This document summarizes a report that examines the farm subsidy payments received by 33 current Montana legislators from 1995 to 2009. It finds that the total payments to farms and ranches owned by these legislators was $7,055,618. The legislator whose farm received the most was Rep. Janna Taylor, whose Twin Creek Ranch received over $1 million. The report analyzes payments by county, region of Montana, political party, and legislative chamber, finding that most beneficiaries were Republican legislators from eastern Montana. It notes the hypocrisy of legislators who criticize government spending while personally benefitting from farm subsidy programs.

1. 1
PROFILES IN HYPOCRISY
Montana Legislators Assail Government Spending
While Benefitting from Farm Subsidy Programs
A Report of The Policy Institute
March 11, 2011
The Policy Institute blends authoritative research and hands-on political engagement to
create public policy based on economic justice, fair taxation,
corporate accountability and environmental responsibility.

2. 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Common themes are emanating from the Montana Legislature this session: Government is bad. Government programs
are bad. Spending money on government programs is bad. The worst level of government? The federal government.
Federal mandates are bad.1
Federal regulations are bad.2
Federal safety laws are bad.3
Even federal money is bad.4
But wait, maybe not all federal money is bad. Some of the same legislators who rail against government in general, the
federal government in particular and all the evils contained therein, have benefitted from large amounts of money to
their farm and ranch operations through federal farm subsidy programs over the years.5
These payments come in the
form of Conservation Subsidies, Disaster Subsidies and Commodity Subsidies for agricultural products like wheat, barley
and canola. And many of these payments are quite large. Sixteen Montana legislators benefitted from payments to their
operations in excess of $100,000.00 over the time period highlighted in this report (1995-2009), with one House
member’s operation bringing in more than one million dollars.
This report looks at all of the currently-serving legislators who benefitted from farm subsidy programs from 1995-2009,
noting the top beneficiaries juxtaposed against their expressed views on governmental programs in general. It is
important to note that this report is not meant as a critique of farm subsidy programs. The point is to show the
hypocrisy that exists between the professed ideological viewpoints of some legislators and their personal willingness to
benefit from the very types of programs they publicly condemn.
THE 2011 MONTANA LEGISLATURE – MEAN AND EXTREME
The 2011 Legislature has been the most radical in recent memory. In the first
half of the session, members of the new Republican majority brought
numerous bills which are reminiscent of the secessionist South, containing
ideological diatribes about federal power which are blatantly
unconstitutional.6
Unfortunately, far too many of these bills have passed out
of one legislative body and now await action by the other.
Other actions by the legislature have threatened to cut state programs that
benefit the most vulnerable among us, including Meals on Wheels, the
Children’s Health Insurance Program, K-12 education programs, the Healthy
Montana Kids program, funding for universities, Big Brothers Big Sisters,
special education, low-income energy assistance, tobacco prevention
programs, foster care benefits, prescription assistance for seniors and family
planning services.7
At the same time, there has been a political drum beat about inappropriate
intervention in Montana by nefarious federal bureaucrats. Clearly, first among
those has been the attack on federal healthcare reform, but the same rhetoric
has spilled over to energy issues, wildlife management and a host of other
topics. As is often the case, the rhetoric is selective. Noticeably absent from
the discussion of federal intervention is any mention of farm subsidy programs
which are received by 44% of Montana farms and ranches.
1
Montana Senate Bill 125, http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2011/billpdf/SB0125.pdf.
2
Montana House Bill 550, http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2011/billpdf/HB0550.pdf.
3
Montana House Bill 443, http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2011/billpdf/HB0443.pdf.
4
KXLH.com, “Nullification impact addressed in Montana Legislature,” March 9, 2011, http://www.kxlh.com/news/nullification-impact-addressed-in-mt-legislature/.
5
As full or partial owner of a farming or ranching operation.
6
Missoulian, “’Nullification’ bills at various stages in Montana Legislature,” February 21, 2011, http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_7a52bff8-
3e46-11e0-8d5b-001cc4c03286.html.
7
Montana Budget and Policy Center, “Preliminary Cuts are Unnecessary and Ill-Advised”, March 3, 2011,
http://www.montanabudget.org/sites/default/files/reports/Preliminary%20Cuts%20are%20Unnecessary%20and%20Ill-Advised_0.pdf.
“It is important to note
that this report is not
meant as a critique of
farm subsidy programs.
The point is to show the
hypocrisy that exists
between the professed
ideological viewpoints of
some legislators and their
personal willingness to
benefit from the very
types of programs they
publicly condemn.”

3. 3
FARM SUBSIDY PROGRAMS IN MONTANA
According to The Environmental Working Group (EWG), Montana farm and ranch operations received a total $5.52
billion in subsidies from 1995 to 2009. Montana ranks 17th
among states for total farm subsidy payments. Those
payments amount to $3.09 billion.
But, this report is not a critique of farm subsidy programs. (In fact, in the interest of full disclosure, it is important to
note that two current board members of The Policy Institute have received farm subsidy program payments.) While
there are clearly a number of arguments to be made for elimination or curtailment of these programs, the fact is that
the economic implications of elimination, or a large-scale reduction of these programs, would have dramatic effects in
rural Montana communities. Farm programs have become so thoroughly integrated into the operation of many farms
that changes in the policies which support these programs should be undertaken carefully and with a thorough
understanding of the effects they would have at the local level.
Though we use the term “farm subsidy programs” generically, the goals of the programs and how they operate vary
from program to program. There are programs targeted to controlling prices, programs to support new technologies and
programs intended to promote conservation, which find their roots in addressing the farming and ranching practices
which contributed to the Dust Bowl.8
Many farm programs have clearly met their public policy goals and have benefitted rural America in numerous ways.
Any meaningful critique of farm subsidy programs must take into account the differences in program goals, amounts
spent and the efficacy of the individual program in meeting the policy goal it is intended to achieve. We make no such
effort here.
DO GOOD SUBSIDIES EXIST?
Listening to the Montana Legislature in the first half of the session, one would think Montana has been occupied by a
foreign power – the federal government. The word subsidy has become an all-purpose epithet being used to attack
everything from small home-based energy systems to public schools to healthcare programs. While most of us
understand this to be fairly shallow political posturing, it seems that very few legislators realize that, on balance, our
state and our citizens receive tremendous benefit from the expenditure of federal dollars within our borders.
Of course, conducting a comprehensive analysis of federal spending in Montana is difficult, if not impossible. Everything
from energy to telecommunications, roads, airports, hospitals and local clinics are all supported in part (often in large
part) by federal subsidy payments.
To be sure, there are those in the legislature who would be perfectly happy to send all of that money back to
Washington, D.C. Of course these legislators make this claim without really considering, or understanding, the effects of
such an action on the people of our state – including themselves.
HYPOCRISY IN THE HALLS
The political rhetoric of this session has often revealed that some legislators are not willing to apply the standards of
conduct they require of everyone else to their own pocketbooks. Recall that the House passed a “feed bill” with a
legislative pay increase, while state employee pay is frozen. The increase was removed by the Senate after a public
outcry.
8
Environmental Working Group, Farm Subsidy Primer, http://farm.ewg.org/subsidyprimer.php.

4. 4
Many legislators are also receiving the state benefit package, including health insurance coverage. But the legislative
agency responsible for administering legislative compensation refuses to give information on which legislators are
choosing to receive the benefits to the public. According to Sen. Anders Blewett (D-Great Falls), Legislative Services
Division said that 93 lawmakers are on the state health plan and 49 others get monthly cash subsidies. That leaves only
six who declined and two who were undecided.9
Then there is the legislative practice of convening a very brief floor session on Saturday morning so the legislators can
collect a full day of legislative pay as they drive home for the weekend. The same practice often applies when they
return for the next week of work. This is hardly an efficient way to conduct the public’s business.
To be clear, Montana legislators make great sacrifices, and they are paid an incredibly small amount of money for their
service. But that is not the point. In this political environment it is tough to sit and watch all of this maneuvering of their
own pay and benefits while many of these individuals stand on the floor generally criticizing government and the people
who work in public agencies.
METHODS
For the purposes of this report, The Policy Institute accessed the extensive online database of the Environmental
Working Group (EWG)10
to glean the benefits received by Montana legislators through farm subsidy programs. EWG
tracked these payments to individuals and businesses from 1995-2009.
It is important to note that researching ownership through the EWG database can be challenging for a variety of
reasons. First, many farm operations are corporate structures with overlapping owners and/or operators. Because of
this we have noted when legislators are “partial owners of” or “interest holders in” farm or ranch operations. Second, a
farm or ranch owned under one name may have been purchased by another operator sometime in the recent past, but
the EWG numbers apply to the entire period the operation was receiving payments. We have used these numbers
because the previous payments received by an operation clearly play an important role in establishing the value of any
operation which is being bought or sold.
The Policy Institute also utilized the Commissioner of Political Practices Campaign Report Search website11
to obtain D-1
Business Disclosure Statements filed with the commission during a candidate’s campaign. This form requires candidates
to list “Benefits Currently Received from Present or Past Employers” and “Other Business Interests.” We used this
information to link legislators to farm and ranch operations that received farm program subsidy payments.
Quotes by legislators and reports on the 2011 Montana legislature have been taken from reputable news sources and
campaign websites as footnoted throughout this report. Every effort has been made to insure that information
contained in this report is accurate.
FINDINGS
In total, 33 current Montana legislators benefitted farm program subsidy payments made to farm and ranch operations
they owned or held interest in from 1995-2009 (see Table A and Graph A). The total benefit of these subsidies over this
time period was $7,055,618.00. The top beneficiary from among the Montana Legislature was Rep. Janna Taylor (R-
Dayton), an owner of Twin Creek Ranch, Inc. From 1995-2009, Twin Creek Ranch received more than one million dollars
in conservation, disaster and commodity subsidies. The biggest payment came in 1998, when the ranch received
$122,546.00. Other top beneficiaries include Rep. Austin Knudsen (R-Culbertson), Sen. Bruce Tutvedt (R-Kalispell), Sen.
Jim Peterson (R-Buffalo) and Sen. Llew Jones (R-Conrad) (see Graph B). In Graph B, the amounts received by the
9
Billings Gazette, “Committee supports bill to release names of legislators taking public health benefits,” February 17, 2011, http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-
and-regional/montana/article_22b122bb-a252-50e2-a839-664b23268c87.html.
10
Environmental Working Group, Farm Subsidy Database, www.farm.ewg.org.
11
Commissioner of Political Practices, Campaign Report Search, http://campaignreport.mt.gov/.

5. 5
operations of these legislators are compared to the total earnings of an average Montana household over the same time
period.12
BY COUNTY
The top county in Montana to benefit from farm subsidy programs was Chouteau County, receiving $482,989,416.00
from 1995-2009. Lincoln County received the least in farm program subsidy payments over the time period, $311,832.00
(see Table B and Graph C).
BY REGION OF MONTANA
Of the legislators benefitting from farm subsidy programs over the study period, 72.7% were from Eastern Montana
(twenty-four) and 27.3% were from Western Montana (nine). Farms and ranches of Eastern Montana legislators
received 66.1% of the subsidy money ($4,661,861.00) and those of Western Montana legislators received 33.9%
($2,393,757.00) (see Table C, Chart A and Chart B).
Per individual, Western Montana legislators benefitted more from farm subsidy programs from 1995-2009 than Eastern
Montana legislators. The farms and ranches of Western Montana legislators who participated in farm subsidy programs
from 1995-2009 received an average of $265,973.00 per operation. Those of Eastern Montana legislators received an
average of $194,244.21 per operation (see Graph C).
BY POLITICAL PARTY
Of the legislators benefitting from farm subsidy programs over the study period, 90.9% were Republicans (thirty) and
9.1% were Democrats (three). Farms and ranches owned by Republicans received 98.8% of the subsidy money
($6,976,120.00) and those of Democrats received 1.2% ($79,499.00) (see Table D, Chart C and Chart D).
Per individual, Republican legislators benefitted more from farm subsidy programs from 1995-2009 than Democrat
legislators. The farms and ranches of Republican legislators who participated in farm subsidy programs from 1995-2009
received an average of $232,537.00 per operation. Those of Democratic legislators received an average of $26,500.00
per operation (see Graph D).
BY LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER
Of the legislators benefitting from farm subsidy programs over the study period, 57.6% serve in the House of
Representatives (nineteen) and 42.4% serve in the Senate (fourteen). Senators received more per member however:
Farms and ranches of Representatives received 46.9% of the subsidy money ($3,310,415.00) and those of Senators
received 53.1% ($3,745,203.00) (see Table E, Chart E and Chart F).
Per individual, legislators serving in the Montana Senate benefitted more from farm subsidy programs from 1995-2009
than legislators serving in the Montana House of Representatives. The farms and ranches of Senators who participated
in farm subsidy programs from 1995-2009 received an average of $267,514.50 per operation. Those of House members
received an average of $174,232.37 per operation (see Graph E).
12
Estimate based on U.S. Census data, www.census.gov.

6. 6
TABLE A: MONTANA LEGISLATORS WHO BENEFITTED FROM FARM SUBSIDY PROGRAM PAYMENTS MADE TO THEIR
FARM OR RANCH OPERATIONS13
FROM 1995-2009
LEGISLATOR AMOUNT PAID TO
FARM OR RANCH
PARTY DISTRICT TOWN
SEN. ALAN OLSON $47.00 R SD 23 ROUNDUP
REP. DON ROBERTS $271.00 R HD 56 BILLINGS
REP. KELLY FLYNN $324.00 R HD 68 TOWNSEND
SEN. CLIFF LARSEN $732.00 D SD 50 MISSOULA
REP. JEFFREY WELBORN $972.00 R HD 72 DILLON
REP. MATTHEW ROSENDALE 14
$1,083.00 R HD 38 GLENDIVE
REP. RANDY BRODEHL $1,863.00 R HD 7 KALISPELL
REP. JOE READ $2,233.00 R HD 15 RONAN
REP. TOM BERRY $2,819.00 R HD 45 ROUNDUP
REP. WALTER MCNUTT 15
$4,121.00 R HD 37 SIDNEY
SEN. BRADLEY HAMLETT $5,458.00 D SD 10 CASCADE
REP. STERLING SMALL $7,677.00 R HD 41 BUSBY
SEN. ERIC MOORE $20,781.00 R SD 20 MILES CITY
REP. LILA EVANS $35,879.00 R HD 16 BROWNING
REP. TONY BELCOURT $73,309.00 D HD 32 BOX ELDER
REP. ROY HOLLANDSWORTH $80,675.00 R HD 28 BRADY
SEN. RICK RIPLEY $89,847.00 R SD 9 WOLF CREEK
REP. CHRISTY CLARK 16
$122,287.00 R HD 17 CHOTEAU
SEN. DEBBY BARRETT 17
$123,378.00 R SD 36 DILLON
REP. MIKE MILBURN $141,770.00 R HD 19 CASCADE
SEN. TERRY MURPHY $188,427.00 R SD 39 CARDWELL
SEN. RON ARTHUN $213,800.00 R SD 31 WILSALL
REP. DANIEL SALOMON 18
$223,865.00 R HD 12 RONAN
SEN. DONALD STEINBEISSER 19
$241,761.00 R SD 19 SIDNEY
REP. KEITH REGIER 20
$380,160.00 R HD 5 KALISPELL
SEN. TAYLOR BROWN 21
$473,563.00 R SD 22 HUNTLEY
SEN. JOHN BRENDEN 22
$497,291.00 R SD 18 SCOBEY
REP. LEE RANDALL 23
$507,674.00 R HD 39 BROADUS
SEN. LLEW JONES $609,508.00 R SD 14 CONRAD
SEN. JIM PETERSON $637,547.00 R SD 15 BUFFALO
SEN. BRUCE TUTVEDT $643,063.00 R SD 3 KALISPELL
REP. AUSTIN KNUDSEN 24
$705,941.00 R HD 36 CULBERTSON
REP. JANNA TAYLOR 25
$1,017,491.00 R HD 11 DAYTON
13
The legislators listed here benefitted from farm subsidy program payments made to their farm or ranch operations because of full or partial ownership of the farm
or ranch operation or from holding an interest in the farm or ranch operation.
14
As an interest holder in MBA Consultants, as reported on D-1 Business Disclosure Statement filed with the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices.
15
As an interest holder in 1
st
Bank Corp, as reported on D-1 Business Disclosure Statement filed with the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices.
16
Subsidies paid to Rep. Clark’s husband, Lewis G. Clark.
17
Subsidies paid to Sen. Barrett’s husband, Mike Barrett, a partial owner of Barrett Ranch, Inc.
18
As an interest holder in Salomon Dairy, as reported on D-1 Business Disclosure Statement filed with the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices.
19
As a partial owner of Joe G. Steinbeisser and Sons.
20
As a partial owner of W & M Regier Farms Inc.
21
As an interest holder in L-O Cattle Company, as reported on D-1 Business Disclosure Statement filed with the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices.
22
As a partial owner of Brenden Farms.
23
As a past or present employee of Randall, Inc., as reported on D-1 Business Disclosure Statement filed with the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices.
24
As an interest holder in Kar Inc., as reported on D-1 Business Disclosure Statement filed with the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices.
25
As a partial owner of Twin Creek Ranch, Inc.

7. 7
$0.00
$200,000.00
$400,000.00
$600,000.00
$800,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$1,200,000.00
GRAPH A: MONTANA LEGISLATORS WHO BENEFITTED FROM FARM SUBSIDY PROGRAM PAYMENTS MADE TO THEIR
FARMOR RANCH OPERATIONS FROM 1995-2009

8. 8
*Amount of Total Earnings Estimate based on U.S. Census data, www.census.gov.
$1,017,491.00
$705,941.00
$643,063.00 $637,547.00
$609,508.00
$564,345.00
$0.00
$200,000.00
$400,000.00
$600,000.00
$800,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$1,200,000.00
Rep.Taylor Rep.Knudsen Sen.Tutvedt Sen.J. Peterson Sen.Jones Amount ofTotal
Earnings of
Average Montana
Household*
GRAPH B: TOTAL AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM 1995-2009 BY THE FARM AND RANCH
OPERATIONS OF THE TOP BENEFICIARIES OF FARM SUBSIDY PROGRAMS IN THE
MONTANALEGISLATURE COMPARED TO THE TOTAL EARNINGS OF AN AVERAGE
MONTANAHOUSEHOLD OVER THE SAME PERIOD

9. 9
TABLE B: FARM SUBSIDY PROGRAM PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY MONTANA COUNTIES (1995-2009)
COUNTY AMOUNT RECEIVED
(1995-2009)
COUNTY AMOUNT RECEIVED
(1995-2009)
Chouteau $482,989,416 Custer $51,403,773
Hill $403,348,437 Wheatland $50,124,657
Valley $247,484,919 Broadwater $49,245,833
Toole $236,270,191 Wibaux $49,066,153
Teton $234,340,302 Golden Valley $48,923,036
Pondera $230,778,288 Powder River $47,360,529
Sheridan $223,942,946 Musselshell $45,510,274
Roosevelt $215,852,061 Carbon $33,836,206
Liberty $211,608,520 Lake $24,386,167
Blaine $208,947,161 Petroleum $24,098,946
Glacier $184,813,145 Beaverhead $21,832,801
Daniels $175,011,592 Flathead $19,755,361
Phillips $173,051,154 Meagher $19,450,692
Fergus $166,577,946 Madison $18,955,615
McCone $164,506,925 Lewis and Clark $18,841,554
Cascade $164,145,260 Park $17,263,300
Richland $142,692,753 Treasure $15,554,894
Dawson $131,718,557 Sweet Grass $10,288,953
Big Horn $114,932,069 Ravalli $6,697,606
Yellowstone $110,908,756 Jefferson $6,342,041
Garfield $106,624,639 Powell $5,339,630
Judith Basin $90,966,410 Sanders $4,499,071
Rosebud $71,176,569 Granite $3,263,510
Stillwater $69,598,028 Missoula $3,162,338
Carter $67,012,077 Deer Lodge $2,520,052
Fallon $65,487,145 Silver Bow $480,824
Prairie $54,439,722 Mineral $459,076
Gallatin $52,478,220 Lincoln $311,832

10. 10
*Bottom Four Counties Include Deer Lodge County ($2,520,052), Silver Bow County ($480,824), Mineral County ($459,076) and Lincoln County ($311,832).
$0
$100,000,000
$200,000,000
$300,000,000
$400,000,000
$500,000,000
$600,000,000
Chouteau
Hill
Valley
Toole
Teton
Pondera
Sheridan
Roosevelt
Liberty
Blaine
Glacier
Daniels
Phillips
Fergus
McCone
Cascade
Richland
Dawson
BigHorn
Yellowstone
Garfield
JudithBasin
Rosebud
Stillwater
Carter
Fallon
Prairie
Gallatin
Custer
Wheatland
Broadwater
Wibaux
GoldenValley
PowderRiver
Musselshell
Carbon
Lake
Petroleum
Beaverhead
Flathead
Meagher
Madison
LewisandClark
Park
Treasure
SweetGrass
Ravalli
Jefferson
Powell
Sanders
Granite
Missoula
BottomFourCountiesCombined*
GRAPH C: FARM SUBSIDY PROGRAM PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY MONTANA COUNTIES (1995-2009)

11. 11
Table C: Percentage of Legislators Benefitting from Subsidies by Region of Montana 26
Number Receiving
Subsidies
Percentage of
Total Number
Total Amount of
Subsidies
Percentage of
Total Amount
Western Montana 9 27.3% $2,393,757.00 33.9%
Eastern Montana 24 72.7% $4,661,861.00 66.1%
26
Location of farm or ranch may differ from location of legislator’s home district. This chart reflects location of legislator’s district.
Chart A: Number of Legislators Benefitting from Subsidies
by Region of Montana
Western Montana -9 Legislators (27.3%)
Eastern Montana -24 Legislators (72.7%)
Chart B: Percentage of Benefits Received in Dollars
by Region of Montana
Western Montana -$2,393,757.00 (33.9%)
Eastern Montana -$4,661,861.00 (66.1%)

12. 12
Table D: Percentage of Legislators Benefitting from Subsidies by Political Party
Number Benefitting
from Subsidies
Percentage of
Total Number
Total Amount of
Subsidies
Percentage of Total
Amount
Republicans 30 90.9% $6,976,120.00 98.8%
Democrats 3 9.1% $79,499.00 1.2%
Chart C: Number of LegislatorsBenefitting from Subsidies
by Political Party
Democrats - 3 Legislators (9.1%)
Republicans -30 Legislators (90.9%)
Chart D: Percentage of Benefits Received in Dollars
by Political Party
Democrats - $79,499.00 (1.2%)
Republicans -$6,976,120.00 (98.8%)

13. 13
Table E: Percentage of Legislators Benefitting from Subsidies by Legislative Chamber
Number Benefitting from
Subsidies
Percentage of
Total Number
Total Amount of
Subsidies
Percentage of
Total Amount
House of
Representatives
19 57.6% $3,310,415.00 46.9%
Senate 14 42.4% $3,745,203.00 53.1%
Chart E: Number of LegislatorsBenefitting from Subsidies
by Legislative Chamber
House ofRepresentatives -19 Legislators (57.6%)
Senate - 14 Legislators (42.4%)
Chart F: Percentage of Benefits Received in Dollars
by Legislative Chamber
House ofRepresentatives -$3,310,415.00 (46.9%)
Senate - $3,745,203.00 (53.1%)

14. 14
GRAPH C: BENEFIT PER LEGISLATOR FROM 1995-2009 BY MONTANA REGION
GRAPH D: BENEFIT PER LEGISLATOR FROM 1995-2009 BY POLITICAL PARTY
GRAPH E: BENEFIT PER LEGISLATOR FROM 1995-2009 BY LEGISLATIVE BODY
$265,973.00
$194,244.21
$0.00
$50,000.00
$100,000.00
$150,000.00
$200,000.00
$250,000.00
$300,000.00
Benefit per legislator from 1995-2009 by Montana region
Western Montana
Eastern Montana
$26,500.00
$232,537.00
$0.00
$50,000.00
$100,000.00
$150,000.00
$200,000.00
$250,000.00
Benefit per legislator from 1995-2009 by political party
Democrats
Republicans
$174,232.37
$267,514.50
$0.00
$50,000.00
$100,000.00
$150,000.00
$200,000.00
$250,000.00
$300,000.00
Benefit per legislator from 1995-2009 by legislative body
House of
Representatives
Senate

15. 15
WHAT SOME OF THE TOP BENEFICIARIES SAY PUBLICLY ABOUT GOVERNMENT
Rep. Lee Randall (R-Broadus), who benefitted from more than a half million dollars from 1995-2009
in farm subsidy program payments, is a particularly harsh judge of government in general. On his
campaign website27
, Rep. Randall displays a moving tally of the national debt and makes the following
statements:
• “(I don’t see eye to eye with) people that would rather take your hard-earned dollar through
taxes so they can spend it the way they deem fit. The same people that believe more government is
the answer to our problems.”
• “I believe in the majority of our situation we face [sic], government is the problem!”
• “I am a strong advocate of less taxes and smaller government.”
Rep. Janna Taylor (R-Dayton), the top farm subsidy program beneficiary in the 2011 Montana
Legislature ($1,017,491.00 from 1995-2009), has said the following about government spending on
programs that benefit other Montanans:
• “The pay plan for the state workers comes to committee this week. I will try to reduce the
healthcare benefit. The unions will be unhappy so I might not be able to get this done.”28
• “(The federal government stimulus money) backfilled our budget and we’re stuck with it.”29
• “State government is too big. We need to reward agencies and employees that save money,
not rush to spend every cent. Each agency needs to find the best way to trim their spending. “30
Rep. Austin Knudsen (R-Culbertson), who benefitted from $705,941.00 from 1995-2009 in farm
subsidy program payments, has said the following:
• “Like most Montanans, I was raised not to spend outside my budget. I want to see to it that
Helena does the same, because Helena, like Washington D.C., has a spending problem.”31
• “Excessive taxes and government spending in Montana is another primary concern.”32
• “All state programs need reduction, across the board.”33
Sen. Bruce Tutvedt (R-Kalispell), who benefitted from $643,063.00 from 1995-2009 in farm subsidy
program payments, has said the following:
• “To have better government we need more legislators with business and budgeting
experience to expedite the principals [sic] of smaller and more efficient government. The budget
cannot continue to increase at the present rate. It’s unsustainable.”34
• "There is a heavy toll if ‘Obamacare' is implemented and it comes to Montana, all those
mandates carry a cost for Montana.”35
27
Re-Elect Lee Randall for Montana House District 39 Web site, www.vote4leerandall.com.
28
West Shore News Online, February 2, 2011, http://www.flatheadnewsgroup.com/westshorenews/opinion/columns/article_56c9b79a-2e41-11e0-b757-
001cc4c03286.html.
29
Daily Inter Lake, October 7, 2010, http://www.dailyinterlake.com/news/local_elections/article_5288acde-d1c3-11df-a569-001cc4c002e0.html.
30
Missoulian, September 24, 2010, http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_7a751b14-c85a-11df-a56d-001cc4c002e0.html.
31
Austin Knudsen House District 36 website, www.austinknudsen.com.
32
Sidney Herald, March 12, 2010, http://www.sidneyherald.com/articles/2010/03/12/news/montana/doc4b9abbd4a4d19825926080.txt.
33
Source: Billings Gazette, Know Your Candidates Profile, http://billingsgazette.com/app/candidates/all/2010/?area=daniels.
34
Bruce Tutvedt for Senate District No. 3 Web site, www.brucetutvedt.com.

16. 16
VOTING RECORDS
Below are voting records36
of the six legislators who benefitted the most from federal farm subsidy programs over the
last 15 years on key bills brought this session that challenge the federal government. One, HB 321, would result in the
state of Montana losing more than $22 million in federal funding of Fish, Wildlife and Parks in Montana.37
With one
exception, the top six subsidy recipients voted in favor of these extreme, anti-federal government bills.
House Bills Rep. Taylor Rep. Knudsen Rep. Randall
House Bill 321: Would nullify the federal Endangered
Species Act in Montana, turning away $22 million in
federal funding of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
Y Y Y
HB 382: Would let legislators nullify any federal law
passed since the signing of the Constitution. N Y Y
Senate Bills Sen. Tutvedt Sen. J. Peterson Sen. Jones
Senate Bill 114: Would give county sheriffs in Montana
authority over federal law enforcement officials dealing
with national security investigations. Attempting to pass
bills like this is a tactic of extreme anti-government
groups across the country.
Y Y Y
Senate Bill 125: Would prohibit Montana from
administering federal healthcare reform, violating the
supremacy and commerce clauses of the U.S.
Constitution.
Y Y Y
WHY IT MATTERS
Why does it matter that 33 Montana legislators have benefitted from farm subsidy program payments made to their
farm and ranch operations? Again, this report is not a critique of farm subsidy programs. The purpose here is to point
out the hypocrisy of legislators who publicly assail the federal government while privately benefitting from programs of
the same.
The public should be aware that many legislators are saying one thing while doing another: spewing inflammatory
rhetoric aimed at the federal government in public, while quietly receiving its largesse in private.
35
Missoulian, “State Republican legislators plan early votes on bills opposing federal health reform,” January 6, 2011,
http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_e409e9e2-193b-11e0-8a79-001cc4c002e0.html.
36
Montana Legislature website, http://laws.leg.mt.gov/laws11/law0203w$.startup.
37
KXLH.com, “Nullification impact addressed in Montana Legislature,” March 9, 2011, http://www.kxlh.com/news/nullification-impact-addressed-in-mt-legislature/.