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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT