a.SafaLab
The Neolibertarian NetworkI Take Issue
Singer has offered up a half-vast response to the questions posed by Dextra Montana. It seems he has a legitimate excuse in being busy (not like so many other bloggers penning snark while on someone’s payroll.) Still he fails to answer the questions posed about what happened in the last election between ASUM/MontPIRG/FM. In fact it’s absence is conspicuous. But there are a few other items. He writes:
Forward Montana has never directly or indirectly to my knowledge received a dime of money from George Soros.
I think this is called plausible deniability. But the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices shows at least a small funding by the Progressive States Network for $1,000.00. Now, Matt claims that he doesn’t know how PSN is funded. But looking at soros.org we find a $200K grant from Soros to PSN. So maybe Matt doesn’t know but I do. Is there more?
Skyline Public Works is operated by Andy and Deborah Rappaport, not Jonathan and Peter Lewis. It also is not a “money laundering” operation for multiple large donors. It is the name by which a single couple run their political operation.
Well, he’s wrong about that too:
About GO! Grant Program
Skyline Public Works in conjunction with Peter and Jonathan Lewis and Jon Stryker is offering up to eight matching grants of up to $250,000 each to be disbursed over three years to new or existing state-based organizations that focus on engaging the Millennial Generation in progressive Democratic politics. Grants will be awarded in late 2007.
Scroll sown that page and you’ll see the grant.
It should also be noted that Lisa Seitz Gruwell, an FM Board Member is the COO of Skyline Public Works. Gruwell is also a board member of the Progressive States Network. In anti-trust law those types of relationships are called interlocking directors. Since unions and political organizations are exempt from anti-trust laws, it’s only germane to the extent that a great deal of political coordination can be used influence the political debate across organizational boundaries. Singer used to work for PSN and the outfit’s Co-Founder is David Sirota. Sirota, if anyone was wondering, not only worked for but actively supported the Senate’s on self-professed socialist, Bernie Sanders. And to tie all of this together Sirota worked in a communications capacity for Brian Schweitzer only to get his wife on the Montana payroll working for the good guv after he won the election.
It’s all a huge wired together complex of money. If you want some good background the NYT did a massive feature last year in 2004. And if Singer is less than forthcoming, fobbing it off to the legal complexities of tax and campaign finance laws, he’s in keeping with the entire cabal and the secrecy and gatekeeping that these mega-doners demand.
Now, let me be clear. I don’t care about the money. If I had my way the Rappaports, Lewis’s, the Soros’s of the world could write tax free checks to their hearts desires. I actually applaud the initiative in growing a movement. But this is not a grass roots effort beyond finding people like Singer to carry water for them and supporters of this movement should quit all the nonsense about out-of-state money – for anyone.. And the moral high ground that progressives have taken while calling for public financing of all elections proves they’re often dupes or in denial that it’s money that makes the political world go round. There is no amount of legislation that will keep special interest groups from violating the spirit of the law.
But the ever lasting conquest of learning how to game the system becomes the pernicious rust on ethics that makes politics so corrupt. It’s affected the culture to the point where people run all by loop holes and I think that Singer is no exception.
Thus, I’m interested about things that push the edge of the envelope so hard that breaking the rules becomes something more than an accidental occurrence. I want to know what the political coordination between FM, ASUM, MontPIRG and the College Democrats. Is that too much to ask?
The information on this site is not intended as individualized investment advice and all investment decisions by a reader must in all cases be made by the reader either individually or together with his/her investment professional. The views expressed in articles appearing on this site are solely those of Dave Budge and should not be attributed to any other person or entity except where expressly stated.
Print This Post
If you are accusing Matt or Forward MT with breaking some kind of law, I do believe that it would be prudent for you to tell us which one you believe he is breaking. That’d be a great starting point.
And I’m glad to know you’re so concerned about compliance with campaign finance rules. It’s good to know we’ve got another supporter on the war against too much money in politics.
Way to go Dave. Good research. NO, it’s not too much to ask.
“focus engaging the Millennial Generation in progressive Democratic politics”
As I said elsewhere, I can’t wait to hear you discuss Richard Mellon Scaife and Howie Rich. I know your indignity knows no ideological bounds.
Actually, the man has done nothing illegal. I hope that Soros pours some money into Montana. We’re in the midst of a blue shift – it would help. And it’s a free country, and you’re doing a witch hunt, and you ought to be ashamed.
Mark, I believe that neither you or your son can read. I was damn specific about the money issue if you care to re-read my post.
The fact is that, if campaign rules were broken they were broken by ASUM – and I’m working on investigating that.
But that’s not the point that all of you have seized upon. The point is, after the cry for Butcher to disclose FM now says they don’t have to. Does Matt owe his supporters more confidentiality than Butcher?
Then there is the hypocritical call from the left about out-of-state money – which I also covered above. And Matt has been making noise about that for a few years now especially in his work against Burns. That’s hypocrisy contrary to what you think is mine.
Third, the abject inconsistency of the left to call for public financing of elections flies in the face of the fund raising efforts that the 503(c)’s and the 527 have been practicing. It’s bullshit to say that special interests can have unregulated “speech” while candidates can’t.
As for a which hunt? I think that those who have been most vocal about adhering to campaign laws need to be held to account. If ASUM, MontPIRG, and FM were involved in using ASUM for campaigning I want them to be held accountable to their own rules. They, after all, are the bunch first to holler about shady campaign practices. As you might say, sauce for the goose.
I want this investigated and I’m in the process of contacting the Commissioner of Political Practices to confirm my understanding of the law.
You ought to be a bit more recalcitrant when pointing fingers about hypocrisy. You, it seems – the master of conspiracy – have failed to ask appropriate questions. But consistency isn’t your long suit.
You’ll have to go a long, long way to find anything I’ve ever said about out-of-state money. The only comment I can remember was made recently to Shane that in-state money can be as corrupt as any from other places. A system that relies on private bribes to function is corrupt beyond repair.
But we’re stuck with it. The right wing is rolling in dough, from the likes of Scaife to foundations and corporations like ExxonMobil. One guy – one guy, a philanthropist, funds big-D Democratic and little d too,a nd you’d think someone had broken into Fort Knox. The hypocrisy gives me bone chills.
I repeat what I said about Matt – this is a witch hunt, and it’s ugly – it makes me want to vomit. Next you’ll be doing Palmer raids. You’re exposed.
I reiterate. You can’t read and if you can you can’t understand.
That’s an odd comment from someone who finds a conspiracy lurking under every rock, with every corporation, or with government power in the first place, Mark.
This debate has never really been about where FM gets their money from. That you and others still don’t “get it” is amazing. While I do think it’s interesting that Forward Montana touts itself as representing some kind of rags to riches grassroots effort in Montana they still go out whoring for money in the same way the big dogs do. If I were a UM student or other local struggling to make ends meet and was told I should donate to Forward Montana to help make things better, without kowing they were or are sitting on at least a half a million dollars in out of state contributions I’d be a little pissed. The fact that Singer can’t publicly account for more than $12K means he’s either grossly incompetent as CEO of the organization or is hiding something. Let’s just hope the forms he’s required to submit to the IRS, and which are available to anyone who asks, are at least prepared by professionals.
How many times have you, Mark, or Singer, the Momzerâ„¢, and others railed against the big money political machines and called for public financing of political campaigns? The fact is that Forward Montana, with the help of donations that have been filtered down and laundered by other organizations have been able to manipulate the system, especially as it seems to concern ASUM and MontPiRg, and would give you and the rest of the hypocrites on the left the opportunity to scream bloody murder if this was a conservative group.
Of course I won’t point out the hyprocrisy of you quoting and giving credence to anonymous 3rd and 4th person accounts of the supposed brutality in the “occupied territories” while at the same time not demanding that Singer answer the anonymous charges against him…house of cards and all that.
It might help too if Mark and his cabal of the blissfully ignorant might check my links about who is involved in the money. Not a single outclick by anyone who is buying into the bullshit that FM got the big money from a “single” individual.
Of course Mark has said in the past that he doesn’t do links much.
I also encourage you, Dave, to find anything me or my Dad has said in praise of MoveOn or any other 527. That loophole in McCain-Feingold is absolutely inexcusable, and I oppose its very existence, for right AND left-wing groups. So, your accusations of hypocrisy on our part don’t hold a lot of water. Just because others on the left our OK with these things doesn’t mean all of us are… and it pisses me off that there isn’t more hue and cry about it now that the power of the 527s seems to have shifted things in favor of the left.
And I do understand that you are approaching this from a different angle than the rest of the right-wing blogs, Dave. You believe that Forward MT is hypocritical for using the term “grassroots” because of all of the out of state money they’ve received.
The biggest problem that you have, Dave, is that you’re approaching this from the angle of “I don’t necessarily disagree with what they’re doing, but I don’t believe it matches THEIR stated philosophy.” You’re trying to tell them how principled liberals should behave, based on your interpretation of what they should believe. Despite your lengthy explanations of this, it still doesn’t come off as genuine. It comes off as a witch hunt.
All of that being said, I am anxious to hear about the results of your research. I do actually appreciate the fact that you’re doing the footwork on this, something I don’t have the time to do. In that area you certainly have us beat.
I choose not to side with those who accept things at face value, and hence have to put up with this conspiracy nonsense. It’s annoying – a mindless put down from people who seem to accept that powerful people always act in the open and never try to hide anything from us or prevent others from speaking up. It’s willful naivete to avoid ridicule, a form of cowardice. J’accuse!
SO much for the personal attacks.
The rest can be summed up as follows: Dave doesn’t like Matt. Therefore, he’s on a witch hunt. He likes to sound high minded as he goes about low activities, but most things can be reduced to simple matters of personal pride. That’s all this is.
Click on your own damned links.
And Mike, when, in your world, did Human Rights Watch and othe monitoring grups become “3rd and 4th person accounts”? It’s amazing to watch the human mind at work, the depths of denial, the way it controls our thoughts.
Mark and Steve, you’ll have to show me where I call you hypocrites on this issue. It must be a reflex that you’re inclined to think that I’ve said anything about your positions on campaign finance.
And you two can make all the assumptions about how it looks to you. I don’t care in the least. You’re right, I don’t like Matt, but I dislike his politics and methods much more. He engages the youth vote with repeated demagoguery (Republicans want kids to die kind of shit.) If the youth vote should be engaged it might be better if ideological arguments were made. I told Matt some time ago that I would work against that.
And Mark it’s your loss that you don’t click through on my links. They are the citations that are being argued. You’re failure to read them and them argue about them makes your arguments incredible.
I did click on one link – not one you’ve listed. You wrote about the ballot issues and Howard Rich in August of 2006. You are consistent on this issue – what you are saying now you said then.
You’re right about the links – I rarely do, as I’m usually doing my own thing or working and don’t want to take the time. I’ll have to make an exception here and go back and do as you ask. Later on today.
I don’t know Matt, but have enjoyed his writing over the years, and I think his work in unseating Conrad Burns was a great public service. If he’s not been open about his funding, I’ll be disappointed but will still continue to read and enjoy him and support his work (I have contributed to Montanans in Action. I’m the guy you should go after.)
MT
Color me confused. Why is full disclosure a good thing for the Scaifes, ExxonMobil, but unnecessary for Matt? I am sure that it is all above board, but it would certainly strengthen his position if he followed the same demands that he makes on others.
Especially after the ruckus he raised about ALF.
Arguably, I thought he wasn’t against the idea of controlling the government takings as much as he was against outside money coming in and acting like locals.
Seems reasonable to ask him the same thing. I am sure that if he sat down for 15 minutes with his financial records he could do it.
So, why hasn’t he?
Well, for one thing, Matt’s not been found guilty of anything. All we have is accusations and an echo chamber.
There is a possibility that Singer has received $1,000 in indirect funding from George Soros.
Far as I can tell, that’s all you’ve got. The rest is the echo chamber at work.
And was Travis Butcher found guilty? How about Rich? Is Matt’s echo chamber any more valid than others?
Read the Times article, Mark.
I’m just sayin’ – you’ve got one piece of data that looks incriminating, that that only for $1,000, or coffee money. The rest is, as you say, a conspiracy theory.
Well, considering Singer was on PSN’s payroll for a year or two there’s not a big leap of faith that he’s pretty tied to the organization now is it? And considering that PSN is in the business of funding such operations, the interlocking directors, etc. this isn’t exactly along the lines of “the grassy noll.”
I just don’t see any firearms in teh grassy knoll – I see people and money and ideas. American politics, you know – got to have money, and lots of it, and private wealth operates behind the scenes. Does this trouble you?
Pretty ordinary stuff, if you ask me. I wish our system weren’t rigged like this, but this is how both parties operate – they have financiers behind the scenes who call the shots.
I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop in the NYT article – all that is going on is that Rappaport et al are trying to do what the right wing has been doing successfully for oh these many years. But they are not nearly so well-funded or connected as the right. It’s really a start-up movement. It’d be nice if they could find guys like Matt and groom them and let them foster the movement in the hinterlands. What smart organization is not on the lookout for young talent. Why does that scare you? Why do you make it out to be so diabolical?
You seem a bit paranoid – the Dems are imitating the Republicans! I did catch one very optimistic sentence in the NYT article – that the progressive movement that is in its infancy might well replace the moribund Democratic Party. I cheer for that.
And before I forget, at this stage you have possibly $1,000 in Soros money, and nothing else. Interlocking directorates makes it sound like the corporate right wing – it is that, I admit but only if you equate General Motors to the local Hardware Hank. Much ado about nothing.
Considering that Frederick of Hollywood was on a the payroll of an outfit that supported Planned Parenthood it’s not a big leap of faith that he’s pretty tied to the abortion industry. Considering that Dave Budge drew sustenance from addictive substances it’s not a big leap of faith to think that he still supports their use.
Your “leap of faith” is your own, Budge. Quit expecting others to make it.
And was Travis Butcher found guilty?
To be determined at a later time. But so far, all judicial indications point to “YES”.
Is Matt’s echo chamber any more valid than others?
Beg the question much? (The obvious answer which Dave will avoid is YES.)
And considering that PSN is in the business of funding such operations, the interlocking directors, etc. this isn’t exactly along the lines of “the grassy noll.â€
On the contrary. You posit the textbook definition of “Conspiracy theory” until you can show a shred of evidence that proves what fantasy you’re on about. That’s all you have, David; a conspiracy theory that you think others ought to believe because … well, you see the connections. Here’s a hint, Budge: we all see the connections too. We just don’t read nefarious purpose into coincedence. That’s the job of the conspiracy theorist. That’s your job.
And I adore the authoriTAYtive jab of ‘I’m looking into it’. Dave Budge’s Halloween costume is an investigative reporter , apparently. Too bad for him that it appears for all the world to be like a conspiracy theorist.
Tell you what, Dave. Next Halloween, we’ll all revisit your astounding detective work. I’ll bet you a donut that your deep undercover expose of Matthew Satan Soros Singer has exposed … nothing. Do you trust your “leap of faith” enough to put a sugar-coated chunk of goodness where your mouth is? Come on … do it. Accept that frosted temptation. You know ya wanna …
Me thinks thou doust protest to much. Sorry about the spelling.
Spelling aside, Ayn, in politics if you can get someone to deny wrongdoing, it’s as good as an admission of guilt. And that’s all this is – a campaign to smear Matt and Forward Montana. They’re out there denying now – they had no choice. Seems you are winning.
It’s amazing to watch the human mind at work, the depths of denial, the way it controls our thoughts.
No Mark, what truly counts as “amazing” is a remark coming from someone who refuses to notice how the work of HWR has been refuted over and over again, even by CNN, which speaks volumes in and of itself. But I forgot, you don’t click links… they might fuck with your dogma. You also seem willing, along with quite a few of the other useful idiots on the left, to trust Matt Singer and FM implicitly, perhaps the only person/group/organization/NGO/government to which you’ve ever deigned to do so.
Sorry Mike – haven’t really been paying attention to your alter-homeland lately. But I do know, as you do, as we all do, that anyone who criticizes Israel is either demented or self-hating. I don’t know where HRW fits on that continuum.
Other than that, your comment is laced with deep anger. Reminds me of me after a Forest Service meeting. Anyway, I do trust that Matt and the boys are appreciating their prize and attempting to overthrow capitalism and make everyone use fluorescent light bulbs. They’re tools.
I admit that a question denied is not an admission of guilt. But, why the problem with producing the records? Open government and all that. Yes, I know that Matt is not the government, yet, but it seems to be his goal.
Is it too hard, or just inconvenient?
My “alter-homeland?” Playing the dual-loyalty card or just referencing my ability to live somewhere outside the US for a few weeks a year? If my name were Jabeiri and I went to Mecca a few weeks every year would that be my “alter-homeland” also? Just askin’.
But I do know, as you do, as we all do, that anyone who criticizes Israel is either demented or self-hating.
Do we? There must be something in the water in Bozeman providing at least two of you with the divine ability to “know” what others are thinking. Kind of makes the blogging thing superfluous, no? Drink a bottle of Bozeman-Juice and just stay at home projecting your swine-fucking fetish onto others.
Mike, I am sure that Mark’s ridiculous rant was just a product of realizing that he was defending the indefensible.
Surely no one is that ridiculous.
I should do a study on how many posts devolve to accusations of swine-fucking after 20 comments… it’s probably an unusually high percentage. And soon after 30 people start talking about other people in the third person, like they’re not reading any more.
Hey Dad… just ignore Steve and Mike. They’re just ranting again.