Contact Information:
Phone: 812.232.2434
Fax: 812.235.3685
E-mail: jboppjr@aol.com
Recent blog posts
PRESS RELEASEThursday September 20, 2018Contact: James Bopp, Jr. Phone 812-232-2434; Fax 812-235-3685; jboppjr@aol.com  Issue-Advocacy Group Asks Supreme Court to Review Sweeping Montana Political-Committee Law              Today, Montanans for Community Development (“MCD”) asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review Montana’s political-committee (“PAC”) law, which subjects groups like MCD to onerous entity-based administrative and organizational requirements for spending as little as $251 on political speech. MCD also asked the Court to review the
PRESS RELEASEFriday, July 20, 2018Contact: James Bopp, Jr.Phone 812-232-2434; Fax 812-235-3685; jboppjr@aol.com  Amicus Brief Advocating Constitutional Definition of Quid Pro Quo Corruption Filed In United States Supreme Court             Today, the James Madison Center for Free Speech filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court, urging it to establish a constitutional definition of quid pro quo corruption to ensure campaign discourse remains free and unfettered.             The case, Suhl
PRESS RELEASEWednesday, July 6, 2016Contact: James Bopp, Jr.Phone 812/232-2434; Fax 812/235-3685; jboppjr@aol.com Judicial Candidate Petitions High Court For Right to Campaign             Last week, Randolph Wolfson asked the United States Supreme Court to review Arizona’s judicial canons that restrict the ability of  state court judicial candidates to engage in ordinary political activities as part of their campaigns. Mr. Wolfson is a resident of Golden Valley, Arizona, and was a candidate for
PRESS RELEASEMonday, June 27, 2016Contact: James Bopp, Jr.Phone 812-232-2434; Fax 812-235-3685; jboppjr@aol.com  U.S. Supreme Court Holds Virginia Corruption Definition Unconstitutional             Today, the United States Supreme Court vacated a jury conviction against former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell for alleged corruption, finding that Virginia’s definition of corruption was not a proper application of federal law and was unconstitutional. The James Madison Center for Free Speech filed an amicus brief with the United
PRESS RELEASEWednesday, May 18, 2016Contact: James Bopp, Jr.Phone 812-232-2434; Fax 812-235-3685; jboppjr@aol.com  Montana Candidate Contribution Limits Ruled Unconstitutional             Yesterday, a federal district court ruled that Montana candidate contribution limits were unconstitutional and enjoined state officials from enforcing them.  The limits, adopted in 1994, are very low, with a $170 cap on individual contributions and a $800 maximum from all political parties to any one legislative candidate.  Because they are so
PRESS RELEASEMonday, March 7, 2016Contact: James Bopp, Jr.Phone 812-232-2434; Fax 812-235-3685; jboppjr@aol.com Amicus Brief Seeking Constitutional Definition of Quid Pro Quo Corruption Filed In United States Supreme Court            Today, the James Madison Center for Free Speech filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court, urging it to establish a constitutional definition of quid pro quo corruption to ensure campaign discourse remains free and unfettered.             The case, McDonnell
Press Release  August 17, 2015 Contact: James Bopp, Jr.Phone 812/232-2434; Cell 812/243-0825; Fax 812/235-3685; jboppjr@aol.com Hawaii’s Law Making Multimillion Dollar Electrical Construction Company a PAC is Appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court Hawaii law – rather than requiring constitutional, simple, one time event driven reports – requires a large family owned business to be a state PAC when it spends more than $1000 on newspaper issue ads. A-1 A-Lectrician, Inc., a
Today, the James Madison Center for Free Speech filed an amicus brief with the Wisconsin Supreme Court advising the Court that a judge is not constitutionally required to remove herself from a case simply because a party made independent expenditures years ago supporting their candidacy. The brief is in response to a motion filed by the state, seeking to have various justices remove themselves from the case, a process known as
Today, six judicial candidates joined the James Madison Center for Free Speech in filing an amicus brief asking the United States Supreme Court to strike down Florida’s personal solicitation ban, citing the First Amendment’s political speech protections as grounds. Last month, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review a Florida Supreme Court decision that upheld Florida’s personal solicitation clause. The clause prohibits judicial candidates from making any personal solicitations for
Last Friday, a bipartisan coalition of candidates, business people, and others asked a federal court to reverse its 2009 decision upholding New York City’s campaign finance laws which unfairly reduced the contribution limits for the business community to just one-tenth of what everyone else is allowed to contribute, make their contributions unmatchable under the City’s public funding scheme, and ban contributions from LLCs, LLPs and partnerships. These laws favor labor unions,
Vermont’s campaign-finance law, that requires a lobby group to be a PAC if it engages in over $1,000 in issue advocacy and that imposed contribution limits on Vermont “superpacs,” was appealed Monday to the U.S. Supreme Court. The challenge is brought by Vermont Right to Life Committee, Inc. (“VRLC”), and Vermont Right to Life Committee – Fund for Independent Political Expenditures (“VRLC-FIPE”). VRLC, a 501(c)(4) lobby and issue advocacy group, seeks
Today, Montanans for Community Development (“MCD”) asked a Montana federal court to prohibit the Commissioner of Political Practices and other state officials from enforcing unclear campaign finance laws and prevent those officials from investigating violations until constitutionally adequate protections are in place for those accused of violating such laws. MCD is a 501(c)(4) corporation that wants to promote and educate Montanans about opportunities for economic development in the state. It wants
On June 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held unconstitutional California’s requirement that ballot initiative petition forms identify the official initiative proponents. This follows court opinions allowing anonymity at the point of petition circulation. For example, a prior case held that government could not make petition circulators wear name tags because that risked chilling speech. The case is important, among other things, for reasserting that government may
On Friday, the Ninth Circuit federal appellate court ruled that Arizona judicial canons that restrict the ability of judicial candidates to engage in ordinary political activities as part of their campaigns are unconstitutional. The plaintiff in the case, Randolph Wolfson, is a resident of Golden Valley, Arizona, and was a candidate for Superior Court Judge in Mohave County in the 2008 election. Elections for state court judges in Arizona are partisan.
Today the Republican National Committee filed its opening brief in McCutcheon v. FEC in the U.S. Supreme Court. The case, brought by the Republican National Committee and Shaun McCutcheon, challenges the federal biennial, individual aggregate limits on contributions to candidates and national political party committees (such as RNC). These aggregate limits restrict how much an individual may spend on political contributions over a two-year election cycle, even though the contributions are
Today the U.S. Supreme Court granted full review of McCutcheon v. FEC. The case, brought by Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee, challenges the biennial individual aggregate limits on contributions to candidates and national political party committees (such as RNC). Under these biennial expenditure limits, even though a contributor can give up to $2,600 per election to a candidate, a contributor may only give $48,600 to all federal candidates in a two year election
PRESS RELEASE March 27, 2012 Contact: James Bopp, Jr. Cell Phone 812/243-0825; Phone 812/232-2434; Fax 812/235-3685; jboppjr@aol.com Today three corporations asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Montana Supreme Court’s holding that corporations in Montana may be banned from making independent political expenditures by expressly advocate the election or defeat of state candidates. In the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment
PRESS RELEASE  Tuesday, March 20, 2012 Contact: James Bopp, Jr. Phone 812/232-2434; Fax 812/235-3685; jboppjr@aol.com In 2007, New York City created a blacklist. It singled out nearly 12,000 of its most prominent citizens and said that they were the most likely to try to bribe politicians with campaign contributions. So the City published their names on the Internet for everybody to see and reduced the amount of contributions they can make
Thursday, October 13, 2011 A group of plaintiffs has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of New Mexico’s new campaign finance laws. The lawsuit alleges that the new limits on contributions to political parties and from political parties to their candidates, as well as the new limits on contributions to committees that spend money independently of any candidate, are unconstitutional. Political parties in New Mexico used to be able to accept
For the second time in as many years, a federal judge in Wisconsin has ruled that a Wisconsin campaign finance law unconstitutional. On September 14, the court ruled that Charles G. Hatchett, a resident of Whitewater, cannot be made to register with the state and include a disclaimer on post cards and flyers urging his fellow residents to vote against a referendum. Mr. Hatchett filed suit in March, 2010, arguing that

Archives