Posts published in July 2012

There's been a chorus among conservatives - not least in the Wall Street Journal - about the federal interest in Idaho Falls' Frank Vandersloot and the business he operates, Melaleuca.

Vandersloot is one of the bigger financial figures in the Mitt Romney presidential campaign. So when last month Vandersloot found that two federal agencies, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Labor - both operating in the executive branch led by Barack Obama - were making regulatory inquiries (an audit of Vandersloot's taxes and a check on several foreign temporary workers at a ranch), you can understand wondering about a possible connection between that and his political activity - his active support of the man trying to unseat Obama.

The timing is, as someone looking at the situation noted, "curious."

Or it could be that this is routine agency business. Taxpayer audits and foreign labor checks are normal parts of what those agencies do. It happens.

Lacking smoking-gun evidence, we won't draw any conclusions about that here. And we'd suggest that anyone eager to jump to that conclusion - that politics drives agency actions all the time - consider something else from this month, too.

When the state-level Idaho Economic Advisory Council met in Pocatello on July 11, it had money to distribute - close to a million dollars in block grant funds. (More will be spent later.) As Mark Mendiola reported from that meeting, "council members unanimously endorsed providing $399,000 to Bonneville County for a Melaleuca lift station to develop 6,600 acres of prime commercial land."

That payout may very well have been a normal part of operations, and Vandersloot's close relationship with most of Idaho's top elected officials might have had nothing to do with it.

You wonder what Vandersloot's supporters, so quick on the draw when it comes to federal agency action, would think about that.

A long-held principle in electoral politics: Until the votes are counted, there are no absolutes – no 100 percent chance of winning, no zero percent chance of losing. Even in a race that looks like a slam dunk, there’s a little room for long-shot possibility.

So the newly-posted Facebook page from 2nd district Democratic challenger Nicole LeFavour, “Why Nicole can win,” makes for provocative reading. Widespread wisdom is that six-term Republican incumbent Mike Simpson is solidly positioned for a seventh term; is there an argument to the contrary? (Bearing in mind, it would be political malpractice for her not to pitch one.)

To start: Idaho’s congressional districts change this year, and the second now includes more of Boise than before, including nearly all its Democratic-leaning voters. “Some consider this district stronger for Democrats than Idaho’s first congressional district was when Walt Minnick was elected to U.S. Congress in 2008.” Maybe. But Minnick won in unusual conditions, and lost two years later.

Second, “Mike Simpson simply has never faced a democratic opponent who is both well funded and well organized. He has grown comfortable without a challenger for so many years and has spent much of his time out of state, his responses to constituent letters growing less and less personal.” The second point is a matter of perspective, but as to the first, Simpson has had serious opponents. He was held to 52% in his first 1998 run against former Representative Richard Stallings, and Simpson’s weakest re-elect in the last decade, 62%, was against former legislator and ace organizer Jim Hansen.

“Few people realize the level of name recognition and support Nicole has in Eastern Idaho where her work leading efforts to stop Tom Luna's efforts to replace teachers with lap tops made her a familiar face and leader for thousands of teachers and parents.” She may get some help there, but remember: Luna won the district in a landslide in 2010, and the region has many legislators who backed his school change efforts.

LaFavour is a good fundraiser, at “almost $160,000 so far.” But: Simpson’s cash intake, as of June 30, was $955,982. Much of that has been spent, but he easily could raise more. She is a hard-working and strong campaigner, better than most – but not all – of her predecessor challengers.

The page rousts the elephant in the room: “For those who ask, can a gay person win, especially in eastern Idaho? Remember LDS families have gay kids too. ... While there may remain dwindling tension over the issue of marriage, animosity toward gay people generally is quickly vanishing.” This is a wild card, but there are factors in play before you even get to it. LeFavour is a relatively liberal, north Boise Democrat campaigning in a district where most voters routinely support very different candidates. Presidential years in Idaho usually help Republicans. There’s literally nothing in the last two decades of Idaho voting history in the second district to argue for an upset.

Suggesting though – leaving aside the horse race – some real utility in her run. Instead of encountering a Democrat running as Republican-lite, or quickly forgettable, eastern Idahoans will be getting some world-view expansion. LeFavour is working hard introducing herself to people who rarely see or hear from anyone like her. In parts of Idaho where cultural norms and demographics are tightly limited, she could create a small revolution – an awareness of more than one way to look at things poliltically. Which may be a radical concept in some parts of the Gem State.

Idaho’s glory is its outdoors and the living things in it. The ways Idahoans relate to that world have long helped drive its politics, and over time in various ways. Those ways could be the process of changing again.

One big change occurred in the sixties and seventies with the rise of environmental activism, which had an effect on how people could use the open lands, and drew some sharp, and changing, political lines. For a time those trends helped elect conservation-minded officials (think Cecil Andrus in 1970), later fueling the Sagebrush Rebellion. Those changes happened at a time when Idaho was more rural, and more oriented around resource industries, than it is now.

And more oriented around hunting and fishing, which like much public land use is tightly regulated.

Look over the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s licensing numbers for the last couple of decades, and you’ll see some distinct patterns. First, bear this in mind: From 1990 to 2010, Idaho’s population went from just over one million, to nearly 1.6 million. If hunting and fishing are as proportionately large a part of Idaho life now as then, you’d expect license increases of 50 percent or more.

Instead, total resident licenses went from 333,700 in 1993 (the earliest year in the currently-maintained statistics), to 362,567 in 2011.

But that raw number is a little misleading, partly reflecting the changes in the kinds of licenses that have been issued. Many of the individual specific licenses show different patterns. The popular residential combination license, for example, went from 110,954 (in 1993) upward to 113,241 (in 1996), but has fallen consistently since, hitting 88,058 in 2011. Residential fishing licenses have grown modestly (from 102,733 in 1993 to 118,967 last year), but residential hunting licenses have declined from 58,349 in 1993, to 40,539 last year. Per-year sales of deer and elk tags fell during that time.

Among over-the-years comparable categories, one has grown big: The senior resident combo license, which sold 12,895 in 1993, and nearly tripled to 36,461. Seniors have been keeping up with hunting and fishing big time. Juniors have not. Sales for the junior combo licenses fell (these numbers compare 1993 and 2011) from 10,267 to 8,854; fishing dropped slightly, from 12,697 to 12,081; and hunting from 15,484 to 13,405. There’s a generational shift here, and the likelihood is for continued drops in hunting and fishing as the younger cohort makes up more of the population.

None of this is any kind of judgment against hunting or fishing, and the decline in numbers could become a problem not only because of state revenue loss but also in the wildlife management law-abiding hunters help provide. And Idaho isn’t unique in this; Oregon and many other states report similar licensing declines, probably for similar reasons.

It’s not hard to see why this would happen. As Idaho becomes more suburban (as overall it is), the more rural-based hunting and fishing traditions soften. At the same time, other outdoors activities remain as popular, or pick up steam. Camping remains a hot activity, and wildlife photography and birding are becoming increasingly active areas.

All these things are likely to have an effect on the way people see their out of doors, the way our policies should deal with them, and the politics that result.