Kennedy gives 100k to Dark Money Group for MT Supreme Court Election

[Schaaf]

James Cox Kennedy gave 100k to the Montana Growth Network, a group who advocated for Laurie McKinnon's election to the Supreme Court.

James Cox Kennedy, board chairman of media giant Cox Enterprises, donated $100,000.



Kennedy owns property along eight miles of the Ruby River and has been involved in a long-running litigation against public access, which has already gone to the Supreme Court once and may find its way back there. Kennedy was recently in the news after Ducks Unlimited fired longtime columnist Donnall Thomas after Thomas criticized Kennedy's anti-access stance. Kennedy is a former DU board member and significant donor.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/gov...cle_cbb71946-9854-5f20-9ae9-20bf1b18c351.html

I find it fitting that I got a letter from PLWA today. Kennedy's attack on Montana's stream access law is real and he shows no intention of letting off the gas.

 

[belly-deep]

Kristen Juras has stated that she believes the stream access law constitutes a "taking" under the 5th. Just watch, that dark money group will support her over Sandefur.

 

[Big Fin]

My family has never subscribed to the "I own mine and I own yours" mentality of river banks. If ever you find yourself in Big Falls, MN and you want to fish the Big Fork River, you are more than welcome to join the public who will likely be fishing on the bank where the river runs through property owned by me and my siblings, marked in yellow above. Our upstream neighbor has always allowed the same, as have the people across the river. Decent walleye, good pike and smallmouth, and the occasional muskie. You might have to wait your turn on the rocks the kids wade out to and cast in the deeper holes, but odds are you will find a few fish.

If we ever changed our ideas about allowing fishing access, my Dad would somehow rise from his grave and "box my ears." Just was his view on being lucky enough to own a nice piece of river frontage, a view we continue to hold.



I'm fine with a landowner restricting access where the law defines the start of their property rights. His property and his right to do what he wants. I do have a problem with a dude buying land where the state law is something you disagree with, then spending immense amounts of money and wasting a ton of taxpayer money fighting to change the law you don't like, even though you knew of it when you bought your property. If you didn't like the law, you should have bought property in a state where the law is different. And that is exactly what Kennedy is doing. If not for this political practices investigation bringing this donation to the public's eye, nobody would have never known the manner in which 7 big donors, mostly out-of-state donors, could influence the outcome of a very important election in a state they do not live in.

How many other dark money campaigns do you think have been funded in similar ways, by a very small handful of influential out-of-state folks, treating Montana as some sort of political Petri dish in which they conduct their social experiments?

Anyone who thinks the Citizens United decision was good for this country shares a different perspective than I do. It is that case/decision, from the USSC, that allows so much of this to go on in the darkness of political campaigns disguised as "public information" efforts.

In addition to our Christmas donation to the Food Bank, I've told Mrs. Fin to scrap any gift for me and just send a couple hundred dollars to the PLWA here in Montana. Given the resources on the other side, they will need every penny we can provide.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It happens in every state, not just Montana. We're just a cheap date.

They did the same thing with the Bucy/Fox race, with Wheat & the dude who split to Nevada right after he lost, etc. they'll do it against moderate conservatives who didn't toe the line, and good dems who would be champions for access. You'll be able to tell by the volume of venomous postcards & ads.

Statewide races are cheap to buy. It's one of the reasons certain groups focus on local and statewide races: mote politicians for the money, and when you get the fools to agree to "state & local control," what they really mean is their control.

Look at any town or county that has tried to enact a policy that these donors and their political hacks don't like, and you'll find them desperately trying to kill it.