ILNews

Attorney says Washington nonprofit’s complaints are part of ‘smear’ campaign

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Terre Haute conservative attorney James Bopp Jr. says that an IRS whistleblower suit and other complaints alleging Bopp has diverted funds from the nonprofit James Madison Center for Free Speech to his law firm are part of a “smear machine” by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

The nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington announced Tuesday that its executive director Melanie Sloan has filed a whistleblower suit with the IRS against Bopp Jr., his law firm and the James Madison Center for Free Speech. Sloan alleges that Bopp has misrepresented the activities of the James Madison Center to divert nearly all of its money into the Bopp Law Firm.

The nonprofit JMCFS, based in Terre Haute, supports litigation and public education to defend the rights of political expression and association by citizens guaranteed under the First Amendment, according to the group’s mission statement. Bopp serves as the nonprofit’s general counsel.

The Bopp Law Firm helps clients with PAC law, campaign finance, election law, First Amendment and constitutional law matters.

The complaint filed with the IRS claims that in the last six years, Bopp, as sole manager of JMCFS, has operated unchecked by its board of directors and diverted the nonprofit’s funds to his law firm.  It alleges that Bopp, the law firm, and JMCFS owe more than $6.2 million in back taxes.

In addition to filing a whistleblower complaint with the IRS, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington asked the Indiana attorney general to investigate whether the JMCFS has violated Indiana law by diverting more than 99 percent of its revenue to Bopp’s law firm, according to a letter sent to Attorney General Greg Zoeller’s office.

Complaints were also filed with U.S. Attorney Joe Hogsett in the Southern District of Indiana, the Indiana Secretary of State, and the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs.

“Mr. Bopp is a self-described expert on the laws governing non-profits so he can’t claim to have made innocent mistakes,” Sloan said in a statement. “He knew what he was doing when he funneled all of JMCFS’s assets to his own firm and he had to know it was wrong.  Misusing a non-profit for personal gain is a serious offense and merits a thorough investigation.”

But Bopp said Wednesday he expects nothing to happen from these complaints. He said CREW has filed dozens of complaints against successful conservatives, such as Jim Dobson and Sean Hannity, but have never won on any of them. He referred to CREW as a “smear machine” that goes after people and groups whose views don’t match CREW’s.    

“I’ve represented groups they’ve filed IRS complaints against and nothing happened,” Bopp said.

CREW’s complaint is that Bopp is the only one paid by the JMCFS, he explained, but he’s the only one paid because he’s the only one who does work.

“[JMCFS] can only afford one lawyer. That’s me,” he said. The litigation center contracts with him and pays him to handle legal matters. He also pointed out that he’s donated millions of dollars in pro bono work to the group.

Bopp also said he’s paid taxes on every cent paid by JMCFS.

Bopp has gained national recognition for his work challenging campaign finance laws and regulations. He was one of the lead attorneys on the 2010 Citizens United case before the Supreme Court of the United States that allowed for unlimited contributions by corporations, unions, individuals, and private groups for political campaigns.

He’s also worked on judicial free speech cases and challenged judicial merit-selection systems in several states.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT