Racicot, M Gov

former Gov. Marc Racicot from urging the crowd to fight for democracy. Racicot himself has been an example of the changing political winds: The former chairman on the Republican National Party was booted from the state Republican Party after criticizing the direction of the party and Trump.

no direct connection to abramoff? see Burns?

scc mta 7 25 greg c democ 2027 tester etc

Transparent Election Initiative - Our Fight Against Corporate Money in Politics

transparentelection.com john f reported

Jeff Mangan

Founder

A lifelong Montanan, Jeff served as Montana's 12th Commissioner of Political Practices. Dedicated to public service, Mangan has championed transparency and ethical leadership at every level of government.

Rob Jackson

Professor at the New York University School of Law & former commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

Marc Racicot

Former Republican governor of Montana and former chairman of the Republican National Committee

---

AN 3 25

It wasn’t a typical Friday night event in the downtown of Montana’s largest city.

The only music played at the event was a closing song, “America,” which brought the crowd of nearly 1,000 to its feet.

About the only people missing from the event that filled the spacious Lincoln Auditorium in Billings (capacity: 1,636) were the three chairs reserved for Sens. Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy as well as Rep. Troy Downing whose congressional district covers the Magic City and all of eastern Montana.

Not unlike dozens of other town-hall style meetings across America, the purpose was to ask questions of leaders about what is happening in Congress, with President Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. And not unlike many recent meetings, the elected leaders did not show up.

That did not stop residents, some from as far away as Missoula and Wibaux counties, from showing up, standing in long lines to ask a question, and former Gov. Marc Racicot from urging the crowd to fight for democracy. Racicot himself has been an example of the changing political winds: The former chairman on the Republican National Party was booted from the state Republican Party after criticizing the direction of the party and Trump.

The Daily Montanan reached out to all three Congressional representatives who were invited. Only Sheehy’s office responded.

“Here is my response to media asking if I will attend Democrat dark money group Indivisible’s left-wing rallies: No, I will not legitimize a radical group that wants to defund the police and abolish ICE,” Sheehy said.

Indivisible, a national group that started in the wake of George Floyd’s death, started as a movement to rein in abuse and to curtail funding to police and other law enforcement agencies. Yellowstone Indivisible organized the event, although during the event, not a single speaker spoke about defunding law enforcement or police brutality.

“There have been town meetings since this country was just 13 colonies and ruled by a king. We want to make it clear to our elected officials that we still don’t want a king,” said Yellowstone Indivisible co-leader Elizabeth Klarich. “We could be doing March Madness, or we could be attending the boys basketball tournaments at the Metra, but we decided to do democracy tonight.”

President Donald Trump campaigned on a far-ranging platform of reform, including to reshape government as well as reduce consumer prices and curbing inflation. Montana is also a heavily Republican state with every member of the Congressional delegation and the five state “constitutional officers” all being Republican. In Montana, Trump took 58% of the vote in the 2024 Election.

Speakers who asked questions and told raw personal stories drew applause, sometimes standing ovations, including for the opening Pledge of Allegiance.

“If we were hired to do a job and refused to do it, we’d get terminated,” Klarich said. “Have they forgotten we have the power to fire them?”

The organizers recorded the meeting, and said they will be delivering a copy of the video to Daines, Sheehy and Downing so they can see the response and turnout.

Billings resident Elizabeth Halvorson worried about the impacts of tariffs on Mexico and Canada, since they represent a combined 93% of imports to Montana.

“What are you going to do protect ag producers? What are you going to do to protect us from higher costs?” she asked.

Throughout the meeting, residents spoke to the trio of empty chairs, each with a placard naming the Congressman who didn’t show.

Steve Held, who ran for Congress as a Democrat and whose daughter was part of the historic youth climate trial that bears his name, spoke on climate change.

“Climate change doesn’t give a damn if you live in Broadus or Bozeman, and the Montana Club will not protect you,” Held said, traveling from Broadus to attend.

Bailey Desper, who is a transgender woman worried about Elon Musk, a common concern at the meeting in Billings and at other meetings, was using government data.

“How are they going to make sure that our rights to privacy are entrusted?” she asked.

Jason Severeid of Billings said that he’s been living independently for two years thanks to help from insurance programs like Medicaid. He has an autoimmune disease that requires infusions every three weeks. Without those programs for him, it’s literally a matter of life or death.

“What assurances can you give me so that my treatment can continue? Please don’t touch Medicaid,” he said.

Maybe the longest and most thunderous applause came for Peggy Wellknown Buffalo, a member and leader on the Apsaalooke (Crow) reservation. She has been lauded for her efforts of providing more than 2 million pounds of food during the COVID-19 pandemic on the reservation in southern Montana, and still runs a food assistance program.

At first she addressed the empty “Congress chairs” in Crow. Then, she spoke in English.

“Your First People are worse off. How much more do we have to give up?” she asked.

Randi Hall of Billings said she’s met Daines previously and voted for him.

“Canada is our friend. You’ve been to the Hi-Line and seen the flags together. You are turning our greatest ally into an enemy. Who would have thought that would happen? Who would have seen the day when Albertans refuse to buy from us? I voted for you and I feel betrayed. I am Montanan and begging you to start voting and acting like one,” she said.

Political science professor Paul Pope, who teaches at Montana State University-Billings, said he wasn’t speaking on any particular issue, but made a different kind of plea.

“If any of you want to seek public office, I am offering my help to run against these absentee representatives,” he said.

Sheehy ousted former three-term U.S. Senator Jon Tester, 53% to 45%. Downing won handily in the conservative Second Congressional district, capturing nearly two-thirds of the vote. And, Daines was the head of the National Republican Senate Campaign Committee that helped the GOP regain control of the U.S. Senate. He will stand for re-election in 2026.

Elizabeth Sillerud, a pastor at American Lutheran Church, described the immigrant families her congregation has helped. Quoting from the Bible, she ticked off passages that urged kindness and hospitality toward foreigners and strangers.

“How are you all — descendants of immigrants and people of faith — responding to immigrants?” she asked.

Gerald Kessler, a retired school teacher and counselor, said he feared for America’s standing in the world.

“You have turned the world order upside down,” he said. “Russia, North Korea and Israel are now our friends when Canada, the U.K. and Denmark — Denmark, really? — are turned against us? In 1949, George Orwell wrote a book called ‘1984’ and I am sorry to say the only thing he got wrong was the date.”

Megan Cassel of Billings said she worried about how this period in history will be remembered.

“History will not remember that we made America great for all the casual pain and hate,” she said.

Laura McGee, a member of the Blackfeet Nation, said that she had spoken repeatedly to Daines’ office about fraud and waste but hasn’t received an answer.

“We demand our treaties, our healthcare, our education and to protect our tribal colleges and universities,” she said.

University of Montana student Shannon Sheehy had pointed words for Montana’s newest senator.

“I’m Shannon Sheehy — no relation,” she said, as the audience laughed. “I am the only Sheehy with courage to get on stage. I am a student at the University of Montana. There is fear there because the climate studies students fear that their program will be dismantled. Trans students are told they are not safe here. And I am worried about student loans. You are not here tonight, and it is clear that no Republican is willing to stand up.”

She also had a different, more personal message for Sen. Sheehy, who often uses his last name as a recurring joke about pronouns, she and he.

“Also, don’t ever use my name as a transphobic punch line again,” she said.

Ryan Chaddick, a pastor in Billings, spoke about his concerns for those who are neurodivergent.

He said that politicians see neurodivergent folks as those who are broken or needing to fix.

“I live with an invisible disability and don’t always show it,” he said. “Many of our leaders are invisible tonight, but my message is that we are neurodivergent; we are here; and we are watching.”

Dozens of people spoke during the event. As the time wound down, ending before all could make it to the microphones, many left questions in a basket that would be forwarded to the trio of absent leaders.

As the town-hall style meetings have spread throughout the country in the wake of the upheaval of the Trump administration and Musk’s action, Republicans who have shown up to these meetings have faced stiff opposition and anger, even from people identifying as Republican. One of the more notable events happened when Rep. Harriet Hageman of Wyoming appeared at an event in Laramie this week.

That event saw Hageman roundly booed, as she said it was “bizarre” that the audience members were so focused on the federal government. She urged them to calm down and suggested they were “hysterical.”

At a similar town-hall style meeting in Bozeman on Friday, an estimated 350 residents gathered but no member of the Congressional delegation attended.

Republican strategists and leaders have urged Republicans not to show up for the meetings, which is why Racicot appeared to lend some perspective as a Montana leader. Former U.S. Sen. Jon Tester, who was beaten in November by Sheehy, sent a message to the Yellowstone County crowd, too.

In a state where politicians brag about how many miles they put on cars traveling to meet constituents, the lack of participation is something new to Treasure State residents. The Daily Montanan had reached out to Pope, a noted political scientist, prior to the event to ask about the shift and the strategy behind not attending these events.

“By not attending, they simply can avoid saying the wrong thing or just defending their actions or inactions. The risk of making people angry by not showing up may be perceived as less than if they did and add fuel to their fire. They forget, they represent us, and the Constitution requires them to defend their own powers against a president who is trying to usurp both their law making and budgetary powers. I believe they are doing this out of party loyalty,” he said.

Pope did not mince words in his analysis of the dangers that the American democracy faces at this particular moment.

“If Congress and the courts fail to hold the President accountable to the Constitution and the rule of law, then they have no ability to constrain the people to the rule of law. This creates chaos and that kind of chaos often leads to violence. In short, Congress’ inactions to constrain the president could literally mean the end of the union,” he said.

Racicot spoke to the crowd and delivered a message to the crowd as people shouted “Racicot for president.”

He spoke about the crafting of the Constitution and the dangers of defying the rule of law, villainizing judges, and reaping pain by creating emergencies.

“It reveals a complete lack of respect for the rule of law. We have had a democratic republic for 237 years, and yet it is fragile and based on the concept that every American must choose it and practice self discipline to maintain order and a respect for fellow citizens,” Racicot said. “To those who seek to lead us at this existential moment of peril, we will strive to be informed and learn. And we will demand loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law.”

The event closed after singing “America” twice, but not before Klarich declared the event a successful example of democracy alive.

“You beautifully saw how democracy works. We will not brandish pitchforks, we will join arms and not tear each other down,” she said. “The selfish greed of power-hungry oppressors will not rob us of seeking our dignity and our joy.”

Daily Montanan is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Daily Montanan maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Darrell Ehrlick for questions: info@dailymontanan.com.

===}:

---

an 2 24

During Wednesday's episode of MSNBC's The ReidOut, a former Republican governor laid out his reasons for filing a brief — along with two other ex-GOP governors — in support of disqualifying Donald Trump from office under the 14th Amendment.

"Three former Republican elected officials stand out in a party that is otherwise completely submissive to Trump — joining the ranks of those arguing to the Supreme Court that he is disqualified to appear on the ballot because he engaged in insurrection," host Joy Reid said. "They are former Massachusetts Governor William Weld, former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, and former Montana Governor Marc Racicot."

She continued, "The filing notes that the three governors have been members of the Republican party for decades. Their objectives in filing this brief are not partisan but purely patriotic, motivated by their commitment to public service. The governors argue, 'Should Mr. Trump be permitted to stand again for election to the presidency, despite his past actions, neither section 3 of the 14th amendment ,nor the oaths that undergird the bedrock premise that public officials serve to advance the welfare of the people and our common national project will ever be the same. They will have been rendered meaningless in their legal force and stripped of their moral authority and power. They will, in effect, have been written out of our Constitution."

Reid then began her phone interview with ex-Governor Racicot. "Tell me why you felt compelled to weigh in on this Supreme Court involving Donald Trump," she said.

Racicot replied, "Well, because it's a serious violation of the Constitution to ignore it. And the fact of the matter is that nobody has a right to run for office. We certainly have a right to vote, if we qualify and haven't disabled ourselves from being able to vote. But we don't have a right to run. In order to run, the person that is the candidate has to prove that, in fact, they can meet the qualifications. So you don't get access to the ballot unless you meet the qualifications. The qualifications have been there from the beginning of the Constitution 235 years ago. You have to be 35 years of age. You have to be native born, and have to have been resident of the country for the past 14 years."

The former governor emphasized, "Then there's a fourth requirement that you have to meet in order to be eligible. And that is, you cannot have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and thereafter involve, engage, incite, or in any other way, be involved with an insurrection against the United States of America, and against the Constitution. So, simply, as you said in your introduction, it cannot be ignored. It can't be waived. It's not an option. This is something that is mandatory. And the burden is on Mr. Trump to prove that, in fact, he meets the qualifications. And there is evidence from two courts — a district court in Colorado, and the United States Supreme Court, plus the Secretary of State in the state of Maine that have all held after a due process hearing that, in fact, Mr. Trump was involved in an insurrection. And as a consequence, he is therefore ineligible to run for president. So, we want to see faith be paid to the Constitution, that's the bottom line.

Watch the video below or at this link.

---

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,198862,00.html

ear of dick

Dick Cheney has taken a hard line against the General Accounting Office, refusing its efforts to get information on meetings held by his energy task force. Critics suspect that Cheney is stonewalling to conceal the Administration's links with bankrupt energy giant Enron. But Cheney may be hiding more than that. Several other energy companies had opportunities to influence the Administration's energy policy, with both persuasion and money.

A key task-force meeting, sources tell Time, was held by Cheney in the White House on May 3. Among attendees were two lobbyists for electric utilities: former Montana Governor and now G.O.P. chairman Marc Racicot and former G.O.P.chairman Haley Barbour. Two weeks later, Cheney's report gave the lobbyists much of what they wanted, including a re-evaluation of a costly clean-air rule, called the new-source review, which requires new pollution controls when power plants are expanded. While he was lobbying for these energy interests, Barbour was also raising at least $250,000 for a May 21 G.O.P.gala honoring President Bush. The group of utilities Barbour was representing, led bySouthern Co., gave $150,000 to the event. The night before the gala, Cheney held a glitzy reception at the vice-presidential mansion for hundreds of the fete's sponsors and longtime party donors.

Another company that had entree to the Cheney task force was Peabody Energy, a coal behemoth whose holding company and top officer have given nearly $200,000 to the President and his party since Bush took office, including $25,000 for the May gala. Sources say Peabody chairman Irl Engelhardt and other energy executives met in March with two task-force members, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and Bush economic adviser Larry Lindsey. Cheney's group also heard in March from officials from the nuclear-energy industry—whose trade association, the Nuclear Energy Institute, contributed $100,000 to the Bush event. Both coal and nuclear power got major endorsements in the task-force report.

Racicot, who stopped lobbying after taking over the G.O.P.last month, said he didn't raise funds for the Bush bash. Barbour did not return calls for comment. Cheney spokeswoman Mary Matalin denied any link between task-force access and fund raising, saying the Veep had no idea who was financing the gala.

srcwatch task force:

However, according to media reports at the time, energy industry executives participated in the Task Force. In particular, those identified as having been involved included then-Enron President and Chairman Kenneth Lay and lobbyists Haley Barbour and Marc Racicot.

In April 2001, the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, sought to obtain the records of the task force meetings. [3] In July 2001 Judicial Watch filed suit on the grounds that the administration was not "in compliance with the Federal Advisory Commission Act (FACA), which mandates that certain documents, task force members, meetings, and decision-making activities be open to the public." [4] Judicial Watch argued that the acting as energy lobbyists -- "regularly attended and fully participated" in the group's meetings held behind closed doors, and were in fact members of the group. The Sierra Club also filed suit. (The two actions were later merged.) "At issue is whether Cheney allowed private energy lobbyists and big-name campaign contributors to participate in the work of the group, and if so, whether that information should be made public," UPI reported. [5]

The organizations claim the documents will show the extent to which the task force staff met secretly with industry executives to craft the Bush administration's energy policies, such as drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and weakening power plant pollution regulations.

1/06

Like a bubble of swamp gas rising from the stinking miasma of corruption that Washington, D.C. has become under the Bush administration, Montana’s former Gov. Marc Racicot resurfaced in Montana last week. Employing the typical “attack the attackers while ignoring the issues” strategy he has honed so well in his sycophantic relationship with the president, Racicot spewed pure methane to Montanans about Bush, Iraq, Conrad Burns and the benefits of GOP-style deregulation. But the Montana of today is considerably different from the Montana Marc Racicot left half a decade ago—and we have little reason to believe his inane drivel any longer.

Given the expansiveness of Racicot’s rambling comments to the press, it’s hard to know where to start. And given the American public’s dissatisfaction with the current administration, it’s easy to dismiss Racicot’s claim that President Bush “is going to go down as one of the best presidents ever.” Nor is there much punch left in once again parroting the endless GOP propaganda that the war in Iraq is “a war for the freedom of this country,” and that “we either take this up in Baghdad or we will in Belgrade.” Rubbish and threats, pure and simple.

But the issues Racicot addressed that are closest to home are probably those with which Montanans are most familiar. Take utility deregulation, for instance. As the driving force behind the 1997 deregulation law that led to the dissolution of the Montana Power Company, the scattering of its assets to out-of-state energy corporations, and today’s unbelievably high power bills, Racicot stands front and center as the man responsible for one of the greatest economic disasters ever to hit the state. Yet in his discussions with reporters, Racicot still praises deregulation.

“Congress set it in motion. We couldn’t stop it. It was sweeping the states,” Racicot told reporters. What he forgot to mention was that it was a Republican Congress dominated by the same energy cronies who secretly devised this nation’s failed energy policy with sneering Vice President Cheney early in Bush’s first term who put together the dereg plan that has benefited them so monstrously at the expense of the nation’s families and businesses. As for stopping it, well, you’d have to try to stop it before you could say you “couldn’t stop it”—and that never happened.

Finally, deregulation wasn’t “sweeping the states” as our former governor claims. The awful truth, which Racicot doesn’t want to countenance, is that Montana leapt into deregulation while our neighboring states looked on in horror. After MPC sold off its hydroelectric facilities—and their massive water rights—Idaho killed its deregulation bill in its tracks. Nor have Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, or 19 other states fallen victim to dereg’s disasters. In California, where the greatest rip-off of consumers by the energy cartels in the nation’s history occurred, deregulation has been suspended.

We’ll have to assume our former governor no longer finds Montana’s newspapers very interesting, or he would realize the harm his past actions have inflicted on Montanans. Take these recent letters to the editorial page of Butte’s Montana Standard. “My power bill was $417.05 this month,” wrote Sharon Brody under the title “Power costs hurting the elderly.” “It’s more than anyone can pay for rent and food or medication. Well, there are no more cuts in low-income to be made. When is someone going to open their eyes and stop this madness?”

Or how about this one from Butte businessman Norman Partelow, who wrote: “My electrical bill for my business went from $200 in November to $445 in December, an increase of 145 percent. I am sure that the natural gas bill, when received, will be equivalent. At a 30 percent profit margin, I have to gross $2000 a month to pay the piper.” Given Montana’s dismal, bottom-of-the-barrel per capita income, no one can ignore the grim impacts Racicot’s policies have wrought.

If you thought De’ Nile was a river in Eygpt, look at what Racicot had to say about the scandal that has tied D.C. lobbyistJack Abramoff to Montana’s Sen. Conrad Burns. “Speculation, rumor, gossip and innuendo” is what Racicot called the talk about Abramoff, spread by “political opportunists who will do everything in their power to try and take advantage of that to serve their own purpose.” As a clincher, Racicot added there’s “no evidence of any kind” suggesting untoward activities by Burns.

Now consider what The New York Times reported Tuesday: “Mr. Abramoff, 46, is pleading guilty to fraud, public corruption and tax evasion, setting the stage for prosecutors to begin using him as a cooperating witness against his former business and political colleagues.”

“With Jack Abramoff’s cooperation,” the Times article concludes, “the Justice Department will have a potentially critical witness to alleged patterns of corruption within the Republican leadership.”

Which brings us to the real reason Racicot was bubbling swamp gas last week. Although he called it “a matter of cosmic intersection that I am here on my own dime and speaking about the issues,” Racicot admitted that the new Republican National Committee chairman asked him to ride to the defense of their scandal-plagued party while he was in Montana. The Repubs are worried—and rightfully so.

Conrad Burns received about $150,000 from Abramoff—the largest take of any politician in Congress—and Abramoff has just cut a plea agreement with the feds. Considering it’s an election year for Burns, and given the general revulsion sweeping the country over the GOP’s out-of-control corruption, the Repubs could easily lose the Senate. Racicot says “it’s not even a remote possibility” that Burns won’t run, and reportedly “dismissed suggestions that he might return to Montana and run for office.”

But the Abramoff story is far from over. Given the dubious veracity of his other statements, Montanans should keep their eyes open and their memories sharp—or risk a Racicot redux with all that would entail.

When not lobbying the Montana Legislature, George Ochenski is rattling the cage of the political establishment as a political analyst for the Independent. Contact Ochenski at opinion@missoulanews.com.

[SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, 11/21/2000 ; US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, 12/13/2000; PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, 12/17/2000; LEIP, 2008]The Court says in its ruling that “the right of the people to cast their vote is the paramount concern overriding all others.” Campaign observers have said that if the Florida high court’s ruling went the other way, Gore would concede the election. Some of Gore’s senior campaign advisors reportedly told Gore to stop further challenges if the Florida court decision went in Bush’s favor. [GUARDIAN, 11/22/2000] Bush campaign representatives level charges that the Gore campaign is attempting to “steal” the election. Bush campaign attorney James Baker calls the Supreme Court’s ruling “unjust.” Governor Marc Racicot (R-MT), who has emerged in recent days as an influential Bush campaign spokesman, threatens “some extraordinary” measures to overcome the effects of the Court’s ruling (see 9:00 a.m. and after, November 22, 2000) UK guard

...

After-Party - After the riots, the Bush campaign pays $35,501.52 for a celebration at Fort Lauderdale’s Hyatt Regency, where the rioters and campaign officials party, enjoy free food and drink, receive congratulatory calls from Bush and Dick Cheney, and are serenaded by Las Vegas crooner Wayne Newton, singing “Danke Schoen,” German for “thank you very much.” Other expenses at the party include lighting, sound system, and even costumes.

Media Reportage - Bush and his campaign officials say little publicly about the riot. Some press outlets report the details behind the riots. The Washington Post later reports that “even as the Bush campaign and the Republicans portray themselves as above the fray,” national Republicans actually had joined in and helped finance the riot. The Wall Street Journal tells readers that Bush offered personal words of encouragement to the rioters after the melee, writing, “The night’s highlight was a conference call from Mr. Bush and running mate Dick Cheney, which included joking reference by both running mates to the incident in Miami, two [Republican] staffers in attendance say.” The Journal also observes that the riot was led by national Republican operatives “on all expense-paid trips, courtesy of the Bush campaign.” And, the Journal will note, the rioters went on to attempt to disrupt the recounts in Broward County, but failed there to stop the proceedings. The Journal will write that “behind the rowdy rallies in South Florida this past weekend was a well-organized effort by Republican operatives to entice supporters to South Florida,” with DeLay’s Capitol Hill office taking charge of the recruitment. No similar effort was made by the Gore campaign, the Journal will note: “This has allowed the Republicans to quickly gain the upper hand, protest-wise.” And the Journal will write that the Bush campaign worked to keep its distance from the riots: “Staffers who joined the effort say there has been an air of mystery to the operation. ‘To tell you the truth, nobody knows who is calling the shots,’ says one aide. Many nights, often very late, a memo is slipped underneath the hotel-room doors outlining coming events.” But soon, media reports begin echoing Bush campaign talking points, which call the “protests” “fitting, proper,” and the fault of the canvassing board: “The board made a series of bad decisions and the reaction to it was inevitable and well justified.” The Bush campaign says the mob attack on the elections office was justified because civil rights leader Jesse Jackson had led peaceful, non-violent protests in favor of the recounts in Miami the day before. The campaign also insists that the protests were spontaneous and made up entirely of local citizens.On November 26, Governor Marc Racicot (R-MT), a Bush campaign spokesman,will tell NBC viewers: “Clearly there are Americans on both sides of these issues reflecting very strong viewpoints. But to suggest that somehow this was a threatening situation, in my view, is hyperbolic rhetoric.”

Effect of the Riot - According to Parry, the riot, broadcast live on CNN and other networks, “marked a turning point in the recount battle. At the time, Bush clung to a lead that had dwindled to several hundred votes and Gore was pressing for recounts (see November 20-21, 2000). The riot in Miami and the prospects of spreading violence were among the arguments later cited by defenders of the 5-to-4 US Supreme Court ruling (see 9:54 p.m. December 12, 2000)… that stopped a statewide Florida recount and handed Bush the presidency. Backed by the $13.8 million war chest, the Bush operation made clear in Miami and in other protests that it was ready to kick up plenty of political dust if it didn’t get its way.” In the hours after the riot, conservative pundits led by Rush Limbaugh will engage in orchestrated assaults on the recount process as fraudulent and an attempt by the Gore campaign to “invent” votes. No one is ever charged with any criminal behaviors as a result of the riot. [CONSORTIUM NEWS, 11/24/2000; WASHINGTON POST, 11/27/2000; VILLAGE VOICE, 12/19/2000; CONSORTIUM NEWS, 8/5/2002; VANITY FAIR, 10/2004; CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS, 12/9/2010]

Entity Tags: County of Miami-Dade (Florida), Tom DeLay, Charles Royal, Rush Limbaugh, Roger Stone, Robert Parry, Richard Pombo, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Wayne Newton, William Daley, Albert Arnold (“Al”) Gore, Jr., Brad Blakeman, Brendan Quinn, CNN, Carrie Meek, Richard (“Dick”) Cheney, William Michael (“Bill”) Daley, County of Broward (Florida), Michael Murphy, Thomas Pyle, Matt Schlapp, George W. Bush presidential campaign 2000, David Leahy, Democratic National Committee, Doug Heye, Florida Supreme Court, Mayco Villafena, George W. Bush, Garry Malphrus, James A. Baker, Jake Tapper, Jim DeMint, Kevin Smith, Luis Rosero, Marc Racicot, Jenny Backus, Joseph Lieberman, Joe Geller, Joe Fraga, Joel Kaplan, John J. Sweeney

Timeline Tags: 2000 Elections, Civil Liberties

7:30 p.m. November 26, 2000: Florida Secretary of State Announces Bush Winner of Florida Presidential ElectionEdit event

Bush supporters in Florida celebrate Katherine Harris’s decision to certify Bush as the winner of the 2000 election.

Bush supporters in Florida celebrate Katherine Harris’s decision to certify Bush as the winner of the 2000 election. [Source: Salon]

Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, the co-chair of Florida’s Bush campaign team (see After 3:30 a.m. November 8, 2000 and After), certifies George W. Bush (R-TX) the winner of Florida’s presidential election, though according to a Florida Supreme Court ruling she can choose to accept recount tallies through November 27 (see November 20-21, 2000). She chooses not to do so. Harris says Bush has a 537-vote lead. Her totals are: Bush, 2,912,790; Vice President Al Gore (D-TN), 2,912,253. The totals include none of the recounted ballots from either Palm Beach or Miami-Date Counties, both of which did not complete their recounts by Harris’s deadline (see 9:00 a.m. and after, November 22, 2000 and 2:45 p.m. November 26, 2000). Ongoing legal actions by both parties keep the election in doubt. Regardless, Governor Jeb Bush, George W. Bush’s brother, signs the Certificate of Ascertainment designating 25 Florida electors pledged to George W. Bush and transmits the document to the National Archives as required by Title 3, US Code, Section 6. Three days later, a Florida legislative committee will recommend a special session to name the state’s 25 representatives to the Electoral College, where they will presumably cast their votes for Bush. [US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, 12/13/2000; PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, 12/17/2000; LEIP, 2008] If Bush is indeed the winner of the Florida presidential election, he has enough electoral votes to assume the presidency (see November 9, 2000). The Gore campaign refuses to accept Harris’s certification, and says it will ask Florida courts to order recounts of thousands of disputed votes. Gore’s running mate Joe Lieberman says, “This evening, the secretary of state of Florida has decided to certify what—by any reasonable standard—is an incomplete and inaccurate count of the votes cast in the state of Florida.” The Gore campaign is working out details of what will be a formal “contest” of the results, and will ask a state judge to order court-appointed “special masters” to complete interrupted recounts of about 2,000 uncounted votes in Palm Beach County and 10,700 uncounted votes in Miami-Dade County. They also want an inquiry into the Nassau County returns, where Gore officials believe Bush was wrongly credited with some 51 votes, and are considering challenging the legality of Palm Beach’s controversial “butterfly ballots.” Gore’s chief lawyer David Boies says: “We’re preparing contest papers that will be filed Monday, as early in the day as we can get them done. Until these votes are counted, this election cannot be over.” Republicans intend to use Harris’s ruling to publicly pressure Gore into conceding the election, pressure the Gore campaign says it is prepared to combat. Miami-Dade County, expected to yield enough votes in a recount to swing the election in favor of Gore, called off its recount under pressure from Republican protesters and due to time constraints (see 9:00 a.m. and after, November 22, 2000). [SALON, 11/25/2000; GUARDIAN, 11/27/2000; GUARDIAN, 11/28/2000] Investigative reporter Robert Parry will later write that Harris deliberately allowed Nassau County to throw out its recounted figures that gave Gore the 51 votes. [CONSORTIUM NEWS, 8/5/2002] A brief furor ensues when some media outlets mistakenly report that 500 absentee ballots “not previously counted” were discovered in Broward County. The story is not true. [SALON, 11/25/2000] According to state law, it is only now that Gore can ask for a statewide recount. [VANITY FAIR, 10/2004] Former President Jimmy Carter tells a reporter: “More than two weeks will remain before Florida’s 25 electors will have to be named, and then two more months before a new president will be sworn into office. We must not sacrifice speed for accuracy in deciding who has been chosen by the voters to take that oath.” [SALON, 11/25/2000]

Entity Tags: Al Gore presidential campaign 2000, Florida Supreme Court, Albert Arnold (“Al”) Gore, Jr., County of Miami-Dade (Florida), County of Broward (Florida), George W. Bush, County of Palm Beach (Florida), Katherine Harris, Robert Parry, James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr., George W. Bush presidential campaign 2000, Joseph Lieberman, John Ellis (“Jeb”) Bush

Timeline Tags: 2000 Elections

(November 29, 2000): Justice O’Connor Intends to Overturn Florida Supreme Court Decision, Grant Bush Election, Says Her ClerkEdit event

The clerks for the four liberal justices at the Supreme Court—John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg—continue their speculation as to whether the Court will actually attempt to decide the presidential election ((see November 20-21, 2000 and November 22-24, 2000), especially in light of Florida’s recent attempt to certify George W. Bush as the winner (see 7:30 p.m. November 26, 2000). At a November 29 dinner attended by clerks from several justices, a clerk for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor tells the group that O’Connor is determined to overturn the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to go ahead with manual recounts of election ballots (see 3:00 p.m., November 16, 2000). One clerk recalls the O’Connor clerk saying, “she thought the Florida court was trying to steal the election and that they had to stop it.” O’Connor has the reputation of deciding an issue on her “gut,” then finding legal justifications for supporting her decision. Unbeknownst to anyone outside the Court, O’Connor has already made up her mind. Gore lawyers in particular will spend endless hours trying to craft arguments to sway her vote, when the actual case will come down to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who originally wanted to accept the case. Many clerks of both liberal and conservative justices have little respect or regard for Kennedy. They consider him, according to a 2004 Vanity Fair article, “pompous and grandiloquent.” They believe he fills his office with elaborate, expensive decorations and trappings, including an elaborate chandelier, to give the idea of his power and importance. “The clerks saw his public persona—the very public way in which he boasted of often agonizing over decisions—as a kind of shtick, a very conspicuous attempt to exude fairness and appear moderate, even when he’d already made up his mind,” according to the Vanity Fair article. Conservative clerks suspect Kennedy of untoward liberal leanings, and have taken steps to ensure that the clerks he receives are ideologically sound. One liberal clerk later explains the conservative justices’ reasoning, saying, “The premise is that he can’t think by himself, and that he can be manipulated by someone in his second year of law school.” By now, Kennedy is surrounded by clerks from the hard-right Federalist Society. “He had four very conservative, Federalist Society white guys, and if you look at the portraits of law clerks on his wall, that’s true nine times out of 10,” another liberal law clerk will recall. “They were by far the least diverse group of clerks.” The conservative and liberal clerks do not socialize with one another as a rule, so it is unusual when, a day after the clerk dinner, Kevin Martin, a clerk for conservative justice Antonin Scalia, visits Stevens’s chambers. Martin went to Columbia Law School with Stevens’s clerk Anne Voigts, and he wants to see if he can explain to her the conservatives’ judicial point of view. However, two other Stevens clerks, Eduardo Penalver and Andrew Siegel, believe Martin is on some sort of reconnaissance mission, attempting to find out what grounds Stevens will cite to argue against overturning the Florida decision. Penalver and Siegel believe Martin is trying to manipulate Voigts, and Martin, after telling them to “F_ck off!” storms out of Stevens’s chambers. Clerks from O’Connor’s staff pay similar visits to other liberal justices, though these conversations do not end so contentiously. [VANITY FAIR, 10/2004] O’Connor said to partygoers when the news networks announced the election for Al Gore, “This is terrible” (see After 7:50 p.m. November 7, 2000).

Entity Tags: Eduardo Penalver, Anthony Kennedy, Anne Voigts, Andrew Siegel, Albert Arnold (“Al”) Gore, Jr., David Souter, US Supreme Court, Vanity Fair, Sandra Day O’Connor, George W. Bush, Florida Supreme Court, Federalist Society, Antonin Scalia, Kevin Martin, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer

Timeline Tags: 2000 Elections, Civil Liberties

10:00 a.m. December 1 - 4, 2000: US Supreme Court Overrules Florida Supreme Court’s Ruling on Florida RecountsEdit event

The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the Bush presidential campaign’s challenge on constitutional grounds of Florida Supreme Court’s ruling on selective manual recounts (see November 20-21, 2000). The case is Bush v. Palm Beach Canvassing Board. Throngs of protesters surround the Supreme Court building. Inside, the justices’ questions indicate that they are divided on the legality of the Florida high court’s intervention, and some justices seem to think that Florida courts should resolve the issue. Justice Anthony Kennedy says, “We’re looking for a federal issue.” Justice Stephen Breyer asks, “What’s the consequence of our going one way or the other now in this case?” Observers will later describe Laurence Tribe, an experienced Supreme Court litigator representing the Gore campaign, as listless and flat, while Theodore Olson, arguing the Bush campaign’s case, is “more impressive.” Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia give the impression that they believe the Florida Supreme Court encroached on the Florida legislature’s bailiwick. Justices Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor (see After 7:50 p.m. November 7, 2000 and (November 29, 2000)) express their irritation with the Gore arguments. When the arguments are over, the justices meet in chambers for the usual conference. At one end of the argument is Scalia, who wants to overturn the Florida decision and in essence award George W. Bush the election, and at the other, Justice John Paul Stevens, who wants the Court to stay out of the case altogether. Neither justice can command a majority among the other seven. Rehnquist begins drafting a ruling asking the Florida high court to clarify its ruling, to cite the state constitution in its decision (which the Bush team had argued would have been improper), or under state law (which the Bush team had found arguably permissible). All nine justices eventually sign onto Rehnquist’s opinion. A 2004 Vanity Fair article will observe: “The unanimity was, in fact, a charade; four of the justices had no beef at all with the Florida Supreme Court, while at least four others were determined to overturn it. But this way each side could claim victory: the liberal-to-moderate justices had spared the Court a divisive and embarrassing vote on the merits, one they’d probably have lost anyway. As for the conservatives, by eating up Gore’s clock—Gore’s lawyers had conceded that everything had to be resolved by December 12—they had all but killed his chances to prevail, and without looking needlessly partisan in the process. With the chastened Florida court unlikely to intervene again, the election could now stagger to a close, with the Court’s reputation intact, and with Bush all but certain to win.” On December 4, in a setback for the Gore campaign, the Court unanimously sets aside the Florida Supreme Court ruling and remands for clarification the Florida Supreme Court’s decision. [SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 12/4/2000; US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, 12/13/2000; PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, 12/17/2000; VANITY FAIR, 10/2004; LEIP, 2008]

Posted: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 12:00 am

Former Gov. Marc Racicot represents one of the many organizations opposing the existing Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005.

Racicot, as president of the American Insurance Associations, wrote a letter dated Jan. 20, 2006, to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., saying "we want to reiterate our association's strong opposition to the bill as reported out of the Judiciary Committee."

Property-casualty insurers are committed to a solution to the national asbestos litigation crisis, Racicot said to Frist, but "since the Senate decided to pursue a trust fund, our industry has stressed that this approach must provide insurers with both certainty and finality for our asbestos exposure."

The FAIR Act includes a $140 billion trust fund for people diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease. The national fund for asbestos compensation would be financed by asbestos-related corporations and their insurers.

Insurance industry concerns center on bill language that says if the administrator of the health trust fund cannot resolve a case within a specified period of time, it will be allowed to return to the court system.

"Our industry would inevitably find itself paying both substantial sums to the fund and additional large sums in the tort system for claims permitted to leak outside of the fund," Racicot wrote.

The RAND Institute, a policy research group, reported in 2005 that more than 700,000 asbestos-related lawsuits have been filed in recent decades, costing industry tens of billions of dollars. An insurance industry consultant estimated that in 2003, asbestos litigation cost corporations $8.6 billion.

FAIR advocates seeks to absolve corporations of the legal liability that has forced companies into bankruptcy because of the number of asbestos-related lawsuits against them. The initial intent of the law was to prevent further asbestos-related lawsuits.

Under the proposed federal legislation, rather than taking their cases to court, asbestos victims would file a claim with the Department of Labor, which would then judge whether the person's case warrants compensation and allocate funds according to the severity of the harm caused by exposure.

Montana Sen. Max Baucus successfully introduced a "Libby fix" to the bill because the criteria for determining who was ill with asbestos-related disease would have eliminated the hundreds of victims who worked at W.R. Grace's vermiculite mine and mill operations in Libby.The vermiculite was contaminated with tremolite asbestos and shipped to more than 300 known locations in the U.S. for processing. Some estimates say that Zonolite Attic Insulation made from that vermiculite is in an estimated 35 million buildings in the U.S.

Racicot's letter to Frist contains six critical issues that the insurance industry has with the asbestos relief bill. One of those concerns is the "Libby, Montana Expansion Provisions" which allow the fund administrator to apply special eligibility provisions established for Libby victims to other sites throughout the country should the conclusion of a study to be conducted by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry warrant it.

Under the so-called Libby fix:

l Libby claimants are exempted from the general exposure criteria in the bill - they just have to establish that they lived, worked or played within a 20-mile radius of Libby for any 12-month period prior to Dec. 31, 2004 and meet special medical criteria applicable only to Libby claimants.

l Libby claimants can choose to have their claims referred to an expert physicians' panel, which will utilize the special medical criteria developed for Libby claimants to ensure that they are treated fairly.

l If the Libby claimants comply with the Libby-specific medical criteria, they will receive a Level 4 award, or $400,000, essentially establishing a floor of compensation of $400,000 for sick Libby claimants. Those payments would be paid out $160,000 for the first year, $120,000 the second year and $120,000 the third year. A Libby claimant diagnosed with cancer will receive a $1.1 million award.

When the proposed law came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, the language for the diffused lung capacity test was removed. Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., has been fighting to have the test language returned to the bill because nearly 40 percent of the Libby victims would be eliminated former the "Libby fix."

The insurance association is concerned that expanding the "Libby fix" to other sites in the country could threaten the solvency of the $140 billion trust fund. Their suggestion is to take away the authority of the administrator to make that decision and give it to congress since the federal government could find itself with a financial liability if there is not enough money in the fund.

Racicot, himself a former resident of Libby, was governor when the Libby asbestos problem became a national issue due to widespread media attention. Shortly afterward, he turned his attention to help then Texas Gov. George Bush campaign for president.

Marc Racicot, new chair of RNC will pull six fig lobby salary, but promises not to 102

cf http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair08092003.html

August 9, 2003

"The White Colin Powell?"

Marc Racicot: Bush's Main Man

By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

When the Florida recount fiasco was in full-throttle, the Bush team called in one of its top fixers to deal with the media and help put the finishing touches on the brusque strategy that helped seal the election. That man was Marc Racicot, the former governor of Montana. Many thought would be rewarded for his efforts with a top post in the Bush White House. Although he was on the short list for both Secretary of the Interior and Attorney General, Racicot ended up in the cushy post as head of the Republican National Committee, where his deft fundraising abilities fattened the RNC vaults with a record $250 million in soft money contributions for the 2002 election cycle.

...

Racicot served as governor of Montana from 1994 through 2000, where he slashed taxes, carried water for big timber, deregulated the state's electric utilities and moaned ceaselessly about the oppressive hand of the federal government. Prior to that Racicot served two terms as attorney general for the Big Sky state.

These days Montana's once robust economy is in ruins. The current governor, Racicot's bumbling protégé Judy Martz, gets most the blame for the crisis and lumbers along with an approval rating of 23 percent. But Racicot's savage economic policies laid the foundations for the wreck that now plagues the state: record deficits, bankrupt schools and a senescent economy.

While Racicot slashed services and taxes, he also funneled what little money remained in the Montana treasury into costly projects that benefited political donors. For example, Racicot spent tens of millions of dollars on a new software system for the state government that was supposed to minutely track agency budgets and expenditures. Nearly a decade and $50 million later, the system still doesn't function and the workings of state's budget (now deep in the red) remains as opaque as the rituals of Eleusis.

Although the state of Montana was veering toward bankruptcy, Racicot sank $100 million into the construction of new prisons, which were built by political donors. The problem was that Montana was one of the few states with an overcapacity of prison beds. The prisons went up anyway and despite a slate of harsh new laws passed under Racicot and Martz to lock up more Montanans the new prisons remain underbooked. Now, Montana is desperately looking to rent out its empty cells to other states.

His cavalier approach to the state's health care services was even more disastrous. Racicot pushed through a $400 million scheme to privatize Montana's mental health care system. But less than two years after it was put into place, the new program collapsed, pushing schizophrenics and other patients out onto the streets and off of needed medications. The state is now faced with recreating a system that Racicot destroyed.

When Montana's schools began to falter from the budget squeeze, Racicot offered a quick fix: log off the remaining old growth on state lands and cycle the receipts to the schools. This scheme, dubbed clearcuts for classrooms by local environmentalists, ravaged Montana's forests, but did almost nothing to help the state's beleaguered school system. Using the same rationale, Racicot also began selling off state park and forestlands near urban areas to his corporate cronies for shopping centers, office buildings and subdivisions.

Montana once enjoyed the toughest clean water laws in the country. Racicot dismantled them in 1995 when he signed a bill backed by mining and oil companies which raised limits on the discharge of toxins and carcinogens into Montana's streams, allowed corporations the right to police their own conduct and at the behest of the coal methane producers expanded the luxury to foul groundwater to the very boundaries of polluter's property.

This was followed by Racicot'sbig gift to the strip-mining lobby. Despite the fact that Montana, which bears the historical scars of the strip-and-run coal companies, is the only state in the nation whose constitution requires the reclamation of all lands disturbed by mining, Racicot signed into a law a measure that exempts open pit mines from any responsibility to restore the mess they make, often contaminated with cyanide and other toxic debris.

Environmental and energy policies

Main article: Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration#Environment

Upon taking office in 2001, Bush stated his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol, an amendment to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change which seeks to impose mandatory targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, citing that the treaty exempted 80% of the world's population[138] and would have cost tens of billions of dollars per year.[139] He also cited that the Senate had voted 95–0 in 1997 on a resolution expressing its disapproval of the protocol.

In 2002, Bush announced the Clear Skies Act of 2003,[140] aimed at amending the Clean Air Act to reduce air pollution through the use of emissions trading programs. It was argued, however, that this legislation would have weakened the original legislation by allowing higher levels of pollutants than were permitted at that time.[141] The initiative was introduced to Congress, but failed to make it out of committee.

Bush has said that he believes that global warming is real[142] and has noted that it is a serious problem, but he asserted there is a "debate over whether it's man-made or naturally caused".[143] The Bush Administration's stance on global warming has remained controversial in the scientific and environmental communities. Critics have alleged that the administration[144] misinformed the public and did not do enough to reduce carbon emissions and deter global warming.[145]

In 2006, Bush declared the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands a national monument, creating the largest marine reserve to date. The Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument comprises 84 million acres (340,000 km²) and is home to 7,000 species of fish, birds, and other marine animals, many of which are specific to only those islands.[146] The move was hailed by conservationists for "its foresight and leadership in protecting this incredible area".[147]

In his 2007 State of the Union Address, Bush renewed his pledge to work toward diminished reliance on foreign oil by reducing fossil fuel consumption and increasing alternative fuel production.[148] Amid high gasoline prices in 2008, Bush lifted a ban on offshore drilling.[149] The move was largely symbolic, however, as there is still a federal law banning offshore drilling. Bush said, "This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil reserves is action from the U.S. Congress."[149] Bush had said in June 2008, "In the long run, the solution is to reduce demand for oil by promoting alternative energy technologies. My administration has worked with Congress to invest in gas-saving technologies like advanced batteries and hydrogen fuel cells.... In the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil. And that means we need to increase supply, especially here at home. So my administration has repeatedly called on Congress to expand domestic oil production."[150]

In his 2008 State of the Union Address, Bush announced that the U.S. would commit $2 billion over the next three years to a new international fund to promote clean energy technologies and fight climate change, saying, "Along with contributions from other countries, this fund will increase and accelerate the deployment of all forms of cleaner, more efficient technologies in developing nations like India and China, and help leverage substantial private-sector capital by making clean energy projects more financially attractive." He also announced plans to reaffirm the United States' commitment to work with major economies, and, through the United Nations, to complete an international agreement that will slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases; he stated, "This agreement will be effective only if it includes commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride."[151]

srcwtch:

Marc F. Racicot, former Montana governor and attorney general, Bush reelection chairman, and former head of the Republican National Committee, in June 2005 became "the new head of the American Insurance Association, which represents 435 major property and casualty insurance companies."^[1]

Racicot is the founding Co-Chair, United States Consensus Council Roster for Search for Common Ground.

Contents

Profiles

In January 2002, Racicot was nominated by President George Walker Bush and was "unanimously elected Chairman" of the Republican National Committee. [1]

Racicot was a two-term Montana governor ending in 2001.He then served as Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman from January 2002. Racicot "is valued by Bush's aides for his calm manner on television. He plans to spend about half his time at his law firm, Bracewell & Patterson, then take a leave next year to join Bush-Cheney '04 Inc. full time.

"Racicot, who gave up lobbying as RNC chairman, said he will not lobby in his new post. He planned to lobby as RNC head but agreed not to a month after he was named in December 2001. That followed criticism that his clients would have special access to the administration. ...

"Racicot said his legal work consists of corporate projects that do not involve the government. He said he will remain on the boards of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., MassMutual Financial Group and Siebel Systems Inc."

According to his RNC biography, "Governor Racicot has a distinguished record of public service that spans nearly three decades. He served as Montana's governor (1993-2001)- winning reelection with 79 percent of the vote in 1996, the largest winning percentagefor a governor in Montana's history and the largest winning percentage for any governor that year.

"As governor, Racicot sought to improve government efficiency and bring government services closer to its owners, the people. He favored reducing government wherever possible and eliminated two executive departments. He worked with Montana's legislature to eliminate a $200 million deficit in 1993 and helped to produce a $22.4 million budget surplus in 1995. The governor's office staff was reduced to approximately half of the 1977 levels. While reducing the size of government, Racicot was also able to more than double the proportion of women appointed to office in Montana, increasing the proportion from 20 to 41 percent.

"Prior to being elected governor of Montana, Racicot served as a prosecutor in the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the Army (1973-1976), as deputy county attorney for Missoula County (1976-1977), as assistant attorney general and special prosecutor for the state of Montana (1977-1988) and asattorney general (1988-1992).

"Throughout his career, Racicot has strongly committed himself to children and community issues. He is a current member of the Board of Directors of the Corporation for National and Community Service and Jobs for America's Graduates. He has also served on the Board of the United Way of America and as chairman of America's Promise--The Alliance for Youth, where his predecessor was Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.

"Racicot earned a bachelor's of arts in English from Carroll College and a juris doctorate from the University of Montana Law School in Missoula."

Resources

References

↑ Al Kamen, "Premium Pay," Washington Post, June 12, 2005.

External articles

Jim Larson, "Dems target Racicot," The Billings Outpost, April 21, 2005.
"Tom DeLay and the RNC: For the Love of Money," dnc.org, September 16, 2005.
George Ochenski, "The ties that bind - Marc Racicot learns he’s got mail," The Missoula Independent, April 5, 2007.

Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_F._Racicot"

Categories: Politics (U.S.) | Elections (U.S.) | Insurance industry | George W. Bush

really?

http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics//print.html?entry=/2008/11/racicot_lobby_job_victim_of_d.html

Racicot lobby job victim of Democrats' rise

Jeff Mapes | The Oregonian/OregonLive By Jeff Mapes | The Oregonian/OregonLive

on November 25, 2008 at 9:09 AM, updated November 25, 2008 at 9:28 AM

Former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot had a pretty sweet gig in Washington, D.C. as president of the American Insurance Association. The trade lobby paid him at least $1.8 million a year to lobby his friends in the Bush administration (he's also a former Republican National Committee chairman as well as chairman of the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign) and the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill.

But now that the Democrats are preparing to run both sides of Capitol Hill, Racicot "decided to step down in part because he concluded that the declining value of his party connections no longer justified his own compensation -- $1.8 million in 2006, according to filings," The New York Times reports.

Racicot is just one of the more visible Republican operatives who are seeing their value decline in Washington. Conversely, of course, Democrats with the right credentials - say a top staff position on Capitol Hill - are finding that they can suddenly command higher salaries from the K Street crowd.

nope:

http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/racicots-ruin/Content?oid=1137093

Racicot’s ruin?

The former governor’s Libby lobby misstep

By Paul Peters

Short of endorsing a ban on hunting, or suggesting something good about gun control, there is probably no quicker way to destroy a potential or existing political career in Montana than by failing to put 100-percent support behind anything perceived to be beneficial to Libby asbestos victims.

The Montana Democratic Party likely had this reality in mind when it issued a press release last week castigating former Gov. Marc Racicot for his lobbying efforts against a U.S. Senate bill that would provide money to asbestos victims, and Libby victims especially.

The bill was sidelined Feb. 14 when the Senate fell one vote short of the 60 needed to waive a budget objection claiming the bill violated Congressional spending limits.

One particular portion of the legislation, referred to as the “Libby Fix” by Montana Senators Conrad Burns and Max Baucus, offers special compensation for Libby asbestos victims starting at a minimum of $400,000. Compensation for asbestos victims in other parts of the country would begin at $25,000.

It quickly emerged that Racicot, as president of the American Insurance Association (AIA), had written a letter to Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, outlining the insurance industry’s opposition to the bill, and specifically to the Libby Fix.

AIA’s interest in the bill is financial; part of the proposed $140-billion trust fund to compensate asbestos victims would come from the insurance companies of corporations including W.R. Grace, which have asbestos-related disease legal claims against them.

“They made a lot of money selling insurance to these companies,” says Jim Farrell, director of the Montana Democratic Party. “Now it’s time to pay up, and they don’t want to pay.”

The Montana Democratic Party paints Racicot’s lobbying with broad strokes, asserting in press releases that Racicot flat-out opposes the bill, and that “It was a heartless act of Marc Racicot to torpedo this desperately needed help for the people of Libby.”

Libby, as most everyone in Montana is aware, is Racicot’s hometown.

The AIA responds that it’s opposed only to certain of the bill’s provisions, and remains committed to a bill that would help asbestos victims. A call for comment to Racicot was returned by an AIA spokesperson. But the damage to Racicot in Montana may have already been done.

Nothing makes that probability more obvious than recent statements on the matter by Sen. Burns.

As recently as December, Racicot had come to Burns’ defense, telling the Helena Independent Record’s editorial board that it was “highly unfair” for anyone to associate Burns with former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Last week, in the wake of news about Racicot’s efforts on AIA’s behalf, Burns returned the favor by telling the Associated Press, apropos of Libby, “If I have to do battle with (Racicot), I’ll do battle.”

Speaking with the Independent, Burns spokesman Matt Mackowiak downplayed the senator’s comments. As for doing battle with Racicot, Mackowiak says, “We’re not there yet.”

Makowiak also notes that the asbestos bill is not partisan, echoing an argument made by the AIA: 70 percent of Senate Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid and John Kerry, voted against the bill.

While attacks by the Montana Democratic Party never overtly connect the sidelining of the asbestos bill to Republicans, they do attach it to high-profile Republican Racicot.

But why go after a former politcian?

Jim Farrell, director of the Montana Democratic Party, notes the stumping Racicot did for Burns this winter.

“If only on that basis, he’s relevant politically in Montana at the moment,” says Farrell.

And, although Racicot has denied it, Farrell and others suspect the former governor may have been considering a run for Burns’ Senate seat if Burns were to drop out of the race as a result of the Abramoff scandal.

Further explaining the Democrats’ motives, Farrell connects Racicot’s lobbying actions, at least in spirit, to the Abramoff scandal.

“Again and again we see Republican policy dictated by lobbyists. Racicot holds a comparable position to [Abramoff] as chief lobbyist for the insurance industry,” Farrell says. “It’s hard not to mention Racicot and Abramoff in the same breath.”

Which perhaps explains Burns’ comments about doing battle with Racicot. Montana’s junior Senator told a Montana TV station last year that “this Abramoff guy is a bad guy, I hope he goes to jail and we never see him again.”

Helena political strategist David Sirota, who served as press aide to Gov. Brian Schweitzer during his 2000 senate run against Burns, and as senior strategist for Schweitzer in his campaign for governor, says the Democrats’ point is that “Racicot’s behavior is representative of Montana’s Republican Party, and the national party.”

Both nationally and locally, he says, “You regularly see public servants like Racicot cash in to shill for corporate interests.”

Sirota says he’s not at all surprised at Racicot’s actions.

Having worked in Washington, D.C., Sirota says, he “would not underestimate the ability of a politician to be arrogant, to be totally out of touch with reality. I no longer can be amazed.”

Montana Republican Party Executive Director Chuck Denowh says Farrell and Sirota are wrong to think Racicot’s lobbying will tarnish the Republican image.

“The real Montana policymakers are on the same side of this issue,” he says. “[Racicot] is not creating the policy on this issue. He’s no longer governor.”

But Denowh concedes that to be perceived as against a bill that aids Libby asbestos victims carries the whiff of political suicide in Montana.

Whether or not his lobbying damages the Montana Republican Party, it appears that the damage to Racicot’s potential political future in Montana looks to be done.

ppeters@missoulanews.com

....

Here too was evidence that White House officials were conducting business using RNC email accounts, domains such as gwb43.com and rnchq.org. But why? For one, as Abramoff was attempting to do, it is a way of bypassing the White House server and skirting its automatic archiving function, insuring that potentially damaging or incriminating emails will not be preserved for posterity by the National Archives, or worse, come to light through the efforts of a federal prosecutor or congressional investigator. In a March 15 letter to Henry Waxman's Government Reform Committee, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington noted that this practice might violate the 1978 Presidential Records Act, which governs how the papers of presidents and their staffs are to be preserved, and urged an investigation. "This refreshed our memory about what we'd seen in the Abramoff emails," says one Waxman aide.

A little over a week later, Waxman's Committee fired off its own letters to Mike Duncan, chairman of the Republican National Committee, andMarc Racicot, the former chair of the president's reelection committee, demanding that they preserve White House emails on their organization's servers"because of their potential relevance to congressional investigations"—"multiple" investigations the letter stressed. "The e-mail exchanges reviewed by the Committee provide evidence that in some instances, White House officials were using the nongovernmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications." (According to the Waxman aide, Duncan and Racicot have yet to respond.)

Steven Aftergood, the director of the Federation of American Scientists' project on government secrecy, says the use of RNC email accounts is interesting for another reason. "It shows how closely intertwined the White House is with its partisan allies," he says. "The fact that the White House and the RNC are working hand in hand and White House officials are using RNC emails is itself remarkable." He added, "Iran-Contra is getting invoked a lot these days and this may be another parallel, where the famous White House emails were recovered even after they were deleted from the White House server. People may have learned that lesson."

Oliver North certainly did. Back in 1986, when most people had not even heard of email and the government's email system was still known as PROFS (Professional Office System), he and John Poindexter attempted to purge their hard drives of electronic communications related to Iran-Contra. ("We all sincerely believed that when we send a PROFS message to another party and pressed the button 'delete' that it was gone forever. Wow, were we wrong," North later remarked after his incriminating messages were resurrected.)...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/03/emails-white-house-doesnt-want-you-see

2001

HELENA - Former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot is now one of the lobbyists for Enron Corporation, one of the nation’s largest electricity and natural gas marketers.

In a story about Texas-based Enron Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Enron is concerned that political pressure will compel states or Congress to control electricity prices, “which could undermine Enron’s business.” The Journal said Enron is worried about the backlash against electric deregulation in Western states and possibly in New York if the cost of electricity soars this summer.

The Journal said Enron hired Racicot “and dispatched him to court Western politicians.” Two weeks ago, it said, Racicot, a Republican, had breakfast with Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber, a Democrat. After they talked about fly-fishing, the Journal said, Kitzhaber said, “Marc did say he was working to re-energize the discussion about energy and had some ideas for a framework the governors might want to consider.”

Kitzhaber said he knew that Racicot had joined the Washington, D.C., lobbying firm of Bracewell & Patterson, but didn’t disclose that he was on retainer to Enron and “and the star of Enron’s Western states ’advocacy team,’ “ the Journal reported.

It went on to quote Racicot saying he was working “not with Enron’s direction but with their knowledge” to advocate positions that he also felt were important.

Enron’s net income hit $979 million in 2000 and its annual revenue increased to $100.8 billion, the Journal said.

Racicot was governor of Montana from 1993 until January 2001. He was a leading supporter of the electricity deregulation that Montana enacted in 1997.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Plum_Creek_Timber_Company

8/16 (2012) fluff?

Racicot is the founding Co-Chair, United States Consensus Council Roster for Search for Common Ground.

Director, Plum Creek ^[2]

[hide]

Profiles

In January 2002, Racicot was nominated by President George Walker Bush and was "unanimously elected Chairman" of the Republican National Committee. [1]

Racicot was a two-term Montana governor ending in 2001. He then served as Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman from January 2002. Racicot "is valued by Bush's aides for his calm manner on television. He plans to spend about half his time at his law firm, Bracewell & Patterson, then take a leave next year to join Bush-Cheney '04 Inc. full time.

According to his RNC biography, "Governor Racicot has a distinguished record of public service that spans nearly three decades. He served as Montana's governor (1993-2001) - winning reelection with 79 percent of the vote in 1996, the largest winning percentage for a governor in Montana's history and the largest winning percentage for any governor that year.

"As governor, Racicot sought to improve government efficiency and bring government services closer to its owners, the people. He favored reducing government wherever possible and eliminated two executive departments. He worked with Montana's legislature to eliminate a $200 million deficit in 1993 and helped to produce a $22.4 million budget surplus in 1995. The governor's office staff was reduced to approximately half of the 1977 levels. While reducing the size of government, Racicot was also able to more than double the proportion of women appointed to office in Montana, increasing the proportion from 20 to 41 percent.

"Racicot earned a bachelor's of arts in English from Carroll College and a juris doctorate from the University of Montana Law School in Missoula."

Resources

References

:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ Al Kamen, "Premium Pay," Washington Post, June 12, 2005.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ Plum Creek Board, organizational web page, accessed October 4, 2012.

External articles

Jim Larson, "Dems target Racicot," The Billings Outpost, April 21, 2005.
"Tom DeLay and the RNC: For the Love of Money," dnc.org, September 16, 2005.
George Ochenski, "The ties that bind - Marc Racicot learns he’s got mail," The Missoula Independent, April 5, 2007.

Categories:

mma:

Right-wing radio host Michael Savage, on the May 14 edition of his radio show Savage Nation, said that Senator John Kerry implied "that it's the whole military" that violated the Geneva Convention and is responsible for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Savage's accusation echoed that of Bush-Cheney campaign chairman Marc Racicot, who -- just two days prior, according to a May 13 article in The Washington Post -- "told reporters that Kerry suggested that 150,000 or so U.S. troops are 'somehow universally responsible' for the misdeeds of a small number of American soldiers and contractors."

Savage played a recording of Kerry saying, "I know, as a former combatant, that had I been captured, I would have wanted our moral high ground, with respect to those Geneva Conventions, to be in place"; and then Savage said:

SAVAGE: Ah, shut up! You [Senator John Kerry] have no right to be President with that kind of crap when men are on the ground. You're saying what? Everyone in the military violated the Geneva Convention? This guy is a clear and present danger to the survival of our military. How could he claim that when he knows it was a few men, and that the minute they were found out, they were taken off the case and now they're being court-martialed? How dare Kerry imply that it's the whole military? He's not qualified to be the leader of this country, nor of the military. Not at all. Unbelievable to me how you people don't understand that.

Not only did Savage falsely accuse Kerry of blaming "the whole military" in the statement that Savage referenced, but, as The Washington Post reported on May 13, Bush-Cheney campaign chairman Marc Racicot made similar false accusations against Kerry on May 12:

Racicot, for instance, told reporters that Kerry suggested that 150,000 or so U.S. troops are "somehow universally responsible" for the misdeeds of a small number of American soldiers and contractors. Racicot made several variations of this charge. But Kerry never said this, or anything like it.

As evidence, Racicot pointed to the following quote Kerry made at a fundraiser on Tuesday: "What has happened is not just something that a few a privates or corporals or sergeants engaged in. This is something that comes out of an attitude about the rights of prisoners of war, it's an attitude that comes out of America's overall arrogance in its policy that is alienating countries all around the world."

What Racicot did not mention was that Kerry preceded this remark by saying, "I know that what happened over there is not the behavior of 99.9 percent of our troops."

Marc Racicot, new chair of RNC will pull six fig lobby salary, but promises not to 102

George W. Bush wanted Marc Racicot to be his attorney general, or so it seemed. The president-elect and the Montana governor were fellow runners and Racicot had done yeoman service during the election overtime in Florida, talking tough in a soothing way. Bush was said to have liked Racicot's resume: he was a former state A.G. and knew how to run a legal bureaucracy. When Racicot balked, Bush sent a private jet (lent by Sinclair Oil) to Montana to fly him to Austin. Among his reasons for hesitating, Racicot said, was the opposition sure to come from Republicans on the hard right, who viewed him as an insufficiently ardent foe of gay rights and abortion. The president-elect, Racicot later recalled, advised him to ignore them.

But in the Bush Restoration, which officially begins at noon on Saturday, it will be wise to watch what they do, not what they say--even in private to friends. Was Bush upset or relieved that his buddy said no? We may never know. But no sooner had Racicot spurned the tentative offer (for family financial reasons, he said) than Bush's advisers were on the phone to Sen. John Ashcroft--who personifies the fiercest elements of the religious right and who, GOP insiders insist, was a leading candidate all along. The next day Ashcroft flew to Austin and met with Bush. The day after that, Bush offered him to America as its next attorney general.

Ashcroft's elevation was a surprise--but shouldn't have been. It turns out that he's been riding shotgun on the right for the Bush family for years.

"The White Colin Powell?"

Marc Racicot: Bush's Main Man

By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

When the Florida recount fiasco was in full-throttle, the Bush team called in one of its top fixers to deal with the media and help put the finishing touches on the brusque strategy that helped seal the election. That man was Marc Racicot, the former governor of Montana. Many thought would be rewarded for his efforts with a top post in the Bush White House. Although he was on the short list for both Secretary of the Interior and Attorney General, Racicot ended up in the cushy post as head of the Republican National Committee, where his deft fundraising abilities fattened the RNC vaults with a record $250 million in soft money contributions for the 2002 election cycle.

...

for the wreck that now plagues the state: record deficits, bankrupt schools and a senescent economy.

Although the state of Montana was veering toward bankruptcy, Racicot sank $100 million into the construction of new prisons, which were built by political donors. The problem was that Montana was one of the few states with an overcapacity of prison beds. The prisons went up anyway and despite a slate of harsh new laws passed under Racicot and Martz to lock up more Montanans the new prisons remain underbooked. Now, Montana is desperately looking to rent out its empty cells to other states.

When Montana's schools began to falter from the budget squeeze, Racicot offered a quick fix: log off the remaining old growth on state lands and cycle the receipts to the schools. This scheme, dubbed clearcuts for classrooms by local environmentalists, ravaged Montana's forests, but did almost nothing to help the state's beleaguered school system. Using the same rationale, Racicot also began selling off state park and forestlandsnear urban areas to his corporate cronies for shopping centers, office buildings and subdivisions.

This was followed by Racicot's big gift to the strip-mining lobby. Despite the fact that Montana, which bears the historical scars of the strip-and-run coal companies, is the only state in the nation whose constitution requires the reclamation of all lands disturbed by mining, Racicot signed into a law a measure that exempts open pit mines from any responsibility to restore the mess they make, often contaminated with cyanide and other toxic debris.

Racicot, M Gov

Jeff Mangan

Profiles

Resources

Related SourceWatch articles

References

External articles

Contents

Profiles

Resources

Related SourceWatch articles

References

External articles

"The White Colin Powell?"

Marc Racicot: Bush's Main Man

Attachments