With the possible exception of Below Deck, nothing unites Americans more in 2026 than their opposition to having data centers built in their backyards. According to a Gallup poll conducted in March, 70% of Americans don’t want AI data centers built near where they live, and 48% identify as being strongly opposed.

Across the country, the political ramifications of this animosity are far from abstract: last month, the President of the Utah state Senate lost his primary after he supported a data center project near the Great Salt Lake; a St. Louis suburb voted out half of its city council after they supported a data center; Warrenton, Virginia did the same.

In Montana, developers are planning at least two major projects: Quantica in Broadview and Sabey, at an undetermined location. (The developer Krambu had proposed a third project, in Bonner, but withdrew its application yesterday.)

Both ongoing projects face local opposition, in large part due to their extraordinary anticipated energy and water consumption, as well as noise concerns. The Bonner project faced regulatory hurdles specific to Missoula County; residents of Butte-Silver Bow and Yellowstone Counties are currently gathering signatures to get measures on local ballots that would hamper data center construction.

Adding to the contention, NorthWestern Energy proposed a new rate structure for data centers this spring, setting off a related debate over the cost allocation of these new facilities.

To unpack the fraught state of affairs, I spoke to Anne Hedges, the Executive Director of the Montana Environmental Information Center (MEIC). Anne has worked for the organization for over thirty years; nothing, she told me, has galvanized Montanans like the potential incursion of AI data centers.

It goes without saying that Anne brings an environmentalist perspective to the conversation. But she’s far from an absolutist when it comes to her opposition to AI and data centers. Read on as we discuss her take on “tech bro” Gov. Gianforte and his industry-heavy Energy Task Force, the bipartisan hostility she has encountered across the state and how she sees the data center issue playing out in next year’s legislative session, including bills that MEIC is already drafting.

Reader’s note: This is the final BSCH transmission before Lacy and I welcome our baby girl into the world later this month — you might not hear from me for a minute! That being said, I hope to be back at the Chat House helm sooner than later, as I find myself stumbling around the house in a sleep-deprived state, yearning for someone to validate my fragile ego.

This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Max: Of these data center projects, which feels closest to becoming reality?

Anne Hedges: That’s really hard. There’s just such a race in the data center development world to get something built as quickly as possible and lease it out to whomever wants it and make a ton of money before the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

The one that is most threatening is the Quantica facility, just because of its sheer size. It is enormous: almost nine gigawatts. So 9,000 megawatts. It’s insanity.

They’ve talked to DEQ about 1,700 megawatts worth of gas plants. That is larger than Colstrip is today. That would be the largest power facility in the state.

It is enormous. And that requires infrastructure. It requires methane gas.

And aside from its sheer scale, it’s in a really dry area of the state. And they have been completely opaque about their cooling system and how much water they’re going to need and where they’re going to get it.

Can you explain how Missoula County is an exception in terms of its existing regulations?

Missoula is unique. Missoula had a crypto operation that was really disruptive to the community quite a few years ago now. And so they put these regulations in place. What Missoula has that nobody else has is transparency. It has the public right to know.

It has a public right to participate. It has noise restrictions. It has lighting restrictions. It has clean energy requirements. And not just any old clean energy, but new clean energy that has to be added into the system. They have the ability to look at the water system and make sure that you’re not impairing water for water bodies or for senior water right holders. It is truly a wonderful setup.1

I really applaud their commissioners for wanting to make sure that those provisions of that ordinance are applicable throughout the county and not just in very specific locations. Because we’ve seen people up to a mile away [from data centers] that are complaining about the noise. They can’t sleep. They can’t open their windows. It’s the same complaints that Bonner people had back in the crypto days.

It’s something that I think every county in the state deserves; that type of review and to have the public participate. No other county has that. And that to me is remarkable considering the threat that these counties face.

That reminds me of the xAI facility in Memphis — a lawsuit was filed there because of the pollution from all of the gas turbines. With that in mind, do you see the Montana State Constitution’s language around the right to a clean and healthy environment being an effective backstop against that level of pollution?

It’s insufficient because it’s after the fact. The Constitution only comes into play after a government entity or a private developer has made a bad decision. And it’s very difficult to stop them from moving forward with that bad decision while it plays out in court. And courts are notoriously slow at making decisions.

We need a state DEQ that does its job instead of kowtowing to developers. We need a DNRC that is on top of the water rights issue. And we need a Public Service Commission and a legislature who take these energy issues seriously and protect the people of this state from this new industry that could very easily go belly up in just a few years.

I’m glad you brought up the PSC. For a general audience reader, how do you explain how Northwestern Energy and the PSC fit into this equation?

Since 2009, [NorthWestern Energy customers in Montana have seen their] electricity rates increase 99%. They have gone up over 40% since the middle of 2022. That is astronomical and people cannot afford their electricity bills.

The reason that has happened is because the Public Service Commission has allowed NorthWestern to do that. They haven’t done their job. Period. End of sentence. They have not protected the people of this state.

And that will get worse unless the Public Service Commission develops a set of rules to protect existing customers from data centers. That’s all we’re talking about: is the PSC going to do its job? Or will it develop a set of rules that enriches NorthWestern shareholders and their CEO? Their CEO is very handsomely paid.

If a data center facility is covering their costs, why would they be passed on to the consumer in Montana?

Because if they are getting service from NorthWestern Energy, you are helping to pay for their transmission, for their distribution lines, perhaps for their generation, their power plants, which cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

We have to make sure that we are not sharing in those costs.

So right now, what NorthWestern wants to do is bring data centers into the fold and share those costs across all customer classes, residential customers, large industrial customers, the data centers. But if we just socialize the costs of those data centers, which is NorthWestern’s plan, then we will be paying higher bills.

So the set of rules will determine how they come online, how they come into the system. It’s really wonky, but there’s so many things that commissions like the PSC can do to guarantee that data centers pay their fair share. And really importantly, if they leave the system early, we are not stuck paying for the cost of adding them to the system when they’re gone.

What’s your take on the governor’s Energy Task Force?

The governor, he’s showing his true colors. He is a CEO of a corporation, and that’s how he is behaving.

But yet, in government, he is just one of three branches of government. He should be representing the people of the state. Instead, he’s representing his buddies in the data center world.

And so his entire framework is to try to give gifts to the data center industry on the backs of the people of the state. His entire framework is: how do we get data centers online faster, regardless of the impact they have on the system.

So they’re not talking about the Constitution. They’re not talking about energy sources. They are talking about gas all the time. They are all about coal. They love nuclear. These guys love the most expensive forms of energy available today.

That’s what they want. And the way to do that for them is just to socialize the costs onto the rest of us.

And there’s not a consumer advocate on that task force. There’s not a renewable energy developer on that task force. It’s simply about data centers.2

What he’s forgotten is that when he’s trying to get a bill through the legislature [in 2027], that the people of this state don’t like data centers. And there’s going to be a dogfight on his hands that he really, as a CEO, doesn’t anticipate because he’s really arrogant in the way he governs.

OK, I want to come back to nuclear later. But in the meantime, I genuinely don’t understand why they have this task force at all.

Politicians love to say they’re doing something.

And I will say he had the housing task force and it did come up with some decent recommendations. It was a very, very different set of people who were more focused on finding a solution to a really big problem in this state. And so I think that that worked. And he’s like, well, why don’t we do it for data centers?

He’s just doing what the governor does. He’s a tech bro. That’s all he is. He’s a tech bro. And he happens to be a multi-millionaire tech bro.

He just doesn’t think about the little guy. He doesn’t think about 99% increases in electric utility bills for homeowners. That doesn’t matter to him.

He’s probably never paid his own utility bill. He doesn’t care.

The image of Greg Gianforte as a bro is one I hadn’t considered, but it’s going to live rent-free in my mind for quite some time. Switching gears, from your vantage point, do you see anti-data center sentiment as being synonymous with anti A.I. sentiment writ large?

There’s a lot of overlap. I think that [being] anti-AI is a very conservative position. Actually, I think it’s across the board. Conservatives really are concerned about AI. And data center concerns are more focused on the local community.

I am not an anti-data center person across the board. I’m not an anti-AI person across the board. I think AI is dangerous. I think it really impinges on our privacy. I think that these guys are going fast and breaking things and nobody is paying attention to the consequences. We absolutely need rules for AI.

We’ve had data centers for decades. We’ve just never had them at this scale. And I feel like AI is somewhat, it’s not going away, but this current situation is a flash in the pan. It’s like the dot com bubble; everyone wants to get to the finish line first. Nobody has figured out how to monetize it yet.

And so the people who get there first may be able to monetize it, but there’s going to be saturation because there’s just not that much use case for it.

Can you tell me a little bit more about why you associate anti-AI sentiment more with conservative folks? Speaking anecdotally, I’ve had the opposite experience.

I see people really concerned about privacy, concerned about somebody looking over their shoulder, watching what they’re doing, stealing their information. I think Ron DeSantis is the leading person opposed to AI.

But I’ve talked to a lot of conservatives around the state on this issue, and I’ve been very pleasantly surprised by their reactions. We’ve held over a dozen events across the state, and I don’t think there’s been an event where somebody didn’t say, why do we need AI?

There’s a lot of plaid shirts, I guess I should say, in the audience when we do these events. We’re not just going to Missoula or Bozeman. We’re trying to be a little bit more focused on the rural areas where data centers have been proposed or likely to be proposed.

And I’m not hearing anybody say that AI is great. I’ve heard Republican legislators say that they don’t mind data centers, but that AI is a problem. And that to me is heartening because that’s a place to start.

AI needs to be solved at this legislative level. Congress needs to get off its ass and do its job. And it’s not.

Something I want to circle back on: if I understood correctly, you don’t see a lot of use cases for AI in general?

These guys aren’t making money because nobody needs their product. They always point to the medical industry. They point to national security.

Well, tell me how much of this AI and data center development is really national security. They don’t know because most of these guys don’t know who the leesee of their facilities will be. They banter these words around like they matter and they can’t prove that it’s a federal government that’s going to come in and use it for national security.

I find [AI] very unhelpful. Most of the time they’re not selling anything yet. And Wall Street is worried about that. They’re pouring more money into this than in the history of the United States.

This is an arms race without a buyer.

For what it’s worth, I’m a bit more optimistic about AI. Especially being a visually impaired person, I’m a pretty staunch advocate for autonomous vehicles, which, granted, don't rely on data centers in quite the same way.

That is going to be useful. And we do find uses for AI, but not at a growth rate and not at the level that these guys are planning to grow in the next five years. And I’m in favor of all of the technologies that can help people with a disability. It’s amazing stuff.

My position is, we’re gonna have some data centers. We’re gonna need them because there is a use case for some AI. But we need sideboards on AI. We need sideboards on the development of data centers. And we should let some of these guys go forward. But they have to go forward by a set of rules that protects all of the natural resources, the public health, the energy, the water, the communities. And the bottom line is they can. They can, they don’t want to.

There’s just so much money involved that it clouds people’s judgment.

I recognize we’re looking into the crystal ball a little bit here, but how do you see this playing out in the ‘27 Legislature?

Well, the primaries are over. And in this state, primaries are where decisions get made on who’s coming to the legislature. We live in a new world of primary politics. And so I don’t think anything’s going to happen between now and the legislature that’s going to radically change anything as far as the composition of people who are going to be there.

I do think that next session, you’re going to have legislators who are really struggling to figure out their path forward. Because people are going to come forward with bills to fix all of the problems that we face because of data centers. And it’s not going to be one big omnibus bill that’s going to take care of everything. And that’s all we’re going to be debating.

There’s going to be probably half a dozen bills on water, half a dozen bills on community needs, half a dozen bills on energy. There’s just going to be a lot of different bills that legislators are going to have to figure out.

And if they go home without doing anything, they will lose their seat. I just don’t believe that any of them can say, “I don’t care, and I’m going to vote no on everything.” I don’t think that’s going to pass muster.

So I think there’s a real threat there for them in the next election cycle.

I am optimistic that we’re going to see some rational thinkers this session, that people are going to listen to their constituents. I think we are going to see a lot of bipartisanship in a way that we really don’t see in most other issues.

The Solutions Caucus, they’re in NorthWestern’s pocket. They’ve always done whatever NorthWestern wants. I don’t see a lot of help from the Solutions Caucus people, but I do see a lot of concerns from the far right. I see a lot of concerns from the Democrats. And so I think we’re going to see very interesting coalitions forming this session.

Do you see this issue putting some wind in the Democrats’ sails?

It depends. I mean, Democrats have to stop being their own worst enemy.

I think their platform is a great start. I was really surprised to see that they supported a two-year moratorium. But it can’t get through the legislature, and I don’t think it will be signed by the governor.

So we better have something else in our back pocket about these data centers and the programs we need to develop to protect existing customers.

And the problem is labor. You know, I love those labor guys, and I want every data center to be a union outfit. Our union guys, they’re great electricians, they’re great plumbers, they go through an amazing amount of training, and they are top-notch. And people deserve a good wage for that kind of work. However, you can’t ignore all the other harm the data centers cause in your quest to get good trade union jobs.

So you need a balance. And I don’t know if Democrats are gonna be able to balance that in the heat of the moment. I see Democrats all the time siding with labor over environmentalists in the Capitol, because labor just has more clout in their minds.

Not all of them, of course. I want to be clear. There’s some Democrats out there who really know how to balance those two, because they can be balanced. It is not an either/or. And anyone who says you’re either with labor or you’re against labor, they’re wrong.

And so Democrats are gonna face some struggles because unions want jobs. That’s their sole purpose, to create more union jobs and create electricians that are safe.

When you say Democrats are their own worst enemy, as a pretty politically moderate person myself, I have my own feelings about what that means. Were you referring to something beyond this tension between labor and environmental issues?

It’s just so ubiquitous (laughs). But for the purpose of the data center conversation, I’ll rely on power plant issues and what laws have passed with Democrats’ support that weaken our environmental protections, that weaken the public’s right to participate, and all in the name of jobs.

And that to me is, they’re cutting off their nose to spite their face. I think that everybody should be standing up for our constitutional right to know, to participate, and to protect our natural resources that really feed our economy and our health. It’s not that hard to get behind.

But when you have Democrats voting in favor of weakening mercury and air toxics, or when you, from power plants, when you have Democrats voting in favor of weakening NEPA, which is the primary mechanism for the public’s right to know and participate, then they’re not doing their jobs. They’re not doing what their platform requires of them. So yeah, they can be better, and they should, and some do. And some do, and they get reelected.

I’ve got a hunch, but I’m curious what you think about Ezra Klein’s abundance argument.

I’m not a big fan of Ezra Klein.

I didn’t want to assume.

I find his abundance thing really simplistic. I think it’s a lovely sentiment, but it is devoid of reality.

What’s the best way to go about setting up sufficient regulations for data centers in Montana?

It’s about timing. When I think about what we need to do, I think about the things that are being done now before the session even starts. And then, the session doesn’t end until April, and we can’t wait till April. We are at risk if we wait till April to develop rules.

And then, unless the bill specifies, those bills don’t go into effect. And then, if there’s rulemaking associated with it, then a lot of times legislators wanna delay the effective date of the bill until rulemaking is complete, we don’t have that kind of time.

So the local ordinances that people are pushing, those are really, really important for those local areas who are facing data centers immediately. The Missoula review process, that is really important.

Missoula County is sticking to its guns and it’s really heartening to see.

The Public Service Commission will decide before the legislature meets next year what set of rules will govern data centers, and whether our electric bills are going to increase or decrease as data centers come online.

That to me is one of the very most important things that people should be paying attention to. And if the PSC gets it wrong, we will be in the Capitol trying to fix their errors. But I don’t wanna wait.

Our tech bro governor is super pro-data centers. And if you want to overcome that, you’ve got to have a supermajority of people who are willing to override a gubernatorial veto.

So all legislators matter in that case because we need a lot of legislators to be willing to buck their governor. So I’m trying to parse this out by what are the most immediate ways to address this problem and plan for the long-term.

Is a good chunk of what MEIC might end up doing effectively running a pressure campaign?

It’s what we always do, but we’ve never had such an abundance of individuals on both sides of the political aisle who are demanding that they be protected.

So yes, and we’re also a policy shop. And so we are working on bills right now. We have drafts of half a dozen bills that we want introduced.

And we’ve worked with legislators already on another half a dozen bills.

Are there any specific bills you think would be helpful for a reader to be privy to?

I think that the set of rules for what the Public Service Commission needs to do in order to ensure that there is no shifting of costs between residential customers and data centers, that is gonna be a really important bill. That’s gonna be critical.

I don’t trust our PSC. They side with NorthWestern time and time again. So I don’t wanna just rely on them doing their job.

We’re gonna need the legislature to step in and develop some more.

We absolutely need a water bill. Idaho passed a bill to protect water resources. If Idaho can do this, with overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle, so can we.

And then there’s the community bill. And my goal is to have a bill that really does provide a framework for every county to do what Missoula is doing, and protect those people who are gonna live near these data centers.

One last question for you: what is your take on nuclear power?

The Trump Administration is deregulating nuclear power at an unprecedented rate. It is unsafe. And my feeling before the Trump administration was why would we go with the most expensive form of power available to man today when we have cheaper alternatives available? We already are paying way too much in our utility bills.

And nuclear power will do nothing but drive up those costs.

It is alarming. And anyone who is pro-nuclear needs to pay attention to the deregulation that’s going on at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and at the Department of Energy.

Maybe nuclear energy could have been safe in a normal circumstance. But we don’t live in normal times. We live in very abnormal times.

We need people to kick the tires on this new technology before we put it out in communities. And that is not happening.

So I’m not pro-nuke. I just think it’s a silly experiment that we don’t need to do because we have cheaper available technology today.

Anne, is there anything you’d like to add before we wrap up?

I just think we have a moment in time in which we can bring people across the state together, regardless of political affiliation, and to come up with some common-sense solutions [so Montanans can] maintain an affordable energy system, that they have the water resources they need to fish in the summer and to float in the summer, and to feed their crops.

And our communities deserve to be protected. People’s life savings are wrapped up in their property and their homes, and the safety of their family is paramount to them. We should make sure that they still have value in their homes, that they still have the right to live where they’re living, free from undue noise and vibration and disruption and flooding and runoff.

These power plants they wanna build at these facilities are phenomenally polluting, and people shouldn’t be breathing that air. That’s not right. And we don’t have an administration at the state or the federal level that’s gonna protect people adequately.

And we will do what we can to go to court when the state and the federal government fail, but that takes a long time. So we need protections upfront for communities across the board.

Much like Alani Bankhead, or Tim Sheehy’s inclination to break someone’s arm, Water on Mars seemingly appeared out of thin air.

Back in the faraway world of 2016, the Missoula quartet recorded a set of stellar psychedelic jazz-stoner-electronic compositions; seven sprawling, strange, murky tracks. A decade went by. Then, without any fanfare or explanation, they released the album on Bandcamp last week, exactly ten years after they recorded it.

Water on Mars is at turns playful and confounding. On “Pigeon Jacket,” for instance, Kyle Gillett sets the stage with a melodic, lumbering bass line before Jarom Hein’s space-age synths and Cole Bass’ saxophone careen into view and transform the song into a Technicolor, glittering wonderland. “Juice Box,” on the other hand, is arguably the album’s most straightforward track, built around a catchy synth and sax call-and-response.

“Cosmo” brings to mind one of my favorite records of the past few years, Sam Wilkes and Sam Gendel’s Music for Saxofone and Bass Guitar; it similarly conjures rainy-day melancholy out of blurry, elusive melodies. Yet “Cosmo” boasts the added distinction of Jordan Weigart’s snappy, clattering drums, which stake out a sharp contrast to Gillett’s muddy bass lines, more opaque than the waters currently sloshing around in Many Glacier Valley.

The mystery surrounding the record’s belated release only adds to its allure. While I wish the group was still together, playing these wild songs on stages around town, I also love this project just as it is: an artifact of another time, dropped at our feet as a fully unexpected and wonderful surprise.

In other news…

I put together a roundup of spectacular new music from across Montana for the lovely folks at The Pulp. You can read it here!

Share

For many of us, the thing that may come to define Montana’s 2026 primary elections wasn’t anything a candidate said, but the deluge of mailers and ads blasted out by PACs on both sides of the aisle.

One of the groups responsible for those ads was AFP-Montana, the state chapter of the powerful and notorious national organization founded by Charles and David Koch over twenty years ago. In a nutshell, AFP advocates for free markets, deregulation and generally limiting the scope of government.

This year, AFP-Montana championed a slate of conservative candidates running against moderate Republican incumbents, many of whom had voted with Senate Democrats to pass marquee bills during the 2025 Legislature: Medicaid expansion, property tax reform and the state budget.

AFP-Montana’s efforts certainly bore some fruit in June’s elections, but a handful of moderates still won their primaries. Some of them, like Reps. David Bedey, speaking in BSCH, and George Nikolakakos — who recently burned a letter from AFP in his BBQ grill in a Facebook video — have accused the organization and other PACs of lying about them in campaign ads.

The organization’s engagement in the primaries highlighted a question that sits at the heart of Montana politics today: is there room for “independent-minded” or moderate Republicans in the state GOP?

To unpack the state of affairs, I met up with Jesse Ramos, a former Missoula city council member who now serves as AFP’s State Director, on a moody afternoon at the Missoula Public Library. Speaking in a personal capacity, Jesse and I got into the organization’s priorities, the results of the primaries and what he makes of the matchup between Sam Forstag and Aaron Flint.

Readers note: This interview encompasses two conversations; one conducted before the elections and one after. The content from the first conversation comprises the first half of the piece, the second conversation comprises the second half. As always, this piece has been edited for length and clarity.

Max: You recently wrote an op-ed in the NY Post that argued that lots of Independent candidates are effectively Democrats in disguise. I generally agree with your take on Seth Bodnar in the article, but the thing that gave me pause was your criticism of “independent-minded” Republicans in Montana; it was hard to not read it as something like a purity test.

Jesse Ramos: There’s no question that AFP is very [pro] small government. I mean, I think we’re the most principled conservative group in the country. We’ve supported things like criminal justice reform. We’ve opposed things like tariffs. We’ve opposed President Trump in the Republican primary because we believe that he was growing the size and scope of government.

And I think it’s safe to say that when we support candidates, we believe that they’re going to shrink the size and scope of government. On the other side, [there are] super PACs that are supporting Democrats and quote unquote “independents” across the country, but then also supporting these so-called independent-minded Republicans. But even candidates that we oppose, we love working with to get good policies through.

Are you talking about the Fireweed connected candidates?

I’m talking more about the WayBack PAC. They’ve given $250,000 to Llew Jones’ PAC, Conservatives4Montana.

I’m not picking on the donors. I’m just saying, does it pass the smell test of “Would I be donating to a Democrat candidate as a small government guy if I thought that they were going to be completely blowing up the size and scope of government?”

No. But would I, in Missoula, for instance, give money to somebody that said they were a Democrat but were actually a Republican so they could get elected? Absolutely, I would do that. I mean, I think we’ve got some sheriff candidates and others here in Missoula that might be a little bit more right of center than they claim to be.

These are not small issues that AFP is concerned about. We’re not talking about a couple tenths of a percentage of a tax rate. We’re not talking about zoning for affordable housing. We’re talking about the budget, which is the most important thing that the state legislature votes on. We’re also talking about healthcare. [Even having Medicare work requirements in place] does not change the ultimate ideological difference about who is best positioned to provide healthcare: Is it the private sector? Is it the government sector? And at the end of the day, work requirements or not, does it incentivize poverty?

It’s really a corporate welfare argument in my mind, and if anybody knows anything about me, they know that I hate corporate welfare.

The other big one, the property tax [reform], completely restructuring the entire property tax system of the state with the governing minority, that is affecting businesses; it’s affecting folks that own a second home, whether they’re in state or out of state; it’s affecting people that want to buy a home. [Moderate lawmakers] all of a sudden say, “Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. I’m just independent-minded.”

This is not a purity test. It’s like, “No, you just passed a property tax bill that is more progressive than anything California has even come up with.”

Is there a race or two in particular that AFP is focused on this year?

Llew Jones definitely comes to mind. You gotta tip your hat to the guy; he’s been the shadow governor for many years now. He’s the most powerful man in Helena. His principles always have seemed, at least from the outside, to be very malleable; it’s all been about power and governing control.

I don’t know if you got to read the piece on him in the Montana Free Press recently. But he’ll straight up say he will sell things off to get things passed, whether it’s a swimming pool, or whether it’s taxpayer-funded childcare.

But isn’t that just the reality of politics? I’m not crazy about that either, but it doesn’t strike me as something exceptional to him.

Yeah, it doesn’t really shock the system. I think what really shocks the system is that he’s negotiating against his quote-unquote “own side” and he’s going against principles that Montanans believe in. I think Montanans would generally agree that they want a smaller size and scope of government, and I think that’s reflected in poll after poll.

And so I think Llew does certain things to grow government in kind of a back alley way. To your point, that is not uncommon, but that doesn’t mean that we have to like it. And we call it out when it’s at the federal level with omnibuses. We don’t want these huge pork barrel packages.

Again, Llew is the key architect of that. I think that it’s time that voters at least know what he’s up to.

In the ‘25 session, those bills that you mentioned were all signed by the governor, right? So how does he fit into this equation?

That’s a very good question. The governor is in his last term, and at the end of the day, I think he ultimately can’t control what comes out of Helena.

I think the job of any of the candidates is ultimately to put better policies on the governor’s desk in his last term that actually shrink the size of government.

But was there anything stopping him from vetoing them?

That is a good question. I wish he would’ve.

So where does the buck stop?

I think the reason why we are targeting Mr. Jones is because the buck does ultimately stop with him. Those [bills] were all his babies that he helped usher through.

The governor line-item vetoed a few things. I wish he would’ve line-item vetoed a ton more out.

It’s been about a week since the primaries. What were your takeaways?

That was a fantastic night. There was a total of eight incumbents that were unseated. Six of them were folks that, I guess you would say, were part of the unaligned majority in the Legislature.

AFP directly engaged in four of those races to help unseat unaligned legislators: John Fitzpatrick was defeated. Shelley Vance was defeated. Linda Rexton was one and Ken Walsh was the other. Another person that we just didn’t have the bandwidth to engage with was Curtis Cochran. Ed Buttrey was another one that was held accountable. We didn’t engage directly in those two races by any stretch, but we were not sad to see them go, to say the least.

Everybody thinks that all AFP does is exist to make Llew Jones’ life a living hell. But in reality, I don’t want to have to spend time on this because I have so many other things that I need to do for my job [in order for the] legislature to do a good job upholding the principles of conservatism.

But unfortunately, when they fumbled the football the way that they did, I had no choice but to expend tremendous bandwidth on races that I wish I didn’t have to.

And when you have something like that, which is arguably, I think one of the worst sessions that any red state has had, at least that I’m aware of, in terms of growing government, it’s not good. And I would have liked nothing better than to have more bandwidth for federal races and federal policy, because Lord knows that there’s a lot of really important things that the federal government is trying to get done right now in terms of permitting reform, in terms of unleashing American energy abundance.

And again, if a Democrat comes along and supports school choice, they support a flat tax, they support actually clamping down on overspending at the local government level, they support regulatory reform, they support free speech, we support them just like anybody else.

What do you attribute Llew Jones’ win to?

I mean, honestly, it’s incumbency. There’s a tremendous amount of built-in systemic advantages that go to somebody that’s been entrenched in politics for decades. Llew has built-in name ID. We all know there’s a tremendous cost and value to name ID.

It’s expensive to purchase ads. It’s expensive to get your name in the newspaper. I mean, it’s expensive to have mail pieces sent out.

If we were to try and recreate that same name ID for somebody like a Zack Wirth, that’s probably well over a million dollars to try and match that at the end of the day. And then there’s also obviously the fact that [Jones] had a huge, massive fundraising advantage because of folks that he’s done favors for, lobbyists, all kinds of that type of stuff throughout the years that he’s built that network over decades.

And ultimately, he squeaked by. That’s true. Congratulations to Llew for squeaking by. But I don’t think anybody thought it was going to be that close. I think everybody always assumed that Mr. Jones was inevitable; that he could not be beaten. I think it showed that he absolutely could be.

So I hope that Mr. Jones can take that as a sign. I think that in America, we have too many politicians that squeak by with tiny little margins of victory and think they have this gigantic mandate, when really it’s like, he won, but please just govern normally. We just want somebody that’s going to go to Helena and represent our interests.

So I think that’s the message that I hope Mr. Jones takes. But maybe this is a little bit of time for reflection.

And I look forward to working with Mr. Jones on areas in which we have shared interests, or at least what he alleges are shared interests. So with flat income tax, true property tax reform, occupational licensure reform, school choice, he was touting that a lot on the campaign trail. So I think that I’d love to work with him on that sort of stuff. I think I’m still on the MARA committee — the Modernization & Risk Analysis Committee. That was his baby. He appointed me to it before this all happened with the elections, and I look forward to continuing to serve on that.

I was curious for your take on the outcome of the congressional primary for the western district.

Well, I need to state for the record that America for Prosperity Action has not taken a position in this race. And I’m speaking as a private citizen.

Aaron Flint has been a longtime personal friend of mine. I think he’s a great man. I think he will make an excellent congressman. And I look forward to personally working with him in any capacity to get there.

I also look forward to working with him as State Director of AFP should he get into Congress. I think that it’s long past time that Montana was represented by somebody with deep roots in the community. Honestly I don’t know if there’s a single person in Montana that’s more connected with the issues of the grassroots than Aaron Flint.

I mean, he spent 20 years talking to people on every corner of the state. He did a ton of events with AFP Montana in 2024, really highlighting the issues of government overreach.

On the Democrats’ [side], I was surprised, honestly, to a certain extent that Mr. Busse didn’t win. But at the same time, I think Sam is running a campaign that just shows that people are tired of the status quo.

I mean, I probably disagree with Sam on nearly every issue, but people are sick and tired of electing people and nothing changing. And I think that’s what his election represents, that people are tired of politicians saying one thing and doing another and upholding the status quo. And I think that both Aaron and Mr. Forstag represent kind of an affront to the status quo.

Interesting.

Big time. Oh, and I think on the Senate side, again, speaking [in a personal capacity], we can make a bet, maybe, and you can buy me lunch. I can almost guarantee that Alani Bankhead will drop out and her name will not appear on the ballot, and she will endorse Sam Bodnar.

Why do you believe that?

Again, my personal opinion, it’s my gut feeling, and primarily because of the fact that you had an outside PAC that is, to say the least, investing close to, I haven’t checked the finance reports, at least half a million dollars into a candidate who had raised $12,000 is all in a Democratic primary with an Independent on the ticket, in which nobody thought that the Independent or the Democrat had a chance with both of them in the race.

So why would a progressive vet PAC spend, we’ll call it, I’m guessing around a million dollars to prop up a candidate that everybody thinks is going to lose, unless they don’t think that she’s going to lose. [Note: According to Montana Free Press, Bankhead had about $23,000 cash on hand, and the Progressive Vet PAC spent over $3 million on the race.]

So again, that’s just my thoughts. Call it a crazy conspiracy, that’s my personal opinion, but we will see.

I’d love to have lunch, but I’m not going to take your bet.

I wouldn’t either.

You’re obviously not a proxy for Aaron’s campaign. But as someone who is rooting for him to win, do you see Sam as a harder opponent to beat than Busse?

I’ve actually thought long and hard about this, because I don’t really know…and by long and hard for my ADD self, it’s probably like three minutes. But I think conventional wisdom states that the AOC, Bernie Sanders angle is going to hurt him here in Montana.

I honestly think that Mr. Cleveland probably would have been the most actually electable gentleman at the top of the ticket.

So, I think that in terms of, as someone that wants Aaron to win, I think that there are pros and cons to Forstag and to Busse. I think that the benefit of Forstag, and I’m not saying this as an insult, because I’m a young guy too, [but] Mr. Busse was a lot more seasoned.

He ran Kimber, he ran a lot of different things. I think that that experience would have probably helped him in what’s going to be a really hard-fought race. Forstag hasn’t run for anything before.

I think both of them are preferable for sure to Cleveland. Cleveland would have been a tough opponent.

I am inclined to agree. One other question about Aaron’s campaign: I really struggle to see a lot of substance, just a lot of extremely inflammatory rhetoric from him. I’m genuinely curious, what’s an issue or two that really resonates with you that he is championing?

Yeah, I think that’s a great question. He and I have always shared a great passion for unleashing our natural resource economy here in Montana.

I mean, I grew up in Libby, Montana. Aaron Flint and I spent a lot of time together and spent a lot of time on the radio. I think really shining a spotlight on small towns like the one that I grew up in, and how they’ve really become decimated by bad policies coming out of Washington, D.C. It’s a bipartisan thing, too. It’s not all Democrat policies, but a lot of bad policies that have really made it so.

And a lot of that is because the natural resources jobs like mining, like logging, like energy production, they pay back the equivalent today of $90,000 to $100,000 a year. And we have been forced over the last, I don’t know, call it 15, 20 years into the tourist economy, where essentially we’re being asked to be the servants of these rich people coming in from out of state, where the average wage in today’s dollars is $30,000 to $50,000. You can’t afford to raise a family on $30,000 to $50,000 a year.

These breadwinner jobs that have supported entire towns and communities have been regulated out of existence. And that’s something that Aaron, who’s come up to Libby with me, he saw when we did a Bidenomics tour up there in 2024 and went to this kind of budget grocery store called Empire Foods.

A lot of folks that I grew up with, parents and different people lined up around the corner. There was probably 150 of them lined up, on very short notice, to get a $35 gift card that AFP was handing out to give them relief from inflation, because they couldn’t afford that. And that was just so tragic to me, because the town I grew up in was a thriving town, where a kid could graduate from high school on a Friday, lace up his boots on Monday, and make more money than his teachers.

He could buy a house for his family. His wife could stay at home and raise the kids. They could have a nice middle-class lifestyle.

You can’t do that anymore in a lot of parts of Montana. And Aaron gets that. And Aaron has fought on the radio and side by side, and actually wants to help those folks achieve the American dream once again.

AFP is running an ad supporting Kurt Alme for US Senate. The ad says that he’s the right candidate to help Montanans on the affordability front.

Of course, inflation is a complex topics. And I know that Mr. Alme was responsible for cutting income tax when he was the state Budget Director. But at the same time, I feel like a significant amount of the inflation we’re seeing is tied up in Republican-led federal policy and what’s going on in the Middle East. With all of that in mind, what is the pitch that he, as a representative of the Republican Party in the Senate, would be able to help Montana families with this affordability crisis?

We like when people buck the party. And when it comes to shrinking the size and scope of government, Mr. Alme, I believe, at the end of the day, has definitely shown his ability to be an independent thinker, to have an independent thought process. He’s never been in an elected office, but as a [US attorney], he constantly had to make independent judgments. I’ve heard a lot of criticism from him from both the left and the right about his decisions.

And so, again, we hope that leaders, whether it’s in Helena or whether it’s in Washington, DC, that they buck the party establishment when they need to shrink the size and scope of government, when they need to change the status quo. We believe that Mr. Alme will do that when needed. We will talk to him, and hopefully, when he’s over there, he will be able to uphold policies that change the status quo.

I think AFP has come out with policy statements over the last several months that do lay some of the explanation for the cost increase on tariffs, for instance, or the war in Iran. But at the end of the day, there’s a lot of systemic issues. And what is the alternative? What is Mr. Bodnar’s plan to reduce costs? Is Mr. Bodnar’s plan to embrace a free market approach where he eliminates tariffs, gets us out of Iran, lowers the spending at the federal government level, and ultimately cuts overspending? Or is he just going to double down and do more spending just under a different banner?

That’s kind of question that we have for Mr. Bodnar.

And again, [Alme] is a fiscal conservative. He understands at the end of the day that individuals know how to spend their money better than the government does. And so we believe he will do that.

And he has a track record to prove it. And again, his independent streak for doing the right thing is solid as a [US attorney].

[Correction: An earlier version of this interview described Mr. Alme as a judge, not a US attorney.]

Before we wrap up, you know, we started this chat in the Missoula Public Library, which you could argue represents an expansion of government.

What do you think about a publicly invested project like the library and, like, how do you think it should be funded?

Speaking personally, as Jesse Ramos, why do you think I voted against the public libraries? For one simple reason, and it’s because I don’t feel comfortable making spending decisions for somebody else. The public library is really nice. I’m paying for it out of my taxes. And here’s the thing: I’m blessed, very blessed that I can afford this.

[The old] Missoula public library, okay, it wasn’t super fancy. It was dated. Maybe we could have looked at just renovating that instead of building this Taj Mahal that signals that, hey, everybody here in Missoula is thriving and everybody here is rich, because this is what a rich city does. I think it’s one of the fanciest libraries in the United States.

But for the people that are struggling, and that’s kind of a slap in the face to build this Taj Mahal with their tax dollars when they can barely afford to pay the rent.

When Representative David Bedey and I first spoke, in 2023, he was already at odds with much of his own party. At the previous year’s state GOP Platform Convention, for instance, Bedey had sought to remove accusations of fraud in the 2020 election in Montana from the official party platform, and called for victims of rape and incest to be able to access abortions. The former proposed amendment was met with jeers, and both amendments were shot down. “This is not to say anything to disparage the people here, but the point I want to make is that this is not representative of the entire Republican Party,” Bedey told Montana Free Press at the time. “And it’s certainly not representative of the conservative or Republican views of the people in my district.”

In the subsequent years, the gulf between Bedey and the GOP has widened further; these days, the four-term lawmaker is effectively a pariah in his own party.

This spring, he is being primaried in his race for state Senate (District 43) by Representative Kathy Love, who has been endorsed by CPAC, the Montana Freedom Caucus and Americans for Prosperity, among others. In ads and in official party statements, Bedey’s GOP opponents have attacked both his voting record and his decision to hire Fireweed, a consulting firm whose president previously worked for the state Democratic Party.

In our wide-ranging interview — conducted shortly after an afternoon he spent engaged in debate with students at Hamilton High School — Bedey pushed back on the accusations regarding his voting record. He also threw shade at party leaders, from GOP state Chairman Art Wittich to Senate President Matt Regier, weighed in on Seth Bodnar’s Senate run and brought his military background to bear on the war in Iran.

Max: When you and I chatted last, it wasn’t long after you raised a bit of a ruckus at the Platform Convention. How has your relationship to the GOP evolved since then?

Rep. David Bedey: Yeah, well, it’s evolved in the following way: ever since Art Wittich was selected to be the new party chairman last June, the Montana State GOP headquarters has taken a decidedly different approach to how the party is going to move forward.

It has decided that the state party is going to do two things: number one, it’s going to develop the legislative agenda for the party for the upcoming legislative session. And then it’s also going to have a special committee that is going to vet candidates to ensure that they are true Republicans and are faithful to the party platform.

I remember the last time you and I spoke, you described the Republican Party as a big tent.

Ronald Reagan believed that the Republican Party should be a big tent. And by that, he meant it should be a place that’s congenial for anybody on the right. Back in his day, there were various versions of conservatives: fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, paleo conservatives. His notion was that the party should be broad enough to encompass all of those various, sometimes overlapping ideologies.

And at that time, the Democratic Party was also a big-tent party. There were moderate Democrats. There were even some Democrats that you could characterize as conservative Democrats.

Bottom line is, both parties were big-tent parties; any citizen could find a place in one party or the other.

What we [currently] see in Montana is something of a reflection of what’s going on nationally. Here we see both parties being more and more in the grips of what I’ll call the extreme fringes, whether it’s the ultra-progressive fringe or the Freedom Caucus / John Birch Society fringe.

Most Montanans, I think, would be best characterized as independents. They occupy ground that is near the middle; neither one of our parties is interested in representing the middle anymore.

The Democratic Party has run people out of its party, I know that for a fact. And I know a very good young Democrat legislator who left politics because of the abuse she received after crossing party lines on just a handful of votes. And what you see playing out on the Republican side is an effort by Art Wittich and his cronies to purge the Republican Party of people that won’t support the party line.

I think it’s really that simple. It’s really dangerous for our politics, because, to be honest with you, from what I can see, there is no interest in compromise between the factions that are controlling the two parties.

It’s an awful situation. And I am no longer recognized by the Montana GOP as being a Republican.

During the 2025 legislative session, nine Republicans in the Senate worked with Democrats to get what I would argue were some pretty moderate bills passed. Does that bipartisanship feel like an exception to the rule to you?

I’ll tell you my view on that. So what did they actually work together on that was of great import? One thing was an extension of Medicaid expansion, which, by the way, Governor Gianforte supported, as long as it had work requirements.

And you could also argue that President Trump supports it, because President Trump has had opportunities to kill Medicaid expansion. And he actually continued Medicaid expansion, but with federal work requirements, which, by the way, the federal work requirements look an awful lot like the ones that Montana put together in 2019.

I know it was a high-priority [issue] for Democrats, and it was also a high-priority thing for people on the right, including President Regier, who wanted to terminate Medicaid expansion for what I consider crass political reasons. They wanted to become famous for killing a program that serves the working poor.

You can check the statistics from the Department of Labor and Industry: the latest report shows that 72 percent of people on Medicaid expansion are working. Two-thirds of them are working full-time. It is not a program for bums. It’s a program for the working poor or disabled or single or primary caregivers, predominantly.

The other thing they worked on together was property tax reform. And that was also based upon work that the Governor’s Property Tax Task Force did.

There was bipartisan opposition to that, most of it coming from the Republicans. But if you take a look at people like the Democratic Minority Leader from the House, she was all about scuttling the bill as well. And the other key issue that that group in the Senate opposed is the introduction of partisan judge elections.

Those are the three major issues. In my view, it was a healthy exception to the hyper-partisanship that we’ve seen.

You used the phrase “crass politics” to describe President Regier’s opposition to Medicaid expansion. What do you mean by that?

I believe, in the run-up to the session, word was getting around that Republican Senate leadership sought to control the Legislature in part for the purpose of killing Medicaid expansion.

And if Montana had killed Medicaid expansion, it would have made national news. And so that’s what I mean by that. Now, I don’t actually have transcripts of this, but I have it on—the word was around.

And in fact, the entire dust-up about the nine senators who broke rank was really precipitated by a move made by President Regier and some of the people around him, notably Senator Zolnikoff from Billings, to engineer a committee structure within the Legislature that would allow them to control the flow of legislation, including Medicaid expansion, and bottle it up. So those nine people, they objected to the rigging of the committee assignments.

And so, as I see it, the nine joined the Democrats in order to set the committee membership straight. There’s this false narrative coming out of the Senate that somehow the Democrats ran the Senate; I think it’s absolutely false. But it’s good for stirring people up, I suppose.

You probably listened to some of the floor debate in the Senate; it was cringeworthy, to put it mildly. And all because the efforts of President Regier and Zolnikoff and several other people around them to rig the Senate committee membership so that they could exert undue control over the Legislature, and in fact be in a position to defy the governor.

That all came to an end on the first day of the session when a group of courageous people decided it was time to make sure that we had functioning committees that would ensure that all bills got a fair hearing rather than having bills held hostage; there’s no doubt in my mind that that’s exactly what was the intent.

And when that intent was thwarted on the first day, I would have thought that Regier and company would have simply accepted the fact that their plan was thwarted and would move on with doing business, but instead they behaved in a way that can only be called petulantly for weeks, if not the entire session.

It had the effect of slowing down legislation. It had the effect of really complicating our efforts to give property tax relief to Montana homeowners, which didn’t pass until the last day of the session and should have passed sometime in February.

Of course, the nine have been excommunicated from the party, and now I guess 17 or 18 of us have been excommunicated or are no longer recognized by the party.

My view on that is I don’t recognize the party’s authority to tell me whether I’m a Republican or not.

Leave a comment

A few minutes ago you said that the two parties by and large represent the extremes more than the middle. With that in mind, what do you make of Mr. Bodnar’s run for Senate?

I know Mr. Bodnar a bit. During the Legislature, I had him in front of my education budget committee, the Joint Appropriations Committee for Education. And so I got to know him in that respect, and I also saw him in Missoula a number of times having to do with some local issues with respect to Bitterroot College and that sort of thing.

I hold Seth Bodnar in high regard. I think he’s an excellent man. In my mind, he did good things at the University of Montana. And of course, Seth and I have a common bond based on the fact that we were military officers.

His run for the Senate is interesting because I think it is an expression of frustration that we have with the status quo in terms of the parties. We see the dysfunction in Washington.

And all you have to do is take a look at George Washington’s farewell address when he [addressed] factions, political parties, and how much of a danger they could pose. My argument there is as long as they’re broad parties, big tent parties, that problem is mitigated. But Washington’s concerns have come home to roost.

With respect to Seth Bodnar’s run, my only thought there is I’m not sure that the time is quite ripe yet because just of all of the turmoil at the national level and the great deal of animosity that’s felt amongst people, I’m not sure that the timing is right. But I think that Seth Bodnar’s run as an independent is an expression of... How do I want to say this? I think it is a legitimate reaction to the failure of both political parties. Whether he can pull this off or not, I don’t know.

And of course, from a political standpoint in Congress, being an independent without a caucus makes for a pretty tough life. But I commend his courage in making this run because I’m confident that his motivations are driven by the same kind of concerns that I have about the danger to our Republic that is the result of the failure of both of our major political parties.

If the two major parties really are that dysfunctional, shouldn’t this be an opportune time for him to run?

We are in an unusual political time with, on one side, the MAGA faction, and on the other side, the anti-Trump faction, who are both very dug in in their positions. And much of the political messaging going on is coming from those kinds of voices.

Let’s talk about some of these allegations that have been raised against you during this campaign. Can you give readers some big-picture context there?

Here’s the big-picture point. There have been a number of different allegations made against me, challenges to my voting records specifically, against me and several other people.

Usually the presentation looks exactly the same. It’s just a different name and a different face on the radio ad or whatever. It started in October with attacks coming from Americans for Prosperity in the name of accountability and voter education.

I’ve been attacked for blowing up the state budget, for allowing illegal aliens to get driver’s licenses, for allowing cities to spend like drunken sailors, to advocating for TIF reform, which is ripping people off. And most recently, it’s been DEI, wokeness, transgender issue that they seem to be really focusing on as the ballots have come out. And I will tell you that every single thing that they have represented about my voting record has been a gross distortion of the record, and in some cases have been outright lies.

I’ll give you one example: The driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, well, really, if you actually look at the bill, you’ll see it’s a bill to have a two-year driving permit to non-citizens who have proven with documented proof that they’re in the country legally. And they must also show proof of insurance and pass Montana driver’s tests. So it has nothing to do with illegal aliens, and yet that’s the way it’s portrayed because immigration’s a hot-button issue for Republican voters.

But the hottest button issue is the transgender issue. And in the case of the transgender issue, if you want, I can rehearse the same arguments I made in [a recent Facebook] video. Let’s just say the bills that they cited were bills for a grant program for small entities all across the state to give them operating cash between $10,000 and $20,000.

If you look up House Bill 9 you’ll see is it just a list of entities. They might be libraries, museums, Hamilton Playhouse is there, that’s a theater group, all across the state. And it shows the name of the entity and the amount of money that they’re being granted to support their operations.

Doesn’t mention DEI, doesn’t mention transgender, doesn’t mention wokeness. And if you look a little further, this bill comes up every year because it’s part of a program that’s been in place since 1979.

The recommendations come from the Governor’s Arts Council. So if I’m guilty of this, I guess he’s complicit in it as well. But the fact is there’s no mention of any of that because we don’t fund specific projects or doing, we’re giving them operating cash. But the real hypocrisy in this and another part of the lie is that most in 2023, all Republicans, not all Republicans, but a majority of Republicans voted for the bill.

In 2025 on second reading, which as you know, is the key vote between the House and the Senate, a majority of Republican legislators voted for the bill. And Dan Bartel, the treasurer of the PAC that is running this against me, I think it’s Accountability in State Government, was in the Legislature in 2023. He voted for it.

They are representing House Bill 9 incorrectly. And if they’re going to prosecute me for that, they should be prosecuting a number of other people, including the treasurer of the organization who is putting out these slanderous ads.

At least one other out-of-state PAC that’s picking up on this transgender issue [has circulated] a rather crude card with a scalpel, indicating that I voted for continuing a program that allows surgical procedures on minors.

And the bill that they put forward for that is Medicaid expansion, continuation. Medicaid expansion is for people 19 through 64. Last time I checked, those aren’t minors. Because there is so much concern about this particular issue amongst many Republican primary voters, they’ve chosen to take this issue and make it the central attack on me and several others across as many others across the state. It’s a fabrication.

More recently, we’ve been attacked for doing business with [Fireweed], a quote unquote Democrat consulting firm. Last time I checked, when I go to the barber, I don’t ask my barber what political party they’re in. If I go to my accountant, ditto.

I have never had to have a consultant before. In the face of the withering attacks that I was facing, well-funded, something I couldn’t compete with dollar for dollar, I needed some professional help. I went to a Montana firm.

I’ve been very satisfied with their work. The fact that the party thinks that they can tell me who I can do business with, I think is nonsense. To characterize Fireweed as a Democrat organization is absolute nonsense.

I know that the president of the company has been affiliated with the Democratic Party. My suspicion is that Lauren is also on the outs with her party, too, because she represents Republicans. Which way is it? Is she a turncoat Democrat who is working with Republicans, or is she a Democrat that somehow I’m a Democrat? It doesn’t make any sense.

I’m not going to be bullied into being forced to not do business with certain people. I’m not going to be bullied into this preposterous notion that I have accepted millions or billions of dollars from left-wing organizations. It makes no sense.

In terms of independent expenditures made by PACs, there are some that are popping up on my side. I’m gratified to see a couple of positive flyers in the mail.

I’ll have a couple of my own. I can’t afford that much. There are PACs that that are supporting me and the other traditional conservative Republicans.

Do you think the war in Iran has the potential to be a liability for the GOP in some of these state and local races? Or enough to tip the scales?

I think that [could probably have more impact] in the congressional races, not the legislative races.

But my view of this from a national security standpoint and from a military standpoint is quite different than my view on what it means politically for domestic politics.

Can you explain that distinction a little more?

Well, I take a look at the war in Iran. In my view, this is not shared by everyone, but my view is that war with Iran was highly likely in the future. I think it would become more likely if the Iranians secured a nuclear weapon. And I think that eliminating, not just setting back, but eliminating their nuclear weapons program, I think was eventually going to have to happen.

Some people say, well, we’ve had decades of hearing that they’re on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon and they haven’t got it yet, so this is just another lie. I don’t think it is. I think that they have the technological sophistication to deliver that and all they need is to build up their infrastructure to make it happen.

So the bottom line is, I believe that war was highly likely, if not inevitable. I would rather preempt Iran rather than be in a reactive mode once they have a nuclear weapon.

I’ve been out of the army for a long time, but I studied national security affairs at the Naval War College and the Army War College, so I remember some of the stuff I was taught and have thought about. I think that the unrest in Iran amongst the Iranian population that was pretty widespread a few months ago, presented an opportunity. I think that perhaps, and I have no insight in this, perhaps that’s what prompted President Trump to act. The only thing I would say that is, if that is the rationale, then he acted too late.

But now we find ourselves at war with Iran. Some people might have a different euphemism for that, but it looks like a war to me.

Last question for you — is there anything that would make you switch parties and become an Independent?

Well, in terms of immediate service in the Legislature, I mean, I’m a Republican. The Republican Party is the only political party that represents conservatives at all.

I don’t think the time is right to get elected as an Independent. And if you’re an Independent, if you don’t caucus with one party or the other, you’re going to be just pretty much out of committees and not wield very much influence.

I would rather stay engaged in the Republican Party and try to pull the party back from the brink that it’s on right now. Wittich and his supporters are trying to redefine what Republicanism is and in fact, what conservatism is. They have a very narrow right-wing ideology that if you don’t adhere to that, then you’re no longer Republican or you’re no longer even a conservative.

I absolutely reject that characterization. I think that we need the Republican Party for its own good and for the good of the country and the good of the state needs to recover its roots and its roots are Lincoln-Reagan roots. And part of that entails becoming or returning to being a big-tent party.

And I encourage my Democrat friends to take a close look in the mirror at where their party is going and what it has become and implore them to broaden the Democratic Party so that for the good of all of us, we have two parties in which any Montanan can find a political home because right now, many of us Montanans are becoming politically homeless.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Two years after he ran for governor, Ryan Busse is back, and campaigning in a four-way Democratic primary for the Congressional seat being vacated by Ryan Zinke.

The tenor of Busse’s campaign seems, at least at face value, pretty similar to his last one — impassioned calls for progressive policies while lambasting and trolling the GOP. But even if Busse himself hasn’t changed much, the political dynamics of western Montana feel a bit less calcified than they did two years ago. Heck, if you’d told me in 2024 that a Democrat could become mayor of Kalispell in 2025 (albeit in a three-way race), I would’ve called bullshit.

No matter which candidates win their respective primaries, the race for MT-01 has the potential to be more competitive than either Busse’s run for governor or that year’s Zinke/Tranel matchup, due to headwinds the GOP is facing. Gas prices are up (as of this writing), and a majority of Americans aren’t onboard with the conflict in Iran. Statistically speaking, the party that controls the White House tends to lose seats in the midterms. Trump isn’t on the ballot. And none of the GOP contenders, with the debatable exception of Dr. Al Olszewski, possess much of Zinke’s affability. (That all being said, the Cook Political Report currently rates the race as “Likely R.”)

I recently sat down with Busse in Missoula to dig into his campaign priorities and why he sees this moment as being particularly politically malleable. Our conversation soon branched out, covering everything from his endorsement from Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego to the need to balance antagonism and positivity on the campaign trail. We also talked about GOP primary candidate and radio host (and Chat House alum) Aaron Flint, who Busse sees as the shoo-in candidate, as well as Jon Tester’s claim that the Democratic brand is “poison.”

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Max: It’s maybe not the cheeriest note to start on, but I was hoping you could take me back to the end of your 2024 campaign. When it was over, did you feel like you wanted to get back into politics right away? What was going on in your head?

Ryan Busse: Almost immediately, two things: One, I felt probably like a lot of people who are reading this — it was a dark time after that election day. Of course, the race I ran in, we lost, but it felt like the nation had just made a pretty drastic shift.

Sara and I and my boys—we’ve listened to Montana Public Radio every morning for, I don’t know, 25 years. Literally every morning. And starting the day after the election, nothing was on in the house: the radio wasn’t on, the news wasn’t on, and I think we went 30 or 40 days without listening or watching any news. It was just a little bit shocking and jarring.

At the same time, I almost immediately thought that there was going to be another big task at hand and that there was going to be a big negative reaction to what was about to happen. And so it wasn’t long after the election, even as shocked as we all felt, that I thought, “We got something here; we should probably think about what we do with it next.”

Why did you want to run in this race, specifically?

I think Democrats have been insufficiently focused on winning elections where they must be won. And I looked at this race and I thought that just demographically, it’s a race that Democrats can win. And in a midterm like 2026, it’s the kind of race we should win, right? And if we want to have a healthy democracy where we don’t just have blue seats on one coast and the other coast, but we have purple and blue districts spread throughout the country, this is an important one.

I looked at it like, this is the most winnable race in the state for Democrats. We deserve representation in D.C. I don’t feel like most Montanans have had representation in Washington, D.C. the last few years. I don’t think Zinke has represented most Montanans.

What do you mean by that?

I believe that Zinke and many in his party have decided that only a small sliver of Americans, or Montanans in this case, deserve representation. And for the most part, those tend to be wealthier, more powerful individuals. And all the folks who live here, work here, make the place go — the cops and mechanics and nurses — they don’t have lobbyists in the Capitol all the time. They don’t have fancy attorneys.

I look at this one sort of legislative achievement of the Republicans in the past few months, the “Big Beautiful Bill”—it’s difficult for me to say that because I don’t find it beautiful. But it’s very clear to me who has the influence there. If you’re a billionaire or Elon Musk and you got big tax breaks, you obviously had influence there. But everyday people on Medicaid? They didn’t seem to have any influence. People who need SNAP? They didn’t seem to have any influence. People who need ACA tax credits? They didn’t seem to have any influence. These are all things that impact the vast majority of folks who live and work here.

If that’s the case, if people really don’t feel represented, why can’t Democrats win more races in this state?

Yeah, good question. I think the truth is that in the Trump years, culture warring and the sort of divisive rhetoric and this angry fever that has been laid over all of us has been effective politically.

Now when I speak to voters, they’re freaked out because they’re worried about their healthcare expense going up, they can’t afford to live here. I mean, Sara and I were lucky enough to come to this state 31 years ago, and it was a place that gave me a chance, and it was a place you could make your way. We were lucky; it was just a timing thing. And now it feels like that’s changed. I have sensed a real dramatic shift in that the culture warring stuff just doesn’t come up when I’m talking to voters, even crossover and Republican voters now.

The lived experience of people is different and seemingly more dire now than it was two years ago, and I think that’s changed the political reality here.

Every campaign cycle I think about the famous James Carville line, you know, “It’s the economy, stupid” and how much weight it really carries. Do you feel like that argument carries weight this cycle?

I think it’s more than that. It is the economy…his statement is largely correct, right? Whether you can afford groceries or not is an existential thing. Whether you can pay rent or not is an existential thing.

But it’s also why it’s happened. President Trump laid tariffs all over everyone. It’s made groceries more expensive. In the Flathead where I live, it’s driven Canadian tourism into the tank. Zinke, Daines, Sheehy, Downing — they have only cheered it, supported it. And for what? We can do so much better than this. We really can.

I want to talk about the balance between addressing problems and offering solutions during the campaign. It feels to me that in your race, in virtually every race I’m following right now, it’s much more of the former than the latter.

Look, the truth is, for the next two years in Congress, it is going to be largely about stopping bad policies from progressing and reversing some of the damage that’s happened. That much is true. I think we also have to understand as Democrats we have to offer a bigger affirmative vision for things, not just that we want to stop and correct, but things that we want to accomplish.

Here’s a good example: I’m running hard on universal healthcare. I think we’re 50 years behind the curve as a country on universal healthcare. Even now I talk to a lot of Republicans and crossover voters, they don’t quite have a moniker for what they want the program to be called, but they’re done with whatever this insanity that we’re living under is, you know? We’re spending twice as much money as most industrialized countries, and we’re kicking people off coverage all the time. We have people living with 10 and 15 thousand dollar copays. It’s just craziness.

Yes, I’m criticizing the fact we haven’t instituted universal healthcare, but I’m fighting for it. And I think we should, as Democrats, be honest that much of the reason we don’t have it in this country is because some Democrats have been insufficiently courageous about fighting for it. Even though I think a lot of them know it has to happen, politically, they just haven’t led on it. And I don’t blame voters for being pissed about that. I mean, I’m pissed about it.

In March, that Tester memo leaked, saying that the Democratic brand is “poison.” How did that sit with you?

I know the memo of which you speak. If there are problems with the Democratic brand, and some voters feel that, then I feel it’s incumbent on me to not just whine about it or wring my hands about it, but to help change what the Democratic brand is.

I look around in groups of Democrats and I explain, there is no overarching “the party.” There’s us. There’s people. There’s candidates. There’s voters. We make up the party. And so if we want it to be something different and to have a different brand, then let’s run, or advocate, or knock doors, or whatever, in a different way. And I’m trying to be that.

I disagree…I believe a Democrat can win statewide, but we have to run as a Montana Democrat and we have to do things, not just say them. And I think we have to be courageous and unapologetic about criticizing national party messaging or policies that don’t match with voters in this district. I mean, I believe in the principles and values of the Democratic party, but there are sometimes the approaches of national Democrats that just don’t—man, they just don’t fly here, you know? And so being honest about that with voters is really important.

What’s an example of that for you?

Universal healthcare is one of them. We run around telling everybody there’s a healthcare crisis. I think most people know what needs to be done, and then we’re like, “Well, okay, let’s not really do it.” Well, no wonder voters find us disingenuous, right? Because we say the house is on fire and they’re like, “Well, we don’t want to get the bucket of water.”

I think of housing costs, too. Democrats run around talking about this big word of “affordability.” That’s just a big catch-all word. If we really are worried about all that stuff, then why aren’t we stepping on the gas of things like first-time homebuyer assistance and locking in low interest rates for homebuyers? And figuring out some sort of rental assistance program? Because most people—I mean, my son lives here in Missoula and he’s struggling to make rent. We talk about all these programs; well, let’s do something about them.

If you win the Democratic primary, which Republican would you prefer to run against in the general?

I really don’t have a preference. It seems to me that the GOP hierarchy has selected Flint as the person they think can and should be their candidate. They’ve put all their endorsements and a ton of money behind him. So I guess that’s who they’ve selected. They’ll duke it out in their primary and we’ll see what happens.

I remember maybe it was either right before or right after you and I spoke last, you went on Aaron’s show.

I did, yeah. I’ve been on there three times [during the gubernatorial campaign].

What were your takeaways from spending a decent chunk of time with him?

There isn’t a far-right or MAGA talking point or conspiracy or bad idea that he’s not embraced and propagated and cheered. I literally don’t think there’s a single one. And he has lived an existence on his radio program where he gets to control the literal physical space—who calls, what the talking points are, when they get cut off, what sort of pejoratives he yells, all of that. And perhaps that works as a distraction technique and an angering technique for the small slice of folks that are his listenership. But that’s not the district, and that’s not the way politics works — you don’t get to like tell people what to think, you don’t get to control the space, you don’t get to cut voters off like you do callers, you don’t get to pick the topics that are important to people. And so I think there’s a new reality about ready to sink in with him. That’s my gut.

Do you think he’s a curious person? Like, do you think he actually cared about what you had to say?

No. No, I think his goal is to, quote-unquote, “own the libs” at every turn and to toe whatever party line there is—not to be curious or not to find solutions. I think there has been political mileage by folks on the right gained in angering people and diverting people, dreaming up culture war topics to pit people against each other. I’m not saying it hasn’t been successful in some political realms, but I just think we’re in a different time now when people’s lived experience is like, “Come on, man. I can’t make rent and you’re yelling at me about communism?” It just seems shallow and sort of juvenile.

You’ve been out on the road for a minute now. Is there anything in particular you’ve heard from voters that’s really thrown you for a loop?

I’ve been really—I hate to say heartened because it’s such an ugly issue—but the resonance of Epstein and how much resonance it has with centrist and Republican voters. Like, I knew it was motivating to Democratic voters, but it’s really motivating to Republicans.

So I’ve been a little bit surprised and heartened that those basic questions of morality have a much farther-reaching resonance with voters across the political aisle than I first thought. Like, you did release or you did not release the files? Did you start a war with Iran or you did not start a war with Iran?

Let’s say you get elected. What’s the Congressional committee you’d want to serve on?

Oh man…I hate to put carts before horses. I’m not sure which the best committee would be. I really want to tackle two things: universal healthcare, and I’m really passionate about conservation, environment, and public lands. So I want to work in those two areas, whichever committees are best positioned to wrestle with those two things.

And Oversight, too. I think oversight’s a huge deal. And I’m frustrated with our previous Democratic administration that I think exercised far too little oversight and far too little prosecutorial discretion. And I don’t think we can heal from this as a country if some of the lawlessness that’s going on now is not dealt with in a criminal fashion.

I’m pretty sure I’m picking up what you’re putting down. But at the risk of putting too fine a point on it, what’s top of mind for you?

The American people are being crypto-scammed every day. We’re selling pardons every day. It seems to me like the entire federal government has been reorganized into a for-profit venture for a small number of people. I sort of pejoratively joke that this would be the most corrupt administration if it were in Nigeria. But it’s not Nigeria, it’s here.

And so I think, again, if Democrats—if we say all this stuff, then we should be ready to treat it with that level of seriousness. And if there has been lawless corruption, then it should be prosecuted, and Congress should stand up and do its job and insist that it be prosecuted wherever it leads. And the Epstein files—I don’t care if they’re former, current, or future presidents, if they’re in there and they abused girls and young women and they trafficked people, they should be in prison. Period.

Who’s a Republican member of Congress you would be particularly interested in working with?

I guess I would say Massie. It’s funny—I disagree with him on so much policy, but I gotta give it to him: he’s been courageous bucking his party on the Epstein thing. Him and Ro Khanna—and I know Ro’s not a Republican, but you know, I appreciate the relationship they’ve forged to try to do the right thing.

I’ve seen you on Twitter, LinkedIn, who knows, talking a little bit about AI and data centers. Are you a techno-optimist? Do you see positive uses of AI? Or do you think we’re just fucked?

I do see some potential. The part that gives me hope is when somebody says, “Maybe we figure out fusion energy [with AI].” Or I have a couple friends who are doctors that tell me AI can do two things probably: over time diagnose ailments much better than humans can over time, and perhaps find cures for ailments that we don’t have time to run the all the clinical trials on. So I’m hopeful on those kind of large-scale techno-outcomes.

I’m really freaking scared about the way it’s going to upend workforce. I’m worried about the way it’s going to suck up electricity. I’m worried about what it might do to water supply, especially in a place like this. I think on balance I’m probably a little more worried about it than I am optimistic. But I mean, how could you not have some sort of level of optimism if it ends up helping in the long term with the climate crisis and clean energy? I know there’s people that think it can, so I’m hopeful of that.

I’m one of them, for what that’s worth.

On a related note, like there’s a lot of conversation and friction right now around data centers coming to Montana. What would you like to see Congress do to handle data centers?

I think it’s really dangerous to see this level and this speed of development without regulatory sideboards. And I’m very dubious of an industry that basically has enough money to rush in and do things extremely quickly and at the same time fight legislative efforts on regulatory sideboards.

You did a fundraiser with Senator Gallego recently—how did you guys get connected?

We heard that he was coming to speak at the Mansfield Metcalf dinner. So we reached out and just started a conversation with him, and he said he wanted to endorse in races that were important, in candidates that could win in generals. And so we said, “Hey, that’s us!” And so he studied up on us and we had a few chats, and we had that event and he did endorse us.

You guys stay in touch?

Yeah. He’s a good guy. He’s kind of like me; doesn’t pull too many punches, and his filter’s pretty thin. What he thinks comes out pretty quickly.

Is there a difference between the way you ran your 2024 campaign and this one?

Yeah, a couple things. I think it’s really important that we raise money and conserve money and use it to communicate [via] digital or TV or whatever. We were unable to do that in our gubernatorial because of the expense of media during the Senate race here. We’re being very careful about how we spend money—we’re conserving money so we can do that. That’s one lesson.

[In 2024] we spent a lot of time running on property tax issues. They were important to us and I believed they would resonate with voters, but I think we were a little ahead of the voters on that—they cared about other stuff. And that taught me: be where the voters are. It just so happens that now, I feel frightened and fortunate at the same time because the stuff that is animating me and so many people is exactly where the voters are. There seems to be an alignment that’s much better, messaging-wise, for us now, so I think we’re fortunate there. But I did learn that lesson.

And the other thing I think is—you already asked this—but putting a punch on your opposition is important. Pointing out the divergence between me and Gianforte or me and whoever wins the Republican nomination is important. But we also have to offer something affirmative, and I think it’s really important that Democrats do that. And we didn’t do enough of that in the gubernatorial, and I think we need to do more of that here.

This kind of feels like asking a band to pick their other favorite band, but who’s a candidate running for any office in Montana that you just feel really excited about?

Here’s a good one—he just ran and won, but we have a new mayor, Ryan Hunter, in Kalispell. And I’ve known him for a long time and I’ve been to a lot of his campaign events. And he inspires me; he’s been unapologetically progressive. He’s never backed down from his values, he’s put his neck on the line lots of times for working folks and disadvantaged people in Kalispell, and he still, you know, he wins his election up there. That was a pretty exciting night. He’s not running right now, but he just ran and won.

It’s not uncommon that you see a Democrat get beat in a race that we worked for. And I woke up and I told Sara, “Holy shit, he won!” It was great—it was pretty exciting to see that and that felt like a harbinger of whatever good things to come here.

Last question for you: is there anything you feel is missing from the larger discourse—the way media covers politics in western Montana right now?

I think the importance of this seat is under-appreciated right now. I think the odds are that there might be election interference in blue cities, blue states. I think there’s maybe some false hope about how easy Democrats may take back the majority. And I really believe it could come down to a race like this, a seat like this. We are running this race as if the future of the state and maybe the future of democracy depends on winning this thing because I think if Democrats don’t take back the majority in the House, the next two years are going to be very damn dark in this country. And it doesn’t feel to me like the press—whatever the press is now— I don’t think like we have really properly grasped the gravity and importance of this thing and what it can mean to the state and the country.

Welcome to Big Sky Chat House—a newsletter about arts, culture and politics in Montana.

If you found this email in your Promotions folder, please move it to your Primary inbox! That will make it easier to find down the road, and teach Gmail to send it to other subscribers’ Primary inboxes as well.

Spend a few minutes immersed in the ever-growing discography of the Butte rapper 2 Dolla Will and you will likely hear a brief, recurring snippet of Jeff Steitzer, demanding, with the gravitas of a deity and no small amount of menace, that you “go back to Bozeman.”

The suggestion is not meant kindly, and its implications are far from flattering. These days, even a Missoula yuppie such as myself can relate to 2 Dolla’s populist angst; wandering past the $1,000 cowboy boots on display at the Luchesse store, stewing in the hard-edged pretension that hangs over Shan like a fart, navigating cocktail bars that radiate about as much cheer as a Soviet dentist office, it can be easy to feel like you don’t belong in Bozeman. (That all being said, Mountains Walking remains my favorite brewery in Montana, a true bastion of warmth, with impeccable calzones to boot.)

And so, when I stumbled across Umvelt, an Instagram-friendly Russian bathhouse that opened late last year behind the Lark Hotel, I booked a $60 session with at least a mild twinge of trepidation. (The business’s slogan — “Feel what’s real” — doesn’t do it any favors.)

Yet I am a bit of a fanatic when it comes to a good schvitz. Some people like to track down historical landmarks when they travel. Others go in search of the best local coffee. I like to find a sauna.

The sauna’s benefits are known, and I’ll spare you the details, as you’ve likely either experienced them yourself, or you have a friend who evangelizes the Teachings of Huberman. But I believe that a sauna holds extra worth when you’re on the road; it can serve as a refuge, a place to stabilize and refresh, a neutral, tech-free space where the mind can wander and rest.

That’s exactly what I found at Umvelt.

A bathhouse can, if not carefully minded, become a recipe for superlative grossness: Water pools on the floor. Paint peels from the walls, pulled down by its own soggy weight. Chaos abounds as sweaty, steaming bodies big and small vie for space in cramped, sizzling hot rooms, their collective, herd-like heat leaving you feeling like you’ve forked over your hard-earned cash only to get wedged inside a life-sized petri dish.

Yet Umvelt, blessedly, negates all of these unsavory situations.

From the moment you change into your (required) swimsuit in a stylish and subdued dressing room suffused with sandalwood, the otherworldly sounds of Nala Sinephro wafting in the air, the staff’s attention to sanitation is hard to miss.

The bathhouse itself — accessed down a flight of wide, wooden stairs lined with rich tapestries and through a red-paned glass door — is arranged around a warm pool and cold plunge. A bank of showers are tucked into one corner. Despite a constant parade of bodies tracking water every which way, this open space remains pretty dry, thanks to the constant presence of black-clad staffers, squeegeeing all of that water down a series of drains like benevolent Squid Games Circles. Granted, Umvelt had opened only weeks before I visited, but the saunas themselves, accessed off of the main pool room, were also pristine.

Entry to Umvelt is staggered; a limited number of guests are admitted ever thirty minutes. As a result, the saunas and pools are hardly crowded. I visited on the Sunday afternoon of a holiday weekend, yet I still spent a long stretch alone in the three-tiered dry sauna. Over in the fiercely hot “Event Sauna," dimly-lit in tones of red and gold, seven of us had space to all lie down and sink into our own thoughts; the scene reminded me of a seance in Dune, or of being placed in deep sleep on a spaceship bound for some distant planet.

Umvelt requests that you leave your phone in your locker, and that you keep most of your talking to the central pool area. Those rules were followed closely by all — much to the relief of my inner Larry David— and my fellow sweaters, some of whom had donned goofy black Umvelt banya hats, were uniformly friendly, unhurried and respectful of the quiet that infused the space.

Umvelt offers something rare in Bozeman (and, perhaps, yes, in the wider world, too): luxury without ostentation, the feeling of treating yourself without breaking the bank. You could do a lot worse with sixty bucks in that town, and I will happily pay up again anytime I find myself there.

The Baltimore-to-Montana pipeline is not, in my estimation, particularly robust. But on the rare occasion I bump into someone else who has once called Charm City home, the conversation quickly turns to impeccably raunchy dive bars and ad hoc music festivals and buck-a-shuck oysters, all recalled and relished with sugar-high giddiness — it’s not dissimilar from watching fellow-Montanans encounter each other in the wider world, but with more emphasis on seafood. Because for all the challenges it faces, and its less-than-flattering depictions on HBO, Baltimore remains a singularly welcoming, exciting and inclusive American city; fertile ground for creative types of all stripes whose cumulative work has long buoyed a wide ecosystem of weirdness and delight. If there’s any other place in the world where Norman Maclean’s proud assessment of western Montana — “The world is full of bastards, the number increasing rapidly the further one gets from Missoula" — rings true for me, it’s Baltimore.

A few years ago, the artist William Rockwell Ryerson, who makes music under the moniker Giant Wave, moved from Baltimore to Billings. And he has, to my ear, brought his hometown’s air of unencumbered artistic freedom with him. While his past work — warm, chill indie-pop — certainly has an experimental streak, the new “EP 3,” his first release written after moving to the Treasure State, radiates a particularly unpretentious and joyful sense of experimentation.

These three songs bob from style to style, picking up instruments and moods and quickly letting them go, like a wave collecting stones as it reaches shore. Take the second track, “Dream Liver.” It starts with a gorgeous, intricate acoustic guitar line that brings to mind the virtuoso William Tyler. Soon, however, it veers into a buzzing, synth-driven stomp before shifting, again, into a meditative, cyclical vocal melody fringed by psychedelic woodwinds. Or listen to the guitar solo that burns its way like acid through the otherwise dulcet “Shadow + Light” — no matter how many times I listen to the song, the solo manages to catch me off guard.

If these songs have a through-line, it’s their tenderness, embodying the coziness and insularity of a Montana winter (although calling the past two months “winter” feels a bit disingenuous, the weather having been as impotent as Matt Regier’s tenure as Senate President). In an era of exhausting bravado, Ryerson’s inward-facing intimacy hits like a gust of fresh air. “It’s like I left the world behind,” he sings, serenely, on “Shadow + Light.” It’s hard to say whether he’s referring to his move to Montana, or maybe just taking a break from Politico, but no matter; listening along, the sentiment is mutual.

Welcome to Big Sky Chat House—a newsletter about arts, culture and politics in Montana.

If you found this email in your Promotions folder, please move it to your Primary inbox! That will make it easier to find down the road, and teach Gmail to send it to other subscribers’ Primary inboxes as well.

In heady times, I believe, it’s advisable to let hedonism take the wheel and steer. And truly, what higher manifestation of decadence exists in Missoula than an afternoon spent devouring a pile of juicy and extraordinarily flavorful chicken wings at the Camino bar, a house margarita clutched in your sticky, saucy fingers?

Although the Missoula mainstay restaurant has gained a reputation for its pricer fare (I’d argue that the $50 whole fried snapper gives any top-shelf entree in town a run for its money), the happy hour offers some more budget-friendly options.

The star of the show? Without a doubt, the serrano pepper-laden, sweet and tangy wings. At $8 for a half order and $14 for a whole, I’m gonna call them a steal.

And to be clear, I remain an eternal ally of Missoula’s most well-known purveyor of buffalo wings, Desperado’s; the beloved sports bar whips up the platonic embodiment of the stuff. Yet Camino’s take offers something funkier that you aren’t going to find anywhere else in town.

Beyond an impressive tenderness and light fry, the wings boast an attention-grabbing mix of flavors. As co-owner and operator Tad Hilton explains, the wing sauce contains a blend of chiles, vinegar and agave. The sauce gets reduced and thickened before it’s coated on the wings. Its zesty tang is offset by the buoyant creaminess of what Camino calls “gabacho” dipping sauce. A mildly derogatory term for foreigners, the restaurant employs “gabacho” as a euphemism for ranch dressing, which they make from scratch with a touch of roasted garlic.

The wings are the unquestionable Dwight Schrute of the happy hour cast, but other highlights abound. The crisp and fresh house margaritas go for seven dollars; it’s the best boozey bang for your buck in downtown Missoula. Plus, Modelos and cans of Western Cider’s El Dorado and Ranch Hand go for three bucks a pop. The $11 guacamole is less of a bargain, but it’s among the richest and silkiest I’ve ever tasted.

My only bone to pick with the whole operation? Happy hour only runs from 3 to 5 PM. So, cancel that meeting, ditch the after-work hike and give yourself a taste of the good life. You won’t regret it.

One more thing…

In late February, my colleagues at the “Political Climate” podcast and I journeyed to Big Sky to record an episode of the show live at the Winterfest conference. The (ultra-bougie) annual event brings together leaders in clean energy and finance, and the organizers asked us to curate a panel focused on moving projects forward during the Trump Administration. We were lucky to have two Republicans—energy regulation whiz and former Montana PSC Commissioner Travis Kavulla, as well as Rich Powell, CEO of the Clean Energy Buyers Association—join the conversation to discuss the challenges and opportunities of AI-driven energy load growth, the clean energy projects they think will flourish during Trump’s term and their advice for companies struggling to navigate the chaos.

You can check out the episode here!

Welcome to Big Sky Chat House—a newsletter about arts, culture and politics in Montana.

If you found this email in your Promotions folder, please move it to your Primary inbox! That will make it easier to find down the road, and teach Gmail to send it to other subscribers’ Primary inboxes as well.

On Monday morning, then-state Representative Ron Marshall posted a surprising message on X. “I will be resigning from my position as representative for Montana House District 87, effective at 12 noon today,” he wrote. “The corruption is more than I can stand. Lobbyists run this country. [The] people have no voice.”

Marshall, a third-term Republican lawmaker, made his decision following moves by the Legislature to regulate—and, arguably, handicap—the vape industry, in which he is directly invested: Marshall owns two vape shops in Montana.

Most significantly, in late February, the House Taxation Committee advanced HB 525. The bill was endorsed by tobacco powerhouses Altria and RJ Reynolds, and cleared the committee unanimously despite broad opposition from vape shop owners and employees across the state. The bill intends to limit unregulated products; it would only permit products approved by the FDA and registered by the Montana Attorney General. Currently, only 34 products meet the FDA qualification.

Yet Marshall argues that his decision to resign was about more than policy. Read on as he digs into the bills that impact the vape industry, as well as the accusations of corruption that he cited in his announcement and claims of personal attacks that he says compelled him to leave the Legislature.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Max: Can you tell me about how you got into the vape industry?

Ron Marshall: It started in 2013. My wife had a respiratory infection. Both of us had been smoking for 30 years plus. As any former smoker can tell you, when you can't have a cigarette, they call it jonesing. Finally somebody told her, hey, you might want to try one of these electric cigarettes. They were pretty new to the market back then. After 13 days, everything was cleared up and she tried to light a cigarette and was like, yuck.

I was still smoking at the time. I drove for an oilfield outfit in Billings. I'm like, if it worked for her, maybe it'll work for me. So I started using one. It took me about ten days, and then I was done [with cigarettes]. I’d tried patches and gum and all that garbage, and it never worked.

We were sitting around talking one night, and I told her, why don't you just open up a shop? You couldn't get anything here then; everything was online and you weren't sure [about the products you would] buy online…buyer beware. We scraped together some money and opened up a little storefront down in Belgrade.

It took a couple years. We built it up, and we opened a second location, and it just took off. It got busy enough that I came off the road and started doing it full time.

What impact do you think the new bill, HB 525, could have on the industry?

I was in the room [during the hearing]. I didn't testify, but I listened. What the shop owners were saying, that's the absolute truth. It would close down every vape store in Montana. If the only products left are that of Big Tobacco, well, people are gonna have two choices. You either use their product or you go back to smoking. And most people that have gone to vaping did that to get away from smoking. By wiping all that out, the state is opening itself up to a regulatory takings lawsuit, which is already happening in other states where they passed this bill, by the way.

It's a bill written by Big Tobacco for Big Tobacco. [Before the hearing], I did approach one of the members on the committee, and I said, ‘Hey, just do an amendment to ban all disposables. The legitimate vape shops will be happier than heck with that.

That bill is an industry killer.

The bill would only allow FDA-approved products, right?

There are 34 approved products, and guess who owns them all?

Literally every last one?

Yeah.

If the bill moves forward, why not just carry the FDA approved products and stay open?

Well, those FDA approved products are all available in every gas station, convenience store, grocery store. To be a specialty retailer…I mean, good luck.

[Big Tobacco’s products are] not that good. Most people in the vaping industry do not like them.

I remember that coming up in the hearing.

Once they got their foot in the door, they've been working behind the scenes to stifle anything that impacts them. How do you corner the market? You use the government to take out your competition, and that's exactly what they're doing.

After you made your announcement that you were going to resign, did you receive any reactions that surprised you?

I heard from a couple of commissioners and agency directors that were very supportive. The Attorney General's office is probably still dancing in the street for me leaving. Some other people up there are probably happy I left. I've gotten some pretty good messages from former colleagues. But then again, I've gotten a big quiet shoulder from most of them. I expect nothing different. The dynamics of this session up there are just wild. I don't even know how to describe it. It's crazy.

I read comments online from supporters of yours who basically asked, if it’s so bad, why not stay and fight? What’s your response to them?

Some of the things that had already happened to me and my family up there were harassment: going out to dinner and being harassed by lobbyists, being harassed behind the scenes, having people say things that I did or didn't do, which I could disprove because I either had witnesses or it was on the record in the hearing room.

[HB 525 passed 21-0 in committee], and I'm sitting there looking at leadership and some other solid conservative Republicans on that committee. And I'm like, how the heck can you vote for attacks like that? And the only way that could have happened is if leadership gave the okay. I'd been told by leadership not to worry about it. ‘We'll take care of it. It won't pass.’ And it goes into a committee and comes out worse [via an amendment to add a 50% wholesale tax].

Those bills are decided long before the hearings are even scheduled. That's what I'm trying to tell people. Your voice up there is basically smoke and mirrors. You go to that hearing thinking you might be able to say something to sway the legislators. No. The only reason they do that is because it's in the law. They have to do that public comment.

I see these poor people come in there, the regular everyday citizen, to testify in these committees, you know? And I'm sitting there thinking, my gosh, it's supposed to be the people's house. But you're outgunned.

There's 700 registered lobbyists in the state of Montana for 150 legislators?1 We have a problem.

Some of the young freshman legislators have no idea. They go out to dinner with the lobbyists, or they do this or do that. You don't understand—you do that now, there's strings attached to this stuff.

By Sunday, I had pretty much made my decision. And I went to clean up my desk and get all my stuff. The Speaker [Representative Brandon Ler] came in to talk to me, and he had mentioned something about one of the lobbyists saying he had five different Representatives that wanted to file an ethics complaint against me.

And I asked him, well, who was it? And he says, well, I don't know. He says, I've asked around, I can't find anybody. And I'm like, huh, that's a pretty sharp hint.

Then he asked me to stay until Friday, because they may need my vote on the floor for transmittal. It's just like, I'm gonna do you a favor, buddy? I don't think so.

What are your thoughts on how to reform that dynamic?

First of all, you get rid of all the lobbying up there. The lobbying is just out of control. They sponsor fundraisers and dinners and all this other garbage. You see it every day in the Capitol. In the first half of the session, somebody's got something set up in the rotunda, and it's just not there for entertainment, or education, as they call it. They're gonna talk to you. They're gonna lobby you.

Obviously lobbying is not something new in 2025. Beyond the fact that you’re invested in the vape industry, what else made this moment a tipping point for you?

Just going out to have dinner with a friend, getting up to leave and getting harassed. At what point does policy become personal attacks? And to have it continue and then to get “wink, wink, nod, nod” threats; it just started escalating.

In light of the experience you've had, do you have any particular feelings about Citizens United and how money impacts political campaigns?

I believe everybody should have a voice. And as a business owner, I should be able to support a candidate that's gonna be friendly to business. But at what point do you say, okay, that's too much money?

You look at the millions and billions of dollars spent in the election cycle, and people are still whining about, well, we need money for this, and we need money for that. Well, most of it went in the landfill.

Big Pharma spends [billions of dollars] a year on advertising. That money could be going to better, useful things like, I don't know, lower drug prices. It's almost criminal; you can advertise that, but you can't advertise marijuana in Montana.

What's next for you? Are you gonna team up with Bernie Sanders or something?

No (laughs). No, definitely not. I'm not teaming up with Bernie.

We'll continue to track some of this stuff and see what goes on. In the meantime, I'm going to take care of some family business. We've got our shops and everything. We're just gonna think about, do we even want to stay in the state? Do we want to downsize and actually retire?

I was able to do some good work up there, I think. I tried to run a bunch of bills that would've helped the people and put the screws to some of this government waste and overspending and wrap a few ropes around some of these bureaucrats. Sometimes you can get a little win here and a little win there. I gave it my best shot. But yeah, this is just too much. It becomes personal.

Welcome to Big Sky Chat House—a newsletter about arts, culture and politics in Montana.

If you found this email in your Promotions folder, please move it to your Primary inbox! That will make it easier to find down the road, and teach Gmail to send it to other subscribers’ Primary inboxes as well.

Last week, the heavy gray clouds of my inbox briefly parted, and a beam of sunlight shone through. A message had arrived from the Montana folk-rock trio Junior, and it bore terrific news.

Four years after the release of their terrific debut, Warm Buildings (and following a triumphant battle with cancer), the group will return to Oregon in late March to record their sophomore album. And in advance of the recording session, Junior will play a pair of hometown shows in Butte and Missoula to give fans a hearty dose of the new material.

Junior’s announcement had some additional juice up its sleeve: a brand-new song called “Cut My Hair.” The email describes the track, recorded in a Butte living room, as a mere demo. But to my ear, it sounds lush and refined. “Cut My Hair” encapsulates the group’s greatest strengths: stellar three-part harmonies, poignant, heart-worn lyrics and inventive arrangements.

While Junior’s new song ain’t the first to imbue haircuts with substantial emotional heft, its lead vocalist (and guitarist, and drummer) Hermina Jean frames the act in a singularly bittersweet context: in the struggle to get past a toxic relationship, she seems to be saying, cutting your hair obviously won’t solve all your problems. But sometimes you just need to do something to feel like you’re on a path towards feeling better. “Cut my hair / I want to feel a little different now / cut my hair / doesn’t matter how,” she sings in the ear-worm chorus.

The song’s arrangement similarly walks a line between sunlight and heartbreak. Jenny Lynn’s viola punctuates the chorus, rising in elegant ribbons, and the trio’s exceptional vocal harmonies add extra muscle. Guest musician Eric Heywood—a collaborator of artists like Son Volt and Ray LaMontagne—fills out the song with psychedelic swells of pedal steel that sometimes feel like a call and response with Hermina’s vocals.

Taken as a whole, “Cut My Hair” is a testament to Junior’s ongoing collaborative spirit, open-hearted songwriting and raw talent, and I can’t wait to hear what comes next.

Junior plays Butte’s Carpenter’s Union Hall with Izaak Opatz on Saturday, March 8, and Missoula FreeCycles with Riddy Arman on Sunday, March 9.

Welcome to Big Sky Chat House—a newsletter of candid conversations with Montanans of all political stripes, and some arts & culture reporting, too.

If you found this email in your Promotions folder, please move it to your Primary inbox! That will make it easier to find down the road, and teach Gmail to send it to other subscribers’ Primary inboxes as well.

As many of you can attest, the past few weeks have proven, well, a tad dispiriting.

The sun, for one, remains largely out of sight, as if taking notes from the Certified Lover Boy himself. The roads have become giant mounds of gray snow and soot that resemble raunchy, decaying carpets. And a certain self-obsessed Vladimir Putin apologist has ushered in a political era poised to inflict much more harm than good; one that conflates boldness with recklessness, and government efficiency with borderline sadism.

Yet in Missoula, the deep winter has nonetheless offered its fair share of pleasures, too: not just splendid skiing and an exciting slate of community events, but the impeccably timed arrival of the national chain restaurant Plaza Azteca, on an otherwise charmless stretch of Brooks Street.

While the restaurant’s cuisine is Mexican, its atmosphere is distinctly American. Situated in the old Jakers Bar & Grill, the expansive rows of booths and garishly-lit bar evoke a nearly anachronistic sense of good, unpretentious cheer. For me, stepping inside feels an awful lot like a time warp to the 1990’s.

And while there’s undoubtedly a ton of terrific food to be had in Missoula, a dwindling number of sit-down restaurants offer it at this accessible of a price point. As such, Plaza Azteca boasts a notably wide-ranging clientele: big families, couples on dates, hipsters and bros and teens and good old boys and merry old heads.

The food at Plaza Azteca is as comforting as its vibe. The guacamole, which you can order to be prepared table-side, is silky smooth and dazzlingly rich. The same can be said for the refried beans. The burritos—including the steak-filled Burrito Mex—easily usurp Chipotle for the title of Best in Missoula (come at me, haters) and the fajitas are remarkably flavorful. Over the course of three visits, the food got better each time.

Plus, if the first two months of 2025 have left you yearning for a margarita (or three) the size of your cranium, you’re in luck. And you’ve got options. I have become particularly fond of the Skinny (fresh citrus, less sugar) and the Pineapple varieties.

Delicious, relatively affordable and staffed with an attentive and upbeat crew, Plaza Azteca offers an unexpectedly profound sense of comfort in these weird and trying times. Being there feels, simply, like America is supposed to.

Welcome to Big Sky Chat House—a newsletter of candid conversations with Montanans of all political stripes, and some arts & culture reporting, too.

If you found this email in your Promotions folder, please move it to your Primary inbox! That will make it easier to find down the road, and teach Gmail to send it to other subscribers’ Primary inboxes as well.

As many fellow dog owners can attest, my own pup can, on occasion, drive me insane.

Cece has chased critters off-trail and gotten herself lost for hours, gorged on deer limbs and decomposing voles, developed a fastidious sniffing routine that can turn a quick spin around the block into a Homerian odyssey, and found thousands of other inventive ways to test the limits of my patience. Of course, I love Cece with all my heart. But that adoration can fall by the wayside when she appears intent on winning the Guinness Award for Biggest Four-Legged Dumbass.

On “Great Love, Great Grief,” Kraig Rieger, of the long-running Bozeman duo Come Back K!, reminds us to treasure our time with our pets, even when they’re misbehaving. The song—a languid Beatles-y waltz, complete with an elegant McCartney bass line—celebrates the eleven years he spent with his dog, Roo, and addresses the overwhelming grief he feels in their absence. The song is the lead single from a forthcoming EP called “Goodbye, Friend,” that Rieger will release next week via Bandcamp.

On “Great Love, Great Grief,” Rieger doesn’t merely reflect on the sunny times, but the frustrating ones, too. “Early on I thought about turning you in / But I’m glad I didn’t,” he admits in the first verse. There’s even some wry humor about his surviving dog: “It doesn’t feel fair that our other dog gets all the food.”

Rieger’s honesty makes his grief all the more poignant when it appears later in the song. “Why did this happen / At the onset of winter everything feels so dark / You’re a light in the distance / Something that kept me moving on,” he sings in a stately, even tone.

And sure, like so many other pups, Roo “misbehaved until the end.” But, as Rieger adds, “I regret nothing.” We can relate.

One other thing (or two)…

• I was thrilled to write a bit about Free Sessions, the long-running and uber-egalitarian monthly Missoula jam session, for The Pulp. I can’t recommend attending enough.

• Over at Political Climate, the bi-partisan energy and climate policy podcast that I produce, we recently interviewed Anukool Lakhina, the CEO of BurnBot. The company builds tank-sized robots that can perform prescribed burns around the clock, independent of weather conditions. The conversation, which touches on both his tech and fire mitigation policy, carries extra weight in light of the catastrophic fires that have plagued Los Angeles this month. You can listen to the interview here.

My colleagues, I rise before you today in support of HB 3192009, the “Hip-Hop Fan Bathroom Ban” bill. This bill is very important because hip-hop fans in the bathroom make me uncomfortable, and I think they should go somewhere else.

Hip-hop fans in the bathroom are very upsetting. They will sometimes tap their foot on the floor, in rhythm. I’m afraid that one of them will rap at me. Maybe this has already happened. Don’t ask me for specifics.

We must stop this egregious threat to our well-being. As such, any individual who encounters a hip-hop fan in the restroom can sue the offending facility or organization within two years of the event.

Here’s the catch: hip-hop fans are truly ingrained into the fabric of our society: they are teachers, lawyers, doctors, even state lawmakers. That makes them harder to spot.

If you think there is a hip-hop fan in the bathroom, but you’re not sure, you should definitely still alert the authorities.

There are several non-invasive, totally constitutional ways to check if someone is a hip-hop fan:

For one, we can open their phone and search their Spotify history for any recently played club bangers. Or go through their bank records for any hip-hop-ish purchases.

Hip-hop is all about tattoos. For instance, the hip-hopper Lil’ Kim has paw print tattoos on her chest. So, if you see a woman who you think might be a hip-hop fan, she’s gonna have to show us her boobs to prove that she isn’t a Lil’ Kim admirer. And for the fellas, I suspect Machine Gun Kelly has at least some ink down there. So if you’re looking suspicious, you’re gonna have to drop trow and let us take a peek.

I want to stress that this bill is not about discrimination. It’s about protecting those things that have been eroding these last few years for fans of other genres of music. All this bill is asking for is reasonable accommodations.

By the way….while the fiscal note for my bill says that specific costs to state agencies are “unknown” or “not currently estimable,” it does forecast that the fiscal impact to local school districts and law enforcement agencies could be “significant.” Just a heads up.

And sure, there might be a few small details left to iron out, but don’t worry, we’ll fix it right up over in the Senate.

Phew! I can’t wait to vote on this bill. Honestly, I’d been thinking about working on a property tax bill instead, but this is way better.

Thanks so much for your support, and remember: If you vote No, we are definitely gonna primary your ass.

Welcome to Big Sky Chat House—a newsletter of candid conversations with Montanans of all political stripes…and some arts & culture reporting, too.

If you found this email in your Promotions folder, please move it to your Primary inbox! That will make it easier to find down the road, and teach Gmail to send it to other subscribers’ Primary inboxes as well.

Since its founding in 2015, the non-profit organization Soft Landing has found creative and engaging ways to help hundreds of refugees and immigrants settle into life in Missoula.

One of the best, in my humble opinion, is through food. Among other projects, Soft Landing curates Supper Clubs, where a client with a passion for cooking can prepare and organize a multi-course meal held at a restaurant in town; members of the pubic can buy tickets and savor the flavors of cultures from all around the world.

I attended one such dinner shortly after November’s election. The chef du jour had prepared an amazing buffet meal, and ticket sales went towards helping them pay for their family members’ move to Missoula. Yet even though the mood was cheery and festive, I couldn’t help but feel an undercurrent of concern: would the incoming Trump Administration make it harder for families like the chef’s to settle in America?

To be clear, the bulk of Soft Landing’s clients are refugees, who have gone through an arduous and exhaustive process—and escaped from war, famine and other interconnected crises—to come to the United States legally, while the president-elect has focused his attention on undocumented immigrants. The first Trump Administration nonetheless offers indicators of the challenges legal refugees may face in his second term: admittance rates plummeted, and the President instituted a temporary ban on refugees entering the country at the beginning of his term.

In mid-December, I met up with Soft Landing’s co-founder and executive director, Mary Poole. A former arborist, Poole has a knack for separating the political signal from the noise and an open-minded attitude towards skeptics of the program. Read on as we discuss a range of topics, including the organization’s origins, its victories and the challenges she anticipates from both the incoming Trump Administration and the 2025 Montana Legislature.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Max: Can you share an example of a recent victory at Soft Landing?

Mary Poole: Syria, right? [The fall of dictator Bashar al-Assad] is really important to us. It was definitely the Syrian conflict that catalyzed all of this. There's definitely a lot of celebration happening. A lot of trepidation, too.

All the Syrian families are coming in to see us, to talk about their joy around the liberation of their country. We ask, will you go home? Unanimously they say, “Oh, our home is Missoula.” They say, my kids are in school, my life is good. Things are stable here, which is unfortunately probably not going be the case in Syria.

[In terms of other positive moments], we see babies in the office every day. There's going to be over 15 kids graduating from high school this year that we're working with. Some of those kids will go to UM. We work with about 20 young adults at UM right now.

We had our very first voters [in November]. Voting, participating in a democracy, is something that many people have never had the option to do. Or if they did have any agency, that was stripped from them in the process of conflict, war, persecution, whatever landed them here.

And they’re very diverse voters. It's such a misnomer to think that refugees and immigrants are one person.

Let’s take a step back. How did Soft Landing come to be?

We started in 2015. It was catalyzed in the middle of the night when I was breastfeeding a child and having a friend send the picture of Alan Kurdi, who was a 2-year-old boy that lost his life crossing the Mediterranean. A lot of people in Missoula were really interested in knowing what more we could do to help.

At that time, I was an arborist for the city. I was climbing a tree with a chainsaw. I didn't know what a non-profit was. I'd never been a volunteer anywhere. I grew up on a farm. I didn't have a frame of reference at all. I literally had to Google, “What is a refugee?”

What we found out pretty quickly was that to welcome any refugees to your community, you need the presence of a resettlement agency.

Luckily we were able to get the ear of the International Rescue Committee. They have an office here in Missoula now. It was one week shy of a year after the photo [of Kurdi] came out that the first family came to Missoula from Congo.

That sounds very fast!

It was fast and crazy. I had this incredible community. In our first public meeting, 300 people signed up to volunteer. In our first public event, a thousand people showed up in the streets of Missoula. It was this moving freight train that I was hanging onto for dear life.

That was happening alongside community members that had real questions and real concerns and didn't want to see it happen.

Sometimes that showed up in wonderful conversation with people that were willing to sit down and have coffee with me. Sometimes that showed up as threats and phone calls in the middle of the night.

What would be an example of a good-faith argument against the program?

There is an additional weight added to our public services and our school system and all of those things. Now, do those things come with amazing opportunity for partnerships and additional funding and all these things? Yeah. Eventually. But it's not easy. It's okay that people don't know how this works.

All conversation is worth it. If you have questions, you should ask them.

Everyone has the right to their own assumptions. I came from ground zero on this; I don't expect anyone else to not be coming from ground zero.

I think what is challenging in our state is that very few people have experiences with refugees and immigrants. And so they're piggybacking off of the media or what they hear, instead of having true relationships.

How did the first Trump Administration impact your work?

What Trump meant for our nation and what Trump meant for us is probably very different.

Each location has these very specific elements that affect it in different ways. So what happened in Missoula was very different from [what happened to] a family trying to cross into Texas.

We primarily welcome refugees. That pathway was paused, but not ended. There was a 90-day pause right off the bat.

That messes with the resettlement system in a lot of ways. The system itself has all of these very time-determinate checks. For example, a medical screening lasts for six months and a security check lasts for three months. So [everything] has to be matched up before that perfect moment when a family's ready to come. They buy plane tickets and sell all their stuff. And when that perfect moment is disrupted, they go to the back of the line because then they have to do all those things again.

A lot of resettlement offices nationwide did have to shut down during [the Trump Administration]. But in Missoula, since our capacity to welcome folks is 100 to 125 people a year, they were basically able to maintain those numbers through the first three years of Trump's presidency. The last year, not so much, because the numbers that he set got so low. [In 2020, the Trump Administration admitted 15,000 refugees; Biden subsequently raised the number to an annual high of 125,000.]

When Biden got into office, I think he wanted to be a country that was welcoming to refugees. But even 125,000 people is such a drop in the bucket compared to the millions of people seeking safety in the world.

Is there anything in particular you're bracing for with the second Trump Administration?

I don't think there'll be surprises if he enforces a ban or a pause in refugee admissions.

I think there's a couple added elements [at the state level]. We launched in the last year of Obama's presidency. It was serendipitous timing. Missoula was the only place [in Montana] with a resettlement agency. People contacted me from every other major city in Montana saying, “How do we do what you did? We want to welcome refugees into our communities.” And really, that wasn't able to happen during the Trump presidency. Resettlement agencies were shutting down offices, not opening up new offices.

That will be very different for our state this time around. There's just a much broader effort across the state now. During the last four years, we've had a new resettlement agency open in Billings. We've had quite a few families come to Montana through [Biden’s] humanitarian parole system: Ukrainians, Afghans, Haitians, Cubans, Venezuelans, and Hondurans. We've had more people come to Montana after processing asylum cases at the border. We have housing booms all around Montana that are bringing workers.

Are there strategies that the state Legislature can take to disrupt refugee resettlement?

Refugee resettlement is a federal program, right? The state can either participate in that program like our state does, by having a state refugee coordinator and [receiving] pass-through funds. Our state doesn't contribute any funding for refugees, specifically.

So they can opt in or out of [federal funding]. But it doesn't mean resettlement goes away. It's just managed differently.

On top of that, we hear about coming down the pipeline. There was an [attempted] special session that tried to make undocumented folks that are in Montana illegal.

It's really hard to wrap my brain around one; being in our country undocumented is already against the law.

Our legislature doesn't seem to shy away from doing things that end up in courts. It's just posturing and messaging. We want our police officers to be putting their resources towards public safety, not utilizing valuable resources for other things.

[There was another proposal last spring] that targets non-profits that work with immigrants, basically. That's something that I really want to know more about, and that a lot of the other groups are worried about.

That's something also we're kind of seeing nationally with this bill that just passed the [US House], and they're just pausing it until Trump gets into office. It basically says that non-profit status can be stripped by our federal government from any non-profit that is [allegedly] supporting terrorism; like, if you have anything to say about Palestine, if you have anything to say about climate, if you work with immigrants.

It's very nebulous and very scary. How is that gonna be used?

Is there anything you think is crucial for someone to know about Soft Landing and your work that we haven't touched on?

We're talking about people that who been through incredible situations, who have worked so hard and continue to work really hard to build a home here; to have children that get to go to school, to participate in recreational activities, to go hiking and go to the lake in the summer. To have a life.

Folks are not here to disrupt our way of life. They’re not.

I want to be very clear that all questions are good questions. That's not the problem. The problem is the language used and the rhetoric [that spiked during election season]. That's like the hardest part for me.

People are really frightened. Refugees in Missoula are among the less vulnerable people to anything Trump is gonna do. And yet they come to our office and they say, “Is there anything I can do to make my life more secure here?”

Do we need to get on top of some shit in our country and at our border? Yes. I would love to see a really productive conversation around our southern border that would create solutions that were humane for people and solve a problem. We are smart, we are capable.

We even saw, in the election here, our Democratic candidates using immigrants in their ads, and not in a positive light.

Luckily these people are very perseverant and they've built incredible community and they have so much love and support here.

Welcome to Big Sky Chat House—a newsletter of candid conversations with Montanans of all political stripes… and some arts & culture reporting, too.

If you found this email in your Promotions folder, please move it to your Primary inbox! That will make it easier to find down the road, and teach Gmail to send it to other subscribers’ Primary inboxes as well.

In November’s elections, statewide Democratic candidates in Montana took one hell of a beating, losing virtually all of their marquee races, sometimes by as much as 20 points.

Yet at the local level, the story looked a bit different.

Buoyed by legislative redistricting, Democrats picked up ten seats in the state House and two in the state Senate. As a result, Montana Dems were able to prevent another GOP supermajority in the upcoming 2025 Legislature, which kicks off this coming Monday.

For Katie Sullivan, a fourth-term rep and Montana Democrats’ new Minority Leader in the House, her party’s expanded ranks bring more leverage to influence policy, but also reason to be “nervous:” as Sullivan explains, more members means more people to manage, and more campaign promises to fulfill.

In our interview, Sullivan—an IP attorney by trade—digs into her party’s priorities, including property tax reform and Medicaid reauthorization. She highlights opportunities for bipartisan collaboration, and criticizes several Republican policies, including judicial reform, that could be introduced this session.

Max: Has AI factored in to your work as an intellectual property attorney?

Rep. Katie Sullivan: I haven't had much issue with it yet. But there's been multiple requests for addressing AI in elections and sexual harassment this session. Deepfake videos can show a politician doing anything that you can think of, and it wouldn't actually be them. Most people would have no way of knowing that it's a fake.

Another concern is deep fake videos in schools. It's a bullying tactic. They take a classmate's face and put it on a terrible video. That's already impacted a lot of high school kids. That needs to be illegal. I don't have a draft yet, but I think I've got bipartisan support [for a bill].

Switching gears—what interested you about the position of Minority Leader?

After being a whip last session, I decided to run for Minority Leader. I like to operate behind the scenes. I was able to do that every day: whipping votes to help pass things and to help kill [other bills].

We're doing the work for the people of Montana and they have demands; we have to take it seriously. I'm nervous, but I'm also excited and honored to have the chance to be a leader for my caucus.

Why do you feel nervous?

When me and my members were on the doors [during campaign season], people were pissed about their property taxes and the cost of living. And my members said, “We're gonna work on these things.”

So here we are. We picked up ten seats, which is a huge increase in one cycle. We all know what we need to do: stay focused and go back to basics. With our large numbers, I think we can influence policy and put our fingerprints on some bills.

We have to get these things done. If we don't, it's a big failure. I mean, I wouldn't accept us leaving without fixing these things. I just hope things don't go off the rails. I hope things don't get distracting.

And then leading 42 [Democrats in the state House]. That's a whole other part to be nervous about. The bigger number is good, but you've got more people to manage.

One of the narratives around the 2024 elections is that the national Democratic Party lost its connection to lots of working-class voters. Do you think there's merit to that narrative at the state level in Montana?

Personally—and I say that because other Dems have different opinions—I see Montana Democrats being painted with a national brush that doesn't quite fit. As I said in my leadership speech to my members, I said, “I don't know about you guys, but I've never met Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer or AOC.”

Yeah, we had some statewide struggles. We also picked up 10 seats in the House. Five of those were in districts that Trump won. What that tells me is that when voters who want to vote red meet their local candidate—who is their neighbor and their community member—and talks to them about taxes and how they feel about our state, and those people vote for Trump and for the local Democrat, the local Dem still has a big place in our state. We're our own unique group, and I hope people can see that.

You'd mentioned property taxes and cost of living as top concerns. Can you share any details on solutions to those issues?

Our big-picture focus is four big buckets: taxes, housing, childcare and healthcare.

We'll have a package of bills for property taxes: we're looking at a true homestead exemption that would cut the taxable value of primary residences and small businesses—$50,000 for Montana residents and a $200,000 exemption for small businesses.

We're also talking about cutting the property tax rate for middle class people; for the average home.

And then also a housing fairness tax credit. This would prevent property taxes from rising above an affordable percentage of income for seniors, renters, and workers with modest and middle-class incomes. This is just creating long-term affordability.

Those three [proposals] would reduce property taxes across the board. And so we're running those three property tax bills early in the session to try and get some traction and start the conversation about tax relief.

When I interviewed Republican state Senator Trebas in March, he made it clear that he plans to fight Medicaid reauthorization this session. Can you speak to whether there’s bipartisan momentum around reauthorization?

I'm glad to see it's in the governor's budget. I do hear there is a lot of in-fighting in the Republican caucus about whether or not members will vote to continue the program.

This program has already been running. The feds pay 90% and we're paying 10%. It covers tens of thousands of Montanans’ health insurance.

In my mind, it should be easy to just keep going with this. I've talked to some Republicans who say, “I'm mad about healthcare spending on a national level.” I'm mad about how much these things cost, too, but I can't fix them in my role at the Montana Legislature.

But what I can do is help people keep their health insurance in Montana. It's such a no-brainer. I don't understand the in-fighting.

Where else do you see opportunities for bipartisan consensus in the 2025 session?

We had that big housing bill last session. House Dems want to keep pushing that as well. We would like to see more money going into the Coal Trust multi-family housing fund. I think Republicans do as well.

We have a handful [of childcare bills] that we're gonna propose. I hear the Republicans have some as well. So I think that will be a great space for bipartisan work.

I think that there will be some bipartisan support for pushing back on a number of these judiciary bills, too. [Some of the bills] try to make [judicial positions] partisan. I think there's 27 bills actually. That’s 27 more than I think is needed. They are coming from that special committee on the judiciary.

I am hunting around to get bipartisan support to end some of those bills during the session. I've talked to a few Republicans who just say, “We don't need this. This is getting to be too much.”

It's basically what I call trying to make judges into politicians. These bills are just going to [result in] more politics everywhere. People want less politics, I'm pretty sure.

I spoke to Senator Usher about judicial issues a few months ago. I think I can fairly paraphrase at least part of his argument in favor of those bills—that if a lot of judicial decisions already feel partisan in nature, then there wouldn’t be harm in having judges’ political affiliation known. What’s your counter-argument?

I'm just gonna [spitball] with you—I think there are some members of the Legislature who had some bills that got struck down for being unconstitutional. And instead of saying, “Huh, how can I make my bill constitutional?” they say, “That judge is unfair and we need to politicize the courts.” And so my recommendation would be draft constitutional bills.

Are there bills coming this session that feel particularly concerning to you?

I know right-to-work is coming back again. And so we'll have to hopefully kill it again. And I've heard about a few public lands ones. And the judiciary ones, I think, are pretty bad.

Did you know that we have already over 4,000 bill draft requests? It's almost twice as much as last time. It's a phenomenally unworkable number.

Katie, is there anything you want to add before we wrap up?

People want us to go back to the basics and talk about pocketbook issues and costs. That's what I'm showing up for. I'd love to have the session not be a circus and just have us come together and get these financial issues taken care of so that we don't have such high property taxes anymore. It's unsustainable for people.

I have a feeling, I'm pretty sure it's gonna get weird (laughs). I don't think people can resist an opportunity for weirdness.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Welcome to Big Sky Chat House—a newsletter of candid conversations with Montanans of all political stripes. Plus, some arts & culture reporting, too.

If you found this email in your Promotions folder, please move it to your Primary inbox! That will make it easier to find down the road, and teach Gmail to send it to other subscribers’ Primary inboxes as well.

One day in August 2023, an amateur musician named Oliver Anthony performed a live version of his song “Rich Men North of Richmond” on his lush, wooded property in Virginia. In three minutes, the raw song managed to encapsulate a bitter and long-brewing frustration; one of being trapped in an economic hole that you cannot climb out of, of living in a nation where the divide between wealth and poverty seems to grow continuously wider. The video of Anthony’s performance instantly went viral, catapulting the songwriter to unlikely fame as his message swept the globe (and, arguably, foreshadowed the tenor of this year’s election).

Earlier this December, the veteran Missoula musician Chris Sand released his fifteenth album, Non-Judgement Day. The record begins with a terrific song called “Ain’t All Good.” Like “Rich Men North of Richmond,” the song offers a poignant and biting assessment of the American status quo.

Yet unlike “Rich Men North of Richmond,” Sand’s song is darkly funny. And it’s often downright fun. To my ear, that added dose of whimsy renders his harsh message all the more haunting, and heartfelt.

“Ain’t All Good” begins with its narrator chugging Robitussin on his trucking route and raging at a lover who took up with his cousin while he was on the road. From there, he zooms out to mourn America’s innumerable incarcerated men and women and the life they’ve lost, as they listen to “the sound of the rain or the trains that they're missin' / or the drips from the drains in the pots where they're pissin’.” By the song’s final verse, the lens has gotten wider still: “We pray school children don’t get shot by the neighbors / And we drive to work in libidinal rages / I feel like a pig in a cage, it's outrageous.”

Yet it’s Sand’s chorus that puts the nail in the coffin: “It ain't all good, but it ain't all bad / It's just the way it goes, the status quo’s what makes it sad,” he sings. What’s worse than all of this pain? Accepting it as our fate.

Yet instead of sinking into a pit of despair, Sand pairs his melancholy with an exuberant, walloping band. We’re treated to a hilariously sad trombone riff courtesy of Missoula mainstay Naomi Moon Siegel, a sweet trio of backup singers who drive Sand’s lyrics home and a jaunty rhythm section that keeps the tune spunky and alive. Life might be a hellish roller coaster, but this band of merry pranksters is riding it with their hands up, hollering all the way.

Chris Sand may not have had his moment of viral fame yet, but with “Ain’t All Good,” he has written a song that radiates the sort of empathy and musical savvy that has the power to resonate from coast to coast.

Chris Sand and his band—with several guests in tow—perform a record release show for Non-Judgement Day this Saturday, December 21, at the Roxy Theater in Missoula. Doors at 1pm, show at 1:30. More info here.

That’s it for Big Sky Chat House for 2024! Thanks so much for reading, commenting and sharing the newsletter. We’ll be back in January with more interviews, cultural jabbering and beyond.

And to the 98% of subscribers who read BSCH for free, I hope you’ll consider becoming a paid subscriber today!! It’s your support that makes this project possible. Thank you!

Welcome to Big Sky Chat House—a newsletter of candid conversations with Montanans of all stripes…plus some arts & culture reporting, too.

If you found this email in your Promotions folder, please move it to your Primary inbox! That will make it easier to find down the road, and teach Gmail to send it to other subscribers’ Primary inboxes as well.

When I re-launched this newsletter last month, one of the first people I reached out to was Jason Small. I had interviewed him once before, in May 2023, and in that conversation the then-Republican state Senator addressed his party’s successes and pitfalls with singular candor. At the time, Small—a political moderate and member of the Northern Cheyenne tribe—was running for the position of Executive Secretary of the Montana AFL-CIO, a federation of 38 unions with over 50,000 members. Shortly thereafter, he was elected to the position; he ran unopposed.

During the 2024 Presidential campaign, unions across the country offered only tepid support for—and in some instances, rejected—Kamala Harris’ campaign, despite labor’s long history with the Democratic Party. I was particularly keen to ask Small to help explain this shift, at least within Montana.

In today’s interview, Small addresses the question with his typical frankness. Yet our conversation covers much more ground: we discuss his priorities for the 2025 Legislature—including a plan to simplify prevailing wage calculations, and his concerns over potential right-to-work policy. We also get into Small’s own colorful history as a union worker, and chat about what it means to be “the only” Republican at the AFL-CIO.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

** Before we jump into the interview—as you may have noticed, the newsletter is currently operating without an advertiser, and is fully funded by readers like you. As such, I hope you’ll consider upgrading to a paid subscription today!

Max: Can you tell me about your own history working in unions?

Jason Small: I started at the most remedial level. The week I turned eighteen, I went and signed up for the laborers union. Before that, I was pulling lumber on a green chain and a sawmill. So I went from making about $6.50 an hour to working a Davis-Bacon job, somewhere around $18-19 an hour.

It’s a funny story: [A couple of years later, at the end of a job], I picked up a calf roping chute from a guy just south of D.C. in Front Royal, West Virginia. I was a young kid, twenty years old or something, and all I wanted to do was get home. I lived with my grandparents then. So I drove from Front Royal to Spearfish, South Dakota in a straight shot.

I was twenty-something hours into driving and I was starting to doze off. I had everything I owned in this old ‘86 Chevy pickup. And I was paranoid. It had a sliding rear window, and I had a 32-inch TV; boy, that was my prized possession. And I had about $20,000 in cash [that I took out of] the bank when I left. And I hid that cash under the seat of the truck and tied the power cord from the TV around my arm, and went to sleep for about four or five hours at a rest stop in South Dakota.

I pulled into my grandpa's house a few hours later. I unhooked the trailer from my pickup, went upstairs to my room and flopped down in bed. I got about ten minutes of sleep, and he came in there and kicked me in the feet: “Come on, we gotta go ride.”

And I was dying. And I looked at him and said the first thing that popped into my mind: “I'm gonna go register for school real quick. Today's the last day.”

It turns out it actually was the last day (laughs). I knew Sheridan, Wyoming had a good welding program. So I went and enrolled, did that, got a little degree in metallurgy and worked a job in Colstrip at the plant. And then got in a boilermakers union, and that's where I started. I was an apprentice boilermaker. I did my entire apprenticeship in about 23 months.

I was a journeyman and I stepped up. I started paying attention to a lot of stuff, and when I was back in Colstrip, I took the position of bull steward for all the unions out at the plant—that's the guy who does the union business. You resolve conflicts between the unions and the company.

Then I was president of the union for years. Meanwhile, I ran for a Legislative seat and won that. At the end of my term, I stepped down from the union presidency.

It's been an interesting ride, my friend.

What does your day-to-day look like right now?

Well, I control the inner workings of the AFL-CIO. We're involved in a ton of things: political campaigns, anything that's good for workers, middle-class families, stuff like that.

What’s it like being an Republican at the AFL-CIO?

Well, I'm the only one. It doesn't matter if I'm with Republicans or Democrats, I'm the odd man out. I fit in every room, but at the same time, I don't fit in any of them. I have good rapport across the board with most everybody.

I'm surrounded by people who are a little further left than me all the time, but I still talk to my same Republican friends. I'm still the pro-labor Republican guy. I don't like to dive off on the social issues stuff. I see no place for it in politics.

Does right-to-work feel like a pretty sharp divide within the GOP?

It could be, right? But there's never been a group of Republican legislators that were that extreme [to pass it]. A lot of them are union people anyway.

So Montana is kind of unique. Even though this is now a conservative state—and we have a Republican conservative majority—a lot of those folks are just people like me. They have some conservative values, but they're not against blue-collar workers making a fair paycheck. It has really surprised me, the folks that have come up to me over the years and said, “Hey, my grandkids are graduating or they got this going, you think you can help get them a good union job?” I’m always happy to help, and point them in the right direction.

Do you anticipate more attempts at right-to-work legislation this coming session?

Oh, I’m sure there will be. They'll try to make changes to how union members are paid in the workforce. There will be right-to-work. There always is, to some degree.

You don't sound terribly concerned, though?

Well, yes and no. You can't let your guard down. You can't let the camel's nose under the tent flap because then all of a sudden that son of a bitch is inside (laughs).

Who's the camel in this metaphor?

Take your pick (laughs).

What feel like your other top priorities in the 2025 session?

We would like to pass some legislation to fix prevailing wage laws and how prevailing wages are determined. There's always swings in the wages, right? It's just volatile. So it turns into a math game between the contractors and the unions and employers. This year we saw 30% swings in prevailing wages. Sometimes it's higher, sometimes it's lower.

Is there an industry in particular where that swing has been really dramatic?

This year it was truck drivers. We're in a nationwide truck driver shortage. And the prevailing wage calculation shows that they need to drop their wages 30%.

So what’s the mechanism to fix that issue?

Well, it can be done via “line of sight” through the Department of Labor and Industry. They can set prevailing wages using wage data that they directly receive into their system. And I think that could be a solution. It would prove somewhat less volatile. We haven't 100% locked in how we want to go about this yet, but that's one thing we're looking at.

One of the other more obvious things that should have been done a long time ago is make a push to require female portable restrooms on job sites, to have a better environment for the women workers.

We have some autonomous vehicle legislation we want to probably push, too. We want to get ahead of any bad legislation that's gonna coming up, and put sideboards on it so it's not out of hand.

Is the concern that autonomous vehicles could replace union jobs?

It's somewhat worker protection for the Teamsters. They drive trucks, vehicle operations, stuff like that. It's also a public safety deal. We just want to get ahead of it [in case] we start having accidents or shit like that.

We're gonna bring some legislation to shore a few things up. We might get involved in some electric vehicle stuff. I can't say that for sure yet.

We'll be supporting Medicaid reauthorization. That’s of the utmost importance if you're an Indian. It's one way to help fund the Indian Health Service, so it's extremely important to the tribes. That's also what's keeping all the rural clinics and hospitals open.

Switching gears, it was pretty clear this election season that a lot of union workers were not very enthused about Kamala Harris. What do you think went wrong for the Democrats, in terms of union support? Did you see a similar dynamic play out in Montana?

I think the building trade members tend to lead a bit further to the right. [But] I do know one thing—I think Jon Tester was pulling 57% among members.

Why do you think Harris struggled to make inroads with union members?

I think a lot of it would be the more environmental branches of the Democratic Party—it hurts a lot of folks' jobs.

At Colstrip, for sure. Obviously there's been an environmental tax on the new power plant that was built at Laurel. Enviros got that back-burnered for quite some time and got a permit yanked once. Those are blue-collar workers that are building that shit. And I think the general assumption among a lot of the workers is that the enviros and the Democrats are in lockstep.

We've seen the enviros lock up the permitting at Roundup [coal mine]. There's been battles over the years at the Stillwater mine. Enviros have on several occasions thrown them under the bus up there, but they've also made some agreements with them; Good Neighbor Agreements and whatnot.

You also can't overlook the elephant in the room: national Democratic messaging doesn't work well in Montana.

Jason, is there anything you want to add before we wrap up?

Advocating for workers' rights, that can go across the aisle, right? Everybody understands the importance of workers' rights; fair pay for a fair day’s work, worker protection that gives people some job security, so they're not always in peril or not always wondering if they're gonna have a job when they show up to work the next day.

We want Republicans to have good jobs, Democrats to have good jobs. I want women to have good jobs, men to have good jobs. Hell, it doesn't matter. I don't want your kids starting down at five bucks an hour. Let's get some fair wages. It's good for the economy. It keeps businesses open. Every dollar that comes into the state, into a worker's pocket, at least a fraction of that's gotta go to businesses in the state. That's how we keep the ball rolling.

Welcome to Big Sky Chat House—a newsletter of candid conversations with Montanans of all stripes…plus some arts & culture reporting, too.

If you found this email in your Promotions folder, please move it to your Primary inbox! That will make it easier to find down the road, and teach Gmail to send it to other subscribers’ Primary inboxes as well.

Once or twice a week, I’ll visit the digital music emporium Bandcamp to search for the latest releases from Montana artists. With rare exception, I am delightfully surprised—and occasionally left baffled—by what I find. Just the other morning, for instance, I listened to a high-octane fist-pumping howler from the Missoula punk trio Try Again, a slinky R&B number called “Tough Titty” from a band called Milk, and a Spanish-language, slow-burning waltz from a rafting guide who goes by Mákete. At least a dozen more acts had released music in the past few weeks, from club-ready EDM to trunk-shaking hip-hop and chaotic drone compositions from an ensemble called, alas, Panic Boner.

Amidst the deluge of new music this fall, a handful of Montana rock and roll bands have felt particularly captivating. Exuberant, punchy, and boasting a penchant for both terrific melodies and fast tempos, these groups are making the genre feel fresh and fun. Here are my favorites:

Senterline - I Spoke to the Sun Today

On their debut LP, the Missoula trio Senterline check a lot of boxes: arena-sized choruses, a walloping rhythm section, vivid guitar work and enough angst to fill a Kurt Cobain-sized hole in your heart. While the album front loads some of its more melodic moments, I love the full-throttle shredding that takes center stage on its back half, too.

Favorite track: “Something’s Gotta Give”

For fans of: Nirvana, driving over the speed limit, the Town & Country Lounge

Hey, ily! - Hey, I Loathe You!

I’ve been a huge fan of Billings’ Hey, ily! for years. Their pop-rock-punk songs tend to teeter, thrillingly, on the verge of collapse: a sunny chorus takes a nosedive into a stew of sound, a rock crescendo crumbles into a sea of digital feedback. The band’s new record, Hey, I Loathe You!, offers a more streamlined—but no less exciting—iteration of the band’s approach. This music will keep you on your toes—from the wild goop of “Wind-up Toy” to the super-catchy “(Dis)Connected.”

Favorite track: “Feel Good Forever”

For fans of: The Menzingers, Ataris, taking tequila shots and playing laser tag

The Gray Goo and Schticky -The Schticky Gray Goo EP

A split EP from two Flathead Valley bands—Schticky and the Gray Goo—the Schticky Gray Goo EP takes prog-rock shredding to hyperbolic new heights. All of the three tracks here extend past the 12-minute mark; suites full of fuzzy guitars, zany haunted house lyrics and chugging double-kick drums. (And hey, for the on-brand price of $6.66, it can be yours!)

Favorite track: “The Philosophers’ Stoned”

For fans of: King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard, Spinal Tap, Halloween

** I’ll be doing more intermittent music reviews down the road. If you / your friend / your mailman / your ex has a cool band and is looking for coverage, please don’t hesitate to reach out! msavagelevenson@gmail.com.

One more thing…

My colleagues at the Political Climate podcast and I recently recorded an interview with US Rep. Bruce Westerman, the Republican Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. Westerman brings his background in forestry and deep knowledge of energy policy to bear on a range of topics—from the fate of the Inflation Reduction Act and the potential of geothermal energy to his optimism about permitting reform. I can’t say I agree with every point that Westerman makes here, but I really appreciate his candor and the depths of his wonkiness!

You can give it a listen here.

Welcome to Big Sky Chat House—a newsletter of candid conversations with Montanans of all stripes…plus some arts & culture reporting, too.

If you found this email in your Promotions folder, please move it to your Primary inbox! That will make it easier to find down the road, and teach Gmail to send it to other subscribers’ Primary inboxes as well.

Last October, as you may recall, Montanans got some distressing news: our electricity bills were expected to see a 28% increase. Like many of you, my response was pretty knee-jerk: “WTF is going on?”

Much of the resulting anger and blame fell on the Public Service Commission (PSC), a five-member elected body that regulates many of the utilities that we use in Montana. In this instance, the PSC had approved a rate hike request, which came from NorthWestern Energy. Opponents described the increase as “devastating,” “rigged” and “opaque.” As Elena Evans, a Missoula-based geologist who ran for the PSC as an Independent this year (and lost) put it, “I’m a working mother with two kids, and I’m tired of politicians who refuse to stand up for Montana ratepayers.”

Few people are more qualified to offer a rebuttal than Brad Molnar. A Public Service Commissioner from 2005 to 2013, Molnar has additionally served a total of six terms in the state Legislature since 1993.

And now, he’s heading back to the PSC. This November, Molnar defeated Susan Bilo—a former specialist with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Gallatin College professor—to win the District 2 seat. The district extends from Bozeman to Billings along Montana’s southern border.

Beyond his decades of hands-on experience, Molnar has a reputation for candor, and for occasionally bucking his own party.

Our conversation (which spanned two separate interviews) touches on a wide range of energy-related topics. He and I agree on a few big points—namely, the imperative of affordable energy and a pragmatic approach to deploying renewables. Yet, as you’ll see, we disagree elsewhere—primarily about the threat posed by climate change, and the forces causing it.

Max: I saw that you studied journalism—what do you make of the state of journalism today?

Brad Molnar: I'm pretty disappointed in it. And that goes across the board. I listen to political stuff on the radio when I'm driving. In Montana, there is no left-wing radio talk show host. But in the more right-wing talk show stuff, as it regards Trump, it is almost all deflection and excuse-making when the truth is actually far, far more interesting. And I think the people deserve an unbiased view of their candidates, even if they're a Republican candidate. 

Does it feel like the PSC has changed since you were last part of it?

It has. The two people, I think, that share credit for fixing that are in major part [outgoing PSC Commissioner and President] Jim Brown and [Commissioner] Jennifer Fielder.

It's my understanding, and that would have to be, bold underline understanding, that we were missing filing dates for court actions where various groups were suing us. So we lost in court by default. Well, that's millions of dollars that [ends up in] people's utility bills.

Jim, being an attorney, informed them that this was no longer an option. He did it with what I would like to call quiet professionalism. You didn't see him grandstanding or thumping his chest. He just informed people, there’s a new sheriff in town, you don't wanna screw with me.

You know, we still don't agree on everything. He's gotten so mad at me, he wouldn't even talk to me (laughs).

How do you describe the power that the PSC holds?

We have greater responsibility and greater capacity than the Legislature to affect the economic wellbeing of Montana's families and employers. Far greater. 

You didn't see $495,000 [contributions] in the Supreme Court races1. You didn't see it in the governor's race. You didn't see in OPI, you didn't see it in any of the land board campaigns. You didn't see it scattered across the Legislature. The big fish, economically, is the Public Service Commission. 

They recognize that is the most important seat they can buy, but the Legislature will never say, yeah, these guys are more powerful, important than we are. The governor will never say that. I'm probably gonna get beat up for saying it myself, but [the aforementioned $495,000 contribution] to me shows that my statement is accurate.

Elena Evans ran for the PSC this year on a message of affordability, and frustration surrounding the rate hike. Do you think there's merit to that argument, or do you think there's a disconnect between the PSC’s decision and how it translates to utility bills?

I think there's a lack of education on it. When I was pounding doors, I would ask people, “Are you aware there's been a 28% rate increase?” And quite a few of 'em said yes.

Okay. First place. It's not 28%. Not that it makes much difference, but the ask was 28%. PSC trimmed maybe $35 million out of it. And then you get down to 24%.

That 24% is over four years. So you divide the 24% by four and now you're at 6%.
Take out the automatic passthroughs [including NorthWestern Energy’s property taxes and court-related costs] and you're down to about 3%.

The discussion should focus on the 3%. The first thing you have to focus on, in my humble opinion, is that that is about the rate of inflation for those four years.

If [the rate hike] is so horrific, why did none of these NGO’s take it to court? Because the arithmetic is right.

So I'm not saying I would've voted for it. I'm not saying I would've voted against it. I'm saying nobody challenged it.

People don't understand this. The PSC is quasi-judicial. You don't see Supreme Court justices writing editorials after a particularly viral vote: “Here's why I did what I did, and you need to understand this.” No. It's done. And now you just take the beating.

Just like the Legislature has fiscal notes on bills that impact state income. I want to do fiscal notes on anything we do that has a fiscal impact on rate payers, so that once the case is over, people that are interested can take a look at the pure simple math and how it affects various groups. The PSC should do it as a public service.

I think that a changing climate is one of the biggest challenges and threats that we face. Do you see a changing climate as a significant threat?

I don't see it as the greatest problem facing planet Earth. I'm gonna assume you're on the pro-environmental side.

When it's done right, yes. And when it's not, no.

Well, it's basically not done well at all. I would counter that I am not an atmospheric scientist. I'm not a climatologist, But I see things the same as everybody else does. When I was a young boy in northern Indiana I could step over the energy distribution lines and the phone lines as I walked up to the corner to get on the school bus, because the snow drifts were so high. My brother's a retired teacher. His wife's a retired teacher. [They still live nearby] and they can't remember the last [time that happened].

So there's been a change. I would counter with, okay, it always changes. I could also say that the shift of tectonic plates is just now being viewed as to its impact on climate.2 We know it was huge in the past, we don't know that it's huge right now. We know sun spots play a role. And those last for ten years at a time. If they start again, you get another 10 years. Solar flares are huge, especially if you trapped the energy here.3

There's a lot of arguments that can be made, but the one that can't be made is that the solution put forward that has been implemented, has changed the equation.

We have more wind, more solar power, more hydro power; we have more energy-efficient vehicles. We have all these things far, far, far greater than ever in the history of man. 

You see this as a problem. I don't see this as that big of a problem. Somebody born in the year 2030, when they turn 20 years old in 2050, that is the climate that they have always experienced. They're not gonna freak out because the oceans went up three centimeters. Take one step back, you'll be okay.

I consider myself a pragmatic professional. I will listen to people, I will take a look at their solutions. I will take a look at what they see as milestones being accomplished. I will check and see if it's accurate.

I picture the emissions that we emit like water gushing out of a bathtub faucet, and we've only lowered the rate of emissions by, like, 5%4. We haven’t made the large-scale changes that would show different results.

Right. Montana is 1/1000th of 1% of the contribution to global change, or climactic conditions or greenhouse gases. So if you move everybody out of Montana and all that's left is a giant buffalo commons and Missoula is sinking into itself and our only problem really is buffalo belches, we have affected this by 1/1000th of 1%. How much pain do you want to inflict to have zero change other than somebody feels gushy warm because they had everybody move?

I have a responsibility to the people, that their hopes and dreams will not be crushed in a meaningless effort with a meaningless success at the end.

Let's take the January [cold snap]. 22 below in Laurel, 35 below in Bozeman, 45 below on the Hi-line. If the environmental NGO’s have been successful and there was no electricity to buy in the Inter-Mountain West—and the reason it's $800 per megawatt is because there's little to buy—as they continue to be successful in shutting down base load and building windmills because subsidies are better than lawsuits, et cetera, et cetera, people across Montana would have died.

Do you support more renewable energy sources in Montana?

Montana code is 100% clear. The Public Service Commission may not include environmental externalities in their decision. So if I'm going to vote to include more renewable, it has to be for reasons other than environmental concerns. For example, I made the motion on the Diamond Willow Wind Farm, the first one, on the Bakken. It was small, 17 megawatts or something. I made that motion because where it would be used, and the reason for it being built, made good sense. It was a practical solution; at least it was a partial solution. It worked so well that eventually they built a much larger Diamond Willow 2.

So the constant irregularity of wind complimented the constant irregularity of the Bakken. It was a cost savings. It had nothing to do in my mind with “Wind is good because it's a green source.” It had to do with, at this location for this purpose, is this a proper application? And I said yes.

So a lot of this stuff that people think the PSC can do is dashed on the rocks of reality. We're not god-like creatures out there waving our little wand and making things happen (laughs). Whichever way we go, there's a good chance of being sued. We have to be able to defend our decisions.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Welcome to Big Sky Chat House—a newsletter of candid conversations with Montanans of all stripes…plus some arts & culture reporting, too.

If you found this email in your Promotions folder, please move it to your Primary inbox! That will make it easier to find down the road, and teach Gmail to send it to other subscribers’ Primary inboxes as well.

Before we get into today’s newsletter, I wanted to give you all a little context about Big Sky Chat House, and what it means to me.

This project arose from a specific set of circumstances. I wanted to report on the 2023 Montana State Legislature, but I couldn’t easily or reliably get myself to Helena: my vision is limited and I can’t legally drive a car.

Phone calls, thus, needed to suffice. When I started calling lawmakers and activists, I was shocked by how generous they were with their time; our conversations regularly stretched to ninety minutes or more. I rarely ended an interview without feeling surprised by something they said. That invaluable reminder—that people are always more complicated than we expect, or perhaps want, them to be—pushed me to keep at it. And that feeling hasn’t gone away.

Most BSCH interviews still take place over the phone. Every once in awhile, I’ll have the good fortune to meet up for a tete-a-tete in Missoula; I also try to line up interviews in Bozeman or Miles City if I’m visiting family there.

There will be plenty of politics coming in the next installments of the newsletter. But today, I wanted to write about something very, very close to home: the near-overnight arrival of a handful of terrific new businesses in my Missoula neighborhood, and what they mean for a low-vision person like myself. Bon appetit!

The Town & Country Lounge is the platonic ideal of a dive bar, and arguably the best bar in Missoula. It has always felt like an island, an outpost, a self-contained microcosm of hedonism a couple miles removed from the hubbub of downtown. The converted double-wide trailer sits alone at the corner of Third and Catlin Streets, at the edge of a vast parking lot that it shares with the Good Food Store; its immediate neighbors include Great Floors, Auto Zone, and O’Reilly Auto Parts. It is not, in other words, in the thick of the Missoula nightlife scene.

Recently, however, the corner has become a mini-hive of new activity, thanks to several new food trucks. Gary’s Local—in its second location, following the original on Front and Clay Streets—slings six dollar burgers in the glow of the T&C’s buttery yellow sign. You can often smell them from several blocks away, a tantalizing gust of sizzling meat on the breeze.

On a recent gloomy Sunday, despite a chilly drizzle, customers began lining up to place orders just minutes after the truck opened its window at 5 PM. Lines of string lights dangle overhead, adding to the good vibes, and a couple of picnic tables offer an option to sit, if you’re willing to put up with the fumes and the noise of Third Street. My burger arrived steaming in the evening air. It’s as simple as it is delicious—a juicy, tender patty made from local beef, a single slice of American cheese, and a generous topping of griddled onions.

Cozied up behind Gary’s is Little Pink—the truck offers a double smash burger and a Nashville hot chicken sandwich for about $15 each, among a handful of other sandwiches. Little Pink’s hours can be hard to keep track of, however—keep an eye on their Facebook page. (Other food trucks, including the Mexican Moose and La Boca, have parked at the T&C in the past.)

More good news came a couple of weeks ago when the bakery Grist opened its doors a little ways down on Third Street. Walking the few blocks down to the bakery that sunny opening day was euphoric—I kept running into people I knew, and everyone wanted to chat and catch up. This would have otherwise been a rare occurrence in the neighborhood, save for a run-in at the grocery store or the bar. (Or, on occasion, an encounter at the former that leads to the latter.) On my way to Grist, I felt like I was living in a true neighborhood, not just a place where people happen to live near each other.

Everything I’ve tried from the bakery has been top-notch, and refreshingly affordable. A terrific cup of drip coffee costs two bucks. Ditto for an oatmeal and brown butter cookie—it’s gloriously soft and chewy. Grist makes one of, if not the best, croissants in town. They also sell pizza dough and a ton of funky breads. Alas, they don’t offer much seating, but that’s okay—I’d be there every day if they did.

As a low-vision person, this shift in the neighborhood holds particular significance. I recognize that might sound overdramatic—after all, I can see enough to walk or bike myself downtown. And our (free) bus system ain’t half bad. But in a town that’s prone to inclement weather, especially in colder and darker months, the ability to get myself somewhere easily without having to consider the weather or whether I can bum a ride is extraordinary. Accessibility translates to agency, and agency translates to independence. Unless you’re living in a big city, or fortunate enough to live close to a downtown, this can be a rare commodity. Having a taste of it makes me feel anchored; it reinforces the feeling of home.

The Town & Country Lounge is a great unifier, especially in a town where cocktails seem to get pricier every time you blink. At the T&C, every slice of Missoula is represented. I’m so happy that these new businesses seem generally poised to follow suit and provide options for everyone. Thanks to them, this little corner of Missoula has begun to change from a place people pass through to a place people spend time. We’re all the better for it.