If no law exists, no illegality exists

A person can certainly think it was wrong of Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Hill to keep a $500,000 contribution from the Montana Republican Party, but Democratic candidate Steve Bullock’s claim that it was illegal is obviously wrong.

U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell ruled on Oct. 3 that Montana’s campaign contribution limits are unconstitutional because they are too low to allow effective campaigning in the face of unlimited spending by political action committees. That ruling, based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, lifted the limits immediately.

Six days later, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the state’s campaign contribution limits until the court had a chance to hear an appeal on the case.

But in the period between the two rulings, the Montana Republican Party seized the opportunity to make the contribution to Hill’s campaign. At the time it was a legal contribution, and nothing that happened afterwards can make it illegal.

Arguably, the appellate court could have refused to stay Lovell’s ruling, or the appellate court’s order could have been delayed well beyond six days. But there was no reason for candidates to wait and find out what the law was going to be in the future. At the time the GOP made the contribution to Hill’s campaign, they were both following the law as it existed.

Upon learning of the contribution on Oct. 17, however, Bullock’s campaign went ballistic, claiming that it was a “criminal violation of Montana law.”

That’s right, Montana’s top law enforcement officer, Bullock, contended it was a criminal violation. So where’s the attorney general’s prosecution of this supposed crime? It isn’t going to happen, because if a judge throws out a law, you have no obligation to follow it any longer.

This should be Criminal Law 101, but the Bullock campaign continues to publicly assail Hill for taking an “illegal contribution.” Bullock even filed a  civil lawsuit aimed at forcing Hill to return the contribution, and a “Give it Back Rick” campaign was launched.

Sorry, that isn’t the practice of law — it is politics, plain and simple.

And while Bullock has mounted a showy legal challenge against Hill, we predict that at the end of the expensive road littered with attorneys’ fees and temporary restraining orders, no court will be able to find Hill guilty of any wrong-doing.

Again, people surely can think that Hill “should” return the contribution and the situation may indeed even hurt him politically, costing him supporters.

But Hill’s justification for keeping the money ironically resembles Bullock’s arguments against the $500,000 contribution.

“I believe Montana’s elections should belong to the people, not to the corporations hiding behind ATP’s cloak,” Bullock said in a press release, referring to the American Tradition Partnership PAC that is suspected of backing the state Republican Party financially.

At their debate in Kalispell, on the other hand, Hill said the $500,000 contribution will help level the playing field so his campaign can respond to massive PAC advertising against him. That includes wall-to-wall advertising asserting that Hill supports a sales tax, a claim that he constantly and convincingly refutes when he gets the chance.

It has to be frustrating to be told what your agenda is by your opposition, and then being limited in your ability to communicate your actual agenda to voters. So it is perfectly understandable that Hill took the money.

Maybe Attorney General Bullock just regrets that his own political agenda made it impossible for him to accept big donations while they were legal, too. But that’s no reason to smear his opponent, and we encourage the attorney general to stop using incendiary language that has no basis in fact.