Publisher’s Note: The story you are about to read is a compilation of legal documents, portions of other articles, and explanations and analysis of those works. A synopsis here will suffice for those who need quick clarification. The gist of the matter is Aaron Flint got caught cheating (twice) in college years ago at the University of Montana when he ran for student body President and Senate leader because he disregarded Campaign Finance Rules. He then pursued suing multiple students and the President of the college and lost. Fast forward and recently at a debate in Superior, Montana, Flint was posed the question “Have you ever been held accountable for violating Campaign Finances Rules” to which he skirted around the question without giving an actual “yes or no” answer. The final portion of this article shares that if Flint was willing to sue multiple people over a three-year period (and most who were his peers) what would he do to the good people of Montana if he were elected as Montana’s next Western District no.1 U.S. Congressman if he went to such extreme measures to crush so many he had close associations with when he was a college student?

To find out read the entire story below.

“Your honor is everything.”–Aaron Flint (Bee Broadcasting 106.3 FM (The Bear)

Many years ago, during his college days at the University of Montana in Missoula, Aaron Flint (who attended the U of M from 2003-2004 as a Junior and Senior and graduated in 2004) violated Campaign Finance Rules (cheated) when he ran for (ASUM) Associated Students of the University of Montana President and again later when he ran for Senate leader. He along with his running mate Gale Price who ran for ASUM Vice President spent (then and now President/Vice President must run on a single ticket) about $300 when the university rules required that students running for office must not exceed a total of $100 each on campaign expenditures.

After winning their campaign, Flint and Price were caught violating U of M’s Campaign Finance Rules. They were censured, but they were allowed to remain in office. University rules state that candidates are to “document and make public his expenditures two days prior to the election.” This is according to the school’s Bylaws.

The second time Flint ran was for a position as Senate leader where he once again broke Campaign Finance Rules (“again exceeded ASUM’s spending limit”) by spending more than the $100 limit but did enter (reported) his campaign expenditures form which added up to a total of $214.69.

(Portions of the information in this article is compiled from and contains quotes from Carlos T. Bea, Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (32 page published “Opinion”) which was submitted to Montana District Court, Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding on February 5, 2007-Seattle Washington).

“The following year, Flint ran for a term as ASUM Senator and again exceeded ASUM’s spending limit. Upon submitting his campaign expenditure form on April 26, 2004, in which Flint reported expenditures of $214.69, Flint was informed by ASUM Elections Chairman Kyle Engleson that Flint’s name would be removed from the ballot for the upcoming election. Flint then ASUM President, responded to Engelson’s letter with an email in which he noted ASUM procedures require two-thirds vote of the Senate approving Engleson’s recommendation, which could not be possible until the election was already underway. Flint suggested that Engleson recommend to the Senate that candidates who violated ASUM election laws not be allowed to take office.”

Let us sidetrack a bit here. Flint, when he had to step down as he lost the Senate position due to cheating, (although he was voted in), then filed a complaint in district court (District of Montana) on May 5, 2004, claiming that “ASUM Bylaws’ $100 spending cap on campaign expenditures was an unconstitutional abridgement of free speech.” In simpler terms Flint went to court and attempted to sue a multitude of people at the University of Montana involved in student politics (which will be revealed shortly).

Aaron Flint was represented by Bopp Law Firm out of Terre Haute, Indiana. “James Bopp, Jr., and Jeffrey Gallant, of Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom, Terre Haute, Indiana, for the plaintiff-appellant (Aaron Flint).” The primary counsel for the defendants of the University of Montana was “David Aronofsky, Legal Counsel. The University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, and Lisa J. Danetz, National Voting Rights Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, for the defendants-appellees.”

The real question is who was Flint’s lawyer, James Bopp, Jr., and how could a simple Montana student be able to afford such a highly sought-after high-powered attorney? James Bopp, Jr. to be sure isn’t just anybody. He has worked with and for former Presidents and worked to push through ‘Citizens United’ (High powered/big money PAC’s) and is the master of campaign finance election law and a member of the RNC (Republican National Committee). Bopp is a powerhouse to say the least. Mother Jones had this to say about Flint where Bopp reflected on representing him. To read the full Mother Jones article click here. by Stephanie Mencimer.

“To that end, no campaign-finance limit seems too piddly for Bopp to take on. In 2004, he represented Aaron Flint, a student at the University of Montana who had violated the school’s $100 limit on campaign expenditures. When the school refused to seat Flint in the student senate, he sued, alleging that the rule violated his free speech. Bopp took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear it.”

“The case was hardly a moneymaker for Bopp, and it offered no possibility of creating new precedent outside of student elections. But as someone who’d run for office in college, he was sympathetic. He thinks contribution limits in campus campaigns don’t prepare students for real-world politics and are designed to “turn out a bunch of McCainiacs” who believe the government has the right to restrict political spending.”

Moreover Bopp’s colleague shared the following,

“Burt Neuborne, a noted civil libertarian and former ACLU official who’s filed amicus briefs against many of Bopp’s cases, says Bopp is using the First Amendment to create a sort of Wild West system where anyone can spend whatever they please, however they choose. “If you view it as a deregulation device,” he notes, “then you’ve created a power vacuum into which someone will crawl. The people who have moved into the power vacuum in the First Amendment are the rich and powerful.”

Even though we have great respect for James Bopp Jr. (he’s been a powerhouse for the pro-life movement and other notable endeavors) we disagree that universities should have no limits on campaign election funding. In fact, it’s much more difficult to work with less funding in a campaign as you have to ‘promote yourself’ in a more genuine and educated manner when you have limited money. Candidates shouldn’t just be able to get by with ‘buying’ their election (so to speak) which seems to be the case these days where candidates who have extreme wealth run for office. In fact, it’s usually the candidates with less funding who often exhibit a ‘wealth’ of knowledge on current issues, policies, and educate the public to that end and often it’s not necessarily the candidate with the most “big PAC” cash.

So back to the question how did a young man such as Flint secure such a lawyer? Three possibilities come to mind. 1. As it wasn’t a money maker for Bopp he most likely took Flint’s case pro-bono. 2. It appears it could very possibly be a ‘test’ case. Why would Flint be so bold as to tell Election Chairman Kyle Engleson “to recommend to the Senate that candidates who violated ASUM election laws not be allowed to take office.” Why would Flint come right out and tell Engleson such a thing as though to taunt him to literally expel him from the role of Senate leader? This has all the ear markings of a ‘test’ case. Create a problem, get caught, sue everyone in your path and hope you win. And 3. Flint very well may have had a ‘connection’ (or several) to the all-powerful Attorney James Bopp Jr. via his ‘Washington contacts.’

Take a look at the following timeline of Flint’s life as a young man.

Howard University D.C. (1998–2000), Student Member, Bush D.C. Steering Committee (2000), Legislative Staffer, Senator Conrad Burns (2000–2002), Officer, Army National Guard and Reserves (2002?–2024), University of Montana (2002–2004), Communications Director, Greg Gianforte (2015–2016), State Director, Ryan Zinke (2016–2017), Candidate for Chair, Montana GOP (2017) unsuccessful.

Recently in the Montana GOP Debate which took place in Bozeman, Mt. Flint quipped that he was “the only candidate with “Congressional” experience.” What exactly is that supposed to mean? Flint, we know, worked for Conrad Burns as a staffer, State Director for Ryan Zinke, and was Communications Director for Gianforte. However, none of these positions meant that he had any real legislative experience where he was voted into office or wrote and passed bills but rather, he was a ‘legislative aide.’ Although Flint may have filled in for Burns at times on his behalf via speaking engagements and run office duties as well as met with different officials he still was not voted into a Congressional position but rather, he was hired. However, to be clear, not once has Aaron Flint ever run for anything that he actually won (at least ethically). He did “run” for ASUM President and Senate and took enough votes to ‘win’ but the bottom line is he cheated. He ran for and was a ‘Candidate for Chair’ for the Montana GOP in 2017, but he lost.

The list composed of Flint’s history above is quite the line up most certainly and there’s even more but that will suffice. Let’s get back to Flint’s legal counsel. Wouldn’t it seem probable that Flint met James Bopp Jr. through one of his many “mentors”? It is after all interesting that Flint spent so much time in Washington D.C. as a young man. It might even be safe to assume (we’d venture to say obvious) that Flint has been groomed for a multitude of years having worked for Burns, Zinke, and Gianforte and therefore it’s a natural progression for him to have been ‘hoisted’ into the position he is now (meaning running for Montana’s Western U.S. Congressional District No.1). It is beyond evident that Flint has had longstanding ties with Montana’s “Republican Establishment” for a very long time. Flint now has big PAC money backing him which is just exactly what he wanted to happen at U of M (meaning the ability to spend whatever he wanted on his campaign).

Most troubling of all perhaps is the fact that Flint went to such extreme measures (meaning his attempt to plow over so many individuals involved in the University of Montana’s student government) and had the audacity to drag the President of the University of Montana (George Dennison many years his senior no less) through the legal process as well and all because he got caught cheating on campaign rules and turned it around to say his “First Amendment” speech was violated. But why? Why come against so many people including your peers and friends where it no doubt cost them a tremendous amount of time, frustration, hassle, and grief? Was the reason simply pride or far more?

We beg to challenge that the answer was for multiple reasons. There are several possible scenarios. It could be Flint desperately sought to expunge his record (to overturn his bad name at the U of M) perhaps because he was involved in the military and wanted to rise in rank. He could have done it simply for future job employment, but we venture to guess the real reason might lie in the fact that he desperately wanted to continue on the road to higher political endeavors.

Please DONATE to Montana1stNews for pertinent news you cannot find elsewhere.

Perhaps the most important reason is because of where he is now, at this very place in time meaning running for something with such magnitude as Western Montana’s U.S. Congressman for District no. 1. It is highly likely that Flint wouldn’t want a word of this information exposed before the public for fear it may taint his name and yet, here we are. In fact, Flint was recently asked the question at a debate in Superior, Montana and he floundered.

The question was,

“Yes or no, have you ever been held accountable for violating Campaign Finance Rules?”

To which Flint replied, “I will tell you what I did, I got elected student government President at the University of Montana and I fought the left wing, dark money special interest there and I stood up to them there and that’s what we’ve gotta do if we want to make western Montana, Montana and keep it Montana we gotta fight back against these special interests, so I was proud to stand up for free speech at the University of Montana.” To be clear he did not answer the question with a “yes or no” response.

“Left wing, dark money special interest.”

What is he referring to here? Is he referring to the Montana Board of Regents? Because it is they who have authority in such matters. No, they cannot be as they are not a “left wing, dark money special interest” group but rather a “constitutionally mandated, public state entity.” He is referring to the fact that he was not allowed to spend whatever he wanted on his campaign at the U of M and in doing so he is calling that concept “leftist.”

However, what Flint failed to explain is the fact that all state university schools along with Montana State University in Bozeman (which at the time in 2003-2004 was an extremely conservative school) and still to this day are required to adhere to the same exact Campaign Finance Rules as the University of Montana, meaning the same finance restrictions still apply as both (and all state schools) are governed by the Montana Board of Regents. Would Flint have fought MSU the way he did the U of M? The fact of the matter remains, Flint cheated, he got caught and he blamed everyone but himself.

Absolutely Flint’s answer should have been a resolute “Yes” as he most certainly did violate Campaign Finance Rules (see legal document below)

The school also claimed that the “Constitutional rights” of students were limited because it was based on the fact that elections are designed for “educational purposes” and took place in a “limited public setting”.

Judge Carlos T. Bea even stated the following referring to Flint, “Flint equates the ASUM student government to state and national government.”

His next reply concerning Flint was very telling,

“Flint’s arguments are unpersuasive. The University uses ASUM primarily as an educational tool a means to educate students on principles of representative government, parliamentary procedure, political compromise, and leadership. In contrast to participation in state or national politics, participation in ASUM student elections is limited to ASUM-enrolled students (who meet basic student criteria such as only students can vote etc). Unlike state and national governments, ASUM is a creature of the Board of Regents, whose policy calls for ASUM’s Constitution and conditions the validity of the constitution on the University President’s approval. Indeed, ASUM’s entire operation is subject to the Board of Regents’ policies and campus policies.”

It is interesting to note Flint’s adamancy in regard to the university’s Campaign Finance Election Rules being the same as those of a state or congressional race. It appears to have set the tone for Flint to attempt to mow over everyone in his path including his running mate former Vice President Gale Price who was standing ASUM President when Flint was expelled from his Senate seat for cheating once again.

Price however (unlike Flint) humbled himself and learned his lesson and was repentant. (See below)

“Our conclusion is supported by the declaration of Gale Price, former ASUM President”:

“Unlimited spending in ASUM elections would change the nature of the election process as a learning experience. The spending limits mean that students have to figure out no-cost or low-cost ways of campaigning. They have to plan ahead to figure out their strategy, rather than just dumping a lot of money into advertising materials at the last minute. They have to make decisions about allocating their resources effectively. Without spending limits, the well-off students would not have to face these constraints or make these kinds of decisions in the course of running for ASUM.”-Gale Price

The Judge continued,

“Thus, given the nature of this student organization, and the environment in which it exists and operates, ASUM student officeholders are not the equivalent of elected political officeholders. As the Eleventh Circuit explained in a case dealing with similar campaign limitation for student government, “this is a university, whose primary purpose is education not electioneering. Constitutional protections must be analyzed with due regard to the educational purpose, an approach that has been consistently adopted by the courts.”

Aaron Flint filed a lawsuit prior to his graduation from the U of M in District Court, Montana Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding and lost. Flint then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and lost. Flint even approached the Supreme Court Justice of the United States, and they refused to take the case.

Once Flint filed the original complaint in district court, “he then proceeded to sue George Dennison University of Montana President, Kyle Engleson ASUM Election Committee Chair and seven ASUM Elections Committee members. Later Flint filed an amended complaint adding his former running mate Gale Price (then ASUM President) two ASUM Executive Officers and 20 ASUM Senators.”

“Flint also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, a motion for a preliminary injunction, and a motion to consolidate the preliminary injunction hearing with the trial on the merits.” There was a back and forth push between Flint as plaintiff and the rest of the defendants that went on for quite some time. In the end Flint lost the case even though he kept issuing appeals.

Flint filed his lawsuit just prior to his graduation from college. Again, Judge Bea’s Opinion states,

“Generally, once a student graduates, he no longer has a live case or controversy justifying declaratory or injunctive relief against a school’s action or policy and his case is therefore moot. When a student’s record contains negative information derived from allegedly unconstitutional school regulations, however that information may jeopardize the student’s future employment or college career.”

To read the full legal documents (by Judge Carlos T. Bea) click here. JUSTIA U.S. Law.

However, Flint went on seeking an order of expungement (in hopes of getting his negative college record dropped). And because of his third claim for relief despite his graduation from the University of Montana in 2004 his controversy remains live to this day.

The gist of the matter is this. Flint lost in District court he then sought expungement and failed; he kept trying to appeal and lost. Flint even submitted his case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and lost and furthermore attempted to take it all the way to the United States Supreme Court and was denied.

To this day Aaron Flint’s record/name is not expunged from the University of Montana.

We ask you, what heights would Flint climb to come against those he does not agree with? If he acted in this manner as a 24?-year-old student on a college campus how exactly would he behave as Montana’s U.S. Congressman District no. 1 representing Western Montana?

The answer is obvious.