Past and present Senate candidates from Montana: on Government Reform

Jon Tester: Spotlight Act: no dark money in campaigns

Matt Rosendale (R): No. Voted against state bill requiring independent groups to reveal how money they contribute to election campaigns is being used & where it's coming from. Supports Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling as protecting freedom of speech.

Jon Tester (D): Yes. Introduced Spotlight Act, requiring political nonprofits to disclose donors. "Dark money is a threat to our democracy. I will do everything I can to defend Montanans from this shadowy behavior." Opposed Citizens United ruling.

Jon Tester: Introduced bill to ensure Native American voting access

Matt Rosendale (R): Yes. Voted to repeal same-day voter registration. Require government-issued photo identification to vote.

Jon Tester (D): Unclear on photo ID. Introduced bill to ensure Native American voting access.

Albert Olszewski: Term limits set for members of Congress

A: Albert Olszewski's answer: Yes

Albert Olszewski: Require photo ID to vote

A: Albert Olszewski's answer: Yes

Amanda Curtis: When wealthy in Congress, playing field tilts to wealthy

"We all need to remember that Washington, D.C., is full of folks that have done incredibly well for themselves and when you send folks to Washington, D.C., who have done incredibly well for themselves, they take votes that tilt the playing field to the wealthy and against us regular working folks," she said.

Sam Rankin: Special interests support the status quo; Americans don't

Currently 42% of Americans identify themselves as Independents and it shows there is a major out-migration from the major political parties. Voters want another choice other than choosing between two candidates who are both controlled by special interests, corporations, or wealthy individual donors. It's time for Independents to work together.

Sam Rankin: Eliminate earmarks; 3-year federal pay freeze

Cut Deficit Spending
• Reduce Congressional/White House budgets 15%
• Congressional pay freeze for 3 years.
• Federal workers/civilian defense workers pay freeze 3 years.
• Sell excess federal property. (Income and reduced maintenance costs.)
• Eliminate ALL earmarks.

Champ Edmunds: Photo ID for voting

Edmunds: Strongly Disagree

Dennis Rehberg: It's not about campaign spending; it's government spending

Tester, ever the opponent of Citizens United, acknowledged the problem in his closing statement. "We're back in 1912," he said, harkening back to the days of Montana's Copper Kings. "We've come back to a time when corporations can give unlimited amounts of money, secret money, and influence the political structure of this country. And that's scary for a democracy."

But Rehberg, who had no response when asked directly how much outside interests had spent in this race, doesn't seem to be too troubled by where that money is coming from.

Jon Tester: Citizens United is scary for democracy

Tester, ever the opponent of Citizens United, acknowledged the problem in his closing statement. "We're back in 1912," he said, harkening back to the days of Montana's Copper Kings. "We've come back to a time when corporations can give unlimited amounts of money, secret money, and influence the political structure of this country. And that's scary for a democracy."

But Rehberg, who had no response when asked directly how much outside interests had spent in this race, doesn't seem to be too troubled by where that money is coming from.

Dennis Rehberg: Citizens United ok: political free speech is most important

Rehberg appeared to speak favorably of Citizens United, saying political free speech is the most important, but he added that he supports 100 percent transparency with campaign donations.

The problem, Tester pointed out, is that Citizens United doesn't require transparency in reporting political contributions.

Dennis Rehberg: Supports cutting Public Broadcasting Service & Americorps

That served as an opportunity for Libertarian candidate Cox to jump in: "They're only talking about nibbling at the edges of some the proposed increases in federal spending," Cox said, adding that the country is likely to face $1.7 trillion in additional deficit spending next year. "We're talking about cutting PBS. Let's get real."

Jon Tester: Oppose Citizens United: limit corporate political spending

Rehberg appeared to speak favorably of Citizens United, saying political free speech is the most important, but he added that he supports 100 percent transparency with campaign donations.

The problem, Tester pointed out, is that Citizens United doesn't require transparency in reporting political contributions.

Dennis Rehberg: There should be nothing more free than political free speech

The decision has been derided by many Montana politicians. Montana, 21 other states and the District of Columbia have asked the high court to rule that Citizens United doesn't apply to Montana's or other state laws regulating corporate campaign spending.

Rehberg said he supported the 2010 ruling, although he added that there should be full transparency on where campaign money is coming from. "There should be nothing more free than political free speech," he said.

Tester responded that "corporations are not people. Because of Citizens United, corporations have more rights when it comes to donations than people do," he said.

Jon Tester: Citizens United ruling puts democracy at risk

The decision has been derided by many Montana politicians. Montana, 21 other states and the District of Columbia have asked the high court to rule that Citizens United doesn't apply to Montana's or other state laws regulating corporate campaign spending.

Rehberg said he supported the 2010 ruling, although he added that there should be full transparency on where campaign money is coming from. "There should be nothing more free than political free speech," he said.

Tester responded that "corporations are not people. Because of Citizens United, corporations have more rights when it comes to donations than people do," he said.

Dennis Rehberg: Citizens United: nothing more free than political speech

The decision has been derided by many Montana politicians. Montana, 21 other states and the District of Columbia have asked the high court t Citizens United doesn't apply to Montana's or other state laws regulating corporate campaign spending. Rehberg said he supported the 2010 ruling, although he added that there should be full transparency on where campaign money is coming from. "There should be nothing more free than political free speech," he said.

Tester responded that "corporations are not people. Because of Citizens United, corporations have more rights when it comes to donations than people do," he said.

Conrad Burns: Earmarks let me bring Montana a share of federal money

TESTER: Earmarking in the middle of the night, without transparency, is wrong for representative democracy.

JONES: Incumbents always put something in the transportation bill so they can brag about all the money they brought to the state. None of the 34 are qualified.

BURNS: I’m proud about what I brought back to Montana. Most of it is for infrastructure [in that bill]. That money’s going to be spent somewhere in America, and I want Montana to get her share. If you leave it up to a faceless un-elected bureaucrat, with only 900,000 people, tell me how much we’re gonna get? Earmarks have to withstand the scrutiny of the subcommittee hearing, the full Committee hearing, & the full Senate. I have to go out & defend them, and it’s pretty hard sometimes. We defend them, our name is on them, and that’s the way the process works. If they can’t stand the scrutiny, they will not make it.

Jon Tester: Earmarks without transparency are wrong for democracy

TESTER: The current process of earmarking in the middle of the night, without transparency, is the wrong way for representative democracy to be working. Good projects, like this land-grant university, can stand up to the scrutiny of the light of day. Quite frankly, I don’t support earmarks, period.

If a project’s a good project, which includes probably most if not all of those 34 earmarks, they could withstand scrutiny in front of the entire Congress. I’m not for earmarks because they don’t pass public scrutiny with the transparency that our government and our forefathers set up.

JONES: Incumbents always put something in the transportation bill so they can brag about all the money they brought to the state. None of the 34 are qualified.

BURNS: I’m proud about what I brought back to Montana. That money’s going to be spent somewhere in America, and I want Montana to get her share.

Jon Tester: K-Street cronies control Congressional spending decisions

A: I’d start with no-bid contracts in Iraq. That’s kind of wild. Then negotiations for Medicare Part D prescription drugs--I negotiate when I go to buy a pickup truck, so we ought to be negotiating-- but that’s what happens when you have big pharmaceutical companies writing legislation. It’s time that we spend the money wiser, that we prioritize better, and start looking out for middle class folks. But that’s not the people who have control- the cronies on K-Street that buy votes have more control than the folks that elect us. You need to have people back there in Washington who have experience balancing a checkbook and setting priorities. I have balanced a checkbook in the private sector and in the public sector. My opponent has not been able to do that.

Stan Jones: Earmarks are unconstitutional incumbency protection

TESTER: The current process of earmarking in the middle of the night, without transparency, is the wrong way for representative democracy to be working.

JONES: Which qualify as unjustified pork? ALL of them. The federal transportation bill has become the true pork-barrel bill that Congress uses to enhance the ability of incumbents to get re-elected. They always put something in this bill so they can brag about all the money they brought to the state, all of which most likely is unconstitutional. Transportation bills should be for transportation. And very little federal money should be spent on transportation. Transportation is a state issue and should be funded by state funds. All 34 earmarks are unconstitutional and should be eliminated.

BURNS: I’m proud about what I brought back to Montana. That money’s going to be spent somewhere in America, and I want Montana to get her share.