entities under his control. Heh heh. But you and I are free to ask the question, aren’t we? Still?
So there’s Clark, the lame duck state rep, watching Rich money flow into South Carolina to support Sanford and Eckstrom and Karen Floyd, the candidate who takes great pains to avoid answering direct questions about her support for Sanford’s vouchers, but who also takes great sums of campaign cash from Rich. What’s Clark to do? Maybe not much through the campaign season, I don’t know. But when the Democratic candidate – a real educator with a career in education, mind you – Jim Rex declared victory by about 400 votes last week, Clark suddenly knew what to do.
“Even before Floyd's concession, Rex had announced that Clark... would serve on his transition team,” writes reporter Rob Novit of the Aiken Standard.
Like I said, pure poetry, and Novit has more of it here http://www.aikenstandard.com/...
“The superintendent's race clearly hinged on the single issue of tuition tax credits/vouchers, Clark said. He didn't support Gov. Mark Sanford's re-election and Floyd's candidacy for that reason. Floyd was steadfastly non-committal on vouchers during the campaign, but Clark expressed dismay at the funds she received from New York City resident Howard Rich, who has been linked in media reports with financing SCRG and its efforts to support voucher candidates,” Novit writes.
Yeah, that Howie. He was generous, wudn’t he? And he picks such good people to support. Too bad he missed the boat on Clark. (Boy, what irony. It was his support for another Clark in 1980 that helped establish his Libertarian bonafides. How things change.) Here’s what Novit tells us about Ken Clark: “A U.S. Naval Academy graduate who retired from the Navy as a captain and as a destroyer commander, Clark said he has long-held Republican credentials. He has served as a precinct president for the Lexington County GOP, and his wife Joanne is a Southern Region president for 15 precincts. Clark strongly supported Sanford until the governor began efforts to get the Put Parents in Charge tax credit legislation approved in 2005.”
“Pro-voucher forces targeted him after he voted against PPIC. ...[A] bout $100,000 in out-of-state funds was spent in mailings ‘that totally distorted my voting record and character’.”
Mm. Spent by South Carolinians for Responsible Government, Novit says. But there’s no real evidence that Rich has bankrolled that gang, so we can’t be sure he’s behind it.
You know, I’ve been racking my brain for the last hour trying to remember why that name – South Carolinians for Responsible Government – is so familiar. Yes, I remember that Hart Williams did a great service by digging up a malignant rose bush by the roots here http://www.hartwilliams.com/... and exposed a terrible web of nastiness, which did include Karen Floyd and Eric O’Keefe and Betsy DeVos and a foolishly creative little fella named Todd McCauley, aka Dennis Sinned. But I’m sure I’ve seen the words before and, lo and behold, it came to me: Chris Kliesmet.
You see, there’s a guy named Dave Diamond who writes a blog in Wisconsin called the Diamond Mine. It’s catchy. Back in July of this year, Dave wrote about some internecine warfare among the wingnuts who run – ta-daa – Citizens for Responsible Government, which he says was formed to attack and recall some local officeholders in cheeseland.
Here’s what Dave writes, found here http://thediamondmine.blogspot.com/... “There are two groups in Milwaukee trying to assert control over the CRG ‘brand’: the original Citizens for Responsible Government formed during the Milwaukee County pension scandal, and the spinoff CRG Network created by Chris Kliesmet and Orville Seymer, viewed in some circles as a vehicle to generate consulting fees.”
Dave goes on to edify his readers, and in his comments section, one Chris Kliesmet himself weighs in to say: “There is no disagreement over the use of CRG. CRG Network was formed with the approval of the CRG Milwaukee board of which Orville Seymer and I serve as members. Orville is the Vice-President and I serve as spokesperson. Each CRG affiliate and board member is free to voice their own opinion. ...Orville Seymer and I work as unpaid volunteers and have never received so much as a nickel for our services.”
“Regards, Chris Kliesmet, CRG Network”
Chris Kliesmet, y’all. I’ll give you a moment to check out my diary of October 5 here http://www.dailykos.com/... and scan real quick for that name.
So when Laird Maxwell, late of Idaho, went looking for someone to be the designated email-reader for all those federal Freedom of Information Act requests, there’s Kliesmet! What a fascinating connection: Rich’s brother-in-law Paul Jacobs begins a massive fishing expedition, enabled by Laird Maxwell of Idaho and later taken over by Leslie (Mrs. Eric O’Keefe) Graves of Wisconsin, and his designated wide receiver is Kliesmet, spokesman for Citizens for Responsible Government.
Is it that big a leap, then – knowing Rich’s penchant for using the same names for Astroturf organizations in various states – that “South Carolinians for Responsible Government” and “Citizens for Responsible Government” share some parents?
Whew. I’m glad I figured that one out ‘fore bedtime. It might’ve kept me up a while.
Roll credits, please.
MAINE
http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.co...
Associated Press, “Ethics panel receives TABOR complaint documents”
MONTANA
http://www.helenair.com/...
Reporter Mike Dennison, “Butcher files federal lawsuit to limit state investigation of finances”
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/...
Associated Press, “Leader of failed initiatives' campaign fights disclosure”
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/...
Editors, “Initiative backers should reveal funding sources”
NATIONAL
http://article.nationalreview.com/...
Cato Institute “adjunct scholar” Michael J. New, “TABOR Lost: Lessons learned from taxpayer losses”
http://thediamondmine.blogspot.com/...
Blogger Dave Diamond, “CRG helps launch my rap career”
NEBRASKA
http://www.southernblackhillsweeklyg...
Reporter Nancy Hicks, “State spending lid goes down”
http://www.journalstar.com/...
Reporter Melissa Lee, “Milliken says I-423 e-mail complied with law”
NEW JERSEY
http://www.northjersey.com/...
Reporter Heather Kays, “War over land”
SOUTH CAROLINA
http://www.aikenstandard.com/...
Reporter Rob Novit, “Ken Clark joins Rex's transition team”
WISCONSIN
http://www.wisdc.org/...
Blogger Mike McCabe, “Howie Rich Sets Up Shop in Wisconsin”