At local meetings, agency leaders’ express frustration that legislators rarely reach out or listen to their concerns during the session. Instead, too many lawmakers appear to follow the lead of outside ideological groups like the Idaho Freedom Foundation.

These same legislators benefit from heavy outside funding—money that pays door knockers from other states as much as $30 an hour to canvas neighborhoods and spread negativity about their opponents. This tactic worked in 2024, and it’s being used again. Out-of-state money is even covering Airbnb housing for these paid campaign workers.

Residents across the Magic Valley are noticing, and they’re not happy. Ugly, darkly colored campaign mailers attacking candidates have become all too common. Thankfully, Twin Falls County has helped fund a nonpartisan voter guide to give citizens a fair way to learn about each candidate. There are no endorsements—just information. Take the time to study these races carefully, make up your own mind, and most importantly, vote.

May is a critical month for Idaho’s future. In our red state, most decisions are made in the primary election, so sitting out means giving up your voice. You can vote absentee, take advantage of early voting, or go to the polls on Election Day.

• Request an absentee ballot: voteidaho.gov (available now through May 8)

• Early voting: County West, April 27 – May 15.

• Election Day: May 19 at your local polling place

Our elections are safe and secure. Make your voice heard this primary season… Idaho’s future depends on it.

About the Author

Linda Wright Hartgen is a former Idaho legislator who served in the Idaho House of Representatives, representing District 25.

When a cut-to-bone budget bill that would hurt his rural constituents came to the Senate floor on March 13, Senator Jim Guthrie of McCammon knew he had to stand up and speak out to protect his people. Guthrie knew it was likely to pass but feared the damage it would inflict on working families in his district and across the state. His factual and impassioned speech brought the draconian bill to a screeching halt on a 10-25 vote, with 18 GOP Senators joining him in opposing it.

Among other things, Guthrie argued that the budget problem was largely “self-inflicted” because the Legislature dished out $450 million in tax cuts last year, then made additional tax cuts this year, and refused to use $1.7 billion in the state’s rainy day fund to fill the budget gap. He correctly pointed out that every agency, except the Legislature, was being cut. “We’re not taking a pay cut; we’re not compromising our benefits.”

Guthrie is certainly not a showboat, but he has a tremendous impact in his quiet way as Chair of the Senate State Affairs Committee. One of his jobs is to act as sort of a gate keeper to winnow out divisive, nonsensical pieces of legislation that are only introduced to score political points. That is a time-honored function of committee chairs. If there is adequate support for a bill, it can make its way to the Senate floor for a vote.

Guthrie has become a top target of the culture-war extremists. They have no use for legislators who refuse to bow to their will. The Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) gives Guthrie low ratings because he strongly supports Idaho’s public schools and higher education. Last year he voted against forcing taxpayers to subsidize private and religious schools, mostly in urban areas, to the tune of $50 million. His constituents get virtually nothing from this voucher scheme. He has also irked the IFF by standing up for farmers whose livelihoods depend on immigrant labor.

The culture war groups have been supporting a primary opponent who will do as they wish. David Worley, a Christian nationalist, is running against Guthrie in the May primary. His main claim to fame is being relieved of his command in the Idaho National Guard in September 2024. He was found by the Assistant Adjutant General of the National Guard to have demonstrated counterproductive leadership that reduced morale, eroded trust and showed little respect for others. An officer has no business trying to influence the religious views of the troops.

In January 2025, Worley filed a 138-page lawsuit against the National Guard and Governor Little, claiming religious discrimination. Worley’s attorneys included Liberty Counsel, often considered to be a Christian nationalist law group. The suit was filed in the federal court in Idaho, seeking reinstatement to his position and compensation. The Attorney General’s office, representing the Governor, asked the judge to dismiss the case because Worley’s claims were “based on a non-existent policy concocted by” Worley. The judge apparently agreed and issued an Order on February 12, dismissing the entire case.

Despite his staff’s dim view of Worley’s lawsuit, Attorney General Labrador has just endorsed Worley’s primary challenge against Guthrie. Labrador claims the guy who “concocted” a lawsuit against the state will, in his words, “bring integrity, courage, and common sense to the Senate.” More likely, Labrador shares the Christian nationalist views that Worley would bring to the Legislature.

It should not be forgotten that Labrador has cozied up with Christian nationalists since taking office three years ago. He has worked in tandem with a group much like Liberty Counsel to advance the Christian nationalist legal agenda. The Alliance Defending Freedom, which has been listed as a hate group, has teamed up with Labrador on several culture war lawsuits, which raises real ethical concerns.

Labrador’s endorsement of the opponent of a sitting Senator is also concerning. The Legislature is a client of the AG and individual members should not have to worry about the State’s top legal officer targeting them.

Despite the badmouthing by Labrador and Worley, I think Guthrie’s willingness to stand up for rural values will serve him well in the primary election. The voters are desperate for courageous public servants who are not afraid to demonstrate real leadership.

About the Author

Jim Jones is a Vietnam combat veteran who served 8 years as Idaho Attorney General (1983-1991) and 12 years as Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court (2005-2017). He also publishes at substack.com/@jjcommontater.

That is what Bryan Smith, Doyle Beck, Greg Pruett, and Dustin Hurst have built inside the Idaho Republican Party. A network that recruits controllable candidates, funds them through dark money and special interest channels, directs their votes through the IFF’s weaponized scoring system, and systematically destroys anyone who exposes how the operation works.

EmmaLee Robinson and Chad Christensen are not the architects. They are the instruments. Useful, loyal, and easy to direct. That is exactly what the network looks for.

I know how this operation works because they came after me, and they picked the wrong target.

Over nearly ten years, this network filed two SLAPP lawsuits against me and lost both. They ran coordinated campaigns to get me fired from my job. Dustin Hurst doxxed me, made public threats, and a judge granted me a civil stalking injunction against him. When my son was in the pediatric ICU fighting a rare brain tumor, Hurst escalated his attacks anyway. My son survived, and Hurst refused to apologize.

They counted on my going away quietly, like others they’ve attacked in the past. Instead, I stood my ground.

I built my own business so no one in this network could ever threaten my livelihood again. I kept writing. I kept documenting. And I built chadchristensen.org because the public record exists, it is damning, and people deserve to read it before they hand this network another seat in the Idaho Legislature.

The site is built entirely from court records, sworn depositions, and public filings. Every source is hyperlinked. I have been transparent about my role in creating it.

You do not beat bullies by backing down. You beat them by doing things the right way, loudly, in public, with receipts.

Some people will read this and invoke scripture. Who are you to judge? Let him without sin cast the first stone.

I want to answer that directly.

This is not a judgment of Chad Christensen’s soul. His sins before God are between him and God, and I mean that sincerely. What this is is an examination of a public record about a man who is voluntarily seeking public office on a platform built around virtue, accountability, and family values while hiding a documented history that contradicts nearly all of it.

Nobody is making Chad Christensen run for the Idaho Legislature. He is choosing to do it. That choice invites scrutiny. Matthew 7:16 does not say look away from the fruits. It says examine them. Ephesians 5:11 does not say to tolerate the deeds of darkness. It says expose them. Accountability for public conduct is not a sin. Bearing false witness is.

The people calling this divisive have not applied the same standard to a decade of coordinated attacks on my family. They are not applying it now. Forgiveness extended selectively to those causing harm, while demanding silence from those documenting it, is an insult to Christianity.

Chad Christensen could be spending this season repairing his life, learning from his failures, and becoming someone his community respects for the right reasons. Instead, he is running for office again, backed by the same network that used him before, to carry the same agenda he carried before, for donors who are not the people in his district.

That is his choice. And it is the voters’ right to make theirs with a full picture of the record.

Most people are taught to avoid confrontation. That conflict and contention are the same thing. That keeping the peace means not making anyone uncomfortable.

Telling uncomfortable truths creates conflict. That is unavoidable and necessary. When someone’s public record contradicts the identity they are selling, publishing that record can be uncomfortable. It generates friction and pushback. That friction is not a problem to be managed. It is what happens when documented fact meets cultivated narrative, and it is how truth prevails. Truth does not win by being withheld.

Contention is something else. Contention is intentionally harmful, abusive by nature, and pursued in bad faith. Its purpose is not to establish a fact but to damage a person. The lawsuit was contentious. The doxxing was contentious. The smear campaign coordinated across an IFF-adjacent network was contentious. What this site does is necessary conflict done with civility. There is no name-calling. No ad hominem attacks. No personal attacks. Just the facts, backed by evidence and sources.

Read the site. Learn the pattern. If someone tells you that the problem is the person holding up the receipts, ask them what they said when the receipts were being earned.

Standing your ground is not aggression. It is how a healthy body fights back.

About the Author

Gregory Graf is the CEO of Snake River Strategies and creator of Political Potatoes. He’s a lifelong conservative Republican living in Star, Idaho.

Do you want to help support Political Potatoes? Please consider upgrading to a paid subscription and/or leave a tip 😊 Your support keeps this work going and is appreciated.

Leave a Tip

Disclaimer: The following is intended to convey an opinion on newsworthy events of public concern regarding public figures and/or public officials in exercising their official duties. No implications or inferences—beyond those explicitly stated in the preceding— are intended to be conveyed or endorsed by the Author. Wherever available, hyperlinks have been provided to allow readers to directly access any underlying assertions of fact upon which this opinion is based.

It looks polished, professional, and often official, which is exactly the point. Because in today’s political environment, influence is engineered. And increasingly, it’s not coming from here.

Out-of-state money is pouring into Idaho elections, funding targeted mail campaigns, digital ads, and carefully crafted messaging designed to shape local outcomes. These pieces are built to look grassroots. They’re designed to feel like guidance from your neighbors, but many are anything but. They are not about informing voters. They are about directing them.

A slick graphic, bold claim, and a list labeled “recommended.” It looks authoritative and feels decisive. But look closer. Who decided which candidates made that list and which didn’t? Who paid for it? What information is missing?

Omission is one of the most effective tools in modern politics. You don’t have to lie if you can control what people see. When that control is concentrated, whether through outside money or a small group deciding what voters are allowed to know, it stops being helpful and starts being manipulative. That’s not how a healthy party or a healthy community functions.

When you follow the money, the scale of that influence becomes hard to ignore. In recent Idaho primaries, just four major PACs: Make Liberty Win, Citizens Alliance of Idaho, Idaho Summit PAC, and the Natural Medicine Alliance have poured in roughly $1.7 million or more, while the combined spending of typical in-state PACs often lands closer to $600,000 to $700,000. That’s not just a difference in dollars, it’s a difference in who is shaping the narrative voters are seeing. Idaho voters may still cast the ballots, but increasingly, the loudest voice in the room belongs to whoever is writing the biggest checks.

Idaho has always valued independence and straight answers. And we value the idea that local decisions should be made by the people who live here—not influenced by outside money or filtered through insiders who think they know better.

But that only works if voters are paying attention. Because the truth is, nobody is coming to sort it out for you. Not the mailers, not the ads, and not the people telling you they’ve already done the thinking, so you don’t have to. That responsibility belongs to each of us. So, before you vote, slow down.

Look at more than one source. Read beyond the headline. Follow the money. Most importantly, ask yourself whether what you’re seeing is meant to inform you… or manage you because there’s a difference. One respects voters. The other tries to manipulate and control them.

Spoiler alert: Idaho voters don’t need to be managed.

If we start outsourcing our judgment to whoever has the biggest budget or the most engineered message, we shouldn’t be surprised when the results don’t reflect the community we thought we were voting for.

The strength of North Idaho has never come from consultants, mailers, or political machinery. It comes from people who take the time to think for themselves and refuse to be played.

If we’re serious about self-governance, we can’t outsource our judgment. We must own it. And if we want to keep the Idaho Way, we’d better start showing up for the May election.

About the Author
Becky Funk is a member of North Idaho Republicans and is former Legislative District 4 Republican Chair.

I attended that meeting with my wife, Andrea, and her friend, both members of the CanAda Republican Women, a group Andrea founded. She is studying parliamentary procedure with the goal of becoming a parliamentarian herself and wanted to observe the process firsthand. They were seated in the main meeting room before the proceedings began. The correct approach was simple: announce that the committee was moving into executive session and ask anyone who was not a PCO to excuse themselves. Standard practice. Basic courtesy. Instead, Butterworth dispatched his son and deputies to remove them in the most confrontational manner possible, turning a routine procedural moment into a performance of authority he has never actually earned. Genuine leadership does not need to announce itself through a show of force. Butterworth’s instinct for confrontation is not toughness. It is the reliable signature of a coward.

After the meeting, ACRCC secretary Ben Chafetz and a colleague, Mike Hon, approached Purdy and falsely accused her of bringing her guests to cause trouble. When Purdy noted that they had not come with her, Hon said loudly: “Sure you don’t know them.” Purdy’s reply was precise: “I never said I didn’t know them. I said they didn’t come with me.”

The proceeding itself had all the integrity of a kangaroo court. The motion to investigate Purdy had been introduced at the June 2025 ACRCC meeting while she was absent. The man who made the motion later acknowledged, when Purdy confronted him, that he was “not privy to any of the information/evidence in this matter” and had simply been asked to make it. He encouraged her to “resign before anything damning/embarrassing is publicly presented” and claimed she had “Harris/Walz signs” in her yard. Purdy’s response: “Complete fabrication. My Republican family would have disowned me had that been the case.” When she asked who actually held the evidence and why they were apparently incapable of making the motion themselves, she received, in her words, “radio silence.”

Ben Chafetz, who headed the sham investigative committee, notified Purdy in August 2025 that she was under formal investigation but refused, despite her repeated written requests, to tell her what she was actually accused of. Her legal counsel, a former Idaho Republican attorney general and lieutenant governor, was barred from representing her. Chafetz’s guidance on how she should prepare her defense was extraordinary in its audacity: “I would recommend reflecting on past actions, statements, or engagement that could have prompted scrutiny.” In other words: figure out what you did wrong, because we won’t tell you.

The approximately $5,000 price tag for this exercise covered the cost of reserving space at the Ada County courthouse for the special proceeding and hiring a parliamentarian from North Idaho, whose travel and expenses were covered by the committee, presumably to lend an air of procedural legitimacy to what was, by any honest measure, a predetermined outcome in search of a process.

What the ACRCC appears to have found disqualifying in Alicia Purdy’s Republican record: a personal donation in 2022 to a friend and colleague, made before she was ever a PCO; a recurring education PAC donation since redirected to the Idaho Young Republicans; running for a nonpartisan NEA director seat as part of a Republican-organized effort; opposing vouchers on fiscal grounds; holding a nuanced pro-life position; again before she held any party position.

Her actual Republican record is not ambiguous. Charter member of the Idaho Republican Educators caucus, chair of the NEA Republican Educators caucus for the western states, member of the Idaho Federation of Republican Women, active door-knocker and donor for Republican candidates across Ada County and beyond. Fellow PCO Mike Luna captured the logic problem plainly: “If it is good for the party in principle, it cannot suddenly be improper in practice. Otherwise, the standard is not about the behavior. It is about the person.”

As for the $5,000 the ACRCC spent attempting to remove her, Purdy offered the most efficient summary available: “I am a fiscal conservative, after all.”

The meeting failed to reach a quorum. The ACRCC’s own secretary claimed not to have the agenda for the event her organization had just spent five thousand dollars preparing. The entire enterprise collapsed under the weight of its own bad faith. Most Ada County Republicans simply declined to show up, and the people who engineered this proceeding were left to absorb their humiliation in a room that wasn’t full enough to conduct business.

This, in the current idiom of Idaho Republican Party leadership, is called building the party.

Understanding the Purdy proceeding requires understanding who Thad Butterworth is and how he came to lead one of Idaho’s most important county party committees. Butterworth lost his race for College of Western Idaho trustee, lost his Idaho Senate race against Sen. Treg Berndt, and ran on the Idaho Freedom Foundation’s machine candidate slate alongside Janice McGeachin, who appeared via video at a Nick Fuentes neo-Nazi rally, and Priscilla Giddings, who doxxed a rape victim to shield a colleague now serving twenty years in prison for that crime. Idaho voters rejected them all.

When the previous ACRCC leadership resigned in protest over Dorothy Moon’s conduct, Moon and her then-IFF allies installed Butterworth and Vice Chair Ryan Spoon to take control. They did not earn those positions through any normal democratic process. Spoon’s chief operational lieutenant is Chafetz, a failed legislative candidate who holds no actual influence or respect, drafted the letters Purdy received, and managed the investigative committee that told a duly elected PCO to guess at her own charges. Spoon’s own local Republican precinct declined to elect him to anything.

Butterworth’s ideological proximity to the movement’s darker edges is not incidental. He has been photographed alongside Stew Peters, a white supremacist and antisemite who has praised Adolf Hitler, promoted Holocaust denial, and called for the installation of a Christian monarchy, with the comfortable body language of someone posing with a friend. He has never publicly denounced Peters or anything Peters represents.

Spoon has been unusually candid about the strategic vision. His stated goal is to make Idaho so intolerable for those who disagree with his faction that they will choose to leave the state. He presents this as conservative governance. What it actually describes is an authoritarian theory of politics that has abandoned persuasion entirely and replaced it with attrition. What this network is executing on Purdy and people like her follows the methodology H.L. Bill Richardson outlined in Confrontational Politics: manufacture conflict, make civic participation miserable enough that reasonable people disengage, then fill the vacuum with loyalists. The goal is not winning general elections. The goal is organizational control.

The evidence that this strategy is failing is no longer subtle. The previous ACRCC leadership founded the Idaho Majority Club after departing in protest, and the contrast in outcomes has been unambiguous. The Idaho Majority Club raises more money than the Idaho Republican Party, draws larger crowds, and consistently attracts more elected officials and prominent speakers. In February of this year, it hosted Donald Trump Jr.’s visit to Idaho. Not one member of the IFF’s Gang of Eight legislative caucus attended. They were, apparently, too busy boycotting the President’s son to show up for one of the most significant political events of the Idaho legislative season. If only their voters knew they were never real Trump supporters like they pretended to when running for office.

Dorothy Moon is now fighting for her position amid a pronounced fundraising drought. The businesses and mainstream Republican donors who once sustained the state party have quietly concluded that its current leadership is neither competent nor serious, so they closed their checkbooks. IFF’s Gang of 8 leader, Maria Nate, has publicly called for defunding the Idaho Republican Party, the very institution Moon nominally controls. And they have the audacity to call everyone else “RINOs.”

And yet this same network is rallying behind Mark Fitzpatrick for governor, just as they previously rallied behind Ammon Bundy against Gov. Brad Little.

Fitzpatrick is a former California law enforcement officer turned real estate agent and bar owner, proprietor of the Old State Saloon in Eagle. His public profile was built not through any policy achievement or civic contribution but through deliberate provocation: “Beers for Breeders,” anti-vaccine Christian singles nights, and a flat earth presentation called “NASA Lies — Flat Earth 101.” He was excommunicated from the Eagle Christian church, which he helped found. He has hosted antisemitic conspiracy theorists, a Christian nationalist event linked to Doug Wilson’s network in Moscow, and an appearance by Jake Shields, named in a Network Contagion Research Institute report as a top amplifier of foreign Iranian-linked influence operations.

In June 2025, Fitzpatrick hosted the “Heterosexual Awesomeness Festival” in Cecil Andrus Park, across the street from the Idaho State Capitol. Promoted for months across far-right social media, it drew only a few dozen attendees and cost Fitzpatrick roughly $85,000. During the livestream, white nationalist Dave Reilly sat beside Fitzpatrick and remarked that Boise was clean because it had no Black residents. Fitzpatrick smiled. He did not interrupt, cut the feed, or object. His eventual disavowal came only after a vendor publicly withdrew support.

Reilly’s co-host Rebecca Hargraves offered her own assessment afterward. Idaho’s Jewish population of 0.3 percent was, in her view, “far too high.” She added, “I’m racist. You people aren’t breaking any stories here.” Fitzpatrick has not commented.

Fitzpatrick has long used the trappings of mainstream conservative support as a marketing prop, invoking broad Republican solidarity when it suited his brand and the optics of the moment. The reality underneath that branding is now surfacing. Key figures in his orbit are publicly breaking with mainstream Republican politics, and Fitzpatrick’s own son was recently caught suggesting that Trump is controlled by satanic Jews and that he can no longer support him. This is the logical destination of a worldview built on layered conspiracy, in which each theory eventually swallows the last and no figure, however prominent, survives scrutiny. Optics kept the uglier conclusions out of public view long enough to sell tickets, collect endorsements, and pose for photographs with elected officials.

The IFF operated a booth at the “Straight White Pride” festival, collecting names and contact information of like-minded people willing to broadcast their supremacy publicly. IFF president Ron Nate had awarded Fitzpatrick a “Citizen Hero Award” before the event. The legislators who publicly aligned with the Old State Saloon’s messaging and attended the opening event include Senators Josh Keyser, Tammy Nichols, and Brian Lenney, as well as Representatives David Leavitt and Josh Tanner. Lenney, notably, took to the Idaho Senate floor to call Donald Trump Jr. a “Mar A Lago Fintech Bro” the same season he was publicly aligning himself with a bar owner who smiled through a white nationalist’s commentary about his own city. The ideological consistency here is difficult to locate.

This is who the far-right establishment has chosen as their standard-bearer for the Idaho governorship, set against a sitting incumbent who has earned the President’s endorsement.

Ronald Reagan understood something the current ACRCC leadership and their network have forgotten. If someone agrees with you eighty percent of the time, they are your ally, not your enemy. A coalition that demands perfect compliance is not a coalition. It is a closed system that shrinks by design. The Idaho Republican Party was built on a genuinely big tent: fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, libertarians, farmers, small business owners, and working families who agreed on enough to win together. That tent is being deliberately collapsed by the people who insist they are strengthening conservatism.

Alicia Purdy made the case herself before March 19. She is an elected PCO in a purple precinct, and ejecting Republicans who agree eighty percent of the time, she says, “only serves to weaken the party.” She quoted Reagan because he was right, and because the people running the Ada County Republican Central Committee appear to have never engaged seriously with him.

The Idaho Majority Club exists because people figured this out and built something better. They raise more money, draw bigger rooms, and host events that actually matter. That is what a bigger tent looks like in practice, and it is already working.

The Idaho Republican Party is worth fighting for. Building it back requires an honest account of what has been done to it, the willingness to name what needs to be named, and the conviction that most Idaho Republicans, people who care about their communities and want a party that can win and govern, deserve better than what Dorothy Moon, Thad Butterworth, and his installed minions have given them.

Idaho’s republican party needs more people like Purdy and fewer useless Spoons and Butterworths if it wants to remain relevant.

About the Author

Gregory Graf is the CEO of Snake River Strategies and creator of Political Potatoes. He’s a lifelong conservative Republican living in Star, Idaho.

Do you want to help support Political Potatoes? Please consider upgrading to a paid subscription and/or leave a tip 😊 Your support keeps this work going and is appreciated.

Leave a Tip

Disclaimer: The following is intended to convey an opinion on newsworthy events of public concern regarding public figures and/or public officials in exercising their official duties. No implications or inferences—beyond those explicitly stated in the preceding— are intended to be conveyed or endorsed by the Author. Wherever available, hyperlinks have been provided to allow readers to directly access any underlying assertions of fact upon which this opinion is based.

In 2026, we are seeing a new twist. This time, a group called Citizens Alliance of Idaho PAC based in Hayden, Idaho, is targeting Idaho House and Senate candidates, funded overwhelmingly by a single Pennsylvania company that is the business of selling and placing gaming machines.

The company is POM of Pennsylvania, LLC. Its machines look like slot machines but have an element of “skill” in that that user to win must do certain tasks. The company claims that makes them exempt from gambling laws. The Pennsylvania Attorney General asserts that is just a cover to side-step gambling laws in that state and is suing the company.

So, what is the connection to Citizens Alliance in Idaho? Well, 99.72% of its funding this year has come from a national PAC called Citizens Alliance Political Action Committee, Inc., located in Fairfax, Virginia. That total amount $450,000 this year. Over 72% of that group’s money has come in the past two years from POM of Pennsylvania, LLC.

So why is gambling money targeting Idaho’s legislative races?

The answer is to step back a decade. In 2015 the Idaho Legislature banned machines that featured past horse races as the equivalent of slot machines. Apparently POM of Pennsylvania is looking for friendly legislators to spread its slot-machine-like devices to states like Idaho.

That brings us to Citizens Alliance of Idaho. That group was formed in 2021. Its President is Matt Edwards, a former film director and producer who moved to Hayden from Los Angeles when he lost his job there during COVID. He runs the organization day-to-day.

The group has historically been funded by mostly by non-Idahoans. But, it has ties to the ultra-right in Idaho, include current Freedom-Foundation board members Doyle Beck and Bryan Smith who made the largest Idaho donations to the group in 2022.

In 2024 the group started hiring groups of roughly 12 people to go door-to-door in a specific part of Idaho focused on knocking on doors and delivering literature to households that might vote in the Idaho Republican primary. Citizens Alliance targets legislators who are not hard right and bolsters those who are or want to be that kind of Idaho legislator. The group in addition to hand-delivered literature does lots of social media, texts and direct mail.

In 2024 the group backed such hard right Idaho Senate candidates as Dan Foreman, Christie Zito, Tammy Nichols, Brian Lenney, Glenneda Zuiderveld and House candidates, Scott Herndon, Elaine Price, Jaron Crane, David Leavitt, Juliane Young, Karey Hanks, and Bryan Smith himself.

The group is already working in multiple races around the state this year, with a particular focus in the Magic Valley and Eastern Idaho.

But, here is the real question. Why are these supposed conservative, Republican candidates being supported by a Pennsylvania gambling machine company who is willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars here in Idaho?

Idaho voters, any time they see the name Citizens Alliance on a piece of literature, a social media post or a text should ask that question.

About the Author
Steve Taggart is an attorney in Idaho Falls and has worked in Republican politics since his teens, both in campaigns and for elected officials, including running a congressional office.

Having worked in and around politics for decades, I’ve seen my share of hardball tactics and less-than-honest arguments. But what feels different today is how quickly disagreement turns into something deeper and more destructive.

It’s no longer just about being right, but making sure the other side is seen as wrong in the worst possible way.

In Idaho, this doesn’t play out primarily as Republicans versus Democrats. In a state where Republicans dominate, the tension has shifted inward. It’s Republican versus Republican. People who agree on most issues drawing hard lines over the rest and treating each other like enemies because of it.

We’ve all heard it. Labels thrown around like weapons: RINO, extremist, sellout. The goal isn’t making the case. It’s dismissal and that’s a problem.

Because when we stop trying to understand each other, we stop being effective. And when we assume bad intent instead of asking questions, we guarantee the divide gets wider.

What if, instead of leading with accusation, we led with curiosity?

“I see things differently—how did you come to that conclusion?”

That simple shift doesn’t mean you abandon your principles or stop advocating for what you believe. It means respecting the process of getting there. Most people didn’t arrive at their views out of malice, but from experience, information, and priorities that may differ from your own.

Disagreement is not the problem. It’s necessary. It sharpens ideas and reveals blind spots we might otherwise miss. None of us gets everything we want—and we shouldn’t. Give and take is what keeps a society healthy. It’s how better outcomes are shaped and sustained.

But contempt is different. Contempt shuts the door before the conversation even begins. And once that door is closed, it’s hard to reopen.

The irony is the more we lean into this us-versus-them mindset, the more we weaken the very communities and causes we say we’re trying to protect. It’s like a campfire where instead of tending it, we keep feeding it until it burns so hot that people step back—or walk away. We lose good people who don’t want to wade into the hostility. It discourages participation. In the end, nobody really wins.

I’m convinced we can do better. It starts small. In conversations at events. On social media. In how we talk about people who aren’t in the room. We can choose words that invite discussion instead of ending it while keeping in mind that disagreement doesn’t equal disloyalty.

But it requires humility and willingness to admit we might not have all the answers. And maybe, just maybe, someone else has a perspective worth hearing. It doesn’t mean you’ll change your mind. But it might change how you see each other. And that matters.

The strength of a community isn’t measured by how often everyone agrees. It’s measured by how well people handle it when they don’t.

If we want a healthier political environment that moves ideas forward instead of just scoring points, we need to relearn the skill civil engagement.

We can disagree better. Stand firm when it matters. And do so with respect and dignity.

It’s the Idaho Way.

About the Author

Becky Funk is a member of North Idaho Republicans and former Legislative District 4 Republican Chair.

Join North Idaho Republicans as we celebrate America 250–Keep the Republic on April 9th with special guests including Gov. Brad Little.

For tickets and information visit: https://northidahorepublicans.com

“Don’t run on the tile.”

And they ran.

“Don’t touch that.”

They reached.

“Stop climbing.”

They giggled as they climbed higher.

At first I thought it was defiance. I’m pretty stubborn but eventually I realized they weren’t resisting me. They were responding to where I pointed their attention. They weren’t really processing the words “don’t” or “no”. Instead it only focused them even more on the behavior.

So I began to change.

I got better at offering them something to do, instead of what Not to do.

Instead of “Don’t run,” I tried, “Walk with me.”

Instead of “Don’t touch that,” I said, “Come help me with this.”

I stopped only correcting and started redirecting.

And something shifted.

They weren’t trying to rebel. They just needed guidance.

I think about that lesson when I see how we speak to each other online. Especially when it comes to politics. We spend so much time saying what we don’t want. Stop this. End that. And like children in a sunlit kitchen, our collective attention runs straight toward the very thing we are trying to eliminate.

I love this quote from Mother Teresa. She said “I was once asked why I don’t participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I will never do that, but as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I’ll be there.” She understood that what we gather around grows.

If we gather around anger, anger expands.

If we gather around fear, fear multiplies.

I have taught my children that our brains are wired to notice what is wrong. That instinct helps us be safe. But noticing the problem is only the first step. The problem isn’t solved until we figure out what we DO want and then make a plan to create it.

Complaining doesn’t create joy. Arguing about what you hate can only build a neurotic community. You have to share what you hope to create with others and then get busy building it.

As Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us, darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. That is not weakness. It’s wisdom.

If I want peace in my home, I cannot spend all day shouting about chaos. I have to model calm. If I want kindness between siblings, I will point out the hurt and then I need to show them how to rebuild. Together, not apart.

And I believe our communities need the same thing.

People want safety. Opportunity. Dignity. A future filled with possibility for our children to prosper in. Yes. Even the people you disagree with and think are destroying our community.

I have seen something beautiful happen when people are willing to build bridges by talking across differences. Ideas get stronger. Solutions become more effective and practical. Communities become more resilient. It doesn’t require giving up what you believe. It just requires being willing to see the other person’s heart. To listen before you speak, to look for shared goals before focusing on disagreements.

I’m not alone in this. There are organizations full of people who think the same way and are dedicating their time and energy to the cause. They are having conversations with people who think differently from them. They are finding allies in unexpected places. They are choosing curiosity over judgement. And when we do that, the world starts to feel bigger, not smaller. People start to feel more human to each other. Problems start to feel more solvable.

So I keep sharing this simple but powerful idea.

We can’t put our energy into what we are against.

What you are willing to BUILD?

Let’s build together.

About the Author
Andrea is President of Can-Ada RW and a fervent advocate for restoring dignity to dialogue and effective policy making to government. She is also a mom to five kids that give her the determination to build a better world.

Last week, one of those moments unfolded on the floor of the Idaho Senate — a moment that required something politics doesn’t always reward: a little courage.

The debate centered on Senate Bill 1375, the state’s Health and Welfare budget. The proposal included significant reductions tied to the growing pressure on Idaho’s finances. After an unusually candid debate, the Senate rejected the bill outright.

Budgets fail from time to time. That alone wasn’t what made the moment stand out. It was the speech that preceded the vote.

Senator Jim Guthrie, who has served in the Legislature for 16 years, rose to explain why he would vote no. What followed was less a speech about one bill and more a reflection on how states and the people who govern them arrive at defining moments.

Guthrie began by recalling another defining moment early in his legislative career. When he arrived in the Legislature in 2011, Idaho was still digging out from the Great Recession. During those difficult years, lawmakers cut roughly $600 million from the general fund and used $450 million from the state’s rainy-day reserves to stabilize the budget.

It was painful, but understandable. The entire nation was in recession. Everyone knew sacrifices were unavoidable. “This time,” Guthrie said, “is different.” The financial pressure Idaho faces today did not come from a national crisis or an economic collapse. In Guthrie’s words, the situation is “in large part self-inflicted.”

That sentence hung in the chamber for a moment.

Idaho has experienced several years of strong economic growth. Revenues were healthy and confidence was high. During that time, lawmakers approved hundreds of millions of dollars in tax relief and made significant spending decisions before a realistic revenue picture had fully formed.

When revenues later softened, the math no longer worked so now, lawmakers are trying to close the gap.

To explain the lesson, Guthrie shared something his father once told him — a warning that now hangs over Idaho’s budget debate.

“It’s not the bad years that will hurt you,” Guthrie said. “It’s the good years.”

In the bad years, people get careful. They tighten their belts and make the difficult decisions needed to survive. In the good years, it’s easy to assume prosperity will continue indefinitely. That’s when trouble quietly begins.

Guthrie’s speech also touched on something that often gets lost in fiscal debates. When governments talk about “tightening belts,” those belts usually belong to someone else. Legislators are not taking pay cuts. They are not losing their benefits. Instead, the tightening happens elsewhere and in programs and services that affect real Idahoans.

Guthrie said calls from constituents about potential Medicaid cuts have been steady for months. He warned that reductions today could ripple through the system later in emergency rooms, mental health services, law enforcement budgets, and insurance costs.

Whether one agrees with his position on this budget or not, the speech carried weight because it was candid about the consequences. Several senators from both parties praised the remarks afterward. Even those voting differently acknowledged the seriousness of his argument.

Near the end of his speech, Guthrie acknowledged something that made the moment even more striking. He already knew how the vote would likely go.

“I know what the vote count will be,” he said and then paused. “But I’m comfortable with how my no vote will define me.”

It sounded like something out of another era of American politics. It was the kind of moment where someone stands up not because it will change the outcome, but because it needs to be said. A little like Idaho’s version of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

Moments like that require courage. The courage to say what needs to be said when it would be easier to stay quiet. The courage to speak plainly about mistakes even when those mistakes are our own. And the courage to cast a vote knowing it may not prevail.

Courage also has a way of spreading. When someone stands up and speaks honestly, it often gives others the confidence to do the same. Not always — but often enough to change the tone of a room.

The bill died on the Senate floor that day. The budget will be rewritten and debated again, as budgets often are. But the larger point Guthrie raised won’t disappear with a single vote.

The decisions made during the good years shape what happens when the hard years arrive. Those choices don’t just belong to legislators. In a representative government, they ultimately belong to the citizens paying attention to them.

Idahoans should expect its leaders to speak plainly and take responsibility for their choices. Straight talk. Personal responsibility. Owning our choices.

It’s the Idaho way.

About the Author
Becky Funk is a member of North Idaho Republicans and former LD 4 Republican Chair.

Idaho’s window to file for major Idaho races just closed. And, there is a remarkable lack of significant, higher level contests on the Republican side.

First, the federal offices. Republican U.S. Senator Jim Risch has three opponents, none well known. Congressman Russ Fulcher and Congressman Mike Simpson each have two primary opponents, each also with little or no name identification. There may be a bit more drama in the November general election but not in May.

Second, and more important, at the statewide level, Governor Brad Little has seven Republicans opposing him, all the political equivalent of “political midgets” who seem to be running for attention, not to win.

Lieutenant Governor Scott Bedke, Attorney General Raul Labrador and Secretary of State Phil McGrane are all unopposed for the Republican nomination for their respective office.

Overall, Idaho’s Republican Party has not a single statewide or federal race that is seriously contested in the primary. As a result, the major candidates are unlikely to spend much money motivating Idaho voters to show up at the polls on May 19^th.

That is a recipe for low turnout and has majory implications for lower level races.

The best way to understand the impact is to compare to 2022. That year, Governor Little was fiercely challenged by then-Lt. Governor Janice McGeachin and there were also substantial contests for lieutenant governor, attorney general and secretary of state. Statewide primary turnout, given the attention and campaign spending, ended up with 32.5% of registered voters voting. This year, with no serious statewide or federal races, the turnout should be substantially lower.

The only real action for the May 19^th GOP primary is at the legislative level and county level.

Even those races will be a bit subdued. A review of those who filed for the Idaho Legislature shows Republican nomination contests in only 15 of Idaho’s 35 state senate districts and in 34 of 70 state house districts or 49 overall contested races. In 2024, there were 55 contested races and 15 Republican incumbents fell in the primary.

This environment poses a challenge to this year’s Republican candidates. In the past they could expect roughly a third of voters to show up because of the attention generated by higher-level races. Not so in 2026.

To win, a local campaign this year must try to figure out who is likely to turnout for a relatively low interest primary contest. That is tricky. And, yet essential. Each candidate will want to focus their limited funds on those who will vote, rather than the broader electorate.

The second, significant challenge is a harder calculation, specifically who to try to turn out to vote who is not otherwise inclined. Winning campaigns will focus on narrow segments of the electorate and not only seek their support but also have a plan to motivate those favorable voters to actually vote. That is usually an expensive proposition and will stretch limited campaign budgets.

Successful campaigns will figure out how to do both tasks better than their opponents. Those who don’t will be doing concession calls on May 19^th.

About the Author
Steve Taggart is an attorney in Idaho Falls and has worked in Republican politics since his teens, both in campaigns and for elected officials, including running a congressional office.

It’s the same amendment Ronald Reagan called for back in 1982. Reagan warned about the catastrophic consequences of unchecked national spending and debt, he concluded:

“I now believe that a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget is the only way to restore fiscal discipline in Washington.” Ronald Reagan, 1982

Now Idaho has the opportunity to follow Reagan’s counsel. The Idaho House has already passed the BBA resolution, now it’s the Senate’s turn.

This isn’t symbolic. It isn’t radical. It’s a sober, constitutional response to a Congress that has talked for forty years and done nothing, all the while burying future generations under a mountain of debt.

I wasn’t always a fiscal conservative.

In 1980, the first year I could vote for president, I was at a friend’s house when a Ronald Reagan campaign ad came on TV. I said, “I don’t think I’ll vote for Reagan. I heard he wants to cut some government program.”

My friend’s father looked up and asked, “Where do you think the money for that program comes from?”

“From the government,” I said.

“And where does the government get its money?”

I didn’t know. No one had ever asked me that.

Two hours later, I left that house a dyed-in-the-wool Reagan Republican and a fiscal conservative. Once I understood that every dollar Washington spends ultimately comes from the people, I never saw government spending the same way again.

When Reagan was elected in 1980, the national debt was under $1 trillion.

It took the United States more than 200 years: through the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, two world wars, and the Great Depression, to reach that number.

Then something broke.

By 2000, the debt had exploded to $5 trillion. No world wars. No Great Depression. Just business as usual in Washington.

Fast-forward another twenty-six years: the national debt now stands at $37 trillion and is sprinting toward $40 trillion.

Today, federal deficits are nearly $2 TRILLION A YEAR! Think about it: it took our country over 200 years to accumulate 1 trillion in debt and today annual deficits are two times that amount.

That’s not an accident. It’s not partisan. It’s a systemic failure.

For more than four decades, Republican party platforms have supported a Balanced Budget Amendment.

• 1980s: “We call for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution”

• 1992: “We vigorously support a balanced budget constitutional amendment.”

• 1996: “We believe in a balanced budget amendment.”

• 2000, 2012, 2020: the same call, repeated again and again.

Forty years of talk.

Forty years of lip service.

Forty years of failure.

And it hasn’t mattered who’s in control, Republican or Democrat. Deficits grow. Debt soars.

Washington spends as if arithmetic no longer applies and today’s annual deficits of nearly $2 trillion are the largest in our nation’s history.

This is exactly why the Founder Fathers put Article V in the US Constitution.

Article V isn’t a threat to the Constitution; it is in the Constitution.

It’s the safety valve our Founding Founders created for moments like this, when Congress refuses to act. It empowers the states, We the People, to step in when Washington won’t fulfill its duty.

There is no clearer case of congressional malpractice than $37 trillion in debt.

This amounts to generational theft, one generation stealing from the next, robbing their prosperity, their freedom, and their future.

No generation in American history has done more to shackle the next generation.

Support for a Balanced Budget Amendment spans the conservative movement: Donald Trump, JD Vance, Marco Rubio, Governor Brad Little, Lieutenant Governor Scott Bedke, Mike Huckabee, and every sitting Republican governor in the country.

That is good company.

Opposition, meanwhile, comes from the usual suspects: the Democratic National Committee, the American Socialist Party, the John Birch Society, and every Democratic governor in the nation.

The Idaho House has already acted. Now the Senate must do the same.

For the sake of our children and grandchildren, I urge you to contact your State Senator and ask them to stand up for fiscal responsibility and join the call for a Balanced Budget Amendment and use Article V to make it happen.

This approach is consistent.

It’s constitutional.

It’s conservative.

And it’s long overdue.

About the Author
Tom Luna is the Past Chairman of the Idaho Republican Party and Former Idaho State Superintendent of Public Education.

• There was no accountability, for achievement, admissions, or funds, in the proposal.

• In other states with similar legislation, most applicants were already enrolled in private schools, defeating the “getting out of failing schools” argument posed by supporters.

• Some private schools have raised tuition after voucher legislation is approved.

• Many Idaho counties (20 of 44) have no private school options for potential applicants.

• Idaho’s “refundable tax credit” voucher program allows applicants to receive a tax refund over and above their income tax liability, at a time when the legislature is struggling to make cuts in state programs serving all Idahoans.

• In states where vouchers have already been implemented, general fund budgets are being severely strained by the rapid expansion of voucher programs. School districts and charters in Idaho will see budgetary consequences in the long run.

• As has been the case in other states, Idaho’s rural schools will ultimately see significant harm from the voucher program.

• The effect on rural schools was an especially poignant argument against vouchers, since Idaho is a rural state. One would think that legislators from rural areas would have run away from the proposal, as opponents focused on the impact vouchers would have on their schools.

Ironically, though, many legislators from rural Idaho instead supported H93, knowing the damage it would do to schools in their service areas, and that it would shift funding from their rural schools to (mainly) urban private schools across the state. We must call them out for their votes if we hope to stop the irreparable harm the voucher movement will do to education in Idaho.

For example, H93 was approved in the House Revenue and Taxation Committee, after it became clear that it had no hope to pass out of House Education. It passed out of that committee, 8-7.

The legislators who voted to send H93 to the floor represented a wide swath of small rural Idaho school districts and communities, including Homedale, Wilder, Parma, New Plymouth, Fruitland, Payette, Weiser, Cambridge, Meadows Valley, Salmon River, Council, Grangeville, Clearwater Valley, Kamiah, Prairie, Melba, Marsing, Blackfoot, and Arco.

If even one of the legislators representing these small rural districts and communities had voted to hold H93, the damaging effects of vouchers could have been allayed for at least another year. Instead, the bill passed in the House and Senate and was signed by the Governor, even as input from nearly 90% of callers to his office urged a veto.

Since then, of course, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that nothing prevents Idaho from operating two separate school systems. Unfortunately, Idaho cannot adequately operate one educational system; if the voucher program continues and expands, the public school system (and especially rural school districts) will suffer the fate of other systems across the country. Idaho voters should hold the legislature accountable and stop the further spread of this Idaho school virus.

House Bill 93 passed the Idaho House on a 42-28 vote, and passed the Senate 20-15 before the Governor signed it.. If you’d like to know which legislators voted in favor of and against H93, access the record here. It’s time to hold accountable those who voted to irrevocably change our k-12 education system for the worse.

Around here, anti-government sentiment is in the air and water. Many Idahoans look dimly on “the government,” and some even insist we’d be better off without it.

Ronald Reagan’s well-known quote, “...government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem,” is often used as a zippy slogan.

But the truth is more complicated. Reagan’s quote has been lifted out of context for decades. In that same speech — in that same paragraph — he went on to extol “government for, by, and of the people.” He wasn’t arguing for anarchy or the dismantling of the American system: He was warning against a government that forgets who it serves.

Our Founding Fathers were clear about the purpose of government.

In 1776, the Declaration of Independence declared that all people “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and “that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Seventy-six years later, Abraham Lincoln pleaded that this “...government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

As America approaches its 250th anniversary, it’s appropriate to acknowledge the role of government. This milestone provides an opportunity to recognize a government that functions effectively, protects individual freedoms, promotes economic growth, and represents the interests of the population.

For all our criticism, the government has achieved what no individual, family or private company could accomplish alone.

Government plays a vital role in protecting and empowering its citizens through policies that strengthen infrastructure and sustain essential social programs. Workplace and food safety standards shield families from harm, while investments in highways, railways and emergency services fuel economic growth and connect communities. Protections for voting rights safeguard the integrity of our democracy, and programs such as Social Security and WIC support vulnerable Americans. Public education — a core government responsibility — expands opportunity, promotes freedom and equips individuals to build independent, productive lives.

The collective action of government has also shaped history — most notably in the effort to defeat the Nazis and to help rebuild following World War II. Further, government support and research have catalyzed advances in modern medicine, leading to a dramatic increase in life expectancy over the past century.

And perhaps most importantly, our government, in particular, has shown the world how a Republic — a representative democracy — can work to unleash freedom, prosperity, and human potential. Much of the world has followed our lead.

None of these means government is perfect. Far from it. The government is made up of people, and people are imperfect. But at least we live under the rule of law. The alternative is anarchy — or rule by men who look out only for themselves and their cronies. There is a fine line between “rugged individualism” and “only-the-strong survive” chaos. We cross that line at our peril.

The government can certainly become too heavy-handed. At its core, however, our government exists to serve the people. Its role is to guide us with a light touch and to allow us to live and let live.

Civic participation is a responsibility. We cannot survive without each other. A functioning society requires participation, accountability, and a willingness to live within our means. It takes a “we” to lift the collective “me.”

It’s easy to say, “I hate the government.” But before we repeat the slogan, we should remember that the government is meant to be of the people, by the people and for the people.

Who is the government? It is us.

Introduced by Senator Phil Hart (LD 2), S1327 would amend Idaho Code §34-624 to allow political parties to “add additional qualifications” for precinct committeemen beyond what state law already requires. Right now, the law is simple. To run for precinct committeeman, you must be 18, a U.S. citizen, and a registered voter in your precinct for six months. That’s it.

S1327 adds a new sentence: parties may pile on extra requirements of their own. The Statement of Purpose argues that political parties are “private associations” with a First Amendment right to choose with whom they assemble. On paper, that sounds tidy. In practice, it’s not.

Precinct committeemen aren’t members of a book club. They are elected in state-run primary elections. Their names appear on public ballots. County clerks administer the election. Taxpayer dollars pay for it. That isn’t a private backyard barbecue. It’s a public function.

Here’s the plain question: If the state sets neutral qualifications for who can run, should a party be able to add new hoops after the fact? Today the requirements are objective. Tomorrow they could be subjective:

• Must you sign a loyalty pledge?

• Promise to vote a certain way at convention?

• Avoid criticizing party leadership?

• Agree with every plank added at 10:47 p.m. last Tuesday?

The bill doesn’t say. That’s the point.

Supporters call this freedom of association. But voters associate too. Primary elections are how Republican voters choose who represents them inside the party structure. When additional qualifications are imposed, voters don’t gain freedom. They lose choices.

Let’s also be honest about timing. We’ve just watched the debate about “party integrity,” enforcement rules, and who qualifies as a “real Republican” at the January State Central Committee Meeting. Now comes a bill formalizing the ability to add more filters at the gate. It’s difficult to pretend this is purely theoretical.

The likelihood is this bill won’t make it out of committee. Even so, it’s worth noting who thinks Republican participation should come with extra permission slips.

A healthy party persuades. An insecure party polices.

Precinct committeemen are the grassroots of the grassroots. They knock doors. They organize neighbors. They elect leadership. If you can control who qualifies to serve, you shape the party from the inside out. That’s power. And power deserves scrutiny.

There’s also a practical concern. If additional qualifications are challenged in court, who pays? Idaho taxpayers already fund the primary system. Do we really want to test the boundary between “private association” and “public function” before a federal judge?

The irony is hard to miss. The same voices that warn about centralized authority are asking government to codify expanded internal gatekeeping. The same leaders who insist voters should decide are narrowing who voters may choose from.

None of this means parties lack rights. They don’t. But when a party uses the state’s ballot, machinery, and taxpayer dollars, it cannot claim it is operating entirely in private.

Idaho Republicans have long argued that competition makes us stronger. If someone is unfit to serve as a precinct committeeman, make the case. Campaign against them. Persuade your neighbors. Win the vote. It’s slower. It’s messier. It requires trusting voters and that’s the heart of this issue.

Some current IDGOP leaders simply don’t trust voters. A few years ago, a region chair publicly said he didn’t trust voters because they elected Barack Obama. Spoiler alert: Idaho didn’t.

Barack Obama lost Idaho twice, and by wide margins. Republican presidential candidates consistently win here. Republicans hold every statewide constitutional office. They dominate both legislative chambers and have for years. If voters are plotting a progressive takeover, they are remarkably ineffective.

What’s really happening?

This isn’t about protecting Idaho from Democrats. Idaho isn’t turning blue. This is about protecting leadership from Republicans who disagree with them. S1327 sounds procedural. Neutral. Almost boring. But paired with recent rhetoric about enforcement and loyalty, the picture sharpens.

If you narrow who qualifies to run as precinct committeeman, you narrow who votes in central committee meetings. Narrow those voters, and you shape county leadership. Shape county leadership, and you influence state leadership.

Before long, participation is no longer about persuasion. It’s about permission. That’s a different party than the one most of us joined.

The irony is almost darkly humorous. We live in one of the reddest states in the country. Republicans win consistently. Yet instead of embracing a broad coalition, some leaders behave as though the base is a fragile heirloom that must be kept under glass.

Here’s a thought: maybe Idaho voters don’t need babysitting. Maybe they don’t need party officers deciding in advance who is sufficiently pure to participate. And maybe, just maybe, the grassroots can handle the grassroots.

A party that wins statewide year after year should not fear its own voters. If leadership believes its ideas are strong, it should welcome competition inside the party, not engineer ways to reduce it. Because once participation is filtered through “Republican enough,” the contest stops being about who can persuade the most voters. It becomes about who can satisfy the most gatekeepers.

And that’s not how a confident party behaves.

Link: https://politicalpotatoes.substack.com/p/idaho-gop-purity-rules Link to bill: https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/billbookmark/?yr=2026&bn=S1327

About the Author

Becky Funk is a member of North Idaho Republicans and former LD 4 Republican Chair.

Public campaign finance records show that approximately 97 percent of Citizens Alliance of Idaho PAC funding originated outside Idaho. That fact remains unchanged. But this conversation is bigger than percentages. It’s about something Idahoans instinctively understand: The difference between grassroots and astroturf.

In a 2023 Coeur d’Alene Press opinion column, Penelope Harries-Morris outlined a simple distinction. Authentic grassroots movements are self-organized local efforts powered by ordinary people committed to transparency, shared values, and community participation. Not by outside money. Grassroots movements build from the ground up.

Astroturfing, a term coined in 1985, is something very different. It refers to manufacturing the appearance of grassroots support through coordinated funding, messaging, and psychological tactics designed to create a bandwagon effect.

And one of the defining features of astroturf operations is this:

They rely more on centralized money and strategy than organic local momentum.

The Political Potatoes investigation describes a network of aligned political operations involving Young Americans for Liberty (YAL), affiliated PACs, Citizens Alliance of Idaho (CAI), and outside firms such as Mobilize the Message LLC.

According to that reporting:

• CAI PAC received approximately $390,000 from an out-of-state Citizens Alliance PAC entity.

• Funds were routed through political structures and deployed using paid door-knocking operations and attack advertising.

• Mobilize the Message LLC, a Florida-based firm, was one of the major recipients of this spending.

Whether one agrees with the policy positions of these groups is not the point. The point is structural.

When campaigns are fueled primarily by out-of-state entities and executed through professionalized messaging machines rather than local volunteer energy, the claim that it represents a purely “Idaho-first grassroots uprising” deserves scrutiny.

That is not deflection. That is definition.

Mr. Edwards argues that “out-of-state leftists” funding Idaho politics is a threat. Yet when out-of-state funding supports his organization’s objectives, it is described as patriotic generosity.

If dark money is corrosive when it advances progressive causes, it does not become virtuous when it advances conservative ones. If centralized political machines are dangerous when they operate on the left, they are not suddenly wholesome when they operate on the right.

There is always a temptation in politics to justify tactics by outcomes.

“If it protects Idaho.”

“If it saves the state.”

“If it defeats the other side.”

But conservatism at its best has never been about winning by any means necessary. It has been about ordered liberty. Limited power. Transparent institutions. Local accountability.

If we criticize the left for centralized coordination, pledge enforcement, professional smear campaigns, and outside influence we cannot co-opt those tactics and call it virtue simply because we agree with the goals.

The ends do not justify the means. If they did, we would have nothing left to conserve.

If Citizens Alliance of Idaho is proud of its national funding base and strategic alliances, it is free to say so. But branding and balance sheets should align.

Conservatism is not measured by how much money you can marshal or how many attack ads you can deploy. It is measured by restraint, consistency, and whether we are willing to adhere ourselves to the same standards we demand of others.

We cannot condemn dark money on Monday and celebrate it on Tuesday.We cannot denounce astroturf when the left installs it and applaud when our side rolls it out.

If we genuinely believe in limited government and local control, then we must practice it even when it is inconvenient. Otherwise, this was never about principle.

It was only about power.

Links:
https://cdapress.com/news/2026/feb/06/opinion-the-out-of-state-money-myth/
https://cdapress.com/news/2023/feb/11/my-turn-grassroots-politics-or-astroturfing/

https://cdapress.com/news/2026/feb/12/my-turn-idaho-under-threat-from-without-by-liberals-and-republican-establishment-within/

About the Author

Becky Funk is a member of the North Idaho Republicans and the former Republican Chair of Legislative District 4

Related Article:

But the justifications now being offered for devastating Medicaid cuts represent a new low in legislative dishonesty.

TWO STORIES, ONE POLITICIAN

Two weeks ago, I brought my son to meet Representative Josh Tanner, Assistant Majority Leader and Co-Chair of the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee. I wanted him to see the child whose services he was cutting.

Tanner told me the real culprit was “able-bodied people receiving healthcare with no cap on Medicaid expansion”—it was their fault that “rightfully deserving disabled children are taking the brunt of these Medicaid cuts.” When I asked how he could say that after record tax breaks put our state in massive deficit, he assured me he “wholeheartedly” stood behind those tax cuts. Then he said he was late for his JFAC meeting and left.

Days later, another parent shared Tanner’s written response to her concerns about the same cuts. His narrative had completely changed. He wrote about “unchecked expansion of entitlements,” called therapies “optional Medicaid benefits,” and dismissed her son’s documented progress as an “individual success story” that cannot be the basis for policy. No mention of Medicaid expansion recipients. No mention of tax cuts.

Representative Tanner’s story changes depending on his audience. Here’s why: his claims cannot withstand scrutiny.

THE FACTS HE WON’T ACKNOWLEDGE

**First, these services aren’t “optional.”** Idaho has mandatory federal obligations under the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) program. Federal law requires comprehensive services for all Medicaid-enrolled children under 21, including any medically necessary therapy to correct or ameliorate physical and mental conditions. These are federal mandates—not discretionary spending.

**Second, Medicaid expansion saves Idaho money.** The federal government covers 90% of costs. Studies show it reduces uncompensated care and generates economic activity. Idaho voters approved it in 2018 with 61% support because it was fiscally responsible. Tanner’s claim that “able-bodied people” on expansion are responsible for cuts to disabled children’s services is a deliberate attempt to pit struggling Idahoans against each other.

**Third, Tanner created this budget crisis.** Over five years (2021-2025), the Legislature cut taxes by $4 billion, with ongoing annual revenue loss of $1.3 billion. The top 1% received average cuts of $20,000; median families got $453. Tanner personally co-sponsored HB 40 in 2025, cutting another $253 million annually.

Meanwhile, legislators gave themselves a 19% raise (from $19,913 to $25,000) and continued funding private school vouchers.

Tanner demands disabled children’s therapies prove “measurable, net-positive savings over time.” He applied no such standard to $4 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy.

A PATTERN OF DEHUMANIZATION

These attacks aren’t new. Days ago, Rep. Steve Miller (R-Fairfield) publicly stated that children with “no future in some level of self-care” would be better served in healthcare facilities. “We are educators,” Miller said. “We are not designed for medical health or mental health care for students who do not have the future of being self-sustaining.”

This is the same logic that justified institutionalization for decades—that some children aren’t worth the investment.

I’ve fought for years against a special education system chronically underfunded by the same Legislature that claims “budget constraints” while passing billions in tax cuts. I’ve watched legislators champion private school vouchers—many declaring conflicts of interest during floor debates because they stood to benefit—while calling federally mandated therapies for disabled children “unchecked entitlements” that are “eroding reserves.”

These therapies advanced Idaho out of institutionalization. Decades of research proves their effectiveness. Children who receive early intervention require fewer special education services, have better employment outcomes, and are less likely to need intensive institutional care as adults.

Yet Tanner dismisses this as “individual success stories.” In his constituent responses, he asks if these services “yield measurable, net-positive savings over time”—essentially demanding disabled children prove their value. He’s reducing children to cost-benefit analyses. He’s implying some aren’t worth the investment.

THE REAL BURDEN

The burden on Idaho’s system wasn’t created by disabled children needing therapies or working families with healthcare through Medicaid expansion.

It was created by legislators who gave $4 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest residents, gave themselves a 19% raise, funded private school vouchers, and now claim they can’t afford federally mandated healthcare for disabled children.

They created this crisis. They’re using it to harm our most vulnerable children while offering different explanations to different audiences, and perhaps maybe thought we wouldn’t comprehend the word salad of his emails or notice the contradictions between his narratives.

Tanner’s remarks are dehumanizing and unbecoming of a state legislator. When he characterizes children’s progress as unsustainable “short-term gains,” when he calls federal mandates “optional entitlements,” when he blames working-class Idahoans for a crisis created by tax cuts for the wealthy—he reveals whose interests he serves.

And it’s not Idaho’s disabled children.

A CHOICE, NOT A NECESSITY

I don’t know of a legislator who leaves a respectable legacy on the backs of disabled children. History judges those who justified cruelty with fiscal responsibility while protecting tax cuts for the wealthy. History remembers those who claimed some children have “no future” worth investing in and then positioning themselves as some kind of fiscal hero “committing to preserve Idaho’s financial health for all residents.”

Tanner and his colleagues are choosing to protect $4 billion in tax cuts while cutting federally mandated healthcare for disabled children.

Choosing to fund private school vouchers while underfunding special education. Choosing raises for themselves while making multiple insinuations and comments that our children are a burden.

These are choices, not fiscal necessities.

Idaho’s disabled children deserve what federal law guarantees: healthcare to help them thrive. What Idaho’s constitution promises: a free and appropriate public education. What basic human decency demands: to be seen as children with potential, not line items to cut.

And they deserve legislators who tell the truth about their priorities.

Below is an email response from Rep. Tanner to constituents regarding proposed Medicaid cuts to community based services in JFAC during the 2026 legislative session:

About the Author
Bessie Yeley is an Idaho parent and disability rights advocate who has fought for educational and healthcare rights for disabled children in Idaho for seven years.

As Medicaid faces deep cuts and recipients are pushed closer to crisis, the state continues to sit atop a massive rainy day and reserve fund totaling approximately $1.7 billion. At a time when Idahoans are losing access to care, rural hospitals are teetering on the edge of closure, and entire communities are being hollowed out, the refusal to deploy these funds is indefensible.

Rainy day and reserve funds exist for moments exactly like this. As the old Robin Hood quote reminds us: “Well, it’s raining now.”

The financial argument is straightforward. Idaho’s rainy day fund is currently generating an estimated 7 percent return, equating to roughly $133 million per year. That is public money produced by Idaho taxpayers, sitting largely untouched while essential services are cut.

These funds were not created to gather interest indefinitely. They were designed to stabilize the state during periods of strain. Few situations better meet that definition than a health care system on the brink of collapse.

Hoarding taxpayer money while constantly redefining what constitutes an “emergency” is irresponsible governance. Whistling past the graveyard comes to mind as elected officials sit atop this reserve while their constituents suffer.

No one is advocating for a complete drawdown of the rainy day fund. This is a call for common sense: using a limited, one-time portion of the fund to stop irreparable damage caused by rapid Medicaid cuts that are now being exacerbated by legislative demands.

Medicaid cuts do not occur in a vacuum. They ripple outward, hitting rural hospitals first and hardest. Many of these facilities operate on razor-thin margins and rely heavily on Medicaid reimbursements to keep their doors open. When a rural hospital closes, the damage is immediate and often irreversible. Jobs disappear. Emergency response times increase. Families are forced to travel hours for basic medical care, creating health care deserts.

The cost of preventing these closures now is far lower than the cost of rebuilding health infrastructure later—if rebuilding is even possible.

It is also critical to confront a persistent myth: that Medicaid recipients are largely unemployed or unwilling to work. In reality, a significant majority of Medicaid recipients do work, often full-time, in physically demanding or service-based jobs. The problem is not a lack of effort; it is a lack of access.

Only 41 percent of private companies in Idaho offer health care benefits, leaving hundreds of thousands of workers without employer-sponsored coverage. Many of these jobs provide no dental or vision care, forcing working families to rely on Medicaid for basic health needs. Cutting Medicaid punishes people who are already contributing to the economy while asking nothing more than the ability to see a doctor.

Despite these realities, the Legislature continues to push policies that destabilize local health care while vilifying civil servants as “bureaucrats.” This language is deliberate. It dehumanizes the nurses, administrators, caseworkers, and emergency planners who ensure that Medicaid functions at all.

These are not faceless paper-pushers. They are professionals who keep hospitals open, process claims, and ensure care reaches those who need it. Undermining their work undermines the entire system.

The writing is on the wall. Idaho’s current trajectory increasingly favors austerity for the many and insulation for the few. Party leaders openly signal a vision of Idaho where only the wealthy can afford to live, work, and age with dignity. That vision is incompatible with a healthy, sustainable state.

It is time for serious recalibration. Authorizing the immediate use of rainy day funds to halt Medicaid cuts is not reckless spending. It is responsible governance. It protects rural hospitals, supports working families, and stabilizes communities across the state.

Idaho prides itself on neighborliness and common sense. Those values demand action now.

The rain has already started. The damage is visible. The only remaining question is whether Idaho’s leaders will finally acknowledge the storm—and use the tools already in their hands to protect the people they serve.

Please take a moment to contact your local legislators and ask them to utilize the Budget Stabilization Fund to backfill the cuts already made and to vote against any further cuts to agencies and programs that are already at the end of their tethers.

After all, this is the Idaho way.

About the Author
This article was written by Jennifer Ellis and the Take Back Idaho board of directors.

Sources:
KIVI-TV, “Idaho caregivers fear proposed Medicaid cuts could devastate home-based services; lawmakers say flexibility is limited,” by Sahana Patel, January 2026.

Idaho Capital Sun, “If Idaho cuts Medicaid, ripple effects on the budget are likely; will they drive up costs elsewhere?,” January 26, 2026.

If you answered “yes” to either of these questions you might be interested in how the beating heart of our state Republican Party is being endangered by those few who apparently lack respect for our freedom of choice and conscience.

This past weekend at the Idaho Republican Party (IDGOP) winter meeting a new rule titled “Party Integrity Enforcement (2026-08)” was presented for consideration. According to Kootenai County Republican Central Committee Chairman Brent Regan, “Rules and resolutions are easy to propose but difficult to get passed because they are voted on by three separate committees. Critics will take advantage of this fact by complaining about a rule or resolution that is being considered as if it were already adopted. This time was no different. Claims were being made that if voters didn't agree with everything in the Republican Platform they would be thrown out of the party. Fake news."

I urge you to read the proposed rule linked above and decide for yourself. Although this new rule failed to pass, acknowledging the authoritative demeanor of the current IDGOP controlling faction, it is anticipated the rule will be brought forth again at the 2027 winter convention for consideration since it was sent back to the Rules committee.

This rule calls for a five-year expulsion and silencing of any registered Republican who is alleged to have engaged in conduct deemed substantially contrary to the Idaho Republican Party Platform, or otherwise damaging to Party integrity. This means anyone, including you, who chooses to associate with the IDGOP, is subject to expulsion.

Our state party platform has few similarities with the national Republican Party Platform. The supporters of this oppressive new rule are showing a lack of tolerance or appreciation for freedom of conscience and a loyalty to longstanding Republican Party tenets. Rather, these elitists have determined themselves to be the arbiters for what the state GOP reflects and represents.

This rule, if passed at the 2027 winter meeting, will strip power from Republicans of participation and standing within their own Party who do not hold to their established ideology. This rule places power in the control of a small committee to determine if you get to associate with the GOP and vote as a Republican.

First, these elitists closed the Republican Party primary to restrict voter participation. Next, they created and promote a “rating and vetting” system to further control election results. Now, they are championing this new rule to exclude affiliated Republicans from Party participation whose values do not completely align with those in control.

We’ve all witnessed the costly results of decisions being made by the Kootenai County Republican Central Committee controlling faction. This rule furthers an alarming momentum that needs to end.

This latest attempt to exclude Republicans from Party affiliation will have an impact on elected officials. The political identity of these individuals will be placed in question and jeopardy.

If this troubling power play does not sit well with you, there are things you can do. Support the North Idaho Republicans’ effort to advocate for transparency, provide principled leadership and to respect diverse ideas within the Party’s well-established value framework.

Are you interested in running for a precinct position or any other elected position? Are you willing to help candidates worthy of your trust who are dedicated to upholding your right within the GOP apparatus to freedom of conscience? If your answer is “yes” to either question, visit: North Idaho Republicans for information.

When fear of losing control drives people, they can come out swinging swords and declaring themselves the moral authority. Such momentum is a red flag that needs a concerted and disciplined effort to stifle this abuse of power.

The torch our forefathers carried to the battlegrounds and conventions has been passed down to us. We now bear the responsibility to defend our freedoms from those who seek to strip us of them. We need to carry that torch with the same sentiment for future generations.

Will you join the effort to protect and preserve your right to associate with the political party of your choice, and your right to vote your conscience?

About the Author
Deborah Rose is a Kootenai County resident and former Republican Precinct Committee official.

Subscribe now

Idaho has one of the strictest laws in the U.S. limiting abortions. Passed in 2020 before the 2022 Dobbs decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Idaho law restricts abortions to narrow cases: 1) when a physician determines that one is necessary to prevent the mother’s death or 2) during the first trimester for an incident of rape or incest reported to law enforcement.

Idaho’s law is facing a serious effort to overturn. Idahoans United for Women and Families is the group working to get an Idaho initiative to do that on November’s ballot. Nearly 71,000 verified signatures are required to make the ballot and backers claim they have collected over 63,000 so far. Enough signatures must be submitted by April 30.

According to a just released BSU Idaho Public Policy Survey, Idaho voters are likely to overturn the current law if the initiative makes the ballot. In that poll 61% of Idahoans support the initiative while only 28% oppose. The results also show that 45% of Idaho Republicans, 90% of Democrats and 66% of Independents back the effort. That BSU poll has a track record of being an early indicator. In early 2024 it foreshadowed the defeat of the open primary/ranked choice voting initiative showing it failing 35% to 50%.

While the mother may not be charged with a crime under the Idaho statute, anyone who performs or attempts to perform an abortion may be charged with a felony and subject to imprisonment for two to five years. Idaho medical community has been raising the alarm because obstetric doctors are fleeing the state, with the overall number down 35% since Dobbs.

Based on points already made by the proponents, their arguments are likely to focus on a women’s right to choose, that current law puts doctors too much at risk, and that the law is too restrictive by not having a exemption for the mother’s health and too tight exceptions for rape or incest.

There is no publicly available Idaho data on these points. But, an AP-NORC survey unveiled last July shows that 89% of Americans support allowing abortion if the mother’s health would be seriously endangered by the pregnancy. A very high percentage, 86%, believe access should be available on account of pregnancy caused by rape or incest. And, 55% support protecting doctors from fines or imprisonment for being involved with abortion. I

That implies that, besides the general argument for choice, the protection of a mother’s health, leniency for reasons of rape and incest, and protecting medical personal from liability have power with voters. Presumably Idaho’s electorate has similar views but maybe with a bit less intensity.

For those who want to protect Idaho’s current anti-abortion stance the looming campaign poses a dilemma. One approach is to focus on an all-out defense of the current law. As indicated, that could be challenging based on where Idaho voters are already.

The other approach would be to change Idaho’s current statute before November to add the mother’s health as an allowable reason for an abortion, make qualification for the rape and incest exceptions easier, and explore limiting liability for the medical community. Those modifications would enhance the chance of prevailing with Idaho voters.

Regardless, expect this measure to draw big money, substantial focus from the news media (both state and national), and considerable public attention.

About the Author
Steve Taggart is an attorney in Idaho Falls and has worked in Republican politics since his teens, both in campaigns and for elected officials, including running a congressional office.

Subscribe now

From the moment the Declaration of Independence was signed, America has faced serious challenges. Each generation has been tested and warned that this moment might finally break the American experiment.

And yet, here we are. America has endured because it was built on ideas articulated plainly in the Declaration of Independence and carefully structured in the Constitution.

Here’s why that matters. The Declaration did something radical for its time: it asserted that rights do not come from government, kings, or majorities, but from our Creator—and that all people are born with equal dignity. The Constitution followed by providing a durable framework for self-government, restraint on power, and peaceful change. Together, they formed both a founding moment and a firm foundation.

At our best, Americans have returned to these principles when the country felt most fractured—after war, injustice, fear, and failure. Not because we always lived up to them, but because they reminded us who we were supposed to be and provided a North Star to guide us back when we lost our way. That guidance matters now more than ever.

As we recognize America250, the temptation will be to turn this anniversary into either a glossy celebration or a cynical accounting of grievances. Neither does justice to the moment. The real value of 250 years is not perfection, but perseverance—and the recommitment to repair what is broken without discarding the ideals that make us a nation rather than a collection of factions.

If America is to endure, we must also be honest about what threatens to pull us apart. The rise of hateful rhetoric and destructive behavior on the extremes—on both ends of our political spectrum—has done real damage to our civic culture. When outrage replaces reason, opponents become enemies. When power matters more than principle, the foundations begin to crack.

Extremes have always existed in American life. The danger comes when we let them define us. Rejecting extremism doesn’t mean giving up conviction—it means refusing the idea that we must choose between the loudest voices on either side. The Constitution was built for a free people who could disagree strongly yet remain committed to shared rules and mutual respect.

Here in Idaho, that instinct runs deep. The long-held character of Idaho rests on a simple truth: liberty is not license, that dignity belongs to every person—not because of ideology or identity, but because it is inherent. We also know that patriotism doesn’t demand uniformity, but it does require character. Those beliefs are not accidental but come straight from America’s founding principles. The Declaration set our moral compass. The Constitution gave us the tools to act on it over time. Returning to those principles, rather than discarding them when inconvenient, has carried us through our hardest chapters, and will carry us forward again.

America 250 isn’t about nostalgia. It’s about understanding that our freedoms were hard-won, imperfectly applied, and worth preserving. It’s about recognizing that the dignity of every American isn’t a slogan—it’s a civic duty.

If the next 250 years are to mean anything, they will depend on our willingness to remember what has always held us together: shared ideals, constitutional restraint, moral courage, and a quiet faith that a free people, grounded in principle, can still govern themselves.

That belief has seen us through before. There is every reason to believe it can again.

About the Author
Becky Funk is the former chair of the Legislative District 4 Republican Committee.

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.