Greg Gianforte Montana Politics

Why is Greg Gianforte Already Paying the Law Firm That Wants to Gut All Campaign Finance Laws?

There’s been some talk online in the past few days about Greg Gianforte’s first reported campaign expenditures, including $1.50 for parking in Helena, but the most interesting item has to be who Gianforte is paying for legal advice. He’s made two payments to the Bopp Law Firm of Terre Haute, Indiana. That’s an incredibly telling expenditure for someone who has been under the cloud of accusation for running a stealth campaign for governor and who will likely work with a Republican Party that tried to buy the 2012 gubernatorial election with a last-minute $500,000 dark money donation.

James Bopp is most famous for his work leading to the Citizens United decision, which has led to the Wild West of corporate campaign expenditures that has made a mockery of American elections. He also defended Montana’s Western Tradition Partnership at the US Supreme Court when the Montana Supreme Court held that the organization should be punished for campaign finance violations.

The Bopp Law Firm truly is the preeminent law firm in the Republican fight against campaign finance laws. Bopp is so committed to the fight that, on his own web site, he includes this quote about himself:

Bopp has a knack for finding provisions in laws that have been taken for granted and violate individual liberties. He has almost singlehandedly obliterated many of the nation’s relatively modest restrictions on corporate election spending. Bopp’s landmark case, a fight that took 8 years, did not deter Bopp from overturning McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation. He devised the legal strategy that led the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United, which upended decades of precedent and unleashed super PACs upon the land.

Critics are even stronger in their observations about Bopp. Mother Jones writes:

Bopp is leading “a very broad-based litigation assault being waged against both state and federal campaign-finance laws,” says Tara Malloy, associate counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit legal organization. Reformers see Bopp as using his clients—often small, mission-driven organizations—to widen loopholes in the law that end up benefiting wealthy corporations and their political allies. Arn Pearson, the vice president for programs at Common Cause, calls him “a straw man for the Republican Party for their effort to dismantle campaign-finance laws.”

Bopp also represents those who want to codify discrimination in the United States, prominently featuring an amicus brief he wrote defending traditional marriage, a brief that argued deeply sexist claims about the nature of men and women before arguing that effort to legalize same sex marriage was merely a plot to destroy marriage as a whole:

Shifting the same-sex marriage rhetoric from abolitionist to assimilationist was and remains part of a strategy by many to undermine marriage while claiming to protect it.

It seems that Mr. Gianforte should have to answer some questions about his choice of attorney. Given that Montanans overwhelmingly support campaign finance limits, oppose Citizens United, and believe that candidates should have to disclose campaign donations, why did Gianforte choose this law firm? And why, if he wants to disassociate himself with his previous remarks defending discrimination, did he choose a leading firm in the fight to codify unequal marriage laws?

It’s fascinating that Mr. Gianforte, a planner and strategist by his account and the observation of others, has already engaged this law farm as part of his run, and his motivation for doing so seems like yet another question the undeclared/declared candidate should answer.

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

    • He’s lucky in that he some new supporters who don’t seem to care if he answers any questions. A lot of them, not all, are pretty misinformed about even the basics of Montana politics and governance, so they’ll probably support him anyway.

      I imagine some blog about their feelings on the subject.

      • What do you think would make his supporters care? Perhaps informing them, but do you think they’ll become informed? Our newspapers and TV stations don’t always do the best of jobs, after all.

        What do you think it would take to turn some of those supporter to Bullock, or attract the swing voters to Bullock and away from Gianforte?

        • Sometimes it feels like you and I are having two different conversations. Perhaps I am being too subtle.

          I can’t any questions, though. You want to be paid to elect a candidate I oppose. I’d hate to give his team some tips.

          • So…holding your ideas close to your belt. Or is it that you just don’t have any ideas on those fronts?

            Hopefully for Bullock, someone does. Right now that’d be the Missoula and D.C. consulting groups he’s paying, and perhaps the few out-of-state Democratic operatives the Party has shipped in for this cycle.

            I’m not sure that’s going to do it. I agree that having this lawyer is a bad move, but I also agree that most of Gianforte’s supporters probably won’t care.

            They want jobs and jobs for their kids and Gianforte keeps talking about that. They want lower taxes because they don’t see how current government spending is benefiting them.

            Many Gianforte supporters are more affluent and don’t benefit from government subsidies and such, at least like the poorer, SNAP and LIEAP types do. The latter need government, the former despise it.

            To my way of thinking, there are the two main camps with their supporters and they’re for the most part talking to themselves. 90% of the citizens in the state are not paying attention right now, I think.

            In that regard, I feel a lot of what’s happening right now is just prep work, dipping the toe in the water on talking points, and spinning the wheels. I don’t think anyone reading this site, for instance, is going to have their opinion changed one way or another.

            Lots of big events or revelations or happenings could happen in the next 11 months, however, and opinions could change. Walsh got turned on pretty fast, for instance. Problems with staffers can also crop up, such as they did with Martz/Hedges incident.

            So we’ll see what happens.

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.

Subscribe Via E-mail


What Industry Will Republicans Prop Up with Corporate Welfare Next?

Follow us on Twitter

Send this to a friend