He's just not so sure who his opponent is.
That they are not one and the same is a sure sign of changing times, in which the person you're running against is not necessarily the person campaigning against you.
Jopek is a Democrat and the incumbent state representative from House District 4. His challenger is Republican John Fuller.
But Fuller had nothing to do with a controversial flier mailed out last week, a “hit piece” Jopek says implied that he has not protected children from sexual predators. That mailer came from an independent political action committee, called the FBIA PAC.
To understand that Fuller was not behind the flier, voters first had to read the fine print, then contact the state Commissioner of Political Practices, request the PAC's paperwork, and finally do a quick background search.
Those who took the time learned that FBIA is the Flathead Business and Industry Association, and that its PAC was registered not in the Flathead, but in Helena, by Charles Denowh. He's the former head of Montana's Republican Party, and now is treasurer of several conservative PACs.
In fact, Denowh said he's actively recruiting Montana businesses to get involved in PAC campaigning, adding that “there's more money in the political process this year than there's ever been before.”
The increasing influence of these “independent expenditures,” as they're known, is changing the nature of Montana politics, Denowh said, by forcing candidates to defend themselves against outsiders, rather than focusing on their own campaigns.
Denowh predicts voters will see more of this third-party campaigning, because “the business community has finally figured out that you can do this.”
What they're doing is operating outside the official campaigns, buying ads and sending mailers that neither candidate knows a thing about.
“For little towns like Whitefish,” Jopek said, “this is probably their first experience with this kind of campaigning.”
But it's a practice that goes back as far as campaigns go back. In Montana, big businesses such as the Anaconda Co. historically worked outside the campaigns to sway elections, as did more liberal unions and trial lawyers.
Often, it was the political parties themselves doing the dirty work, but that ultimately tainted their candidates through a sort of guilt by association. The answer, lately, has been to remove the association.
Environmental PACs, such as Montana Conservation Voters, tend to push Democrats, while industry PACs, such as FBIA, tend to push Republicans.
“All you can do as an individual candidate,” Fuller said, “is make it clear that you're not interested in negative activity. I can only be responsible for what I say and do, not what someone else decides to say.”
A candidate cannot, Fuller said, control his “exuberant public.”
And for the most part, agreed Political Practices Commissioner Dennis Unsworth, “the third-party groups do keep themselves isolated from the candidates they support. That way, the candidate can take the high road, and the PACs can do the dirty work for them.”
Unsworth is the man in charge of enforcing campaign rules. And the rules, he said, have had a hard time keeping up in these rapidly changing times.
“There have always been third-party players,” Unsworth said. “But there's a lot more of it going on now, and in particular a lot more going on this year.”
Some PACs are fairly benign, Unsworth said, quietly campaigning alongside candidates, or raising money on ballot initiatives. But others, he worries, look a whole lot like the political party working under a different name - “outsourcing the nastiness to a front group.”
“We're seeing more and more of the Swift Boat-style of campaigning,” Unsworth said, referring to a third-party group that attacked Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's military record in 2004. “Come in late and hit hard with money that the state can't easily trace.”
He's especially distressed by fliers and ads that “take a kernel of truth, or a fact out of context, and turn it into a whole sensational story that's not quite an honest story, even if it is technically factual.”
Unsworth points to the June primary, when four incumbent Republicans were targeted by conservative PACs as not being Republican enough. “The targeted candidates were essentially painted as despicable monsters,” he said, “which just wasn't accurate.”
And to this day, he said, “it's still not clear who was supporting that effort, who said these candidates condone predatory monsters and pedophiles.”
That was essentially the message in last week's mailer against Jopek, too. Although the Democrat voted for early versions of a bill called “Jessica's Law,” to crack down on sexual predators, Jopek said he voted against the final version because it had been stripped of stiffer penalties and mandatory treatment.
The FBIA PAC mailer included a photo of Jopek, a photo of a distraught toddler, and Jopek's cell phone number. “Who could vote against keeping kids safe?” it asked.
The facts are accurate. Jopek did vote against Jessica's Law. But the message is less honest, “because it implies I somehow don't value children,” the lawmaker said. “It suggests you should keep your kids away from Jopek.”
In fact, Jopek voted to criminalize possession of child pornography, and also Internet stalking of children, and he supported electronic monitoring of sexual offenders. He said he helped enact full-day kindergarten, and to cap college tuition, to provide children's health insurance, to secure state education dollars for kids, and to fund programs for both at-risk and gifted students.
“Sometimes, the message is technically accurate but not honest,” Unsworth said. “This kind of campaigning injects gossip and tabloid material into a process that's central to our democracy, and that can't be good.”
And neither can a veil of secrecy and misdirection. Unsworth points to a PAC formed during the 2006 election, called Ravalli County Citizens For Free Enterprise, and aimed at quashing local laws that limited big box stores.
But were they actually Ravalli County Citizens? Turns out, only $90 of the PAC's money came from local residents. The other $115,000 came from Wal-Mart.
“It's absolutely critical,” Unsworth said, “that voters know who's behind these groups, in order to make informed decisions.”
Denowh says it all comes down to free speech, and insists his FBIA PAC - as well as his other PACs -focuses not on character, but only on issues and facts.
But facts are tricky things.
If a fellow marries a woman before his divorce is final, and happens to work for a candidate, then can that political hopeful be said to associate with polygamists?
Or if a candidate, who is also a defense attorney, must work with drug dealers, then can he be said to associate with meth users?
Some Democrats apparently think so. They leveled those accusations against GOP hopefuls elsewhere in the state.
The tactics don't always work, though.
“I've seen it come back and bite the candidate,” Denowh admitted. “But the backlash is almost always less than what is gained toward your goal.”
Almost. Jopek is one of a very few candidates who refuses all PAC money, relying instead on the many small pockets of his local constituents. And those constituents, he said, ponied up another $5,000 in immediate response to the late-season flurry of negative fliers.
“Those are the people I represent,” Jopek said. “They aren't anybody's special interest.”
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)
Jimbo wrote on Oct 27, 2008 10:00 AM:
In the Whitefish Pilot, Mike Jopek gave his reason as to voting NO for Jessica’s Law…
From the Whitefish Pilot:
“Jopek said...calling for mandatory sentences, some child victims might be reluctant to testify against their relatives. The children wouldn’t want to see family members go to prison for a very long time.”
THEN, he changed his story and told the Missoulian a different reason as to why he voted NO for Jessica’s Law.
From the Missoulian:
“Jopek said he voted against the final version because it had been stripped of stiffer penalties and mandatory treatment.”
So, Mike Jopek, which is it? Are you having a hard time justifying as to why you voted NO on Jessica’s law two times? Or are you just on the side of sexual predators and not on the side of Montana’s children? "