This page is created to inform you the voter of blatant false information my opponent has been advertising in her campaign, both about myself and specific past legislative bills.
It is difficult for most voters to spend the time looking up and understanding 1000’s of bills per session. My opponent is capitalizing on this and banking on voters Not taking the time to check the facts on the statements she is making. If you come across instances of my opponents dissemination of these type statements both in word or in written form, please contact me at 406-585-0722 or my email firstname.lastname@example.org
In ads/publications that I have seen, my opponent does not provide you, the reader, a link to the actual bill, nor to the official vote tally, but rather makes the statement and lists only the (Link-less) bill number and date.
To not overwhelm the readers on this page, I have so far only selected five examples of the ways my opponent blatantly and deceptively twists the purpose of specific legislation and also my record. After reviewing these five examples, I hope you can see that my opponent cannot be trusted, and is the type of person that through deceptive practices, causes partisan chaos between Democrats and Republicans and is just flat out dishonest.
Example #1 – My opponents false information
HB298 Title of Bill – “Emphasize sexual abuse awareness and prevention in elementary schools”
Purpose of Bill – This bill was brought to educate children about what sexual abuse is, that it is not right, and that the Office of Public Education should develop a sexual abuse awareness plan for schools.
MY OPPONENT– In writing, stated that I voted against this bill. However, I actually voted in favor of this bill. Here is the official Vote Tally .
CONCLUSION – My Opponent blatantly lied. She is telling the voters of HD67 completely false information.
Example #2 – My opponents false information
SB236 Title of Bill – “Constitutional referendum to safeguard the right to hunt, fish, and trap”
Purpose of Bill – This bill was introduced to insert language into Montana’s Constitution that would protect the right to hunt, fish, and trap for Montanan’s into perpetuity. The reason this bill was brought was to protect against situations (for example) like Washington State’s Governor Jay Inslee, where using Coronavirus as an excuse, Inslee actually shut down both hunting and fishing last spring during their lockdown.
This bill was also a “referendum” which means if it passed the Legislature, it would be placed on the ballot for the people of Montana to approve.
MY OPPONENT States this bill – was “To block access to public land for hunting and fishing” and that this bill “would amend the states constitution to infringe on public access to public lands”.
CONCLUSION – Read the bill for yourself (with my above provided link) SB236 HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC LANDS. Public lands were not even part of the conversation with this bill. My opponent also doesn’t explain how the bill affects public lands. She Just makes the statement. Additionally this bill was supported a large number of Hunting and Fishing Sportsmen’s groups who’s legal teams vetted the legislation for legal approval. This included sportsmen’s groups who work with both resident and non-resident hunters and fisherman
The Democrats voted against this bill protecting hunting and fishing in Montana, and the bill failed to pass the entire legislature because, as a constitutional amendment, it needed 2/3 support instead of a simple majority of 51%. Basically the bill needed Democrat support to pass. My opponent blatantly lying to the the voters of HD67.
EXAMPLE #3 – My Opponents False Information
HB1 Title of Bill – “Feed Bill – An Act Appropriating Money for the Operation Of The Current And Subsequent Legislature”
Purpose of Bill – This bill is one of the first bills to be passed each session because IT FUNDS THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF MONTANA GOVERNMENT! Without this bill Legislators do not get paid their $11.50/hr, legislative staff would not get paid, and legislative services who drafts and puts each bill through legal review would not get paid. This bill generally passes each session almost Unanimously. However every session there are a couple to a few legislators who vote against it for political purposes (basically to make themselves look good, voting against being paid)
MY OPPONENT When addressing HB1 she states “Votes to increase their salaries”. Twisting the purpose of the bill to make legislators look bad for getting paid for their service, AND funding the staff of the legislature.
CONCLUSION – My opponent is banking on voters not understanding what the “Feed Bill” is all about and not checking into the facts. What my opponent also does not tell you is that the Vast Majority of both Democrats and Republicans supported HB1 in 2017 and in 2015. In 2015 Legislators were paid a little under $11.00/hour. Every session there is a slight cost of living pay increase, so in (2017) they were paid around $11.50/hour and only for 8 hours a day.
EXAMPLE #4 – My Opponents False Information
HB248 Title of Bill – “Revise Anti-bullying laws”
Purpose of Bill – Established revision to Montana’s anti-bullying laws to clarify that a student being bullied has the right to contact law enforcement at any time, and does not need to exhaust other remedies first.
MY OPPONENT states that I voted against this bill, but I actually voted IN FAVOR of this bill. Official Vote Tally 3/22/17
CONCLUSION– This Antibullying legislation has had a rough go. The initial legislation in 2015 had a critical flaw to where it prevented a student from contacting law enforcement in a situation that may merit law enforcement, unless the student first exhausted all other avenues (language matters in legislation). In 2017 the that issue was addressed in HB248, however it still did not have correct language. I voted against it, and even though it passed 2nd reading, it was withdrawn and brought back to committee for corrections. It was brought again to the Senate floor for the final time WHERE I VOTED IN FAVOR OF IT, TWICE both on 2nd reading and 3rd reading (3rd the official vote). A good legislator doesn’t vote for a bill because of its title, they vote based on what language is contained within the bill. My opponent is trying to deceive the voters and capitalize on a lack of understanding on the rough history of this bill.
EXAMPLE #5 – My Opponents False Information
SB97 Title of Bill – AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE PRIMACY OF MONTANA LAW BY PROHIBITING THE APPLICATION OF
FOREIGN LAW WHEN IT VIOLATES A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT GUARANTEED BY THE MONTANA OR
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Purpose of Bill – This bill SB97 was brought out of concern that various courts across the nation were actually using foreign laws to judge and convict individuals in our American state courts. This is the United States of America, we use our laws under the Constitution as a standard by which to judge by. This bill would have prohibited Montana’s courts from using foreign laws by which to judge and convict an accused person. It also states that Religious Freedom is Protected in Section 1(2) “state’s interest in protecting and promoting rights and privileges granted under the Montana constitution or the United States constitution, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution and the laws of this state.”
MY OPPONENT – Twists the meaning of SB97 180 degrees from, not only its purpose, but also from specific language contained in the bill. She states that those legislators who voted in favor of this bill “Voted for Religious Discrimination” because they voted to “prohibit the application of foreign laws in state courts”
CONCLUSION – Wow! So my opponent is apparently in-favor of (us) Montanan’s being tried in our Montana Courts by foreign laws and foreign standards (Not American Constitutional Laws). My opponent states that this bill is “Religious Discrimination” because its purpose is that Americans and Montanans, should not be tried (for example) by “Sharia Law” as she referenced the discussion of Muslim laws in the legislative committee hearing. She failed to mention that one of the main individuals (in the committee) that testified against using “Sharia Law” was a Muslim man, who fled his country, under the abuse of his countries laws, and fled to America where he had rights under our Constitution. My Opponent fails to mention that under strict “Sharia Law” members of the LGBT community would be put to death, and at the same time she opposes this effort to keep those radial laws from applications in Montana courts. Additionally as stated above, the specific language in the bill Protects Religious Practices and Freedom of Religion. My opponent once again is deceiving you the voter, and trusting that you will not do your research.
TO BE CONTINUED……………. At A Later Date