In The News

Articles, editorials:

High court upholds initiative process integrity Gazette editorial 11/2/06

High court upholds lower court's decision to invalidate CI-97, CI-98, I-154 GF Tribune 10/27/06

State high court rules out initiatives Billings Gazette 10/27/06

Vote as if initiative votes will count GF Trib 10/24/06

CI-97 is a threat to the county Billings Outpost 10/13/06

Backers ask for judge to block effort to toss measure from ballot GF Tribune, 10/13/06

Beware of Stuff On a Shingle like S.O.S. Nebraska State Paper 10/12/06

Fishing expedition: Initiative backers cast a wide net for campaigners Missoula Independent 10/12/06

Signature gathering was riddled with fraud Helena IR 10/11/06

Initiative litigation proliferating Gazette opinion 10/11/06

State already has CI-97 provision Havre Daily News letter 10/11/06

Anti-government ideas created bad initiatives Gazette guest opinion 10/9/06

Vote against I-154, CI-98, CI-97 Missoulian letter 10/9/06

Improper initiatives should be voted down Helena IR letter 10/4/06

CI-97 trailing in the polls Helena IR 10/2/06

Be wary of out-of-state players in spending-lid ballot question Omaha World-Herald

Vote as if it will count Missoulian letter 9/28/06

Howie Rich's scheme exposed on national TV PBS NOW

Impacts of I-154, CI-97 debated Bozeman Chronicle 9/28/06

CI-97 supporters file appeal AP 9/26/06

Secretary of State Brad Johnson cool to initiative request AP 9/25/06

Petition process reeked of fraud Billings Gazette 9/25/06

Sanctity of initiative process must upheld Billings Gazette 9/24/06

CI-97 will hurt schools Miles City Star letter 9/25/06

How initiatives are faring in other states Billings Gazette 9/24/06

Initiatives take on national flavor Billings Gazette 9/24/06

Strange ethics: Scott Mendenhall and CI-97 Helena IR 9/21/06

Montana initiatives should be Montana initiatives Missoula Independent 9/21/06

Initiatives can't be just anything Helena IR 9/21/06

Judge rules spending cap unconstitutional AP 9/20/06

Spending cap ruled unconstitutional Helena IR 9/20/06

CI-97 loses another round in court GF Tribune 9/20/06

Despite second district court ruling, CI-97 will still appear on the ballot 9/19/06

Initiative gatherers violated the spirit of the law GF Trib 9/17/06

CI-97 supporters file appeal with Supreme Court GF Trib 9/15/06

Vote against CI-97 Havre Daily News guest editorial 9/15/06

The CI-97 stranglehold Missoula Independent 9/14/06

Judge made right decision Helena IR editorial 9/14/06

Quandry - what to do with ballots Billings Gazette 9/14/06

Judge throws out ballot initiatives AP 9/13/06

Great Falls judge tosses three ballot initiatives GF Tribune 9/14/06

Judge rules trio of initiatives invalid Billings Gazette 9/13/06

Judge throws CI-97 off the ballot! But it's not over yet. Read the judge's decision.

Schweitzer: keep an eye on CI-97 Butte Standard 9/13/06

Mysterious initiative support group increases size of coffers Billings Gazette 9/13/06

Out-of-staters are behind three divisive initiatives Lewistown New-Argus (week of 9/11/06)

CI-97 type initiatives skewered in other states GF Tribune, 9/10/06

CI-97 opponents detail fraud in signature gathering Helena IR 9/9/06

CI-97 supporter forced to admit that money came from out of state AP, 9/9/06

Gov. Schweitzer challenges New York City mogul Howard Rich to debate over CI-97 Helena IR, 9/9/06

Send out-of-state lobbyists a message Missoulian, 9/4/06

Mystery bucks Helena IR, 9/3/06

CI-97 backers slam unions, use deception Billings Gazette 9/2/06

Oklahoma Supreme Court strikes down their version of CI-97 AP, 8/31/06

Beware of big buck Easterners testing their theories on us Great Falls Trib, 8/28/06

Ads attack Montana unions that oppose CI-97 (several articles)
An out-of-state group sponsoring ads that attack public employees is targeting Montana and three other states that have spending-cap measures on the ballot.

Same out-of-state money linked to initiatives in 9 states Omaha World-Herald, 8/27/06

Montana Chamber of Commerce opposes CI-97 Billings Gazette, 8-18-06

New York tycoon Howard Rich funding CI-97-type initiatives Newhouse News Service, 8-8-06

MEA-MFT takes on CI-97 Billings Gazette, 8-12-06

Stealth campaign: Taking liberties Missoula Independent 8-10-06

Missouri's SOS dead for now

Following the money Montanans In Action ballot initiatives under fire Missoula Independent, 7-27-06

More on money laundering Helena IR editorial, 7-23-06

Secret donors cast pall over initiative process
Gazette, 7-21-06

Mysterious initiative group accused of ‘money laundering’ Butte Standard, 7-19-06

CI-97 would hurt senior services, vital assistance from county health Billings Gazette, 7-17-06

Follow the money Helena IR, 7-17-06

Governor Schweizter says CI-97 voids rebate Helena IR, 7-6-06

Big money spent on signature gatherers Helena IR, 7-6-06

Judge rewrites language of CI-97 Gazette, 6-15-06

3 initiatives get infusion of cash as signature deadline nears IR, 6-15-06

Colorado Republican warns against CI-97 G.F. Trib, 6-10-06

Colorado: Getting rid of SOS/TABOR aids economic recovery Denver Post, 6-30-06

Signature gatherers for CI-97 accused of deception Helena IR, 6-2-06

School boards oppose CI-97 Ravalli Republic, 5-3-06

Analyst rips spending cap proposal IR 3-7-06

Initiative supporters reject legal summary Gazette, 3-7-06

Archie Nunn Letter to the Editor 5-5-06

A Trojan Horse Kalispell Daily Inter Lake - 3-20-06

Limiting government spending IR 2-28-06

Groups raise red flags over proposed cap on spending

CO- S&P May Downgrade Colorado Credit Rating Pueblo, 2-28-06

Petitioners racing to get spending initiative on November ballot Tribune, 4-20-06

Pig in a poke Butte Standard, 4-20-06

Analyst rips spending cap proposal

By MIKE DENNISON
IR State Bureau - March 7, 2006

HELENA — A constitutional cap on government spending is a “proven failure” in Colorado, whose citizens suspended it last year, and Montanans should think twice before adopting one, a policy analyst from Colorado said Monday.

“What it has done is reduce the services to the people of Colorado,” said Carol Hedges of the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute. “And people aren’t very happy about it.”

Hedges spoke Monday in Helena at an organizational meeting for foes of a Montana spending cap, which is being proposed as a constitutional initiative.

Backers of Constitutional Initiative 97 hope to begin gathering signatures this month, with an eye toward placing the spending-cap amendment on the November ballot.

Dubbed SOS, which is an acronym for “stop over-spending,” CI-97 says state government spending can grow no faster than the combined rate of growth in state population and inflation.

“SOS absolutely allows government to grow, but at a reasonable rate,” said Rep. Scott Mendenhall, R-Clancy, who chairs the campaign for CI-97.

AARP-Montana, a citizen/retiree group with 148,000 members, and MEA-MFT, the state’s largest union, are leading an already aggressive campaign against CI-97, encouraging people not to sign the petition and prevent it from getting on the ballot.

The two groups organized the meeting at which Hedges spoke Monday.

Hedges said while a constitutional spending cap may sound reasonable — “‘Let’s shrink government’ is a much easier message” — it has been a disaster in Colorado.

“(It’s) a proven failure in Colorado,” she said. “So why in the world would you like to adopt in Montana?”

Hedges said the spending cap, adopted by Colorado voters in 1992, has prevented state lawmakers from adequately funding schools, higher education, health care services for the poor and other items — even if money was available and they wanted to do so.

“We’ve moved from the middle-of-the-pack to the bottom-of-the-barrel (among states) in providing services to Coloradans,” she said.

About 1,100 organizations, including business interests, contributed $6 million to last year’s successful campaign to suspend the Colorado spending cap, she added.

Hedges’ nonprofit, nonpartisan institute supports policies that help poor and middle-income citizens. She travels to states to speak out against proposed constitutional spending caps, telling about their effects in Colorado.

Eric Feaver, president of MEA-MFT, also called on the backers of SOS to identify where Montana is “overspending,” and what services they would restrict if the measure gets on the ballot and passes.

Mendenhall said SOS backers “don’t have an answer for that, because that’s not what we’re aiming to do.”

Elected legislators set budget priorities, he said, and CI-97 merely would set a ceiling on state government spending: “SOS is neutral about where (those priorities) need to be.”

Feaver and others argued that CI-97 would “emasculate the Legislature,” by barring lawmakers from spending available money on priorities that may exceed the spending cap.

Mendenhall also said it’s not accurate to compare Colorado’s spending cap to CI-97, which is less restrictive. Opponents also don’t mention that in the decade after Colorado passed the spending caps, the state’s economy was one of the fastest-growing in the country, he added.

Hedges said the proposed spending cap in Montana has the essential components of the Colorado caps, as well as similar caps proposed around the country: It places the caps in the state constitution, uses a mathematical formula to cap spending and can be superseded or changed only by a statewide public vote.

Opponents of the caps believe government spending can benefit society, and that it doesn’t make sense to cap it arbitrarily, she said.

“This is really about how much of a commitment that we make to one another,” Hedges said. “How much do we invest in the common good?

“Our country has benefited from private-public partnership This makes the public sector such a weak partner that it puts a damper on the private sector’s ability to develop.”

Back to top

Initiative supporters reject legal summary

By MIKE DENNISON
Gazette State Bureau - March 7, 2006

HELENA -- If a proposed constitutional state spending cap gets on the November ballot this year in Montana, voters will see a brief description of what it does -- and there's already a fight brewing over what that description says.

Backers of Constitutional Initiative 97 said Monday they don't like the description written by Attorney General Mike McGrath, and may go to court to get it changed.

Rep. Scott Mendenhall, R-Clancy and chairman of the campaign for Constitutional Initiative 97, said McGrath's wording appears designed to discourage people from supporting the measure.

"It's clearly aimed at politicizing" the description, which is unfortunate," he said.

A leading opponent of CI-97 said he, too, has a problem with some of the ballot language approved by McGrath.

But Eric Feaver, president of MEA-MFT, a union that represents teachers, government workers and health care workers, said he's unsure whether the union can or will take the matter to court.

The dispute is over the statement of purpose and fiscal statement for CI-97, both of which were approved last week. They will appear on the petitions attempting to get CI-97 on the general election ballot and, if backers get enough signatures to qualify the measure, on the ballot itself when voters go to the polls in November.

The statement of purpose is a 100-word-or-less description of the measure. CI-97 would cap state spending by limiting its growth to the rate of inflation and the rate of state population growth.

Mendenhall objects to the statement's opening sentence, which says "The Montana Constitution currently prohibits appropriations by the Legislature that exceed anticipated revenue," before describing the spending cap that would be added to the constitution by CI-97.

Mentioning the current constitutional requirement for a balanced budget first is a subtle way to suggest the spending cap isn't needed, he said.

McGrath, however, said neither the description nor the fiscal statement is written to create prejudice either for or against CI-97.

The fiscal statement can be no more than 50 words. The CI-97 fiscal statement approved by McGrath says the measure "may require reduced future expenditures in several areas of government services where caseloads historically have grown at a rate exceeding" the rate of inflation and general population growth, such as prisons and health care for the poor.

Mendenhall doesn't like this one either, but neither does Feaver, who said the note should list more examples, including public schools, universities, pensions, infrastructure and bond payments.

Back to top

Archie Nunn Letter to the Editor

Queen City News - April 5, 2006

To the Editor:
I have some real misgivings about the SOS initiative (CI-97). No matter how well-intentioned the idea for fiscal responsibility, I feel that it is not right and is wrong for Montana for the following reasons:

It devalues the power of the Montana voters who have elected, according to their views, responsible legislators to accomplish the work that not only keeps Montana healthy but compassionate as a people who live here in this “Last Best Place” we call home.

If those we elect do not perform as we like, we can vote them out or have a possible recall.

We already have a balanced budget amendment that doesn’t let them spend money that is not supported by revenue received.

The result of the above SOS initiative would, in my opinion, block legislation from the legislators’ responsibility that the voters elected them to accomplish.

I will NOT sign the petition and encourage all voters to do likewise.

Archie Nunn
5386 Bonanza Ct.
Helena

Back to top

A Trojan Horse

Guest editorial
Kalispell Daily Inter Lake - March 20, 2006

The old adage “beware of Greeks bearing gifts” may never be more true when one considers the proposed constitutional initiative (CI97). CI97 is an attempt to “gut” state and local government, higher education, K-12 education, social services, police and fire protection, veteran’s services and .....

CI 97 is based on the anti-tax, anti-government initiative that was passed in Colorado in 1992. The impact there was so negative the current governor ,who helped pass the initiative, campaigned successfully to get it removed last year.

The Montana legislators who are behind CI 97; unable to get their anti-government ideas out of committee in past sessions, have now turned to the initiative process to achieve their ends.

Those who introduced CI 97 and now tout its benefits to the people of Montana have an agenda and that agenda is to make the government of Montana match their own libertarian view of the world.

They don’t much like representative government unless everyone elected thinks as they do. They don’t like social programs and vote that way in Helena. They dislike public education at all levels and vote that way in Helena. They don’t like the court system and vote that way in Helena. They cannot tolerate divergent views and vote that way in Helena.

CI97 is a blatant attempt to “mold” Montana into the supporters’ vision of government and they will try and sell it to the public as a “wonderful offering from afar”.

Let us not be fooled. Let us keep it outside the gates of our state constitution. Don’t sign the petition and if it should qualify and be on the ballot in November, vote against it. If CI97 is successful we will reap the bitter results of our political blindness for years to come.

Representative Bernie Olson, House District 10, Lakeside

Back to top

Limiting government spending

By the IR staff
February 28, 2006

Backers of a proposed constitutional initiative to cap state spending strongly believe the measure is both necessary and beneficial. We would argue that it is neither.

The proposal - called Stop Over-Spending, or SOS - would limit increases in general fund appropriations in a two-year budget period to the sum of the rate of inflation and the state's population growth during the past two years. If inflation rose by 2 percent and the population went up 3 percent, legislators could not increase spending by more than 5 percent. The measure contains several exceptions, including federal money the state receives for highways and other purposes, but the cap covers most state services.

Artificial spending caps impose an inflexible crimp on government that blissfully ignores the possibility that conditions might change. (Court rulings might require higher school funding, say, or it might become necessary to increase funding for programs that had been unavoidably cut back during lean economic times.)

Strict spending caps are not beneficial because they handcuff the government's ability to respond to changing circumstances. They are not necessary because any time the voters come to believe their leaders are over spending, they can throw the bums out and elect people who will spend less.

Indeed, like term limits, spending caps reveal a profound distrust of Montana voters. Promoters of such caps want to limit government regardless of what the majority of voters may or may not want.

We expect to hear a lot more about this topic as this election year rolls on. But we're not buying.

Back to top

Groups raise red flags over proposed cap on spending

By GWEN FLORIO
Tribune Capitol Bureau

HELENA - A proposed ballot initiative to cap state spending would cause drastic cuts in services to Montanans, according to a Colorado expert who worked to repeal a similar measure in that state last year.

"It's a proven disaster," Carol Hedges said of the proposal, dubbed SOS - Stop Over Spending - by its two Republican proponents. Hedges is an analyst for the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, a group that advocates measures benefiting low- and moderate-income people.

Hedges came to Montana Monday at the behest of the MEA-MFT, the state's largest public employees union, and the AARP, which has about 148,000 members in Montana. Both groups oppose SOS, whose backers have not yet begun the process of gathering the 45,000 signatures needed by mid-June to guarantee it a spot on the November ballot.

But groups who oppose SOS, and similar measures proposed in several states around the country, aren't taking any chances. Monday's presentation to representatives of counties, senior citizens groups, and hospital and nurses' associations, emphasized the national aspects of the issue.

An Illinois-based group called Americans for Limited Government helps promote spending-cap measures around the country. Likewise, the Washington, D.C.-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities works to oppose those measures.
Americans for Limited Government has already floated a loan to Montanans In Action, the group spearheading SOS, according to Trevis Butcher, the initiative's coordinator. He wouldn't give the amount.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is distributing a slick DVD that details problems in Colorado under TABOR, that state's Taxpayers Bill of Rights similar to SOS. Copies of the DVD littered the tables at Monday's presentation.

In Montana, SOS would base state spending increases on inflation and population growth. Any revenues beyond the cap would go into a rainy day fund. Once that fund hit a certain limit, the money would go back to taxpayers.

Its main backers - state Sen. Joe Balyeat of Bozeman and Rep. Scott Mendenhall of Clancy - say SOS would limit what they see as out-of-control spending by a Democratic administration. Spending above and beyond the cap would require voter approval.

"It creates real responsible government," Butcher said.

But opponents say SOS wrests control over spending from lawmakers elected to represent taxpayers' interests.

"There's absolutely no reason for us to emasculate our state government," said MEA-MFT president Eric Feaver. "…If we don't like our Legislature, we elect new representatives."

Opponents argue that Montana's constitutional requirement for a balanced budget accomplishes the same goal.

"At first blush, you might consider (SOS) a reasonable proposition," said Lt. Gov. John Bohlinger, a Republican, who addressed Monday's meeting.

But funding for state services could drop to about half what it needs to be, he said. "We would never catch up. It would be a dreadful thing."

Bohlinger, who turns 70 this year, said senior citizens especially would suffer under SOS because of likely trims to programs that aid the elderly and other vulnerable groups.

Groups such as the elderly, prisoners, and uninsured children - who require more state services than most residents - are growing faster than the general population. That's why the SOS formula that tags spending increases to inflation and population growth doesn't work, Hedges said.

Colorado voted to suspend TABOR for five years after seeing higher fees for things like licenses and parks admission; as well as cuts in funding for colleges and universities, and road repairs, among other things.

The state was the site of a well-orchestrated anti-TABOR campaign that involved a coalition of 1,100 groups and individuals, including the state's Republican governor and the Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce.

That campaign, Hedges said, cost $6 million.

Hedges reminded those present that SOS supporters often cite the fact that voters can change its provisions as a point in its favor.

"But if you know you're going to have to change it, and you're going to have to spend the money to change it, why do it?" she said.

Jon Caldara, of Colorado's Independence Institute, a free-market think tank that led the fight to keep TABOR, predicted that the battle over SOS in Montana will be just as intense, with one key difference:

"We will win," he said.

"We've sent our TABOR experts to the far reaches of the world - Maryland, New Jersey, Arizona, New Mexico and Kansas," said Caldara, listing some states considering similar amendments. In Colorado, the initiative campaign events sometimes became circus-like, with pro-TABOR types showing up at anti-TABOR rallies with a Trojan horse or a big pink pig.

Caldara said he'd happily come to Montana to offer his opinions on SOS.

"I'll ride the pig up," he said.

Back to top

CO- S&P May Downgrade Colorado Credit Rating

By Tom McAvoy
The Pueblo Chieftain - January 24, 2002

DENVER -- Colorado still could issue transportation bonds in the spring, although it would cost more money to do so, if the state's credit rating is downgraded, a top official said Wednesday.

Tom Norton, director of the Colorado Department of Transportation, said Standard & Poor's decision to put the state on a credit watch is troubling, because the lower rating would mean paying higher interest on the bond debt and less on highway projects.

"We would be able to do a TRANS offering even with the lower credit rating, although it would cost money we'd prefer to put into projects," Norton said. (TRANS means Transportation Revenue Anticipation Notes, a form of government bond debt.)

The key, he said, is whether the Legislature passes Gov. Bill Owens' request to dedicate more -- 15 percent instead of the current 10 percent -- of state sales tax revenues to transportation and to repeal certain restrictions associated with that fund transfer.

The state Transportation Commission will have to know the Legislature's decision sometime next month if it is to authorize the department to return to the bond market for financing in April, Norton said.

"We need to make transportation a priority," he said. "In 1980, transportation was 12.7 percent of the state budget. Now it's 6 percent."

Standard & Poor's analyst, David Hitchcock, blamed the credit watch on Taxpayer's Bill of Rights restrictions on state spending. The restrictions affect the government's ability to pay off debt.

This is the first year since TABOR passed in 1992 that Colorado's economy has failed to produce a revenue surplus in excess of the TABOR limit. Part of the surplus has gone into highway and state building construction the past several years.

Chris Romer, a Denver investment banker and son of former Gov. Roy Romer, said the S&P credit watch threatens the bond rating of not only state government but Colorado school districts.

"If Colorado's credit rating is downgraded from double-A, it will be extraordinarily negative for the state and most school districts. It would cost them millions of dollars," Romer said.

Romer also blamed TABOR for exacerbating the state revenue problem.

Back to top

Petitioners racing to get spending initiative on November ballot

By Tribune Staff
Great Falls Tribune - Apr 20, 2006

Republican Mike Milburn, HD-19, and Trevis Butcher, treasurer of Stop Over Spending, visited Great Falls on Wednesday to push SOS's ballot initiative.

Petitioners are racing to collect 45,000 signatures by mid-June to get the measure on November's ballot.

The measure, C-197, encourages fiscal responsibility in state government, according to supporters, and limits growth in spending to the rate of inflation.

Milburn said the proposal would promote economic prosperity.

Detractors say the initiative would drastically cut services to Montanans. Lt. Gov. John Bohlinger, a Republican, has said that funding for state services could drop to half of what is needed, and programs that support senior citizens could be especially vulnerable.

Back to top

Pig in a poke

By Bob Bartholomew
April 20th, 2006
Butte Standard

SOS initiative and giant pig are part of national movement Editor’s note: The coalition opposing Montana’s proposed Stop OverSpending (SOS) initiative, CI-97, comments on the appearance of a large pink pig at the courthouse in Butte.

We have been expecting the pig ever since we learned about the SOS proposal back in December.

AARP Montana is a member of the Not in Montana: Citizens Against CI-97 coalition.

The truck-sized pig is owned and fed by a national group called Americans for Limited Government (ALG), based in Glenview, Ill.

The pig has shown up in other states where ALG and other national groups are pushing SOS-type initiatives. We knew it was just a matter of time before it appeared in Montana. Unfortunately, it means Montana has been targeted by these national groups. They will undoubtedly spend a lot of money to push their ideas here, just as they have in other states.

Newspaper reports from Oklahoma show that ALG has spent $150,000 to promote the SOS initiative in that state. ALG even hired out-of-staters to gather signatures putting SOS on Oklahoma’s November 2006 ballot. ALG is also pushing an SOS initiative in Michigan.

The SOS initiative is modeled after Colorado’s so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR). Colorado voters passed a TABOR initiative in 1992 and overturned it in 2005.TABOR caused so many problems in Colorado that the state’s business community led the effort to roll it back. SOS and TABOR are twins with different names.

ALG and other national groups are also pushing TABOR proposals in Arizona, Missouri, Maine, Ohio, Oregon, Nevada, and Wisconsin.

This is a well-heeled, well-orchestrated national movement to underfund state services.

After TABOR passed in Colorado, that state went from being a middle-of-the-pack state to the bottom of the barrel in funding for public services. The state fell:

From 35th in the nation for school funding to 49th;

From 23rd in prenatal care to 48th;

From 24th in child vaccinations to 50th;

Roads and streets deteriorated;

Senior citizens lost important services;

Colorado was the only mountain state to lose jobs between March 2001 and November 2005 according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities TABOR was a disaster in Colorado. Why would Montana want to repeat our neighbor’s mistake?

Montana’s SOS supporters, state Senator Joe Balyeat, R- Belgrade, and Rep. Scott Mendenhall, R-Clancy, claim their proposal fixes the problems with Colorado’s TABOR. But SOS still has the same key elements as TABOR.

It’s a constitutional amendment; it limits state spending to a formula of inflation plus population growth; and it requires voter approval to override the formula. Those are the classic TABOR elements. If SOS passes in Montana, we can expect the same bad impacts that Colorado experienced.

As for the pig, apparently it’s supposed to represent a bloated state government. But where is the state allegedly overspending? Schools? Health care? Senior citizens?

The latest U.S. Census, which shows Montana’s state spending as a share of total state personal income is lower today than it has been in the last 15 years. And Montana ranks 35th in the nation in that category n near the lowest.

You’ve heard about putting lipstick on a pig. You can put lipstick on SOS, too, but it’s still a TABOR. We are urging people not to sign CI-97 putting SOS on Montana’s November ballot. Besides, Montana’s constitution already has a balanced budget requirement that prevents the state from overspending.” — Butte native Bob Bartholomew is the state director of AARP.

Back to top