by William Skink
It was just announced that Jenny Eck will be Hillary Clinton’s state director in Montana:
State Rep. Jenny Eck, D-Helena, is the state director for presidential Hillary Clinton’s campaign in Montana.
The Clinton campaign made the announcement Monday. Eck has served two sessions in the House. She is running unopposed in House District 79 this election.
Eck has worked as interim director for Carol’s List, an organization dedicated to electing progressive women in Montana.
Looking at Eck’s about page, you can see her legislative accomplishments are geared toward protecting consumers from financial predators and Montanans from sexual predators:
Rep. Jenny Eck, a freshman Representative from Helena, approached her first session with safer communities, mental health and consumer protection as her priorities. During the 2013 session, Jenny served on the House Judiciary and Natural Resources committees.
During her first session, she successfully sponsored and passed five pieces of legislation, including a bill to protect consumers from off shore predatory lenders and another giving prosecutors the ability to better evaluate and classify sex predators.
If Eck was true to her principles, she wouldn’t be enabling a Wall Street darling who refuses to release speech transcripts detailing what she said to the financial predators Eck supposedly wants to protect Montana consumers from.
And if Eck is truly concerned about evaluating and classifying the risk posed to communities by sexual predators, then she should take a look at Bill Clinton’s sexual predator pal, Jeffrey Epstein:
Palm Beach billionaire Jeffrey Epstein is a financier and political donor. He is also a convicted sex offender who is the subject of ongoing litigation from at least a dozen of his then-underage victims.
Flight logs show Bill Clinton traveled at least 10 times on Epstein’s private jet, dubbed the “Lolita Express” by tabloids, and he is widely reported to have visited Little St. James, Epstein’s private island in the US Virgin Islands. That’s where, according to attorneys for Epstein’s victims, many of the worst crimes against minors were committed by Epstein and friends who traveled there with him.
The article the above quote is taken from goes on to show that Trump also has a connection to Epstein, which isn’t surprising. But it is awkward for Clinton supporters, and should be even more awkward for a woman like Jenny Eck, considering her legislative priorities are about protecting us from the kinds of predators she is now working for.
If Jenny Eck and her fellow Clinton enablers are successful, and Hillary Clinton becomes the presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, questions regarding how the Clintons went after alleged victims of Bill Clinton’s sexual proclivities will undoubtedly reemerge:
During and after the Lewinsky investigation that led to Bill Clinton’s impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice, numerous women accusers were publicly or privately persecuted while several high-ranking Republican congressmen were exposed as adulterers for supporting Clinton’s impeachment–leading to the tumultuous resignation of Speaker-Designate Bob Livingston who was set to replace Newt Gingrich who resigned before his own adultery was exposed.
The intimidation campaign threatened by Hillary Clinton worked.
Will all these sordid issues regarding the Clintons get sacrificed on the Democrat alter of identity politics?
JC
The real “war on women”.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/hillary-clintons-long-history-of-targeting-women/
Why single out Hillary? The war on people and all living things includes all women. The details are of little concern.
Does anyone still really think that the (TPTB) billionaire oligarchs don’t win no matter which remaining candidate is (s)elected?
Nothing is left to chance, and “the people” be damned. Or as Kissinger once put it: “…useless eaters!”
Sent this email to the Commissioner of Political Practices Offices soon after I saw the Eck news:
Hello,
I was wondering what the rules are for a candidate with no general election opponent. Can they raise and spend money?
I’m wondering this because I see on the latest C-5 that Jenny Eck has raised $5,280 and spent $306…even though she has no opponent listed.
Is that allowed?
This is the response I got:
“I believe you are asking if a candidate who does not have a primary election opponent can raise and spend money. The answer is yes they are just limited to the $170 contribution limit per contributor.”
Well…what about the general election?
I’m still waiting on an answer on that from COPP. Maybe it is allowed…but why do you need to raise and spend money when you have no opponent and are guaranteed to get in just by paying the filing fee of $15?
When I see that Eck has no opponent, and when I realize she’s now heading up the Hillary efforts in Montana, I have to wonder. You see, we know the Montana Democratic Party engaged in money laundering with the $64,100 that the Hillary Victory Fund paid to the Montana Democratic Party, and which the Montana Democratic Party then sent back to them.
That’s money laundering. It’s corruption. It’s illegal.
Now we have someone with no opponent, but with $5,280 in the bank, that’s going to work to raie money for Hillary.
The whole thing stinks, and bad.
I got a reply from COPP:
“Yes even if they do not have a General opponent they can raise and spend money due to them being on the ballot and being a candidate.”
So…what do they need money for when they have a guaranteed victory in November?
I think it’s so they can use that money for staff and other expenditures. I wonder if there is a list of things they can use that money for after they’re elected. We already know they do staff – how do you think Jennifer Fielder was able to hire that illegal lobbyist in 2015, huh?
I have to assume it’s because she had leftover campaign cash from the 2014 election cycle.
It seems to me we have lots of people raising money when they don’t have to, all so they can get a leg-up on people while in office.
As regular citizens, is this helping our lives?
Here’s what else I got:
Senator Fielder ran in 2012 and opened a Constituent Services Account with remaining campaign money that was closed in 2014 so none of the campaign funders were used for staff. When you open a constituent service account there are very strict rules on what those can be used for (see attached). I have included the verbiage for closing reports.
Closing Reports
Closing reports must be filed when all debts and obligations are satisfied and no
further campaign activity is anticipated following an election. Some campaigns
have continued to make expenditures after the election that are not campaign
related. This is not allowable. If all of the debts and obligations of the campaign
have been met, the closing report has been submitted and there is still a balance in
the campaign account the campaign has several options to choose from to dispose
of the surplus funds or property:
1. If your campaign was successful then you can establish a constituent services
account. Constituent services accounts require some reporting as well. For
more information on reporting requirements for constituent services accounts
see Administrative Rules of Montana 44.11.703 – 44.11.711. Some helpful
guidance is also available on the COPP website.
2. Surplus campaign funds can be returned to the contributors, so long as the
refunds will not violate the personal benefit or campaign contribution
limitations in 13-37-240 and 13-37-402, MCA.
3. Donate the funds to any organization or entity, so long as the donation does
not violate the personal benefit provisions.
altar.
liz, it’s not impossible that i’m not only your father but greg strandberg’s, too. who are your mothers?
who’s your mother, jc?
drunk blogging again? go sleep it off, kurtz.
I already have one mentally ill person who thinks I’m her kid. I certainly don’t need another.
tokarski is your mother, liz? say it ain’t so!
Listen, you miserable little twit, if you want a piece of me, you know where I live.
i don’t read your shit, toke.
and you won’t be commenting here if you keep this shit up, troll.
When Larry Kurtz isn’t commenting about my d#ck on blogs, he’s “liking” a tweet in which I inform him that I literally just returned from my father-in-law’s funeral. Cool & classy dude.
you’re just like toke, liz: all whine and no solutions.
What’s your solution but growing and selling dope?
nope, you’re just a troll who wouldn’t know solutions if they slapped you in the face.
Governor Kate Brown of Oregon just signed a bill that removes state criminal liability from banks and credit unions that do business with the legal cannabis industry.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders won the Wisconsin primary promoting cannabis reform. Public radio personality Rick Steves just endorsed California’s Adult Use of Cannabis Act.
Let’s ensure that cannabis cultivation and distribution stay out of the hands of Big Dope. It’s time to enter compacts with the tribes and pueblos, let them distribute on the rez, on off-reservation properties and in Deadwood or in New Mexico’s case in the town of Las Vegas where revenue could be generated for historic preservation.
Montana should consider similar statutes allowing Butte to be the non-tribal market tagging revenue for historic preservation enlisting the growers who have suffered under your state’s unwieldy medical cannabis law.
Pingback: Bernie: Bark or Bite? | Reptile Dysfunction