Montana voters need to be aware that the left-of-center publications ‘fact checking’ the claim that Governor Bullock steered millions of dollars to his brother’s campaign are neither impartial nor inadequate. Yesterday, another Mainstream Media ‘fact-checker’ – written by a college-age intern at USA Today (left), claimed the accusations made by the National Republican Senatorial Committee were false.
Lee, whose Twitter feed contains material consistently negative of President Trump and other Republicans, fact-checked the NRSC claims but miscited Montana law (which would make sense, because she’s not from Montana and is a random intern tasked with intervening in a senatorial election by her bosses).
USA Today’s attempt to fact-check the claim Bullock gave millions to his brother’s company is added to the long list of ‘fact checks’ that the publication has gotten wrong.
For example, Breibart News Editor-in-Chief, Alex Marlow, had to issue a public rebuke to USA Today for using an intern to butcher the facts. He wrote, “This is not fact-checking. This is policing language to make life difficult for political adversaries. It is literally Orwellian. Facebook is coordinating with one of our competitors in an attempt to strong-arm us into changing long-standing editorial policy in order to confuse our audience and lessen our impact. It’s so obvious that what they are doing is ideological harassment.”
Thankfully, whether or not Bullock padded the pockets of his brother’s company is cut and dry, black and white.
Following the talking points issued them by the Bullock campaign, the USA Today intern wrote, “Pioneer Technical Services did receive money from the state of Montana during Gov. Steve Bullock’s tenure, but neither Bullock nor his brother was involved with the awarding of those funds” before asserting (1) Bullock has no control over how Montana’s funds are disbursed and (2) Bullock’s brother resigned from Pioneer Services before it received Montana’s cash.
Lee then cited the Montana Procurement Act, which she says, “Favortism is forbidden from making awards and contracts.”
Of course, this is true. The Montana Procurement Act does forbid favortism when making awards and contracts. But the fact this is illegal does not make it logically follow that Bullock did not do just that. It just means that what Bullock did was illegal.
The Democrat logic of “Bullock did not do this because he should not have done this” is something that can only make sense in the mind of a progressive ideologue.
But what about the assertion that Bullock has no control over how Montana’s funds are dispersed? This is simply not true. The fact is, a reading of any one of Montana’s publications will demonstrate that Steve Bullock unilaterally decides to give disbursements of funds as he is legally allowed, with such headlines recently “Bullock announces live entertainment grant fund” or “Governor announces relief benefits for businesses.”
According to the Montana constitution, “[t]he Governor makes all final decisions on all
restoration plans and associated funding.” Indeed, 2-15-103 MCA provides that “the governor has
full powers of supervision, approval, direction, and appointment.”
In regard to Bullock’s brother remaining a share-holder of the company lavished in pubic Montana money according to public filings in Alaska, USA Today takes his campaign’s word at face value, claiming that it was an inexplicable clerical error.
Clerical errors aside, William Bullock remains on the Pioneer Services Board. In other words, the claim that Steve Bullock has given approximately 14 million to his brother’s company (that which he founded and that which he still serves as a director) is fundamentally true.
Apologists for the Bullocks have pointed out that William only receives a $1,500 stipend per meeting, suggesting that there is no financial incentive to William Bullock to acquire funds from Montana’s taxpayers. But whether or not Bullock’s brother receives a regular salary from his company should be immaterial in the discussion of nepotism. There are many perks and benefits that accompany being on a corporate board, and not all are in the form of a paycheck.
One would be foolish to believe that someone would remain on a corporate board of directors of a for-profit company merely out of a sense of generous philanthropy. Under-the-table kickbacks, favored business deals, and capitalistic reciprocity are all the modus operandi for political influence in the 21st Century.