Why Does Rick Hill Need Burdensome Government Intrusion To Protect His Business Interests?


Marnee Banks of KXLH notes today that Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Hill is seeking relief from the Montana Supreme Court because he wants to invalidate a contract he signed with an investment firm which required mandatory arbitration.

Hill is arguing that should not be held responsible for signing the contract:

The securities purchasers assert that their acceptance of the pre-printed broker-dealer account agreement constituted a contract of adhesion which should not be enforced because it was unconscionable, not within their reasonable expectations and caused them to unknowingly waive their constitutional rights to a jury trial.

That’s an intriguing line of argument. Hill is asserting that because the contract was substandard in its construction he should not be held to its requirements. In other words, he didn’t bother to read the contract—or was so blinded by the promise of easy money that he simply didn’t care. In fact, Hill signed off on arbitration in this case eight separate times.

That’s certainly a ringing endorsement of his ability to act as governor. If he signs a poorly-worded bill into law, will be sue months later to have his own signature overturned?

Now, the interesting thing is that Hill is right: corporations do often use mandatory arbitration to exploit consumers. But Hill is no ordinary consumer—he is a gubernatorial candidate running on his experience as a business leader, and one who claims a law degree as well. Even though his law school is an unaccredited institution, I presume that the notion that reading a contract before signing one was discussed at least once.

The First Judicial District Court ordered Hill to comply with the arbitration requirement, leading to his appeal to the Supreme Court.

Of course, Hill does seem to believe that regular people aren’t quite as entitled to government oversight as he is.

On his campaign page, Hill asserts that government regulation is stifling economic growth here in Montana:

There’s no doubt that some regulation is necessary to ensure workplace safety, preserve the environment, or protect consumers.  However, it’s important to remember that each layer of regulation comes with a cost that is borne by business and ultimately consumers.  At some point, too much regulation would completely stifle economic activity.

Gregg Smith, over at the Electric City Weblog, had this to say about Hill just the other day:

He said something that really resonated with me:  The people of Montana can and will succeed if we just get government out of the way. He cited the judicial system as one problem area, and the regulatory environment as another.

And yet, there’s Hill—an experienced business leader and former member of Congress—asking the state to invalidate a contract he signed before losing money in what he calls a scam.

Hill’s suit ably demonstrates the irrationality of the anti-regulation mania that is so popular among Republicans. The fact is that government does have a crucial role in ensuring fair treatment of consumers. That role actually improves the economy, by reassuring people that it’s safe to invest their money, that those who break the law will be punished.

For all the talk about “getting government out of the way,” candidate Hill is making an awfully good case for the role of both government oversight and litigation. I hope Hill wins his suit—and then takes the opportunity for some real introspection about what he really thinks about the role of government.

As a postscript, it’s certainly worth noting that Hill has so much faith in doing business in Montana that he registered the LLCs used for this transaction in Delaware, rather than back here in Montana. Disappointing.

If you appreciate an independent voice holding Montana politicians accountable and informing voters, and you can throw a few dollars a month our way, we would certainly appreciate it.


Click here to post a comment

Please enter an e-mail address

  • Really? The guy is in a legal dispute and you’re going to hoist him because he asserts legal theories? He apparently alleged what is a pretty standard theory in attempting to dispose of arbitration clauses, that of the contract of adhesion (I say “apparently” because I haven’t read the suit papers.) And for that he’s “irrational,” because he supports less regulation.

    I get your point, but it’s quite a stretch.

  • I think the Republican effort to demonize regulation is irrational–and Hill does play into that.

    This guy is promoting his candidacy for governor based on his experience as a businessman–and he lost a large sum of money from people he describes as having scammed him. He also neglected to either read a contract or believe that it was binding.

    For someone who touts his experience in business and law, it’s an astonishing lack of judgment. And I don’t think he’ll be able to write this one of as another youthful indiscretion.

  • Sark about Hill aside, I would love to see is case succeed. AMerica is business-run monopoly capitalism and we have all signed these contracts waiving our rights. If you use a Verizon phone you have signed one, and if you were unhappy with that deal, you could sign a Sprint contract and waive your rights, and if you didn’t like that you could sign an AT&T contract – they are all the same, waive your rings, take it or leave it.

    Elizabeth Warren is the only person I’ve seen with the guts t stand up to these abuses, calling them “word barf” contacts. Amend, and good luck Mr. Hill.

  • I agree with you, as I noted at the bottom of the post. Corporations have been using mandatory arbitration to hurt consumers for over a decade. But we’re not talking about some college kid who got screwed over on a cellphone deal here. This is someone who describes himself as a lawyer who didn’t carefully read a multi-million dollar contract. It’s also someone who thinks government regulation hurts the economy–and who decries frivolous lawsuits.

    I’d say that’s both tremendously hypocritical and a warning sign about electing this guy. If he’s not careful with his own money, how careful will he be with mine?

    • All the more reason to wish him success. Your use of this case to belittle Hill is good politics, but otherwise not useful.

        • Maybe so, but as a rule of thumb politicians are third-rate people anyway, somhe’s no exception and proves no rule.

          All I say is that I’d henwinsmthe case, it’s very good news for regular folks.

  • And illustrates why it’s important to elect Democrats who actually work to protect consumers. Thanks to Monica Lindeen for working on behalf of consumers.

  • I intended to write you that little observation just to thank you once again for all the exceptional strategies you have shown in this article. This has been quite seriously open-handed with you to convey extensively exactly what a number of us could have made available for an e-book to earn some profit for themselves, principally given that you might have done it in the event you decided. The secrets also worked as the good way to be sure that other people have similar interest really like my very own to realize more and more with regards to this matter. I’m sure there are numerous more enjoyable times ahead for many who go through your blog post.

  • Hiya vso convertxtodvd download tremendous article vso convertxtodvd download for Why Does Rick Hill Need Burdensome Government Intrusion To Protect His Business Interests?

  • Depending on yourself to make the decisions can really be upsetting and frustrating. Many of us develop this ability over the course of our life. It doesn’t really just happen if you know what I mean.

  • This design is incredible! You certainly know how to keep a reader entertained. Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my own blog (well, almost…HaHa!) Fantastic job. I really loved what you had to say, and more than that, how you presented it. Too cool!

Support Our Work!

Don Pogreba

Don Pogreba is an eighteen-year teacher of English, former debate coach, and loyal, if often sad, fan of the San Diego Padres and Portland Timbers. He spends far too many hours of his life working at school and on his small business, Big Sky Debate.
His work has appeared in Politico and Rewire.
In the past few years, travel has become a priority, whether it's a road trip to some little town in Montana or a museum of culture in Ísafjörður, Iceland.

He doesn't link to media outlets that don't follow basic journalistic attribution rules.

Subscribe Via E-mail


What Industry Will Republicans Prop Up with Corporate Welfare Next?

Follow us on Twitter

0 /* ]]> */