by Tony Hudson, Stevensville
It is hard to live in Western Montana and not be aware of those who came before us. Marcus Daly–the best known of the Copper Kings–founded Hamilton, funded the Bitterroot Valley’s first hospital, and built the Daly Mansion and Tammany Hall–a castle for his most famous racehorse Tammany.
On the other hand, another of the Copper Kings, William Clark, is most remembered for meddling in politics at a time when state legislatures appointed United States senators. The Montana legislature selected Clark to represent the state as a U.S. senator. But on April 23, 1890, the U.S. Senate refused to seat him as it became glaringly apparent that he had secured the appointment by bribing members of the Montana legislature by paying off mortgages for some, buying ranches for others, setting some up in business, or simply handing out envelopes stuffed with cash.
Although Clark was never prosecuted for his unethical and criminal behavior, something good came out of this scandalous affair. On December 4, 1911, the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, ensuring that citizens vote to choose their U.S. senators, rather than having them selected by corrupt politicians.
Now along comes Theresa Manzella, state senator and chair of the “Montana Freedom Caucus,” openly advocating for the repeal of the 17th Amendment in order to strip you of your right to vote for the U.S. senator of your choice. Whether her conduct is a matter of political design or of ignorance, neither should be tolerated in a state legislator.
This is yet another case of Manzella pursuing her political objectives by attempting to manipulate public opinion with terms like “Freedom” and “We the People” in a manner reminiscent of totalitarians like Maximilian Robespierre, Benito Mussolini, and Fidel Castro. But like the totalitarians who came before her, “Freedom” really means political power and control for the band of the “People” who follow her. Theresa Manzella’s concern is certainly not for the citizens of Montana.
Bill Stroud says
Oh please, spare us the drama. Repeat after me….George Santos. Nice try but you made yourself look foolish.
Matt Furlong says
What was the reason she gives for repealing the 17th amendment? If the 17th amendment was working, why do legislators most often conduct themselves like Clark?
John O'Brien says
Your recounting of Clark is incomplete.
He eventually did become a senator and the Senate then sought to expel him for the corruption surrounding his bribery schemes. He resigned before the Senate could kick him out.
The governor of Montana then sent Clark back to the Senate asap, and the Senate collectively just threw their hands up in the air and let him in.
And that was when Clark’s story became the cornerstone for William Randolph Hearst’s hit piece on the Senate, as Hearst was grinding his own political axes at that time, basically throwing a tantrum because the New York Democrat party bosses blocked him from running for president.
You’re throwing around the names of dictators to emphasize the “evil” of repeal, but if going back to state legislatures selecting senators is evil, your reasoning should then extend to the Framers themselves, since that’s the way they originally set the Senate up.
Are you truly prepared to call the Framers dictators?
And … if corrupt politicians are really what bothers you … looking good for voters is why Schumer and the Senate Democrats are not going to do anything about Bob Menendez in their midst, as they realize a messy expulsion hearing for one of their own during an election year would hurt them.
And it’s also what kept them from even acknowledging Menendez’s trial in 2017.
And before I hear “due process”, you pointed out that Clark himself never faced due process for his scandal.
And we ultimately got a constitutional amendment out of it, thanks to Heart’s yellow journalism making the Senate as a whole complicit in Clark’s corruption.
And now, we have a Senate complicit in Menendez’s corruption … yet repeal is a dirty word.
Progress, 21st Century style.