Get an insider’s look into what’s happening in and around the halls of power with expert reporting, analysis and insight from the editors and reporters of Montana Free Press. Sign up to get the free Capitolized newsletter delivered to your inbox every Thursday.
March 27, 2025
Regier to Rules
State Sen. Shelley Vance, R-Belgrade, is questioning the credibility of a Legislative Audit Division report released earlier this week that found no evidence of waste, fraud and abuse by Senate President Matt Regier, R-Kalispell.
Vance, who on March 6 called for the investigation into Regier’s use of public funds for outside legal counsel, asked during Thursday’s Senate floor session that the matter be referred to the Senate Rules Committee. Sending the matter to the Rules Committee is a necessary prerequisite to a possible Senate Ethics Committee investigation.
Vance was starting to cry at the end of her speech when she noted that her deceased husband, Gordy Vance, also served in the Senate. During that time she worked as a legislative aide.
“Our roots run deep here, and that’s why I worry [that] the decorum of this body has fallen away. That’s why I worry about how the integrity of this body continues to slip,” Vance said. “That’s why I worry about how a dark cloud of unresolved unethical conduct hangs over this body.
“Mr. President, according to S30‑160(1) the [Senate] Rules Committee may convene to consider the referral of a matter to the Ethics Committee upon the request of a senator. Therefore, I request referring the matter to the Rules Committee regarding the conduct of President Matt Regier.”
Senate Majority Leader Tom McGillvray announced shortly after Vance’s address that the Senate Rules Committee, which he chairs, would not meet Thursday.
The Belgrade Republican criticized the Legislative Audit Division report for not interviewing anyone outside of the Legislative Services Division during its investigation. Regier, Financial Manager Angie Carter, and Deputy Director of Legal Services Jaret Coles were the only people identified in the report as having been interviewed.
“According to the legislative auditor, he interviewed only three individuals, all of whom are somehow implicated in this matter, to prepare his waste, fraud and abuse report related to the Senate president,” Vance during the same speech.
Vance noted that Legislative Auditor Angus Maciver also indicated the division would not be releasing its investigative documents. Vance said the state Department of Administration, which had been interviewed by the Legislative Audit Division in its earlier investigation into former chamber president Sen. Jason Ellsworth, should have been interviewed in the Regier matter because it is the state authority on procurement. Witnesses outside of the legislative branch should have been interviewed, Vance said.
Sen. John Esp, R-Big Timber, said the reason the Department of Administration wasn’t consulted in the audit investigation was because the amount contracted was less than $100,000. The earlier investigation into Ellsworth, R-Hamilton, which Vance referenced, involved a $170,100 contract.
“This is just a waste of time that the senator’s suggesting. We’ve already had so much staff time dedicated to this problem, and it’s foolish to throw more staff time and resources at it,” Esp said. A day earlier, Regier said Vance should — for calling for the original investigation — apologize to legislative staff and the attorney he contracted. He also criticized a Montana Free Press article that was cited by Vance in her original request for an investigation. That request was endorsed by a majority of the Senate.
—Tom Lutey
Still too hot to touch
It’s been nearly 20 years since Montanans overwhelmingly voted to block former government personnel from immediately becoming lobbyists after their terms end.
On Thursday, members of the House State Administration Committee rejected a bill to end the required two-year cooling-off period that 75% of voters approved in 2006. It was a narrow 9-10 decision not to pass Senate Bill 222, which won bipartisan support in the Senate, where it passed 42 to 8 on a third reading at the end of February.
“I’m going to be no on this bill,” said Rep. Lukas Schubert, R-Kalispell, before the vote. “You know, I’m looking at this poll right here from Pew [Research Center] that says that 73% of Americans think that lobbyists and special interest groups have too much influence in Congress, and I’d imagine it’s a similar thing here in the state House.”
Rep. Kelly Kortum, D-Bozeman, said, “I like how the current law is right now. It reduces that chance that we as legislators can trade favors, or legislation, to lobbyists and vice versa.”
On the other side of the ledger, Rep. Julie Darling, R-Helena, said similar bills have been successfully challenged on constitutional grounds in other states. Darling, who chairs the committee, said the public’s perception about lobbyists is just wrong.
“I really like it when I go out to some place and somebody tries to tell me that the lobbyists are buying my votes right now, that I get lots of money and kickbacks and free dinners and like, I don’t see that happening here in Montana,” Darling said.
The initiative that created the cooling-off period followed former Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s first legislative session, during which lawmakers rejected a bill concerning public office-holders seeking to lobby after leaving office.
Schweitzer told Capitolized that as a newcomer to Helena, he was surprised by the number of legislators he would spot out to eat in local restaurants and bars.
“I got to Helena, and it became very clear to me that the lobbyists ran Helena, not the Legislature,” Schweitzer said. “It was every restaurant in Helena during the legislative session, there was two or three lobbyists, five or six legislators for lunch and for dinner and breakfast, also for any of the legislators that are up early enough. The cozy relationship between the lobbyists and the legislators was probably greater than they have in Congress.”
Schweitzer described Montana lawmakers as a cheap date. If the two-year cooldown period was unconstitutional, then advocates for ending the law should sue, he said.
A few weeks before it was voted down, the bill caught the attention of Jon Motl, who told Capitolized that the language in cooldown laws in other states isn’t the same as Montana’s. Montana bans lobbying after leaving the session for a couple years, but it doesn’t ban free speech. Former legislators can testify on bills as a matter of free speech, but can’t lobby for two years, Motl said.
—Tom Lutey
Knudsen hearing Friday
Before Friday’s hearing to decide the outcome of a conduct ruling against Attorney General Austin Knudsen, Supreme Court Chief Justice Cory Swanson wanted the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the attorneys representing Knudsen to answer a critical question: Could Knudsen stay in office if his law license was suspended for 90 days?
Both ODC and the attorney general answered that the potential suspension wouldn’t cost the second-term attorney general his job.
Knudsen faces disciplinary action for 41 findings of professional conduct violations stemming from a period in 2021 when the attorney general refused to comply with a Supreme Court order and disparaged justices. Some of the violations are related to Department of Justice staff overseen by Knudsen.
A state law that rarely comes up says the office of the Attorney General is vacant upon his “ceasing to discharge the duty of his office for the period of 3 consecutive months.” The law dates back to a previous attorney general being absent for military service.
Disciplinary Counsel Tim Strauch, responding to Swanson’s order, said a 90-day suspension might not constitute three consecutive months. Strauch cites similar instances in other states with laws that are similar but not quite the same as Montana’s.
Knudsen’s legal team said that the attorney general’s statutory duties go beyond practicing law and would be carried out during a potential suspension and that 90 days isn’t the same as three calendar months. The attorney general still argues that the Commission on Practice’s findings and conclusions against him, issued in October 2024, should be dismissed. They ask for more time to respond if the Supreme Court considers discipline.
—Tom Lutey
