by Guest Writer | Aug 4, 2026 | Democrats, Elections, Politics, Republicans
Guest Post By Joe Hancock, Chair of Gallatin County Democrats
This election year, four candidates garnered enough support from Montana voters to earn a place on the ballot for our U.S. Senate race: Kurt Alme, Kyle Austin, Alani Bankhead, and Seth Bodnar. Every demand for one of these candidates to withdraw from this election is an attempt to disenfranchise Montanans who participated in the nominating process.
I’ve read two meandering letters in the past month from liberal lawmakers and lawyers with conclusions that seem to be informed by self-interest rather than common sense. If an idea seems too cute by half, it is probably a bad idea. This isn’t the first time this year that I’ve seen lawyers argue a novel legal theory meant to undermine the electoral process established in Montana Code Annotated.
While I’m frustrated by these privileged few squabbling over a senate campaign, I’m truly angry that this feckless infighting has insulated Montana Republicans from criticism as they promote dangerous new policies and fundraise on a platform of social exclusion. Working Montanans continue losing economic ground because of state and local government policy failures while these people waste time and political capital on a fight nobody wins.
The GOP put red meat on the table when their flat-tax proposal hit the front page, but so-called Democrats are digging for gristle in the dumpster. We have data, history, and experience that can inform a strong message in opposition to a flat income tax, but the loudest voices in our party have gone hoarse from screaming into the void.
A declaration of support for Alani Bankhead from a member of the Montana Democratic Party is simply a reminder of the written mission to elect Democrats to local, statewide, and federal offices to ensure a government of the people, by the people, and for the people of Montana. It is no more controversial than the MSU president announcing support for the Bobcats football team.
My role as the chair of the Gallatin County Democrats is to pursue this mission to the best of my ability, and my commitment is fueled by my belief in that mission. As a leader, I owe my fellow members my judgment, and as a person, I owe myself a faithful adherence to my code of ethics. My approach has been forged by a life of service and my sworn oaths as an airman and an engineer, committing my skills and knowledge to the public good and in support of democracy.
I expect all four candidates in this race to be on the ballot following the withdrawal deadline of August 10. Should a surprise vacancy occur on the Democratic ticket, I will ensure another qualified candidate is nominated so we can continue our mission to serve the people of Montana and give our opponents the lumber in November.
by Guest Writer | Jul 31, 2026 | Elections, Guest Articles, Politics
Guest Post From David Sirota, Editor of The Lever
You literally have no idea who is “electable”. Stop pretending you do, and stop thinking you should calibrate your vote on who is “electable” rather than on who is pushing good policies that would help you and your community.
A flippant note from a political science professor reminds me of something I want to reiterate now and basically in every election cycle for the rest of my angst-ridden life: There is now an entire cottage industry of media elites, academics and aspiring online “influencers” who market themselves the all-knowing Understanders Of Electability™ — and who work to convince you, the Democratic primary voter, that you should condition your votes on candidates’ “electability”….when in reality, literally nobody knows who is “electable” and who isn’t.
Most of these purveyors of “electability” have never in their entire lives deigned to once do the difficult unglamorous work of actually toiling in politics or on a political campaign — and yet they waive around polls and pitch themselves as modern-day oracles. They are the political version of Jim Cramer, often flagrantly wrong and yet indefatigably confident.
That’s actually what they are selling – confidence, or really, a con game. They sell the idea that Democratic primary voters should be pundits who vote not for their own interests, but who vote for some mythical idea of “electability” that these elites alone determine…even though we’ve been shown over and over and over again that nobody has any idea who will be “electable.”
This class of geniuses told us that a freshman senator named Barack Hussein Obama could never be an “electable” candidate for president.
They were so convinced that Donald Trump wasn’t “electable” that they cheered when he won the Republican presidential nomination, and insisted there was no possible way he could win a swing state like Michigan.
Most recently, they sold the idea that Kamala Harris was the only “electable” choice for president, that she was running a “brilliant” campaign — and that her corporate centrism was working to win her the White House.
David J. Sirota is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Lever, a reader-supported investigative news outlet focused on exposing the negative influence of corporate corruption on American society. He was a speechwriter and senior adviser for the Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign. Sirota served as a senior strategist for Brian Schweitzer’s unsuccessful 2000 Senate campaign and successful 2004 gubernatorial campaign.
For more biographical information check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sirota
by Guest Writer | Jul 10, 2026 | Democrats, Guest Articles, Independent, Working Class
Guest Post From Gallatin County
Joe Hancock, the Gallatin County Democratic Chair and President of the MSU-Bozeman chapter of MFPE-FOCUS #8521 was born and raised in Big Timber and served in the U.S. Air Force before returning to Montana. He is committed to strengthening relationships, finding common ground among urban and rural communities, and reestablishing Montana Democrats as the party of the working class.
Multiple people have asked me if the Gallatin Democrats would consider supporting Seth Bodnar, the independent candidate for the U.S. Senate, since Jon Tester has declared that a Democrat can’t win in Montana. I do not support Seth Bodnar’s candidacy. The mission of the Democratic Party is to support Democratic candidates for office.
Democrats across Montana are already struggling for resources to help local candidates after the consulting firm composed of former Democratic Party staff, Fireweed, pushed financial support to losing Republicans during the primary. Seth Bodnar is soaking up political donations that will be wasted on another destructive top-down campaign while county and state government candidates are left out in the cold.
Democrat In Disguise?
Seth Bodnar is trying to gaslight Montana voters, masquerading as an independent while actually being a milquetoast moderate Democrat. Despite characterizing himself as “building a different kind of campaign—powered by people who are done sitting on the sidelines and ready to fight for the kind of leadership Montana deserves,” his actions tell a different story. Seth Bodnar’s campaign is funded by prominent Democratic donors, endorsed by Democratic partner organizations, and operated by former Democratic Party consultants.
These consultants are unironically branding the Republican nominee in this race as “Washington’s hand-picked insider candidate, backed by the same partisan interests that have spent years ignoring working families.” Seth Bodnar was hand-picked by Tester and dodged a primary where he would have had to compete with stronger candidates to earn Montanans’ votes.
The Choice of An Aging Establishment
Seth Bodnar has not been focusing enough on Montanans. Instead, he has been hosting fundraisers in cities like Washington, D.C., Seattle, and Atherton, CA. His money comes from donors that know nothing and care not about what Montana’s working families need or deserve.
Seth Bodnar is the face of a new Know-Nothing Party led by his benefactors, Jon Tester, Max Baucus, and Marc Racicot. These retired politicians were relevant in a time when our state was stuck in a meaningless middle that ignored rural communities and alienated the voters who live in them.
A Uniparty State For The Future
Some hope that Seth Bodnar’s candidacy will lead to the end of the two-party system in Montana. That would only happen if the resulting fragmentation of progressive voters allows Republican power to galvanize, effectively making this a one-party state for the foreseeable future.
by Guest Writer | May 26, 2026 | Guest Articles, Taxes
By Guest Writer Representative Jane Weber
There is a dangerous petition circling Montana. When approached, DO NOT SIGN CI-134. Like the Sirens calling in Ulysses with their beautiful voices, paid signature gatherers are calling on voters to sign a petition that could be the death knell for city and county governments. The lure of stabilizing property taxes is sweet bait to an unsuspecting fish, but don’t bite the hook. Why? Because when something sounds simple, it usually is hiding the truth. And the truth is this . . .
CI-134 creates a fixed property tax formula that decimates local government funding. If you like smooth roads, police protection, rapid response to your house on fire, clean drinking water, libraries, restaurant and swimming pool safety inspections, and your local fairgrounds, kiss it all goodbye. This initiative unravels city and county funding by limiting property tax growth to 2% per parcel per year for all taxing categories – residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural and more. It also sets the baseline to the lesser of the property taxes paid in 2024 or 2025 or 2026.
CI-134 would disproportionately benefit wealthy out-of-staters. The biggest second homes would get some of the biggest tax cuts while the rest of us are left with the bag.
CI-134 deceptively sounds favorable because it states voted levies are exempted from the 2% cap. Don’t be fooled. In reality, CI-134 changes how voters choose local levies by requiring a majority vote of the qualified electorate. That’s the total number of qualified voters, NOT a majority of those who took the interest in voting. It would be easy-peasy to kill a local levy by simply encouraging people not to vote.
Finally, CI-134 alters our Montana Constitution, something difficult to unravel once set into play. We cherish our Constitution, don’t let the majority lock in bad policy.
CI-134 is not right for Montana. When asked to sign, Just DON’T Do IT.
by Guest Writer | Apr 15, 2026 | Corporations, Data Centers
Photo By MEIC
Guest Editorial by former Butte Legislator, Josh Peck.
Everybody gets it wrong sometimes. This time, unfortunately, organized labor got it wrong.
Let me say this clearly before anyone twists it. I am pro-union. I have spent years supporting unions, studying labor history, standing with workers, and understanding exactly why unions matter. Unions built the middle class. Unions fought for safety rules, fair pay, decent benefits, health protections, training standards, and dignity on the job. In a place like Butte, that history is not abstract. It is sacred.
That is exactly why this moment feels so wrong.
What we are being told right now is that if we ask questions about data centers, if we ask about water, if we ask about electric rates, if we ask about noise, wildlife, land use, public process, long-term costs, and whether regular Montanans will get stuck holding the bag, then somehow we are anti-worker or anti-union. That is nonsense.
Even Montana press is now reporting that AFL-CIO pressure has reached party messaging around data centers. Daily Montanan’s April 13 debate coverage quoted Russ Cleveland saying he was warned to be careful about talking negatively about data centers because AFL-CIO had asked for that. Montana Standard had already reported in February that labor leadership was urging Montana Democrats to back off negative messaging on the issue. 
That is not solidarity. That is message control.
And the message they want us to swallow is simple: jobs, jobs, jobs.
Montanans have heard that tune before.
Yes, data centers create construction work. Nobody is denying that. Brookings says the standard model delivers short-term construction jobs. A USC workforce analysis says the typical large build runs around two years. But that same research also shows the permanent workforce at highly automated hyperscale facilities is tiny compared with the build phase. Good Jobs First warns that many subsidy deals require very few permanent jobs, and some require none at all, while construction labor can be filled by traveling crews rather than guaranteed local hires. 
So let us stop pretending this is some giant long-term employment engine for Montana communities. A lot of these projects look more like a short burst of work followed by a heavily automated facility with a relatively small permanent staff. 
That does not make the construction jobs fake. It means they are not the whole story.
And the other side of the story is huge.
Montana Free Press has reported that Butte is ground zero in this debate for a reason. We already know these projects can require enormous amounts of electricity. We know water use details have been hard to pin down. We know there is a tradeoff between water cooling and electric demand. We know NorthWestern has signed letters of intent that, by one Montana Free Press accounting, could total 1,400 megawatts by 2030, more than double what its existing customers require on a typical day. We know Earthjustice and other groups are fighting the PSC because key data center information has been kept from public view. 
That alone should be enough to justify a pause.
Not a ban. Not a tantrum. Not an anti-union crusade.
A pause.
A serious, adult, Montana-style pause to ask basic questions.
What will this do to electric rates?
What will this do to water?
What will this do to wildlife and habitat?
What will this do to neighboring homes and neighborhoods?
What will this do to noise levels?
What will this do to local infrastructure?
What guarantees exist that Montana ratepayers will not subsidize private corporate expansion?
What percentage of the labor will actually be local?
What percentage of the permanent jobs will be union?
What public benefits are guaranteed in writing, not just promised in a press conference?
These are not extremist questions. These are the exact kind of questions unions are supposed to ask when something big, risky, and potentially harmful is being pushed through too fast.
Because the union tradition at its best is not “trust the corporation.”
It is not “take the deal and ask later.”
It is not “sit down and shut up because leadership already decided.”
The union tradition at its best is: slow down, get it in writing, protect the worker, protect the public, make sure the job is done right, and make sure regular people are not the ones sacrificed so somebody else can cash out.
That is why this feels like such a slap in the face.
We are not talking about a local machine shop. We are not talking about a small industrial project with known impacts. We are talking about a fast-moving, high-power, high-water, highly secretive industry that across the country has triggered fights over utility rates, freshwater, land use, air quality, and transparency. DOE’s Berkeley Lab says data center electricity demand could rise to as much as 12% of all U.S. electricity by 2028. EESI says large data centers can use up to 5 million gallons of water per day. WRI says communities are often left with limited information about long-term impacts and benefits. 
If that does not call for caution, what does?
And here is the part that really gets under my skin.
I actually do support data centers in the United States. I support keeping critical digital infrastructure here rather than handing it off to regimes and regions with fewer rules and less accountability. I understand the argument that colder climates can be more efficient. I understand why people see economic potential.
But supporting the concept is not the same thing as giving every project a blank check.
A corporation willing to build wherever cost is lowest is not your friend just because it says “union labor” at the groundbreaking. The same market logic that chases cheap land, cheap power, tax breaks, and light regulation is not magically transformed into labor solidarity because someone wore a hard hat at a press conference. If anything, that is exactly when unions should be most skeptical.
And that is why labor leadership should be standing with communities demanding answers, not attacking people for asking the questions.
Want this done right? Then prove it.
Guarantee local labor in writing.
Guarantee ratepayer protections in writing.
Guarantee water protections in writing.
Guarantee disclosure in writing.
Guarantee environmental review in writing.
Guarantee permanent community benefit in writing.
Do not tell Montanans to take it on faith.
This is Montana. People hunt here. Fish here. Raise kids here. Pay utility bills here. Live next to the land being discussed here. They have every right to know what will be built, what it will consume, what it will sound like, what it will cost, and who really benefits.
That is not anti-union.
That is not anti-worker.
That is not anti-progress.
That is exactly what doing it right looks like.
So no, asking for a pause is not opposing labor. It is honoring the best instincts labor was built on. Measure twice. Cut once. Protect people first. Do not let corporate greed wrap itself in a union banner and call that justice.
Everybody gets it wrong sometimes.
This time, labor leadership got it wrong.
And if unions want to be true to the legacy they inherited from places like Butte, then they should stop trying to rush Montanans past their questions and start helping us demand real answers.
The most union thing in the world is not blind loyalty to a project. It is insisting the project be safe, fair, transparent, and worth the cost.
Short-term construction jobs are not a moral blank check for long-term public risk. 
If the deal is so good, it should survive public scrutiny.
Montanans are not saying no. They are saying prove it.
Labor should be helping ask the hard questions, not helping shut them down
Also see WTF406.com previous post on data centers. https://wtf406.com/2025/08/here-we-go-again/
