So- if you didn’t endorse Senator Jon Tester’s (D-MT) re-election campaign, does that mean you will not have a voice in your own Senator’s office? Will the senator vote against your legislation simply because you didn’t support him in the election?
I don’t usually catch too many of the letters to the editor in most of the newspapers; however, this one stood out.
The President of the Western Montana Chapter of Safari Club International (SCI) says Senator Tester’s Chief of Staff pointed out that SCI did not support Tester in recent election.
Here’s the letter to the editor in The Ravalli Republic from Jon Wemple of Victor, who also noted that Senator Tester was unavailable to meet for the third year in a row:
When I brought up concern that the senator recently voted for expanded background checks on firearm purchases, while Sen. Max Baucus voted against it, the chief of staff opened a folder and handed copies of a 2012 campaign advertisement in which SCI’s political action committee (SCI-PAC) supported his opponent in last year’s elections. It was disturbing to be brashly handed such a campaign advertisement in the senator’s office. I’m not sure if this was even legal, but it was certainly unprofessional.
A response from Senator Tester’s office has not been received.
Since I like to post stories that may not necessarily have been picked up by most of the Montana media, here’s an interesting story over at The Huffington Post:
The Senate Banking Committee is considering a new bill to deregulate insurance agent licensing requirements, drawing ire from consumer advocates.
Current law requires insurance agents to acquire a license to sell insurance policies in the state where the policy applies. But a bill authored by Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) would create a new federal system that would automatically qualify anyone who obtains a license in any state to sell insurance in every state.
The proposal has been floating around Washington since the late 1990s but has never been enacted. Tester and Johanns have defended the bill by arguing that it will lower costs for companies, and the savings will be passed on to policyholders.
Aaron Flint
Monday, June 10, 2013 9:17 AM
Ha- good point Virgil. Although when I said- “I don’t usually catch too many of the letters to the editor in most of the newspapers”- just means that I’m not able to catch all of the letters to the editor in every paper in the state. (not to mention every paper now practically requiring a subscription) I was also trying to make the point that you would think a charge like this would merit a little bit more of a report from a newspaper other than just leaving it as a letter to the editor.