Roundup Record Tribune & Winnett Times -

Montana Conservative Alliance would certainly not suggest that we are the “only” source for conservative voters to use when determining which Republicans are worthy of their support – and which are not. As mentioned earlier, it is our goal to be consistently accurate and reliable, by exposing each candidate to a rigorous test of their true principles and true understanding of the freedom philosophy. That’s why we ask tough, constitutionally-based, free market-based questions that, quite frankly, some Republicans don’t want to answer (or don’t have the spiritual and intellectual foundation to know how to answer.) Thus, our endorsed candidate list is smaller than most. Over two-thirds of the Republicans in contested races did not respond to our questionnaire. Maybe that’s okay, when you think about it. All Gideon took into battle were 300 men – but they were the 300 best. The warriors. The leaders. Montana Conservative Alliance seeks first to identify the true warriors and leaders, who will make the biggest difference in Helena, and by their passion and principle, lead us to victory!

Regarding the many other voting “guides” and organization ratings and endorsements you may be seeing, we simply encourage you to be careful and discerning. These are not all created equal! Here are a few important considerations:

(1) Narrow-issue and single-issue organizations sometimes get it wrong. Why? Because in our view, there is a fundamental flaw in the way most of these groups approach endorsements. With due respect, two examples are Montana Shooting Sports Association and Montana Family Foundation, both of which have done a lot of great work advancing pro-gun legislation (MSSA) and school choice bills (MFF.) These and similar interest group organizations make a profound mistake when they endorse candidates who are strong on their issues, but very bad when it comes to defending liberty and limited government generally. Often, they end up rewarding some of the worst Republican RINOs because of their ‘loyalty” to their particular agenda, even when they are anathema to the conservative movement as a whole. Their fundamental error is forgetting that freedom is indivisible, and that helping elect politicians that usurp our other freedoms is suicidal to their cause. These organizations are wearing blinders, because they fail to see that they are creating the very leviathan government that will have the power to take away all freedoms someday – including the ones that are their particular causes. Advice: do not accept at face value, the candidate endorsements of such groups. Be skeptical and do your own research. When an outfit like MSSA endorses ultra-RINOs like Llew Jones, Ed Buttrey, Denley Loge, George Nikolakakos, Julie Dooling and Ray Shaw, do your own thinking -- and reject them!

(2) Business, agriculture and industry associations promote their own self-interests, not freedom. Typically, these groups are seeking funds and favors from the government – not free markets. They are about restricting competition, not advancing it. The State Chamber of Corporate Welfare (as I prefer to call it) is a shining example of this. Their rankings and endorsements are not conservative. MCA would recommend that the best way for conservatives to handle the endorsement lists from groups like these is to thrown them in the nearest round file.

(3) National conservative organizations can be helpful, but their state vision is more limited. Know each organization well, before you take their advice. Some can dramatically change (like AFP’s sharp turn toward statism, endorsing Nikki Haley and helping destroy Matt Rosendale.) Some organizations, like American Conservative Union, and especially the John Birch Society, have remained very solid philosophically over the years. Yet even these groups can have their “pet issues” that tend to dominate their focus. (In the case of the JBS, it’s Article V Convention of the States, over which true and devoted conservatives reasonably disagree.) In our judgment, a weakness with the scorecards of most of these organizations is that they don’t use enough bills to capture enough issues, and the legislation they index is usually the big, media-covered stuff. MCA has found that often discreet, lesser-noticed bills are the best for representing key principles. Two state-based groups come to mind. LEGISTATS uses a large recorded vote database and a customized computer program that ranks each legislator on their degree of conformance to the GOP caucus leadership position. (Personally, we don’t find this at all useful.) The other Montana-based organization, besides MCA, is Montanans For Limited Government.

In our experience, MFLG’s legislative ratings and recommendations have been well-researched and are rock solid on conservative philosophy.

(4) Self-styled “political experts” put out voter guides that resemble gossip sheets more than original work. Everyone has a right to disseminate their opinions as far and wide as they want. But it’s presumptuous for the authors to put their opinions across as if they possess some kind of special wisdom or authority, or have access to insider information. Subjective opinion is just that – subjective. It might be interesting or entertaining to read, but in our judgment, it’s best to not take these commentaries very seriously. They usually have very little of value to offer.

HB 38

Gregg Oblander -- F

Nancy Kemler -- F

Montana Conservative Alliance

Roger Koopman, president

811 S. Tracy Ave.,

Bozeman, MT 59715

[email protected]