“These (ai) facilities represent real economic opportunity — investment, jobs, and tax revenue for Montana communities,” Bodnar’s campaign noted on an earlier version of his website.
...but nonetheless, Bodnar said Montana needed ai data centers lest “the benefits flow elsewhere. This simply can’t happen.”
Last week, a Missoula district court judge heard oral arguments challenging a 2025 state law that changes how trans and intersex Montanans use public bathrooms and other spaces.
The lawsuit centers around House Bill 121, which requires public and some private facilities to enforce sex-segregated spaces for multiuser bathrooms, dormitories, and locker rooms.
The attorneys asked the district judge to strike down the law because it’s discriminatory and violates Montana’s constitutional right to privacy.
The state said they would enforce the law by allowing people who suspect a person of using a bathroom that does not match their sex to take a photo of the person as evidence. The facility where the incident occurred could then be sued for not complying with the law.
This bill targets trans and intersex people who want to use bathrooms and other spaces that align with their gender identity. The state is, once again, attacking people who deserve to feel safe and protected in Montana.
More here: https://montanafreepress.org/2026/08/13/judge-hears-arguments-montana-legislature-bathroom-bill/
Last week, the Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board voted to ban discussions to build data centers on the reservation. The Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes have been approached by three companies interested in building data centers on the reservation in the last year.
Tribal Executive Board member Roxanne Gourneau said they cannot compromise their water and environment, which is why they wanted to ban all discussion and prevent data center development.
More here: https://montanafreepress.org/2026/08/13/fort-peck-tribes-ban-discussions-data-center-development/.
On Saturday, Northern Plains Resource Council is hosting a Day of Action, advocating for a two-year statewide moratorium on AI data center development. They want to make sure that the interests of everyday residents aren’t taken advantage of by wealthy Big Tech corporations.
Find an event near you: https://northernplains.org/data-centers-day-of-action/.
I think we should tax secondary homes and ranches at a higher rate. We should also have a small sin tax on things like casinos,liquor store,marijuana shops,fast food and on junk food in grocery store. We should then give the money back to the full time residents making less then 60,000$ a year as a small UBI around like 300-400 monthly.
not an original thought but republicans refuse to actually fund things at the state level and keep cutting spending. This is causing across the board in cities conservative like billing’s to liberal like Missoula raises in taxes. I fear this isn’t sustainable and we are starting to actually tax people out of Montana and this will have a negative impact on the state economy eventually. I’m not a fan of democrats but let’s admit republicans have failed. I think we need a reset in the two parties running Montana and to maybe even give third parties a shot beyond just libertarians. idk I don’t have the answers thank.
Montana Freedom Caucus Chairman Jerry Schillinger tried to direct $600,000 of state money to a private company even after it lost the bid for a state contract.
The contract, to provide training for post-traumatic stress disorder therapy, came from House Bill 832 in the 2025 session of the Montana Legislature.
A public records request by The Daily Montanan uncovered the effort to steer the money to Quresta.
Quresta is based in New York and describes itself as offering a “life-changing” PTSD treatment without medication.
HB 832 called for a competitive bidding process, and records show Quresta was rated last among the three companies that submitted proposals.
Rep. Jerry Schillinger, R-Circle, said he advocated for state money to go to a company that didn’t get a state contract partly because he believes it’s what legislators wanted. (Provided by the Montana Legislature)
In an email to the Montana Department of Labor obtained in the public records request, Schillinger argued the state should ignore the results of the competitive process and give the contract to Quresta anyway — or to no company at all.
Schillinger, a bill sponsor, defended the email last month in an interview with the Daily Montanan. The Republican from Circle said legislators intended the money to go to Quresta.
Bill drafting documents show Rep. Ron Marshall, who originally requested the bill, and Larry Anderson, a former county commissioner who worked on the legislation, wanted to fund the treatment by Quresta. But even in draft form, the bill called for a competitive selection.
“I think it’s just a shame that as promising as that treatment method sounded, it’s not going to get an opportunity to be tried here in Montana,” Schillinger said.
Correspondence obtained in the public records request by the Daily Montanan indicates the request from a legislator about a preferred vendor isn’t unusual.
In an email about Schillinger’s request, Department of Administration Director Misty Ann Giles told the Department of Labor commissioner and officials from the governor’s office “it is worth noting, I get these calls often.” Giles said if Schillinger had wanted a specific company to do the training, that information should have been included in the bill, but it wasn’t.
“While we want to have good working relationships with the legislature, it is not our job just to keep everyone happy when doing so violates the law,” Giles said in the email.
---
Please don't let this become another Ellsworth situation. Just wow.
"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."
Now that the August 10 withdrawal deadline has passed, we know what the Montana Senate ballot is going to look like: Kurt Alme, Alani Bankhead, Seth Bodnar, and Kyle Austin.
Before the deadline, there was obviously a lot of pressure for either Bankhead or Bodnar to get out. Most of the pressure I’ve seen was directed at Bankhead, including from national figures like Rachel Maddow. The basic argument was that having both Bankhead and Bodnar in the race splits the anti-Alme vote, and that Bodnar was better positioned to consolidate it.
I disagreed with the push to get Bankhead out, but I don’t think that argument was crazy.
Bodnar has raised millions of dollars. He has built a serious statewide campaign. Some polling has shown him doing considerably better against Alme than Bankhead does. If you looked at those polls and concluded that our best chance of beating Alme was for Bankhead to withdraw and Democrats to consolidate around Bodnar, there was evidence for that position.
But I’ve also seen a more categorical claim repeated a lot where people have been saying that Bankhead has no path to victory.
I don’t think the evidence supports that at all.
For starters, the polls don’t even agree about which of them is more competitive against Alme.
An NRSC poll in July had Alme beating Bodnar head-to-head 50-43. Against Bankhead, Alme’s lead was only 49-46.
Yes, that’s Republican polling. I’m not suggesting we accept it uncritically. But that’s part of the problem with declaring this race settled. We have relatively little polling, and different polls tell very different stories. If one poll says Bodnar is clearly stronger and another says Bankhead is clearly stronger, I’m not sure how we get from that to certainty that Bankhead cannot win.
Tavern Research also found a four-way race at Alme 49, Bankhead 26, Bodnar 24, Austin 2. Bankhead was getting 78% of Democrats, while Bodnar was getting 20%.
That’s certainly not a poll I’d want to get if I were running Bankhead’s campaign. But she’s also not sitting at 5% waiting for Democrats to discover she exists. She’s already consolidating a large majority of Democratic voters in that poll.
And there’s another part of this comparison that I think gets overlooked: the enormous difference in money. Bodnar and Alme have raised millions. Bankhead’s campaign has raised around $60,000. Some have cited this as an additional reason she can't win, but I have a different take.
When we compare Bankhead’s polling to Bodnar’s polling right now, we aren’t comparing two candidates who have had anything close to the same opportunity to make their case to Montana voters.
Of course, Bankhead benefited from substantial outside spending in the primary. But that’s not the same as having millions of dollars under her own control to build an organization, introduce herself to voters, advertise statewide, and define herself before her opponents do. She didn't have any control of that money.
Maybe Bankhead is already close to her ceiling. That’s possible.
But maybe the candidate who has spent a tiny fraction of what Bodnar has spent has more room to grow than the candidate who has already spent millions. That’s possible too.
More importantly, on August 10 the rhetorical and strategic landscape changed completely.
“Bankhead should drop out” is no longer a strategy. She didn’t. Nor did Bodnar. Both names will be on the ballot in November.
So voters who don’t want Alme now have to figure out what to do with the race we actually have, rather than the race some of us wanted to have.
And this is a plurality election. Nobody needs 50%.
Just to illustrate the math, imagine this:
- Bankhead 37%
- Alme 35%
- Bodnar 23%
- Austin 5%
Bankhead wins.
I’m obviously not predicting those numbers. I’m pointing out that there is nothing mathematically exotic about a Bankhead victory.
Her path is pretty easy to describe: consolidate Democratic voters, pick up enough independents, and have Bodnar and Austin take enough votes elsewhere that Alme doesn’t get a larger plurality.
Bodnar has a path too: persuade enough Democrats to leave their own nominee, do very well with independents and anti-Alme Republicans, and become the candidate around whom the anti-Alme vote eventually consolidates.
I don’t know which one is more likely to happen between now and November. I don’t think anyone else knows either.
That’s why I think we should be more careful with the language we’re using.
If someone says “Bankhead is an underdog,” sure. If someone says “I think Bodnar is more electable,” there’s polling they can point to.
But “Bankhead has no path to victory” -- eh, I don't think that's true, and I honestly don't think it's even reasonable to have that opinion.
We’re three months out. The polling is sparse and contradictory. Bankhead has spent a tiny fraction of what the other major candidates have spent. We don’t yet know what Democratic voters who preferred Bodnar will do, what independents will do, how much money Bankhead will raise now that everyone knows she’s staying in, or how the dynamics of a four-way race will change once voters start thinking seriously about November.
Bankhead could lose. She could lose badly. Bodnar could emerge as the obvious alternative to Alme. Alme could win comfortably.
Bankhead could also consolidate Democrats, become better known and better funded, pick up enough independents, and win a plurality.
We can argue all day about how likely that is. But a path exists.
Personally, I think it is pretty attainable.
I saw Silencer Shop sent out a map saying suppressors are still restricted as they must be registered with the federal government. But that process has effectively ended as of today, so does this mean the law is moot or what?
I'm not the biggest Bodnar guy, but this really seems like Montana Dems are just handing the election to Alme at this point. Bankhead has raised $60,000 since the primary vs Alme's 1.9 million and Bodnar's 3.2 million. She has no chance, and her refusal to step down is frustrating to say the least.
Alani Bankhead is running for the U.S. Senate as a Democrat to represent the Montanans with “five dollars in their pocket and a whole lot of heart,” not billionaires or corporate interests.
That’s why she’s committed to staying in the race to replace outgoing Republican Sen. Steve Daines, Bankhead said during a press conference in Helena on Monday.
Monday is the deadline for candidates to take themselves off the November ballot in Montana, and voters are set to have four candidates on the ballot.
Bankhead won the state’s Democratic primary by 12,000 votes, but has faced stiffer competition from an independent candidate, Seth Bodnar, whose campaign has consolidated left-of-center support in the state.
Having multiple candidates has split Democrats within Montana and nationally, many of whom see Bodnar as having a likelier path to victory. A similar trend has played out in other reliably Republican states, with the Democratic candidates in Nebraska, South Dakota and Idaho dropping out in races with independents.
In polling, a four-way race — with Libertarian Kyle Austin — is easily won by the Republican candidate, Kurt Alme. The race becomes more competitive in a two-way race, but only Bodnar ever tops Alme, according to polls affiliated with his campaign.
The Republican candidate for senator Kurt Alme was unscrupulously registered as Republican when Steve Daines dropped out minutes before deadline March 4. He has taken 200,000 in PAC funds. The independent Seth Bodnar also registered and was picked and promoted by John Tester and also filed March 4. 62k in PAC contributions but 60 percent of money is out of state.
Alani Bankhead won her primary and is a retired Lieutenant Colonel. She refuses PAC money.
The pressure is on Bankhead to drop out. Make that make sense.
I don’t know who I support- but I certainly don’t like the shenanigans.
Kyle Austin Libertarian also won his primary and is fighting with the Libertarian leadership and has minimal support.
Thicken the plot- while Bodnar was president UM lost a lawsuit alleged that UM and the Montana University System operated a "good ol' boys club" that limited promotions and created professional gaps for women. The lawsuit was settled by the university system in January 2024 for $350,000.
Leopards can’t change their spots? More of same?
Blankhead needs to withdraw from the Montana Senate race. The midterm election of 2026 could be the most important election of my lifetime and many others. Right now every single vote from school board to Senate needs to be a vote against Donald Trump and his corrupt regime.
Blank head is polling well below Bodner. She is essentially splitting the vote. And based on some of the things she has said and done I’m still not sure she’s not a Republican ringer much less a democrat. But regardless of my opinion of her, the most important thing is that we do not need another Trump ass kissing republican senator standing by quietly while the corruption, grifting and destruction of a three tiered democracy continues. This is not about Republicans and Democrats. It is about stopping the regime. Whatever it takes.
I have written letters and I have called both the Democratic party of Montana and Blankheads campaign. I implore you to do the same. Tomorrow is the last day she can drop out of the race. We need to do what is best for Montana and our country and her splitting the ticket is not it.
Tribal communities in Montana are concerned about the new Medicaid work requirements, which went into effect on July 1, and how they could affect their access to care.
The changes require a person to demonstrate they work, volunteer or attend school for 80 hours each month in order to be eligible for Medicaid. Enrolled tribal members are exempt from those standards, but Indigenous health officials in Montana say it’s unclear how people are supposed to prove their status to the state health department.
Indigenous people account for about 6% of the population in Montana, but about 21% of the state’s total Medicaid enrollment. Federal money from Medicaid that flows into tribal healthcare systems has helped to close gaps left by the Indian Health Services, which is underfunded.
Tribal members have been disproportionately harmed by past changes to Medicaid and other public benefits. Requiring new documents to prove eligibility status under these requirements could be detrimental to the communities that rely on the government for healthcare.
The Montana Democrats Instagram posted a public statement commending Bankhead for dropping out of the race around 5:01pm before deleting it a few minutes later. They then posted the correct statement about her commitment to stay in the fight.
Edit- Users on twitter have the screenshot. Posted in comments.
She seems like she's getting momentum, right?
I’ve posted here before, but will explain the title.
I’ve been trying to get some certified copies of family records dating back to 1926. Specifically a “Petition to naturalize” and an “Oath of allegiance”. I’ve worked diligently over the last 2 months to get this from the clerk of the court, but she absolutely refuses to budge. Always redirecting me to USCIS. These are non federal records. They are simply in a ledger book within her custody. The NARA archives don’t have them. The state historical society doesn’t have them. There are no other copies of this paperwork available outside of her grasp.
USCIS has repeatedly informed me that they do not care about the certified reproduction of these records, as they are non federal. It IS NOT a certificate of naturalization, just the paperwork leading up to that in a district court.
I’ve called numerous clerks of the court in different counties, and they would happily certify this document for me, if they had it in their possession. There are no laws preventing the certification of what I need.
I literally just got off the phone (not but 5 minutes before writing this) with the county attorney, and she said that she won’t pressure the clerk to fulfill her legal duty to make certified copies for me. She won’t elaborate as to why, but just informed me that I could go ahead and sue the clerk of the court, and have the district judge come to a verdict on it. Obviously, that’s not what I want to do, but in accordance with the Montana State constitution, the clerk is violating civil rights, and freedom of public paperwork.
I live 9 time zones ahead of Montana. I don’t really want to have to go there. I don’t want to pursue litigation of a state employee in their own courthouse. When I asked the county attorney if that’s a conflict of interest to sue within their own courthouse, she simply said “the judge will determine that, and substitute another judge if necessary”. The county attorney also refused to cite any laws that the clerk could possibly operating under. The least helpful people I’ve ever encountered.
I have been nice, I’ve been patient. I don’t know what else I could possibly do at this point. I don’t want to spend money on lawyers fees, when they are just blatantly wrong.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for letting me vent.