HELENA – A federal judge on Friday said he won’t intervene in a state lawsuit between Democrat Steve Bullock and Republican Rick Hill over the legality of a $500,000 donation to Hill’s campaign for governor.
The ruling is a win for Bullock, the attorney general, who is suing Hill in state court to force the former congressman to return the donation from the Montana Republican Party.
U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell denied a request by conservative groups to find Bullock in contempt for filing the lawsuit. Lovell also denied Hill’s request to counter state District Judge Kathy Seeley’s temporary order preventing Hill from spending the donation or airing ads purchased with it before a Monday hearing.
At issue are the state’s campaign contribution limits that Lovell ruled unconstitutional on Oct. 3. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Lovell’s ruling Oct. 9.
Between those dates, the state Republican Party gave Hill the donation. Hill says it was legal for him to take the $500,000 when there were no limits, while Bullock argues he must give it back now that the appeals court has reinstated the $22,600 limit from all political parties.
The Bullock campaign welcomed Lovell’s quick ruling. It argued Hill, as the only statewide candidate holding onto such an infusion of cash, needs to “do the right thing” and return the money.
Hill campaign spokesman Brock Lowrance said the campaign continues to comply with Seeley’s order and will wait for Monday’s hearing, but the campaign late Friday also appealed Lovell’s decision to the 9th Circuit.
“Steve Bullock is using the courts to try and win an election, so in turn we are going to continue to make our case before the courts,” Lowrance said.
Conservative groups, businesses and individuals who sued to throw out the campaign contribution limits asked Lovell to find Bullock’s lawsuit in contempt of Lovell’s order throwing out the contribution limits. They also asked Lovell to force Bullock to pay for ads that restore the damage to Hill’s reputation.
Lovell wrote in his order denying that request that his ruling on the limits was not enforceable once the 9th Circuit took action, so Bullock’s conduct could not have violated it.
But his denial of the contempt motion should not be interpreted as a determination that the disputed donation was illegal, he wrote.
“That is the question before Judge Seeley,” Lovell said.
Hill on Thursday asked Lovell to intervene in the state lawsuit and issue an order countering Seeley’s temporary restraining order.
Lovell also denied that request, calling it an attempt to appeal a state court decision to a federal court.
That is “a classically impermissible action” and a federal court can’t issue an injunction to stay proceedings in a state court except as authorized by Congress, Lovell wrote.
Lovell said Hill can appeal Seeley’s decision or petition the Montana Supreme Court to take control of the case.
“Surely, the Montana Courts will protect the rights of the parties,” Lovell wrote.
Gov. Brian Schweitzer weighed in on the dispute Friday before a gubernatorial debate in Great Falls. The Democrat said Hill is engaging in reckless behavior that could result in a “constitutional crisis” if Hill is found to be in the wrong.
Schweitzer cited a state statute that calls for the immediate removal of an elected official who is found to violate an election law. A separate part of the state code calls for a fine instead of the more drastic measure of removal, and Schweitzer acknowledged such a penalty would be up to the courts to decide.
Lowrance responded by calling the governor’s news conference a “campaign stunt” and said the constitutional crisis is Bullock using the judicial branch to try to decide the outcome of an election.