Sen. Barry Usher, Freedom Caucus treasurer, talks primaries and his beef with the Conservatives4MT PAC
The Laurel Republican also sounds off on Montana's abortion access constitutional initiative.
Welcome to Big Sky Chat House— a newsletter of candid conversations with movers and shakers 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.
Since its inception in early 2023, the Montana Freedom Caucus has regularly been described as “far-right” and “extremist” due to the divisive social bills its members have sponsored—including the “drag ban”—and the extremely inflammatory rhetoric espoused by some of its members, including the deliberate misgendering of transgender state Representative Zooey Zephyr.
The group has nonetheless quickly become a significant and contentious force within the Montana Republican Party, as evidenced by the six-figure effort made by moderate Republicans—via the Conservatives4MT PAC—to thwart its ascent during last week’s primary elections.
I recently caught up with state Senator Barry Usher, a four-session lawmaker and the Freedom Caucus treasurer, as well as a Coast Guard veteran, for a wide-ranging conversation. Read on as Usher takes stock of the primary results, argues that the Freedom Caucus is less extreme than many Montanans believe and explains his opposition to Montana’s abortion access constitutional initiative, which will appear on the November ballot if it gathers enough signatures.
Max: Was there was anything particularly surprising to you in terms of how this month’s primary elections played out for legislative seats?
Senator Barry Usher: There were a few that were surprising. Obviously losing both Knudsens in their primaries was a shocker. Rhonda has done a great job for the people of Montana. And then the Galloways; I mean, [Lola Sheldon-Galloway] is the Vice Chair of the state GOP.
Steve [Galloway] is one of the best at energy and looking at all energy—“all of the above”—whether it's oil, gas, coal, looking at solar and wind and nuclear. I know he has traveled quite a bit around the country to look at what other places in the country are doing, and looking at the electrical grid.
As the treasurer of the Freedom Caucus, how did you pick candidates to support? My understanding is that the Conservatives4MT PAC had the Freedom Caucus pretty well outspent.
We figure we were outspent ten to one.
We looked at who was the more conservative person in [various races]. We spent money on maybe twenty races: significantly on the Galloways, Knudsens, [Speaker of the House Matt] Regier, [state Senator Theresa] Manzella, Kathy Love. We had some hard losses. The majority of our other spends, we did get across the finish line.
[Regarding] Conservatives4MT, there's not a conservative bone in their body. So I think that's deceptive.
We as a Freedom Caucus, we're not going to change our name to deceive voters. And obviously the [moderate] Solutions Caucus doesn't believe in their name, so they had to create a PAC with some fictitious name. They also had the Hospital Association on their side. I understand that Governor Gianforte put money in against us.
I think we were effective based on our strategy of staying positive. We created a PAC with our name on it. We stand by what we believe in. We're not a radical right-wing organization, but we surely are not moderate or liberal.
What do you mean when you say that Conservatives4MT “doesn't have a conservative bone in their body?”
A lot of it has to do with tax and spend. We had approximately $3 billion worth of surplus, and we think that $3 billion worth of surplus should have gone back to the citizens that overpaid, because it's the citizens’ money. Whereas the Solutions Caucus, with the governor, decided to spend the majority of that money. They gave a little bit back to the citizens to make them feel like they got something. The percentage was [about 30% that] went back to the citizens.
[Note: I reached out to Senator Usher following our interview to clarify the figure above. News sources regularly peg the surplus at $2.5 billion, but he reiterated that he believes it’s more than $3 billion.]
Our citizens right now, with inflation and being overtaxed, are hurt. It costs more to go to the grocery store. Look at the gas prices, energy's going up, everything's going up. And they're paying more in taxes with property tax issues. We tried to call for a special session back in [November] to deal with the property tax issues. And the Solutions Caucus with the Democrats turned that down. That's just one issue.
You mentioned that you think Governor Gianforte put some money into Conservatives4MT. Will his endorsements of more moderate candidates, as well as that money, impact the way that you work with him?
It will definitely impact the way we work with him. But that doesn't mean that we don't have good ties with the governor. We believe that we can work with this governor or any governor on the things that we can agree on.
I think the governor made a statement when he did those endorsements and he put money in those races in a primary, which is unprecedented. He definitely aligns with the Solutions Caucus and more moderate tax-and-spend values.
The Freedom Caucus is often described as “far-right.” To your earlier point, what's your argument that that isn’t the case?
I would say that in the Freedom Caucus, we have some people that are farther to the right, and we have some people that are in the middle. We come out with a balanced approach. We have our discussions, we have our arguments. If we had a Republican Party that stuck together, that's what we would expect the Republican Party to do, too. We compromise within the Freedom Caucus.
[Someone] might be able to point out, “Oh, this person was radical because of this,” or “This person was radical because of that.” Well, it doesn't mean it's the entire platform of the Freedom Caucus.
One of the hit pieces, [Conservatives4MT] called it “Defund the National Guard.” Well, if you look at that bill, it was actually “Defend the National Guard.”
We do not want our National Guard to be used as a tool by the federal government for wars around the world that are not declared wars by Congress.
Our US Constitution says that only Congress can declare war. And we're all about that. But to send our people around the world and put their lives on the line [for a war] that has not been sanctioned by Congress is not what we want our Montana National Guard soldiers to do.
But that's how the Solutions Caucus wins. They twist and deceive. If voters could actually just hear the truth and vote for what they believe in, we win, hands down, every time.
When I interviewed him for this newsletter, Representative Bedey said something to the effect that the Republican Party should be a big tent and that the approach taken by the Freedom Caucus is taking the Party in the opposite direction. What do you make of that argument?
You know, I think it would be great if we were a great big tent.
If he said that to me, I would refer him to the GOP platform. I remember last year or two years ago at the GOP platform convention, he tried to make a few changes. And he actually got laughed at because the majority of the people at the platform convention did not agree with him. You would think that might be a wake-up call to people in the Solutions Caucus: you tried to change the platform and the majority of the people there did not agree with you so much that they laughed at you.
Senator Usher, are there other issues you want to highlight before we wrap up?
We need to get involved in the judicial races. The citizens need to be more informed. The judicial races in the state of Montana are the most important races in our state. It doesn't matter what governor we have, it doesn't matter the makeup of the Legislature or what laws we pass if our Supreme Court is able to throw them out [for reasons I believe to be] unconstitutional.
The uninformed voters need to be informed about the judicial races so we can get a more balanced Supreme Court that actually looks at our constitution and the rule of law.
The second thing is Montanans need to look at these potential ballot initiatives. I'm all about letting the people speak, but the danger of ballot initiatives is the uninformed voter, because voters may or may not understand what the unintended consequences are.
What’s an example of an unintended consequence?
“Access to abortion or reproductive rights.” That's what they're calling it. That's a great title. And I'm sure their narrative will say that every individual female should have the right to decide their reproductive decisions. How could anybody say no to that?
But if you look at that initiative and how it's written, it is so vague that really it could be extreme if it passes, just like [former Virginia Governor Northam] wanted to allow babies to be killed after they were born and the parents could make the decision. [Note: News sources including the AP and Reuters have strongly disputed this claim.]
It also doesn't define who's allowed to do those abortions. Does that mean the dentist could do it? Or a preacher could perform the abortion? It's mind-boggling that that's even being proposed. It's just too vague.
[Note: I reached out to Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights, the organization behind the constitutional initiative, for a comment on this last point. A spokesperson responded: “No, that is absolutely absurd. Neither of those examples are qualified healthcare professionals licensed to provide abortion care. They can’t perform abortions now, and they cannot perform abortions if CI-128 passes in November.”]
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.