Lobbying Scandal’s Impact Is Tested Under a Big Sky

A huge outfitting store on the edge of this mountain-ringed town should be a conservative bastion: The ranchers and farmers who come to shop tend to be reliable Republicans.

But here at Murdoch’s Ranch and Home Supply -- amid the calf pens, muck buckets and bags of horse feed -- there are signs of trouble for the GOP. And that could be bad news for the party from coast to coast.

Jack Bolender, a retiree who voted for three-term Sen. Conrad Burns because the Republican delivered mounds of federal aid to Montana, said he was deserting the incumbent in the state’s November election. Allegations that Burns was cozy with Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist central to a wide-ranging corruption scandal in Washington, have Bolender steamed.

“I appreciate what [Burns] brought to the state, but at what cost?” Bolender said one cold afternoon outside Murdoch’s. “We seem to be selling out to the special interests.”

Voters such as Bolender are at the center of a political storm that threatens to roil this year’s midterm elections. Democrats are trying to use the Abramoff scandal to tarnish Republicans. And there are few places where the effort is more intense than in Montana.

The Montana Democratic Party has been hammering him over the Abramoff ties in ads that began in August.

The state’s media have pummeled Burns for months over his every connection to the lobbyist, including contributions to the senator and expense-paid trips for his staff.

Montana has become a testing ground for how effectively Democrats can use the ethics issue to weaken GOP incumbents who otherwise would be heavily favored to win reelection. The answer to that question will be key to whether -- and to what extent -- the party can gain Senate and House seats in November.

Some Republicans dismiss the Democratic strategy, insisting that few people outside Washington’s Beltway have paid attention to the furor surrounding Abramoff, who in January pleaded guilty to bribery and bilking his clients. He is cooperating with an ongoing federal probe into influence-peddling in Washington.

But in Montana -- two time zones and more than 1,500 miles away from the nation’s capital -- Abramoff has become practically a household name, much to Burns’ chagrin.

Although most political professionals still consider Burns a slight favorite to win reelection, recent polls showed that the double-digit lead he enjoyed last year has vanished. Some surveys show him tied or trailing his two leading Democratic opponents -- state Auditor John Morrison and state Senate President Jon Tester.

Burns is fighting back with a vengeance, after months of letting Democrats’ accusations about him go largely unanswered.

“The only thing they got in their sack is mud,” he said as he criticized Democrats at a GOP dinner Feb. 10 in Bozeman. “They’ve got no ideas.”

Burns recently saturated the Montana airwaves with the first television ad of his reelection campaign -- a pointed rebuttal of the charges against him. It was a remarkably extensive and defensive campaign kickoff for a senior senator with a record of securing for the state millions of dollars in federal aid for roads, universities and the like.

“I’ve worked in and around stockyards all my life,” Burns said in the 60-second spot. “Those attack ads [by Democrats] -- they’re just a big bunch of you-know-what.”

Defeating Burns is key to Democratic hopes of picking up the six seats they need to capture a majority in the Senate. Five Republican seats -- in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Missouri and Tennessee -- are considered tossups by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

So along with sweeping these races, Democrats would need to defeat Burns to win the Senate.

Montana, where more than 6% of the population is Native American, may be particularly troubled by the Abramoff case because most of the clients he cheated were Indian tribes.

The scandal has become so radioactive in the state that all three of its members of Congress -- Burns, Democratic Sen. Max Baucus and Rep. Denny Rehburg, a Republican -- have returned or given to charity donations that came from Abramoff or were funneled to them by his associates and clients. For himself, Burns calculated that amount totaled $150,000.

Burns is an improbable leading man for a Washington influence-peddling drama. At 71, he lacks the blow-dried polish favored by many Washington power brokers. A former Marine, he is a trained auctioneer, drives a 1996 Chevy pickup truck and is given to folksy, homespun wit.

Even before the Abramoff scandal exploded, Burns presented an inviting target to Democrats. After reneging on a pledge to serve only two terms, he narrowly won reelection in 2000 with 51% of the vote.

Broadcast time is relatively inexpensive in Montana, making it easier for the Democrats to blanket the state with anti-Burns commercials. Their initial ad, which aired last summer, criticized him for accepting donations from Abramoff and then including in a bill he wrote $3 million in school aid for a Michigan tribe represented by the lobbyist.

Although Democrats suggested the aid was payback for contributions, Burns said he proposed the provision because Michigan’s two Democratic senators asked him to do so.

Another Democratic ad spotlighted Burns’ 2001 vote against a bill opposed by an Abramoff client, the Northern Mariana Islands, after he received a $5,000 donation from a Marianas businessman.

Burns had not opposed a similar bill, to strengthen labor and immigration laws, when it passed the Senate in 2000.

Burns has said he changed his view after reading two government reports about the islands and meeting with an official of the Marianas.

“If you can’t change your mind, I would question whether you even got one,” he told a radio interviewer in Montana.

Burns said he never met Abramoff and was unaware of the lobbyist’s connection to some of the contributions from tribes to his political war chest. “I don’t know who Abramoff influenced, but he never influenced me,” Burns said.

The senator has had a harder time brushing off connections between some of his aides and Abramoff.

In 2001, two of them went to the Super Bowl in Tampa, Fla., on a private jet financed by an Abramoff company, a violation of Senate rules limiting gifts from lobbyists. The aides said they were told the trip was paid for by Abramoff’s tribal clients, which would have been allowed because Native Americans are exempt from the congressional rules on gifts.

Also, two Burns aides -- including one who went on the Super Bowl trip -- left Capitol Hill to take jobs at lobbying firms where Abramoff worked.

The ethics issue has been taken up by Burns’ leading Democratic opponents.

An Internet ad by Tester echoes the attack line Democrats have adopted nationally, saying, “There’s a culture of corruption and cronyism in Washington. That has to end.”

Morrison argues that debate on healthcare and other issues before Congress is distorted by special-interest influence.

Burns toured Montana in recent weeks, trying to counter the criticism of him. Martin Coleman, chairman of the GOP in the Bozeman area, sought a meeting with him to hear his story -- and came away satisfied that the senator had done no wrong.

“I wanted him to look me in the eye; he did,” said Coleman, who appeared with Burns at the GOP dinner this month, a gathering that resembled a pep rally for the beleaguered incumbent.

Burns was combative, accusing Democrats of trying to beat him with “character assassination.”

“It’s going to be a long, long season if these guys buy their mud by the dump truck,” he said.

Secretary of State Brad Johnson, a Republican, said Burns’ political offensive had helped quiet rumblings within the GOP. Some had begun to wonder whether the party would be better off if Burns retired and another candidate ran.

“Conrad has put that to rest,” Johnson said. “The Marine has come out in him.”

Many voters say they are withholding judgment on Burns until they see what comes of the Justice Department investigation into Abramoff’s lobbying activities.

Burns has said he is not a subject of the probe. But as he seeks another term, a general distrust of politicians engendered by the Abramoff affair probably will dog him.

“These people need to pay more attention to the money they are taking,” said Bill Curry, a brick mason from Belgrade, a town northwest of Bozeman. “It’s corrupt. I don’t like it. It’s not good.”