Schweitzer Crafts Ballot Initiative To Curb Lobbyists

[ruggerson]

Schweitzer takes a swipe at the big corporations.

Score one for the working man and woman.

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/04/07/montana/a01040706_04.txt

HELENA — With a firm hand, Gov. Brian Schweitzer on Thursday became the first person to sign his proposed ballot measure to require departing elected officials to wait two years before becoming lobbyists.

Schweitzer signed Initiative 153 in the Capitol rotunda before the bust of one of his heroes, former Gov. Joseph Dixon, who served from 1921 to 1924. Dixon told Montanans he would represent their interests, not those of the Anaconda Copper Mining Co., Schweitzer said.

“I-153 will make sure that you have a clean government,’’ Schweitzer said at a press conference. “Finally, the people across Montana can be assured when they elect somebody, they will be working for the folks back home, not the lobbyists who prowl the halls of the state Capitol.’’

To qualify for the November ballot, backers need the signatures of 22,308 voters, including 5 percent of the voters in 34 of the 100 state House districts.

(more)

[NYCGirl]

1. I think we're going to hear a lot more from Gov. Schweitzer! NT

[Warpy]

2. Yes we are, especially if we can clean out the dead wood in

the upper reaches of the Democratic Party. At the very least, they should be looking at his campaign as a way to win decisive victories in red states.

He campaigned as an unabashed progressive and economic populist.

[ruggerson]

3. What baffles me is that you have all these Dems shouting

that the beltway Dems are out of touch and that we can't seem to win elections and that we need a progressive populist, etc.

And yet we have one right here. Right in front of their eyes.

And he's actually been elected in a red state and is governing as an anti corporate populist and has a 65% approval rating.

And yet, these same Dems shouting that we can't win elections aren't even paying attention to what's right in front of them.

Maybe that will change as he gets more and more of a track record.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. Believe me, people are noticing

But unfortunately his name is pretty much out of the hat for '08 because he was just elected Governor. That's why he isn't talked about that much.

[skipos]

5. Exactly. Schweitzer is great but he has only been Gov for a little while.

Give it time.

[ruggerson]

8. If I remember correctly

Jimmy Carter was a one term governor in 1976. Didn't seem to impede his march to the oval office.

Oftentimes, when the mood of the country favors an outside populist, as I expect we will see in '08, the length of service of the candidate is irrelevant, indeed a short time in national politics often is a boon. Their bona fides stem from whether they are in the beltway pols or outside the beltway genuine populists. Schweitzer certainly is the latter.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. That was a different time

Presidential campaigns are much more demanding than they were in the 70's. They also start at least a year earlier than they used to. Part of the reason John Edwards had so much trouble is that he looked like he was using his senate seat just as a stepping stone to the presidency. I'd be behind Schweitzer if he ran in '08 but I just don't see it happening.

[welshTerrier2]

6. the objective of lobbying reform ..

the "2 year limit" is a start but meaningful lobbying reform has to start with a statement of the ultimate objective ...

that objective should be that no citizen, corporation or other organization should by its power or money have disproportionate access to or influence on elected officials ...

part of the package has to include making elected officials spend more time in their districts via office hours, free, public forums and other publically available venues ...

frankly, while a good start, the 2 year limit is a drop in the bucket ...

[ruggerson]

7. Of course

but the art of leading is to move the agenda one step at a time, one inch at a time if need be. Schweitzer is doing exactly that.

[welshTerrier2]

9. views on leadership ...

perhaps you are right that the art of leading is to move the agenda one step at a time ...

my view is different though ... i think it's important to speak to the ideal and the vision ...

then, the tactics come into play where a step-by-step how do we get there comes into play ...

i think the difference in the views of leadership we seem to have is a major source of intra-party friction and i also think it's totally unnecessary ... many in the party's left wing would be far more tolerant of party moderates if they had a sense that we all shared a common vision but disagreed merely on the tactics to get us there ...

if we don't find a forum and a process for better intra-party dialog, we are going to continue to suffer politically ...