How did the current, 2015 Montana legislature get the way it is?
Many across the state are asking themselves that, especially in light of the terrible stream of bills that have come forth from the legislative body, as well as the rash of poor media attention coming our way nationally. To say that the Montana legislature has run amok would be an apt observation.
But was it always this way, or can we point to developments in our recent political past that point a clear picture to how today came to be?
I think so, and I'll show you by profiling sections of Governing Montana at the Grass Roots: Local Government Structure, Process and Politics, which was written by Ken Weaver. Weaver was a former mayor of Bozeman and former director of the Montana State University Local Government Center. Besides that he was chair of the MSU Political Science department for a number of years.
Many across the state are asking themselves that, especially in light of the terrible stream of bills that have come forth from the legislative body, as well as the rash of poor media attention coming our way nationally. To say that the Montana legislature has run amok would be an apt observation.
But was it always this way, or can we point to developments in our recent political past that point a clear picture to how today came to be?
I think so, and I'll show you by profiling sections of Governing Montana at the Grass Roots: Local Government Structure, Process and Politics, which was written by Ken Weaver. Weaver was a former mayor of Bozeman and former director of the Montana State University Local Government Center. Besides that he was chair of the MSU Political Science department for a number of years.
The 2002 book is a great study on the makeup of Montana’s government, and I suspect few in the 2015 legislature have read it, or even heard of it. Sadly, I don’t think our current legislature does much of its own work at all.
That wasn’t always the case, and the political lines weren’t always the same. The 1993 legislature had 53 Republicans in the House and 20 in the Senate. Yes, the GOP had the Montana House that year but the Democrats had the Montana Senate.
What happened since then?
Things went downhill for Democrats, that’s for sure. This is what Weaver had to say about it in Governing Montana at the Grass Roots:
That wasn’t always the case, and the political lines weren’t always the same. The 1993 legislature had 53 Republicans in the House and 20 in the Senate. Yes, the GOP had the Montana House that year but the Democrats had the Montana Senate.
What happened since then?
Things went downhill for Democrats, that’s for sure. This is what Weaver had to say about it in Governing Montana at the Grass Roots:
“Since the 1994 legislative elections, this long standing pattern of essential equilibrium between the two political parties appears to have been dramatically altered. The 1995, 1997, 1999 and 2001 legislative sessions were dominated by substantial Republican majorities in both houses and the majority party enjoyed the relatively rare opportunity to govern in collaboration with a Republican governor through this period. It was the unanimous option of our “sample” of experienced participant-observers that this shift to the conservative side of the Montana political spectrum is not likely to be reversed in the foreseeable future.” (p 50-1)
What Weaver had to say about caucuses was particularly telling, in light of recent developments in Montana in 2014 and into the 2015 legislative session.
These issues stem from the Montana Supreme Court’s 1998 decision to stick parties with an “open” system, which has led to a lot of chomping at the bit. Weaver saw this coming. He said forcing the parties to adhere to Montana’s “remarkably comprehensive ‘open meetings law’ will probably make establishment and enforcement of party discipline and cohesion even more difficult.”
Many felt that caucuses were “only marginally useful in establishing party cohesion” and that the real policymaking “generally took place in the offices of legislative leadership, especially the speaker’s office.” Weaver goes on to say that:
These issues stem from the Montana Supreme Court’s 1998 decision to stick parties with an “open” system, which has led to a lot of chomping at the bit. Weaver saw this coming. He said forcing the parties to adhere to Montana’s “remarkably comprehensive ‘open meetings law’ will probably make establishment and enforcement of party discipline and cohesion even more difficult.”
Many felt that caucuses were “only marginally useful in establishing party cohesion” and that the real policymaking “generally took place in the offices of legislative leadership, especially the speaker’s office.” Weaver goes on to say that:
“the seasoned legislators of both parties in the sample of participant-observers asserted that the requisite consultation and nose-counting would simply take place in smaller, informal meetings conducted by legislative leadership beyond the scrutiny of outsiders.” (p 51)
We saw that take place at a secret GOP meeting in Helena last fall after the 2014 elections, and there was a large outcry that this was illegal. Nothing ever came of it, however.
Weaver goes on to mention Montana term limits, which were passed in 1992 by voter initiative CI-64. In 1997 26% of the Montana Senate turned over, and 38% of the House did the same, making us the 4th highest in the nation that year for legislative turnover. And this was even before the full effects of that 1992 law were felt. Weaver polled his observers and this is what they said:
“The expectation of the participant-observers was that the key leadership roles of both parties would, with the opening of the 2001 and 2003 legislative sessions, devolve upon much less experienced legislators who will have little institutional memory and who will have even greater difficulty influencing the voting behavior of their even more transient colleagues.” (p 51)
From 1985 to 1993, Weaver tells us, the average turnover in the Montana legislature was 29%. By the 2014 elections, Montana legislative turnover had increased to 55% for Republicans and 45% for Democrats, according to Ballotpedia. Still, the National Conference of State Legislatures lists Montana’s turnover as 14% in the Senate and 34% in the House.
So…what’s correct – the same turnover we had in the legislature before term limits, or a higher level of turnover? Many liberal bloggers and Montana Democrats will have you believe that it’s higher, and that the level of competence of our legislators has gone down. What’s more, it’s often argued that the level of corporate influence and lobbying has increased since term limits went into effect, and even more so after they made their impact fully felt.
When you hear stories about legislators from Florida and Colorado trying to reduce our federal transfer payments as well as sell off our public lands, you begin to realize how the situation came about. Whether the 1992 voter initiatives and the backing for them was pushed by special interest groups opposed to Democracy is unknown. It could be Montana’s individualistic spirit, coupled with a large distrust of government that's giving us so much grief.
Weaver found that in 1994 just 28% of Montanans trusted their elected representatives to do their jobs. And why should the number be any higher? There’s always been a level of mistrust in Montana against the government, and much of it stems from private corporations’ control of that government. Anaconda Copper was a fine example, as historian K. Ross Toole highlights well in Twentieth-Century Montana when he profiles Montana politics in the 1920s:
So…what’s correct – the same turnover we had in the legislature before term limits, or a higher level of turnover? Many liberal bloggers and Montana Democrats will have you believe that it’s higher, and that the level of competence of our legislators has gone down. What’s more, it’s often argued that the level of corporate influence and lobbying has increased since term limits went into effect, and even more so after they made their impact fully felt.
When you hear stories about legislators from Florida and Colorado trying to reduce our federal transfer payments as well as sell off our public lands, you begin to realize how the situation came about. Whether the 1992 voter initiatives and the backing for them was pushed by special interest groups opposed to Democracy is unknown. It could be Montana’s individualistic spirit, coupled with a large distrust of government that's giving us so much grief.
Weaver found that in 1994 just 28% of Montanans trusted their elected representatives to do their jobs. And why should the number be any higher? There’s always been a level of mistrust in Montana against the government, and much of it stems from private corporations’ control of that government. Anaconda Copper was a fine example, as historian K. Ross Toole highlights well in Twentieth-Century Montana when he profiles Montana politics in the 1920s:
“Although the approaches and devices of lobbying were varied, imaginative, and myriad, one of the standard methods employed (which was rendered enormously effective because of the Company’s almost total control of the press) was to introduce extraneous bills and then devise interminable debate and extensive press coverage of the same. This served three purposes: it confused the inexperienced legislator as to the proper priority of things; it enabled the press to attack or laud specific legislators (or the governor) on matters unrelated to anything that really mattered; it hoodwinked the public and covered the legislative scene with a cloud of obfuscatory verbiage.” (Toole, Twentieth-Century Montana p 260-1)
What are we getting at here? I think we’re trying to explain the level of frustration that Montana Democrats feel, especially at their inability to do anything about it. How do you stop the Koch juggernaut? Weaver paints a bleak picture:
“a non-random sample of 20 of the most seasoned participant-observers of the Montana political scene sees little prospect for an early return to the structural equilibrium that characterized the state’s political system for nearly 50 years prior to 1994.” (p 49)
Those 20 participant-observers were asked what they thought the “three most significant sources of influence on legislative decision-making” were. They said the following were the most significant:
Weaver put those three in bold because they came in the most, and can be considered ‘first tier levels of influence.’ He goes on to say the following:
- The party caucus
- Governor
- Lobbyists
- Other legislators
- Grass roots input
- Direct corporate input
- State government agencies
- Legislative staff support
- Newspaper reports
- Newspaper editorials
- Television reports
- List other source
Weaver put those three in bold because they came in the most, and can be considered ‘first tier levels of influence.’ He goes on to say the following:
The response of this question is consistent with the perception of the respondents concerning the shift in policy leadership away from the executive branch and toward the legislative branch, thereby enlarging the potential influence of the 725 or so registered lobbyists. Indeed, the apparent enlargement to interest group influence during the 1995 and subsequent legislative sessions will probably be further expanded in the 2003 session when the full impact of term limits is felt in the senate. We anticipate that this event may require rethinking Montana’s hierarchy of legislative influence to acknowledge the resurgence of corporate interest groups in Montana, which appear to have become dominant at the outset of the twenty-first century.” (p 54)
Weaver mentions the efforts of Clive Thomas and Ronald Hrebenar to rank the most influential lobbyist groups in Montana, something they started in 1996 and updated in 1998. The report was called Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis, and here is what they came up with:
Not included in that list because it’s a non-corporate/business was the Montana Education Association. Weaver mentions that the “legislative influence of labor, environmental interests and local government all lost ground.”
Those groups had the most power twenty years ago, and new corporate interests have risen up. They need to be studied, and it needs to be determined if they're harmful or helpful to the long-term interests and institutions of the state. What’s more, strengths and weaknesses need to be identified, regardless if they’re friend or foe.
What can be done about this long-term problem brought on by a unified, rightwing-funded plan to disrupt Montana? And what can be done to convince Montanans that they need to place more power in government to combat these corporate forces?
Weaver offers the following insight:
Those are all ideas, and I encourage you to read Weaver’s book for more. I also encourage you to read other books about Montana history and politics so you can become a powerful tool in conversations. Thanks for reading!
- Montana Power Company
- Montana Mining Association
- Montana Stockgrowers Association
- Montana Taxpayers Association (corporate interests)
- Montana Chamber of Commerce
- Montana Tavern Owners Association (gambling interests)
Not included in that list because it’s a non-corporate/business was the Montana Education Association. Weaver mentions that the “legislative influence of labor, environmental interests and local government all lost ground.”
Those groups had the most power twenty years ago, and new corporate interests have risen up. They need to be studied, and it needs to be determined if they're harmful or helpful to the long-term interests and institutions of the state. What’s more, strengths and weaknesses need to be identified, regardless if they’re friend or foe.
What can be done about this long-term problem brought on by a unified, rightwing-funded plan to disrupt Montana? And what can be done to convince Montanans that they need to place more power in government to combat these corporate forces?
Weaver offers the following insight:
- Disrupt conservative control of the legislature by offering a fundamental tax reform initiative;
- Shift more power back to the governor’s office and away from the legislature, a body fractured by term limits as well as a lack of party cohesion and discipline;
- Invigorate an electorate to empower government rather than restrain it, giving state and local institutions the authority to address the critical policy issues present now in our second decade of the 21st-century.
Those are all ideas, and I encourage you to read Weaver’s book for more. I also encourage you to read other books about Montana history and politics so you can become a powerful tool in conversations. Thanks for reading!
