Money, Politicians, Sportsmans Groups

[mightyhunter]

Interesting information for all of us with regards to money, politicans and sportsmans groups. This was triggered by Big Fins post on the SFW trouble in Alaska. I have expressed an opinion(in numerous posts)that money and self interest may corrupt decisions made by politicans and the leadership of sportsmans groups.

It is difficult to determine how much money individuals receive in compensation from various sportsman type groups. They are not always identified as salaries,but may be identified as consulting fees or additional perks of a job.

I did discover a few things in my research that I didn't know. Wayne LaPierre the NRA's Executive Vice President recently received an annual salary package of 1.281 million dollars. That represents about 36,000 annual membership fees.

I received information that Don Peay of SFW received $ 485,000 in consulting fees in 2007 and $156,000 in salary from SFW in 2008. I have no way of confirming this. This type of information is not typically posted in annual reports for these groups and may require obtaining tax returns from the federal government.

I would be curious to know what the other CEOS receive in salary, perks, and consulting fees from all the various state, national and local sportsman groups. If this information were made available, it might be easier for potential members to evaluate what the real deal is.

I also did some investigating on politicians and the source of their campaign contributions. opensecrets.org is a source for some of this information. I don't profess to be an expert in internet research.

The top ten recipients of senate campaign contributions for the 2012 election from environmental groups were Democrats and a single Independent (Bernie Sanders). That is probally not a surprise for most people on these boards. However, would our Montana friends on MM be surprised to know that Senator Jon Tester (D) was the second largest recipient of campaign contributions from environmental groups in 2006. This hasn't changed in 2012. Senator Tester's second largest contribution for his 2012 senate run came from the League of Conservation Voters. The amount was $ 40,082.00. I believe he has received over $ 56,000 from environmental groups for his 2012 campaign. He has received over 5 million dollars for his 2012 senate campaign. Rehberg, his opponent, has about half that much. Fortunately for me, I reside in Wyoming and not Montana. I wouldn't vote for either candidate. What are the environmentalists trying to obtain by contributing to various senate cadidates.

It would be interesting to know how much total compensation the leaders of the various sportsman groups make annually. I would also like to know exactly what politicians are receiving in contributions, pacs and bundled contributions from various eco-elite groups and their members including DOW,GYC,Sierra Club, National Environmental Trust, League of Conservation Voters, etc. Good luck tracking all of that. It might make you wonder what kind of influence has been purchased.

My premise in this post is that money buys a lot of things. As a hunter and fisherman, in would be nice to know what is being received when you join a sportsman's group or when you vote for a particular politician. I dropped my membership to MDF and the NRA. I don't know if I could join another similiar group unless their finances and actions were completely transparent. That is not likely to occur.I feel the same way about any politician I am asked to vote or support. Getting at an individual's, politcian's or group's real agenda is difficult.

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-14-12 AT 11:19AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-14-12 AT 11:14?AM (MST)

Mightyhunter,

While I tend to agree with you on this subject...I think you chose a really bad example with Jon Tester.

In your haste to vilify/slander based clearly on your own biased political lines and affiliation with the Republican party...you dropped the ball.

Tester was responsible for the wolf delisting in MT and ID, something that his Republican counterparts in Montana failed to do.

Maybe besides researching financial information, you should take a look at what they actually do...or dont do for Sportsmen.

As you can see here, Tester has done a lot for Montana Hunters and Anglers:

Great Falls Tribune: Hunt club recognizes Tester for access work
10



"The Boone and Crockett Club on Friday recognized Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., for his leadership in improving access for hunters nationwide.

A Boone and Crockett Club news release said the club has seldom honored an individual outside the club for efforts to improve America?s hunting heritage or wildlife conservation in the club?s 123 years. Club officials chose to honor Tester because they believe he stands out among his peers for his persistent and remarkable work on behalf of sportsmen and women, the release states.

In a ceremony at the national headquarters of the conservation organization founded by Theodore Roosevelt, Boone and Crockett Club president emeritus Lowell E. Baier presented Tester with a plaque and a speech specifically in response to Tester?s leadership in the Making Public Lands Public Act.

Tester?s proposed legislation would provide funding for improving public access to existing federal lands. The secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior would be required to utilize 1.5 percent, or a minimum of $10 million annually, of their Land and Water Conservation Fund budgets to acquire public access to existing federal lands through easements, rights-of-way or fee title acquisitions from willing sellers. If passed, the bill has the potential to open hundreds of thousands of acres of federal public land to hunting, fishing and other outdoor recreational activities each year, the release states."

In stark contrast to this, Denny Rehberg (R), has thrown sportsmen under the bus on many occassions, including his endorsement of hr1505.

He also has illegally posted State lands that he leases as well, all documented. Further, in 2004 he set up a subdivision and advertised the lots as "adjacent to public land". Only problem is, he retained a 10 foot buffer between the state land (again that he leased) and HIS subdivision. He posted it and denied access to the state land to the people in HIS subdivision.

(H.R. 4241). Though the damaging bill was thwarted in the Senate, the Rehberg-supported proposal to sell-off hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands to the highest bidder flies in the face of Montana?s rich hunting and fishing tradition.

And Rehberg has apparently never met an oilman he didn't like. In his short career, he's already accepted $196,851 in career campaign contributions from big oil and gas companies (www.opensecrets.com) and has continually been a champion of industry interests over the public interest.


Real quality guy...of course this should come as no surprise as he's one of the wealthiest congressmen in the United States.

My point is, that I agree with you that hunters and anglers need to be very careful on where they send money and who they choose to endorse.

But, in that research, its wise to see what representatives have helped hunters and anglers...and those that have thrown them under the bus.

In this case, you used a pi$$ poor example, as its very clear where Tester stands in regard to hunters, anglers, and access to public lands and resources.

 

[BigFin]

Mighty:

All good thoughts and information. The problem with disclosure is that it is very limited. That applies for all organizations and political candidates.

The examples you cite illustrate how hard information is to come by. From your post, Tester has received 1.12% of his donations from those enviro groups you mention. Not a big %, but worth noting as hunters. How much has he received from the NRA and other groups, given his A+ rating from the NRA? I don't know.

Since the Federal Election Campaign information for the upcoming election year is not updated every day, it may be next January before we know where Rehberg is getting his money for this Senate race. We can make some good assumptions, based on his positions. So, he gets a free pass, as the information is hard to find until after the election. But, given his staff is always paling around with some of the most radical groups that would love to get rid of public land, want a road on every ridge, have funded fights to kill the Montana Stream Access bill, I can make some pretty good assumptions about who is trying to buy his votes and influence.

If you look at Harry Reid's donors, you will see very large donations from groups that would floor you. Groups/people who are regular topics on this forum. Look at the other poeple Harry Reid has for donors. I suspect some of those conservative guys would not want it to get out that they spent money with Harry and friends, but they are hedging their bet, wanting to be Harry's friend, given his odds of winning.

My point is that all groups and people trying to have political influence hedge their bets and donate to every candidate, with larger donations to their closer allies. You see conservatives donating to "D" campaigns and liberals donating to "R" campaigns.

Using the MT example you posted, look at who the timber industry is supporting in the Tester-Rehberg race. Tester. Why? Because he is the one who is trying to get timber management on the national forests. He is close to having a bill that reduces the lawsuits the wing nuts can bring against timber sales, in some way similar to the language we got in the wolf delisting bill. But, Rehberg is fighting it the way he and his SFW buddies fought our wolf delisting bill.

In politics, evidently all is fair game. You kill every bill your opponent might have, even if it is best for the state you both represent. Ask anyone involved in the timber industry or the wolf debate, who was/is the worst headache for progress. They will all tell you the same thing. An "R".

I point this out to show that the "R" and "D" issue in rural hunting states like MT, WY, ID, is not that big of a deal. What we are faced with as hunters is more of the "urban" versus "rural" issue.

In any coastal or midwestern state, Tester for example, would be considered a far right wing gun nut. He gets an A+ from the NRA, something that scares all urbanites, whether "R" or "D."

Hunters need to junk the "R" or "D" idea and look at what the person or groups is doing for hunters. I am a registered "R," always have been. Yet in my home state, the "R" guys are the ones always trying to steal hunter license money from FWP. They are the ones who have passed the "No net gain in public land" bills. They are the ones who have a platform that wants to sell the public lands. They are the ones who want us to continue killing elk, even when wolves have eaten the crap out of elk in some areas.

I wouldn't trust an urban "R" or "D" any further than I could kick them. I would surely have more in common with an urban "R" than an urban "D". But, I would have more trust in a rural "D" than an urban "R".

Given how bad the "R" group is hitting the resident hunter, the average guy, the non-outfitted guy in MT, I don't trust them, either. I used to go to local "R" meetings. I was told I was no longer welcome because my public hunting slants were not welcome there. So, I guess I am no longer and "R", since I want more public hunting, since I want more focus on wildlife management, since I want less money/tag grabbing by select groups, since I think we need more places to hunt rather than fewer places.

I think you raise some good points, but having seen the Rehberg and Tester camps operate for the last many years, I don't think that serves as a good example. I have voted for both of them at times.

Again, I mention this to show that when it comes to hunting, "D" and "R" don't really mean much. What they do for hunters is what counts. Your Rehberg-Tester example does have validity for the notion to junk the "R" or "D" titles in hunting states like MT.

Seeing Rehberg and his SFW buddies try to kill our wolf hunts in MT, I will never vote for him, even as a registered "R". Coming from a family of loggers, I will never vote for Rehberg after he killed the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act last month. He works to kill anything that has Tester's name on it, regardless of how good it is for MT, for hunters, for loggers and mills.

I suspect if the vote in MT was only among hunters and loggers, it would be Tester by a landslide. Yet, if it was Senator Baucus and say, Bob Brown, a hunter-friendly "R", Brown would carry the hunter/logger vote.

Don't want to make this a Rehberg/Tester discussion, as your points are valid. Just would use a different example to emphasize the importance of looking under the hood as to where groups and politicians are making/receiving donations.

Politics is a greasy, expensive game. Motives of all need to be examined.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"

 

[mightyhunter]

Buzz H,

I am glad you think that Jon Tester is a bad example of the point I am raising. I disagree. In my initial post, I said if given a choice I wouldn't vote for Tester or Rehberg. You must have missed that before you hit your keyboard. To make it clear to you, I think Rehberg is a poor choice for the people of Montana. I feel the same way about Tester.

I have always believed that the Simpson/Tester "wolf rider" was the product of political desperation. At the time, more expansive legislation was floating around the House and Senate that if passed would delist the wolf. Simpson from Idaho was involved in that legislation as was Rehberg. Tester and Baucus were not involved in that legislation. Tester and Baucus had no choice but to come up with the "wolf rider" to avoid being caught on the wrong side of the issue with the people of Montana. They came up with legislation that placated hunters in Montana and Idaho. If that makes him a hero to you, so be it. It reveals to me that he made a political choice involving his re-election campaign for 2012. The fact he got an award from the Boone&Crockett Club just reveals how politically smart he is.

Tester has received $ 40,082 from the League of Conservation Voters for his 2012 re-election campaign. His second largest campaign contribution to date. What do they expect in return? This group is a big proponent of the ESA. Look at their website and the people and groups that support them. If Tester is elected in 2012, what will they expect. Any chance that grizzly delisting will appear on the horizon during a new six year term? I think the majority opinion in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming is that the grizzly bear needs to be delisted. It has been kicking around for years. Do you think Senator Tester would support a "grizzly rider" or any grizzly delisting? People on these forums can decide for themselves.

People should always take your opinions with a grain of salt. You are a big labor guy and a Democrat. Tester has received $ 164,000 to date from Labor for his 2012 senate campaign. By comparison, Rehberg has received $ 12,000. In the 2006 campaign Labor gave $ 212,000 to Tester. I appreciate your loyalty in supporting your union brother.

The whole purpose of my initial post, was simple. What does money buy from these sportsman's groups and what does it buy from politicians. It is very difficult to track the money and transparency is at a minimum. It would be nice to know what the CEO's of the various sportsmans groups make in salary, consulting fees and perks from the groups they purport to represent and how does that affect the decisions they make. Likewise, it would be nice to know what special interest groups expect when they donate to various politicians. Perhaps you could ask Senator Tester what the League of Conservation Voters expects from him for the $ 40,082.00 they contributed to his 2012 campaign.

 

[piper]

I would much rather see politicians get money from environmental groups than anti envronmental groups whatever names they go by they. Butch Otter, isn't that the same guy who signed a bill to sell off 15% of forest service land and 15% of BLM land to the highest bidder? Is that an issue? I do know that in Nevada environmental groups have done well to preserve a little wild country and quality hunting, some of them gave resources supporting elk reintroduction. People should find out what the issues are before painting things with a broad partisan brush.

 

[BuzzH]

Mighythunter,

I can see why you were a lawyer...you cant stay on a subject and use the "bait and switch" with the best of them.

For starters, I'm going to remind you, for the last time, that you are on libelous ground in regard to my political affiliation. I am not a Democrat or a Republican...I am a registered Independent. Are we clear?

Also to clarify, I'd vote against any pro-labor candidate if they didnt support hunting/fishing and wildlife conservation, period. No ifs ands or buts about it...I'm a hunter/angler and conservationist first...every time, without exception. I'm also 100 percent in support of public lands, every time without exception.

As to the way Tester handled the wolf issue, it was the ONLY reasonable option available to MT and ID. Thats a fact, dont forge that BGF and SFW were both endorsing the Rehberg route, which had NO chance of passing. The two other wolf delisting bills were an end-run to the ESA and were not specific to wolf delisting. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the ESA, there is no getting around it. Politically and Socially, those two bills were DOA. The people in the United States feel that endangered species are in need of protection(s) via the ESA. Its been in place for 40+ years and its not going away...and any bill that attempts to end-run it will fail. Further, those that support same in the house and senate will be serving their last terms. Like it or not, thats just the way it is.

I'll even agree with you that the ESA is in need of some serious reform, as does NEPA, and a whole fuggin' host of other environmental/wildlife/resource regulations and laws. No doubt about it.

But, those are battles that need to be fought on the merits of those particular acts/laws. You dont try to gut the entire ESA over wolves...and Tester/Simpson rider didnt. Anyone with half a firing brain cell knew that end-running the ESA wasnt going to work. Further, if Montana Sportsmen would have ran with Rehbergs brain child, wolves in MT and ID would still be listed, no question of that.

I'm sorry that you feel slighted,as a Wyoming Resident, by not being included in the Tester/Simpson rider. Wyoming had multiple chances to jump on board.

Finally, in regard to grizzlies, I agree with you that they need to be delisted. My one question is why arent Lummis, Enzi, and Barrasso working on it? Why is it just Testers job to work on delisting? I guess based purely on experience with wolf delising, and getting the job done, clearly Tester has had wayyyy more success than the Mighty 3 from Wyoming.

Ask yourself what Lummis, Enzi, Barrasso, and Rehberg have done to get grizzlies delisted...and what they've done at all for sportsmen and wildlife.

 

[mightyhunter]

Big Fin,

I agree with your point that "politics is a greasy, expensive game. Motives of all need to be examined." I would add that to a description of all the leadership of the various sportsmans groups. Truer words have never been spoken.

My point is that money and power corrupts people. Whether that is as a CEO of a sportsman's group or as a politician it doesn't matter. Because of a total lack of transparency, we don't know what a person's motive is or the level of corruption.

To many people in Montana, Tester is a champion for hunters, gun owners and fisherman. How far would Senator Tester politically get in Montana if he wasn't? That is great if you believe that is the only important issue. Tester one upped Rehberg on the wolf issue with the Simpson/Tester "wolf rider". I don't believe either one of them gave a crap about the wolf problem in the west. It was all just a question of political expediency. Tester is also a big Obama supporter, big union and a big tax and spend kind of politician. As an accountant, I am sure your realize that hunting, fishing, public access and gun issues will be immaterial if this country doesn't quickly get its fiscal house in order. That will require compromise. The thought of compromise scares the heck out of the true believers in both the Republican and Democratic parties. Part of the true believers in the Democratic Party are the rabid animal rights and eco-elite groups in our country.

Again, what does the $ 40,082 in 2012 from the League of Conservation Voters buy you with Tester? What did the $ 111,877.00 buy for environmental groups with Tester in the 2006 campaign? Political contributions always comes with strings attached. Tester has raised 5 million dollars for the 2012 senate campaign. This is twice as much money as Rehberg. Both amounts seem ridiculous to me for a Senate seat in Montana. As you know, the Democratic Party and its contributors will do whatever it takes to preserve his Senate seat. What I am concerned about is what the Democratic Party will want in return on environmental issues and ESA issues that involve Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. Please don't tell me that a politican will always vote for what the majority of the citizens from his state want.

 

[piper]

Mightyhunter, We are glad to hear your partisian viewpoints, and Im sure you know what acts were about political desperation, but lets keep it real.

 

[NVBighorn]

I just scrolled back to the top of the page... twice... to check and see if I got lost and accidentally ended up in the political forum. Maybe you guys would like a private room for your lapdances?

 

[arrowone4me]

+1

 

[DRHORNHUNTER]

+1.
I ventured into that ether forum
Once

 

[mightyhunter]

My initial post involved how money may have infected the decision making of sportsman's groups and also politicians. I brought it up in this forum because of all the dissent rightfully directed at the SFW in that forum. I also bemoaned the lack of disclosure and transparency involved with the various sportman's groups, compensation and also with regard to campaign contributions to politicians. Everyone seems fine with attacking the money issue with regard to SFW and other similiar groups. I apparently crossed the line when I mentioned Jon Tester, who is seeking re-election as a Democrat for U.S. Senate in Montana. Apparently, he is a sacred cow to Piper and Buzz H. I do respect Big Fin's opinion and believe that it may come from his direct involvement with Tester on some issues.

I did a little research on the League of Conservation Voters. They donated $40,08.00 to Senator Tester's 2012 Senate re-election campaign and it is the second largest contribution to date to that campaign. Here is my dilemma. What will the LCV expect in return from Senator Tester? Obviously, there will never be much transparency on that issue. Because of that lack of transparency, lets look at who three of the members of the Board of Directors for the League of Conservation Voters are. One is Marcia Aronoff of the Environmental Defense Fund. Another is John H. Adams who was the President of the Natural Resources Defense Council from its inception through 2006.
Another is William H. Meadows III, who is President of The Wilderness Society. What is the mission of the Environmental Defense Fund? Earthjustice, a no cost legal representation firm, has represented the National Resource Defense Council and the Wilderness Society in various lawsuits including some wolf lawsuits. Does anyone recognize any of these groups and the involvement they have had in the wolf wars? The Board for the LCV obviously had to approve this contribution.

What I am "just sayin" is very simple. You either believe that this donation is just coincidence, no big deal, or you don't. What bothers me is that Senator Tester, by taking money from the League of Conservation Voters, may be put in a position to take a side on an issue that is not consistent with the views of sportsman or the people he represents from Montana. Yes, he did push the Simpson/Tester "wolf rider". However, as I have stated many times previously, I believe he and Baucus came late to that party and had no choice but to do so when more extensive wolf legislation appeared on the horizon. Perhaps, he should give the LCV money back. It would only put a small dent in his 5 million re-election war chest.

Again, the point of my initial post was to question how money and personal interest may corrupt the decision making of people involved in sportsman's groups and also politicians on issues involving sportsman.

 

[TOPGUN]

As long as our political process allows politicians to take campaign money, there will always be the threat that you are talking about! The only way to eliminate it completely would be to disallow any campaign financing other than set amounts of taxpayers money, which is highly unlikely because the politicians would be the ones who would have to vote it in. IMHO there should at least be reasonable maximum amounts that a politician can't exceed so that they just don't buy their position like they have been doing for decades. The higher up they go it seems the more crooked they have to be in order to be reelected!

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-16-12 AT 01:34PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-16-12 AT 01:33?PM (MST)

Mightyhunter,

You didnt cross any line using Tester to "prove" your point, just used a poor example as Tester has an A+ rating from the NRA and has done much for sportsmen. His track record should clearly show that he is concerned with sportsmens issues. Further, the money the LCV is giving him is not changing his views with regard to Sportsmens issues.

He is surely not my sacred cow as I cant vote for him and I didnt vote for him...pretty tough to do when you're not a resident of Montana.

I look at their track records of how they've handled issues that are the highest importance to me...and Tester has done a great job representing hunters/anglers and public lands. Until he proves otherwise, he's a good candidate if those types of things are important to you.

I feel the same way about Simpson from Idaho, he's very good for sportsmen, and he's a republican. I could care less about party affiliation when it comes to the issues I feel are important, I care about what they do.

Thats something you appear to have a real problem doing...is looking at the work they've done VS the political affiliation. You cant even admit that Tester has routinely, and without exception, been very good for the sportsmen of Montana. Thats exactly why the B&C club, one of the longest lived hunting conservation groups in the World, chose to give him an award. Something the club very, very, very seldom does and those awards are not given out based on political affiliation, but rather on work done in behalf of sportsmen and conservation.

Tester is good for Montana and Montanas sportsmen and will trounce Denny Rehberg come November because of it.

If Tester decides that corruption and doing things that harm public lands, public access, hunting, fishing, and wildlife conservation for payback...I have faith in the Good Citizens of Montana to show him the door...and promptly kick him through it.

 

[mightyhunter]

Buzz H,

Actually, I freely admit that Tester has been good on some issues that are important to sportsman. I also believe he sold the country out on other issues that will have some serious financial ramifications for my children and my grandchildren. I see him as a typical tax and spend politican. Again, just my opinion. I also have admitted that I have no use for Rehberg. I think he is a dolt. Fortunately, I live in Wyoming and don't have to vote for either of them. If ever a senate race called out for an moderate independent candidate, it is the 2012 race in Montana. I think the State of Montana loses if either Rehberg or Tester is elected. Again, just my opinion.

You make this a partisan issue when it isn't. I never give a free pass to any politician or political party. I feel the same way about the various groups and their leadership that purports to represent sportsman. Sorting out the real agenda of these groups, their leaders, and also that of politicians, isn't easy because of a total lack of transparency. Again, my still unanswered question was a simple one. Why has Senator Tester taken 40k from the League of Conservation Voters and what will they expect in return? It makes for strange bedfellows in a state like Montana. Surely, you don't think that 40k from this group and its membership comes without strings.

Perhaps, when Big Fin communicates with Senator Tester he can ask him the exact question I have posed. I would love to hear his answer.

 

[mightyhunter]

When I made the first posting on these issues many came to the defense of Senator Jon Tester (D)of Montana. He has now received a total of $ 61,982 in campaign contributions from the League of Conservation Voters (opensecrets.org). That is up another $ 20,000.00. The League of Conservation Voters is now the LARGEST contributor to his 2012 campaign. Again look at the board members of this group. Many of them have a long history in the eco-elite animal rights groups.
http://www.lcv.org/about/board/

I always ask the same question, what does this group expect from Jon Tester if he is returned to office after the 2012 election? Will it be consistent with what the people from Montana want or will it be consistent with out of state interests?

 

[AWHOLELOTTABULL]

After looking at the list of people in that group it would be hard for me to believe that they are not positioning themselves in Montana to go after the wolf delisting. Follow the trail of some of these board memebers. Their lineage is pretty impressive when it comes to animal rights groups. My guess it that Tester would have to have some "testes" to go against the grain after receiving as much campaign money as he has from these people.


It's always an adventure!!!

 

[ColoradoOak]

AWLB, your comment makes no sense. It was the Simpson/Tester rider that got wolves delisted in the first place.

 

[AWHOLELOTTABULL]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-26-12 AT 03:05AM (MST)[p]You're right. I ment to say RE-listed. Sorry I'm getting old.
Those folks are positioning themselves to get those wolves protected again.

It's always an adventure!!!

 

[nickman]

I see it the same as back in the old days, when someone had to hire a gunfighter to eliminate the bad guys.

You may not have liked their methods, morals, or basic behavior, but they were the ONLY option.

Dropping your membership in some of these orgs is foolish.

Politicians are ALL crooked, but some are still basically on our side and until there is a different system in play, we need to be in bed with the ones that have our interests at the top of their graft list.

"I could eat a bowl of Alphabet Soup and
sh!t a better argument than that!"