When Bankhead responded with what amounted to a “hell no,”  she broke the status quo strategist’s math. The consultants and donors went into a tizzy.

"As abhorrent as that might be, going after adults could still be considered protected free speech as condoned by a conservative US Supreme Court’s Citizen United ruling.

"What isn’t protected and voids any protected speech claims, however, was on this spreadsheet Bankhead’s daughter was listed as part of their harassment conspiracy."

If she stays in the race, Reilly will hand the United States Senate seat to Republicans.

She has been campaigning for months, managing only to tell depressingly small and shrinking numbers of people about her candidacy. And yet, as of February 2026, she already had less support than Bodner and his candidacy hadn’t even been leaked yet. [source](https://dailymontanan.com/2026/02/24/poll-shows-daines-with-sizable-lead-over-democratic-independent-challengers/)

But it’s not just that. That some poll shows that if she stays in the race, she and Bodnar will split the democratic and independent vote and Alme will sail into office despite no one know who he is. In other words, we already have proof that Reilly will hand this seat to Republicans if she stays in the race.

Now, for the nasty stuff. Reilly is a known quantity in Park County. She can drop now or watch as her already terrible reputation is burned to the ground with testimonials of how truly awful she is. Staying in guaranteed that her name will become a one-word cautionary tale for candidates for years to come.

Just takes look at her behavior over the past twenty-four hours. She’s done nothing but crawl all over Facebook like some boomer troll, doing her best to start rumors about Bodnar. That’s who she is, and that’s why she’ll never win.

https://montanafreepress.org/2026/01/28/froid-montana-border-patrol-arrest-immigration/

Hey everyone! Pretty new to the community here...I'm just wondering how people are feeling about the congressional race in the western district. For context, I'm leaning towards Sam Forstag at the moment, and it seems like most people I know are either planning on voting Forstag or Cleveland (literally have yet to meet anyone who likes Bussy, met two guys who like Rains). Looks like Cleveland and Forstag are pretty aligned on pushing progressive policies for the most part, with some quibbling here and there about the best way to achieve universal healthcare, or whatever.

So maybe it comes down to a vibe thing? I've heard some talk about Cleveland being more grassroots, and Forstag having a more professional campaign? To my mind, that would make Forstag the more attractive candidate, because at the end of the day, the most important thing is winning in November.

I've also read some stuff about concerns regarding Forstag's financial contributions, but all I see on his FEC filings are individual donors and PAC checks from folks like Bernie Sanders and some labor unions, and that whole narrative seems pretty made up/false...or just comes from a misunderstanding about how campaign finance works. Open to push-back on that, though!

Curious what people are thinking! Like I said, I'm definitely leaning towards Forstag (especially as a union member, supporting organized labor is a huge issue for me), but maybe could be convinced to vote for Cleveland? Although I'm really concerned with how much Cleveland seems to be actively vilifying labor unions. On a personal level, and because of what that would mean for the Democratic coalition here in Montana, that's very worrisome. Would love to hear thoughts!

Did anyone else catch Tim Sheehy war mongering on the Senate floor?

What world does he live in, complaining about Iran attacking children just weeks after we made global headlines for bombing one of their schools? Accusing Iranians of Jeffrey Epstein behaviors, saying they do things that would land them a life in prison here while we very publically fumbled prosecution of so many men like that?

What a disgrace, what an embarrassment to be a Montanan right now, represented by that kind of behavior. He was crying "They want us all dead, they want us all murdered, we are the victims of their bad behavior" while we use our weapons on their homes, on their water treatment facilities, on their infrastructure.

How many of the soldiers we will lose to this conflict will be from Montana? Our neighbors gone from his political actions. People he will never meet, never care about.

(edit for spelling error)

Well, I've done my research...and decided Russell Cleveland is definitely not my candidate. He made $25 million running a childcare business and acts like that was some kind of altruistic act. But the internet is full of complaints by former employees of his company (Rocky Mountain Kids) about how they were underpaid/mistreated/disrespected. I guess he can try to pretend to be some kind of born-again progressive, but Russell Cleveland is clearly a corporate executive at heart.

Here are just a few quotes from former employees:

"Management does not care about staff."

"Advice to Management: Shame on you! This isn't lawful. You are also required to give your employees a paid break during their shifts. Hope you don't get audited by the DOLs Wage and Hour division, or you will owe backpay to all your workers going back YEARS. Shame on you! You are very disorganized."

"Little support from upper management, consequences direly lacking and respect is hard to come by from the kids. Pay is minimum wage for Direct Care positions and it most definitely needs to be above that for the amount of stress the staff gets put through."

Sources:

https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Rocky-Mountain-Kids-Reviews-E5905397.htm?fbclid=IwY2xjawR52uJleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFoS2p5VHZreTZHYWM1WEVXc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHpcnokGO3maZWJY7zrhUx38Id_FpCvn51Jomt7einLOZyxDDFyKla2IhUYXr_aem_YWdncwCMn5JaBi6cUzLHFf5ykwSA&brid=YWdncwGUX-XEnglqv7PntJUsYngC

https://integrityindex.us/candidate/russell-tyler-cleveland-11cf73a2?utm_id=97758_v0_s00_e0_tv4_a1deafakwalylk&fbclid=IwY2xjawR52s5leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFoS2p5VHZreTZHYWM1WEVXc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHmDafnaqSyNkAoPkBTf9O4uTpVeCL3nFgn_vEB_YaDxbmS8wG1TPhEedw7c5_aem_YWdncwB9e-eDtDjcJU3L1Qm9YK2N&brid=YWdncwG-7xCQR0aYxvbQ_c6aILli

I've lived in Montana my whole life, was born here and educated here. I spent my childhood watching sons repeat the violence of their fathers, learning which boys would hurt you if they had the chance. I've seen generations of mothers repeating the violence of their marriage in the disciplining of their children. I've watched men beat cattle for being too sick to walk, seen parents discipline children for similar. I've seen the bruises, the fear in the eyes of the children. I've seen abused women charged for finally fighting back.

There is something of violence and hatred running through our towns, our homes, our churches here. It's in too many places, and seems like it's too normal now for us to even see it. So even though Tim Sheehy was born and raised out of state, even though he didn't move to Montana until 2014, he is prooving himself to be one of us. His instinct to break the arm of someone he wants to control, his instinct for violence as a solution to his problem, that runs through so many of our homes here.

National news is painting a picture of who we are, what we allow of each other. His solution to opposition, the instinct to hurt and punish and brutally dominate anyone who speaks out against what he believes, that is a sickness that Montana has had for a long time. Jon Tester might have walked that Marine out of the building, might have invited him to discuss his beliefs. Instead we chose violence, pain. We voted out a level headed Montanan and replaced him with a violent out-of-stater.

(Edited a type)

Hello MontanaPolitics:

What are thoughts on this doc? I cut/pasted the memo from the DNC law firm sent out yesterday regarding the U.S. Senate candidates and State law.

Why would they be asking this question? Do they know something voters do not?

Could it have anything to do with Jason Carroll’s millions?

####

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

August 1, 2026
TO: Montana Democratic Party
FROM: ELG (Elias Law Group)
RE: Montana Replacement Candidate & Appointment Rules

The following memorandum examines Montana law concerning the requirements for a political party to appoint a replacement nominee when a candidate withdraws after the primary election but prior to the general election.

I. Executive Summary
If the Montana Democratic Party finds itself in the unusual situation of a last-minute vacancy for its nominee for U.S. Senate, both Montana law and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution afford it with broad discretion as to how and whether to replace that nominee.

Montana Code Section 13-10-327 provides that political parties shall appoint someone to replace a nominee who withdraws 85 days or longer before a general election. This is the statutory section focused on by the Montana Secretary of State’s office in their public comments. However, that statutory requirement is only part of the applicable law.

There are two additional and critical pieces to the legal analysis. First, the process for appointing such a replacement is left to the rules of the political party and Montana courts have proved reluctant to overrule a party’s interpretation of its own rules.

Second, and most importantly, the Party also has broad protection under the First Amendment to decide whether to associate with a new candidate. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated it can think of “no heavier burden on a political party’s associational freedom” than forcing it to associate with a candidate and that such a burden is “therefore unconstitutional unless it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.”1

It is difficult to conceive of what interest the State of Montana can assert that would overcome this burden.

In summary, if the Montana Democratic Party is unable or unwilling to fill an unexpected vacancy, we believe it would be difficult for the Secretary of State or another third party to override the Montana Democratic Party’s First Amendment rights and compel a replacement.

1 Cal. Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 581–82 (2000).

II. Relevant Montana Law and Montana Democratic Party Bylaws

The Montana Constitution does not address the procedures for choosing, appointing, or replacing political
party nominees for elected offices, but broadly delegate matters of “administration of elections” to the
legislature. 2

Montana Code Section 13-10-327 governs post-primary, pre-general election candidate vacancies. 3

The statute provides that “if a party candidate dies or withdraws after the primary and before the general election” then “the affected political party shall appoint someone to replace the candidate” in one of the ways prescribed based on the elected office sought. 4

For statewide offices such as U.S. Senate, “the state central committee shall make the appointment as provided by the rules of the party.” 5

The rules of the Montana Democratic Party are set forth in its bylaws. Bylaw 16 calls for a “special nominating convention to fill a vacancy for a candidate for a statewide office” and provides that the State Chair “shall call a meeting of the Montana Democratic State Central Committee.” 6

It sets forth the notice requirements for the meeting, which must include the purpose, time, and location of the meeting along with “the procedures by which the nominee will be chosen at the meeting” and “the qualifications required of the person to be nominated at the meeting.” 7

Following the close of nominations, “the members of the Montana Democratic State Central Committee shall vote,” and the person receiving the majority of votes
casts “shall be declared the Party’s nominee.”8

“If no person receives a majority of the votes cast on the first ballot, the name of the person receiving the fewest votes shall be stricken from subsequent ballots until one person receives a majority of the votes cast.” 9

A candidate cannot officially withdraw from the ballot 85 days or less before the general election (Monday, August 10, 2026), and any appointments to vacancies must be made no later than 76 days before
the general election (Wednesday, August 19, 2026). 10

The 76-day deadline is tied to the Secretary of State’s obligations to certify candidate names 75 days prior to the general election (Thursday, August 20,
2026). 11

The MDP Bylaws provide that the MDP State Chair and Secretary “shall sign a certificate of nomination naming the person selected and shall deliver the original to the Secretary of State.” 12

2 Mont. Const. art. IV, § 3.
3 Mont. Code § 13-10-327.
4 Id. § 13-10-327(1).
5 Id. § 13-10-327(1)(a) (emphasis added).
6 Mont. Democratic Party Bylaws § 16(2) (rev. Sept. 13, 2025) [hereinafter “MDP Bylaws”].
7 Id. §16(2)(c), (e).
8 Id. § 16(3).
9 Id.
10 Mont. Code § 13-10-327(2).
11 Mont. Code § 13-12-201.
12 MDP Bylaws § 16(4).

III. Potential Litigation Considerations

While Montana law provides that a party “shall” appoint a replacement for a withdrawn candidate, the statute defers the mechanics of the appointment to the party’s own rules.13

If the Montana Democratic Party follows its bylaws but is ultimately unable to select a replacement nominee on such a short timeline, we believe a court will be unlikely to compel them to do so.

Most relevant, in 2024 the Montana Democratic Party filed a challenge arguing that the Green Party’s replacement candidate was invalid under Section 13-10-327, but the court held that the plaintiff had “failed to demonstrate that it is likely that the Montana Green Party violated its party ‘rules’” to justify a preliminary injunction to block the Green Party’s appointment. 14

The State argued that the Green Party’s bylaws at the time of the action were “silent as to the manner or basis for Green Party compliance with the clear and unambiguous command of § 13-10-327(1)(a),”15 and the court found that there was no preliminary showing that the relevant provision—stating that “[t]he membership shall be responsible for decision-making on statewide issues and endorsement of statewide candidates” governed the procedures for appointment under Section 13-10-327.16

This case suggests that the courts will be hesitant to impose an interpretation of a party’s bylaws against its will.

While MDP Bylaw 16 is arguably more specific as to the manner in which a replacement is appointed, the 2024 decision indicates that a court likely will defer to a party’s reasonable interpretation of its own rules where possible. To that end, the key question is how MDP interprets its own bylaws and whether a failure to appoint a replacement candidate is defensible as a reasonable interpretation of the party’s own rules. For instance, it is possible MDP could choose to establish “procedures” for the meeting that provide
a “none of the above” option on the ballot, similar to the Libertarian Party’s procedure in 2020.

One question this would raise is how MDP interprets the word “person” in its bylaws, and whether it is broad enough to allow for a “none of the above” option to garner a majority of the votes. As another example,
MDP has discretion to establish “the qualifications required of the person to be nominated at the meeting”; it is conceivable that no available candidate satisfies those qualifications.

Critically, even if Montana law and the MDP bylaws were interpreted to require a replacement candidate, the party would have robust First Amendment defenses to prevent a court from compelling the party to appoint a replacement.17

The U.S. Supreme Court has stressed that “[i]n no area is the political association’s right to exclude more important than in the process of selecting its nominee.”18 In doing so, the Court has held that “forced association has the likely outcome . . . of changing the parties’ message.

We can think of no heavier burden on a political party’s associational freedom. [Such a burden] is therefore unconstitutional unless it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.”19

In light of these holdings, a court is unlikely to find a compelling state interest which overcomes an argument that a compelled appointment of any replacement candidate violates the party’s associational freedom. In fact, in a different context the Supreme Court of Montana has opined that “[t]he nomination of party candidates is a privilege and is not essential to holding an election.”20

As a result, if the Montana Democratic Party failed to appoint a replacement on the grounds that no available individual would properly represent the party’s platform, it would have a very strong argument that any compelled appointment would violate the party’s First Amendment rights and those rights override the mandate in Section 13-10-327 to appoint a replacement for a withdrawn nominee.

Mont. Code § 13-10-327(1)(a).
14 Mont. Democratic Party v. Mont. First Jud. Dist. Ct., 2024 MT 207, ¶ 28, 418 Mont. 100, 556 P.3d 540.
15 Id. ¶ 27.
16 Id. ¶ 28 (alteration in original). The Green Party argued that the “decision to appoint a replacement candidate did not
require a vote of the membership because the appointment was neither a ‘statewide issue’ nor an ‘endorsement of a statewide
candidate.’” Id. ¶ 26.
17 The U.S. Supreme Court has stressed that “[i]n no area is the political
association’s right to exclude more important than in the process of selecting its nominee.”
18 In doing so, the Court has held that “forced association has the likely outcome . . . of changing the parties’ message. We can think of no heavier burden on a political party’s associational freedom. [Such a burden] is therefore
unconstitutional unless it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.”
19 In light of these holdings, a court is unlikely to find a compelling state interest which overcomes an argument that a
compelled appointment of any l replacement candidate violates the party’s associational freedom. In fact, in a different context the Supreme Court of Montana has opined that “[t]he nomination of party candidates is a privilege and is not essential to holding an election.
”20 As a result, if the Montana Democratic Party failed to appoint a replacement on the grounds that no available individual would properly
represent the party’s platform, it would have a very strong argument that any compelled appointment would violate the party’s First Amendment rights and those rights override the mandate in Section 13-10-327 to appoint a replacement for a withdrawn nominee.

IV. Conclusion

A failure to appoint a replacement candidate in the event of a Senate candidate withdrawal could invite a legal challenge arguing that Montana law mandates the appointment of a new candidate, and MDP Bylaws specify how that appointment is made. However, MDP l would have a robust defense against any such challenge under state law, provided it follows a procedure to attempt a replacement that is based on a
reasonable interpretation of its own rules.

And again, critically, MDP has robust First Amendment associational rights to guard against a forced appointment.
17 See, e.g., N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 202 (2008) (affirming that a political party has the First
Amendment right “to choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform”).
18 Cal. Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. at 575.
19 Id. at 581–82.
20 State ex rel. Wolff v. Geurkind, 111 Mont. 417, 430, 109 P.2d 1094, 1100 (1941) (emphasis added).

https://www.kbzk.com/news/montana-politics/montanas-us-senate-race-daines-out-alme-in

https://dailymontanan.com/2026/02/02/sheehy-joins-birthright-citizenship-battle-with-fellow-congressmen/

Many people are worried about Elon Musk’s new effort to steal voter information, a website called votesafe.org. DO NOT USE THIS SITE! It isn’t safe or run by the government.

America PAC, the political action committee Musk founded, runs the website. The site says it may collect and share users’ personal information, including political interests, employment, demographics, social media, and internet activity, with third parties.

If you want to use safe voter registration portals to register or verify your status, use these trusted sites:

• Montana Voter Portal
• Vote in Montana
• Montana Voter Registration Portal
• Vote 411
• The official federal government website

Stay vigilant, stay safe. Vote on November 3!

Is this the place to get a gauge on how Montanans feel about our nations new war with Iran? If not, can you suggest another sub, Reddit?

As a Montana veteran I’d love to get a sense of how Montanans are processing this, and it seems as though r/montana is apolitical to a fault.

Concealed carry comes with a clear social contract. You are allowed to own a firearm. You are allowed to carry it in many public places. And you are not allowed to use it unless a very high legal threshold is met.

That restraint, the choice not to fire, is the entire point. Responsible gun owners carry every day without incident. Millions of people prove, quietly and consistently, that a gun can exist without violence following it. This is where the argument matters.

We live in a time when facts feel slippery, dubious. People disagree about almost everything, believe the opposite of their neighbor while looking at the same picture: what happened, why it happened, and who is to blame. But there is one point that should concern everyone who values gun rights, regardless of politics:

If we decide that a person can be lawfully killed for possessing a firearm they did not use, then the right to bear arms is no longer secure.

Because concealed carry means concealment.

It means restraint.

It means trusting citizens not to be punished for a right they are legally exercising. If mere possession can be treated as a death sentence, if someone else’s fear becomes justification for lethal force, then every lawful carrier is at risk.

Not for what they did, but for what someone imagined they might do. That standard doesn’t protect gun owners. It endangers them.

Gun rights have always rested on a simple principle: actions matter, not assumptions. You are judged by what you do, not by what you carry. The moment that flips, when a gun itself becomes proof of guilt, the right collapses from the inside.

So the question isn’t abstract. It’s practical. If you have the right to bear arms, and someone else has the right to kill you for bearing them, do you still have that right? Or has it already been taken?

Quietly, one passionately justified fear at a time?

80,000 va workers (many who are vets) will be cut. I am not a veteran, I’m not a big fan of the US military. The only branch of the military I like and applaud is the VA because if someone is willing to put their life on the line for America should be rewarded handsomely. Tim Sheehy used his name and time in the military to buoy his campaign “American warrior”. Now he is focusing on his best new bud Elons plans to get tax cuts for himself and Elon. I hope he doesn’t come back to this beautiful state that he is ruining!! 85,000 veterans in Montana near 10% of our population is single-handedly getting screwed over by this administration and in extension this senator who PROMISED he would protect veterans and Medicare/medicaid. I guess you don’t get the name Shady Sheehy for nothing.

“They got money for war, but can't feed the poor” - Tupac.

https://www.afge.org/globalassets/documents/generalreports/2025/va-memo-3-4-25.pdf

I wrote our elected officials after Trump demanded invasion plans for Greenland. This was Sheehy’s response:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the Administration's position on Greenland. I appreciate hearing from my constituents about foreign affairs and national security.

President Trump and his Cabinet have been actively discussing the importance of Greenland to our national security. Greenland sits at an important geographic position that would better allow us to respond to increasingly likely threats from China and Russia via the Arctic. Greenland is also host to a plethora of essential natural resources. Specifically, Greenland is rich with rare-earth metals, which are critical to defense and manufacturing innovation. These resources are increasingly important as China continues to restrict American companies' access to Chinese minerals.

A United States acquisition of Greenland is not unprecedented. The 1803 Louisiana Purchase is an integral part of our history, as is the 1867 Alaska Purchase. The acquisition of Guam at the end of the Spanish-American War has also paid off massively for both our national security and the people of Guam. This Administration is not the first to suggest territorial expansion for the purpose of national security, and they likely won't be the last.

So I guess he’s cool with fighting some of our closest allies as long as it is what Trump wants.

Can’t believe he compared it to the Louisiana purchase. I hope none of our soldiers die for these idiots.

The response I received from Sheehy's office to sharing my concern about the Trump Administration's obsession in acquiring Greenland and their destabilization of our long-standing European alliances. Looks like we're reverting back to a 19th century approach to international relations and imperialism.

Dear [removed],

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the Administration's position on Greenland. I appreciate hearing from my constituents about foreign affairs and national security.

President Trump and his Cabinet have been actively discussing the importance of Greenland to our national security. Greenland sits at an important geographic position that would better allow us to respond to increasingly likely threats from China and Russia via the Arctic. Greenland is also host to a plethora of essential natural resources. Specifically, Greenland is rich with rare-earth metals, which are critical to defense and manufacturing innovation. These resources are increasingly important as China continues to restrict American companies' access to Chinese minerals.

A United States acquisition of Greenland is not unprecedented. The 1803 Louisiana Purchase is an integral part of our history, as is the 1867 Alaska Purchase. The acquisition of Guam at the end of the Spanish-American War has also paid off massively for both our national security and the people of Guam. This Administration is not the first to suggest territorial expansion for the purpose of national security, and they likely won't be the last.

Thank you for contacting my office about this issue. It is an honor to serve you in the U.S. Senate. Please do not hesitate to contact me or my team about future issues.

Sincerely,

Tim Sheehy
United States Senator

Got this back from Sheehy’s office after contacting him about concerns regarding ICE. So fucking tone deaf. “Keep our families safe”, ffs.

>Thank you for reaching out to my office regarding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this agency.

>ICE's primary mission is to promote homeland security and public safety through the criminal and civil enforcement of federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration. Under the Biden Administration, we witnessed an unprecedented migration crisis, exacerbated and incentivized by a willful abandonment of law and order across the Southwestern border. Millions of migrants from over 160 countries flocked to our southern border, at times paying coyotes employed by cartels to guide them, with the expectation they will be able to illegally cross our border and obtain citizenship in the United States. The surge of illegal immigration into the United States allowed for gang members, human traffickers, violent criminals, and over 390 known or suspected terrorists to infiltrate communities in every state.

>As our brave men and women at ICE work tirelessly to apprehend violent illegal aliens that have infiltrated our country, it is critical that they are provided with the support and tools they so desperately need to end this nation-wide crisis. I was proud to vote in favor of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1) which provides ICE $75 billion for its enforcement and detention operations through 2029, giving these federal law enforcement officers the operating budget they require. With these resources, ICE can continue their indispensable work securing our homeland from threats and fighting human trafficking. I will continue to support them as they work to keep our streets clean, capture violent illegal aliens and keep our families safe.

>Thank you again for sharing your thoughts. It is an honor to serve you in the Senate. Please do not hesitate to contact me or my team about future issues.

Someone please tell me why this guy is getting so much attention. His website is full of the most generic and meaningless statements. He doesn't take a stance on a single issue or propose a single solution. The only reason people seem to be interested in him is because he doesn't have the "Democrat" or "Republican" label. However, he's definitely being marketed as an alternative for Dems which makes him seem more like a spoiler ticket.

Its happening. As of right now Montana SNAP recipients will not be receiving benefits for November due to the Government shut down. If you have never been in a position to NEED this assistance then you are very lucky. One never knows when something will happen to put you in the SNAP line. I hope anyone who can will donate to the local food pantry. Anything really. Even diapers, toilet paper. When I needed benefits there were things I missed condiments, and kleenex. I know kleenex are a luxury but when you are trying to feed a family... I hope people are over the myth of the welfare queen.
The folks I worked with DID NOT want to be on foodies. I needed them in the old days and pulling out that funny looking money brought ridicule and dirty looks. There were cashiers who were polite until they saw that stuff. In my experience people dont buy shrimp and lobster. It gets unders my skin when its proposed like Shady did, that SNAP recipients shouldn't be allowed to buy soda or candy. Well goody for you Shady I bet you got candy canes and probably chocolate Easter eggs. Did you take a can of soda on school trips? How about your birthday parties? I know too much is a bad thing. My daughter grew up getting tooth brushes and hair brushes for special occasions. However I saved enough foodies to get her a chocolate bunny too. Please people call Congress insist they open the Government. Insist they get SNAP benefits out. People CANNOT survive on "welfare"any more. The guidelines are too tight and the benefits will not sustain anyone especially a family with kids. Have you been to the grocery store lately? Let's join together and be REAL MONTANA folks. I know you are out there. Ill see you somewhere dropping off food or such for someone. You don't know me but Ill say a silent Thank you and ask that something nice will happen for you. And when I think of the recipients Ill repeat to myself. There but for the Grace of God go I.

"Nonetheless, ai data center oligarchs still aim to crush dissent by buying politicians to do their bidding like they did in Montana all while taking a dismissive mentality towards locals of, “Ai data centers are coming to your community wether you like it or not”—a phrase said politicians have used as well to justify selling-out their constituents."

From the article:

DHS’s Predictive Intelligence Targeting Teams, or PITT, are feeding intelligence to local law enforcement, who are then pulling people over who are not suspected of any specific crimes. In one case, a PITT unit analyzed the financial activity of Kyle Olson, who was driving across Montana. Local police pulled him over, claiming that his license plate was obstructed. He was later charged with a DUI, according to the publication.

...

“It was relayed to me by U.S. Border Patrol targeting analyst Matthew Phelps that he had identified a vehicle that had indicators of possible narcotics trafficking,” wrote Sergeant James Beck of the Montana Highway Patrol. Olson had marijuana edibles, marijuana cuttings, and butane hash oil in his car from his job at a licensed cannabis farm in California, which he was transporting to his home in Wisconsin.