SIGH....HB 695 (charge a fee to comment on state policy)

M

MThuntr

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
6,669
Location
In the Sagebrush of SW Montana
SERIOUSLY WTF!!!! You'll never guess which political party has gotten so bold with a super majority :rolleyes:

HB695 would allow the state to charge a fee for commenting on environmental policy. Blatant violation of the First Amendment. Bill's sponsor stated that it would discourage the use of form letters as comments for EIS reviews

legiscan.com

Montana HB695 | 2021 | Regular Session

Summary (2021-04-29) Generally revise environmental laws [(S) Died in Process]
legiscan.com legiscan.com

missoulian.com

Bill would allow fees for commenting on state environmental reviews

The bill does not specify what an appropriate fee would be, but does allow an agency to reduce or waive a fee should a commenter show that the charge presented
missoulian.com missoulian.com
 
Gerald Martin said:
I want a state tax refund for $50 for every stupid bill that makes me take time out of my day to oppose this stuff. Fund it from the sponsor legislator’s salary. So he “has some skin in the game” of passing laws.
Click to expand...
I forget the number but I seem to remember introducing a bill costs the state about $2500...they should have to front the cost and risk not getting it back...kind of like applying for a special hunting permit.
 
Last edited:
mtnkid85 said:
Lunacy. Does anyone have the full email list for the House Natural Resources committee? Sigh, im tired of looking up all of these emails.
Click to expand...

Legislature is on Easter break. They'll be back in on Tuesday. Hold for now, I would say.

Thinking through the timeline - the bill would have to pass out of the committee Tuesday afternoon, sent to the floor & referred to appropriations on Wednesday where they would have to kick it out on the same day, so that it could go back for second reading for Thursday, then suspend the rules for allowing a 3rd reading vote on Thursday as well to make the April 8th deadline for revenue transmittal.

So it's got a rough road ahead of it, and only depending upon the majority's will to circumvent the rules, will it make it out of the House. I sympathize with Denley's situation as form letters blow, but making it harder to participate in the gov't is the wrong answer, just like eliminating EAJA is the wrong answer for gridlock at the federal level.

But - that doesn't mean the idea would die. There is still a ton of work ahead of the Legislature on HB 2, the stimulus funding & the weed $ that they have to work through, and all of those bills could provide avenues for bad ideas to become laws, regardless of original bill status.
 
Obviously opens a huge window of opportunity for abuse of process by environmental rape and pillagers. Creates a much worse potential situation than the inconvenience of dealing with form letters. The cure is worse than the ailment.
 
Ben Lamb said:
...See any timber sale, mine proposal, etc.

They hate it when citizens have a voice in how stuff works.
Click to expand...

While I agree extreme eco fanatics flush hoards of crap to our representatives from all around the country (and world on occasion, or so I've heard) and burden Montana with excess garbage banter that holds up legitimate timber and mining operations, far, far, farrr worse are our representatives attempting to charge to exercise our 1st Amendment right and more so to our public representative.

I think this is more of a public representative's shining of the, "new sheriff in town" badge theatrics for the Montana population fed up with garbage obstruction of our timber and other State processes. I know I'm pretty fed up with the eco extremes... the pendulum swings... The majority of Montana citizens voted this direction - If it wasn't such an extreme swing right and left, these dramatic drums wouldn't thunder near as load as this 2021 load of garbage.
 
Bambistew said:
Damn... Wasn't there a poll on here the other day, where a lot of you wanted Randy to fee charged in order to have access and comment here? :D Gotta keep out the riff raff, right? hahaha

It would be interesting to see who is pushing this.
Click to expand...

Maybe the MT Leg can set up a Patreon account so they can see just how much people value their efforts.
 
Dealing with form letters is that tough?

I've come to one conclusion over the years, the new breed of legislators and decision makers absolutely DO NOT want the public involved. They claim they do, but the first time its an inconvenience they cry and try to pass stupid legislation like this. Complain about plugged email accounts, complain about form letters, complain about phone calls.

IMO, if you don't want to represent your constituents and pander to rich donors, become a lobbyist.
 
Who can blame them for being fed up with form letters, robot generated email and so forth. If you don’t care enough about a subject to write an original letter why waste their time?
 
Eric Albus said:
Who can blame them for being fed up with form letters, robot generated email and so forth. If you don’t care enough about a subject to write an original letter why waste their time?
Click to expand...

1. This would cost people who write original letters, not just form letters.

2. A form letter is a statement of opposition or support. Though I would agree they are lamer than something original, I don’t have a lot of pity for folks who feel so burdened by sitting down and reading that they’d be willing to inflict a cost on everyone who comments via written word. Oh the humanity. It’s their jobs and it ain’t that hard.
 
Any State where this actually occurs?

I would find it hard to believe it's not a protected 1st amendment right with respect to public input to our elected public officials.
However if for some reason that is incorrect, I'd be curious if it would be worthwhile to charge people that are not from MT state voting block.

I am not interested in NYC / Denver-ite woof ballot initiative type presenting their input at the expense of Montana taxpayers.

Outside MT voting bloc who do not agree with my thoughts I believe it should be $600 per public comment.
If they agree with my line of thought then one penny per public comment.
 
Eric Albus said:
Who can blame them for being fed up with form letters, robot generated email and so forth. If you don’t care enough about a subject to write an original letter why waste their time?
Click to expand...
How hard is it to click on the first email, create a folder that says people who hate x bill then click “move all messages with this subject to folder”, this will pick up future emails as well.

Both outlook and gmail have this capability.
 
Eric Albus said:
Who can blame them for being fed up with form letters, robot generated email and so forth. If you don’t care enough about a subject to write an original letter why waste their time?
Click to expand...

Right!?!?! Can you imagine the nerve of these people trying to participate in their own Government? It's almost like the public is under the impression that these people ran campaigns to get elected for public office under the guise that they would represent said public. What fools!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
PEAX Trekking Poles

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
115,526
Messages
2,100,137
Members
37,167
Latest member
ReubenMclean

Share this page

Back
Top