Montanans have a long and proud tradition of insisting that judges serve the law—not political parties, special interests, or ideological causes. But if we want that system to actually mean something, we need more than rules on paper. We need judicial candidates who are honest with voters—especially about their own political histories.
Judge Amy Eddy, a candidate for the Montana Supreme Court, used her recent op-ed column to claim that she is running a truly “nonpartisan” campaign and stands apart from political influence. Yet the public record tells a different story.
Judge Eddy has contributed thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates and causes over the years, including to Hillary Clinton, Jon Tester, and Steve Bullock; along with the Montana Democrat Party and the National Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee. That is not the record of someone who is politically neutral—it is the financial behavior of a committed partisan. It is also her right as a private citizen. But if Judge Eddy wants to wear the robe of impartiality, she shouldn’t hide that history from the public now that she’s seeking a seat on Montana’s highest court.
Let’s be clear: there is nothing inherently wrong with having political views or even donating to candidates. But pretending to be above politics while having spent years bankrolling partisan campaigns is intellectually dishonest—and it’s a disservice to Montana voters. If Judge Eddy wants to argue that her political giving won’t affect her judicial rulings, she should make that case. What she shouldn’t do is suggest she’s some kind of judicial monk floating above the partisan fray.
In her op-ed, Judge Eddy invoked the era of the Copper Kings and Montana’s move toward nonpartisan judicial elections. That history matters. Corruption was real, and Montanans rightly demanded clean government and an independent judiciary. But the lesson of that era wasn’t just about removing party labels—it was about removing political manipulation and special interest influence from the courts. That includes being transparent about the biases judges may carry with them.
The modern-day equivalent of Copper King influence now takes the form of a well-funded network of liberal “dark money” nonprofits. Today, powerful advocacy organizations like the Trial Lawyers Association, Planned Parenthood, and major labor unions wield significant influence over liberal judges—many of whom rely heavily on these groups for political support and the tens of millions of dollars they pour into judicial campaigns to keep their allies on the bench.
Ironically, the very things Judge Eddy warns against—litmus tests, party loyalty, political messaging—are all things her own record raises red flags about. You can’t spend years promoting partisan figures and then pretend you’re running a campaign with no political fingerprints.
Montana voters aren’t naïve. They understand that judges, like everyone else, have views. What they want is honesty, not theater. What they deserve is transparency, not revisionist history.
Judicial candidates who fail to acknowledge their partisan records erode the very trust they claim to protect. That’s not independence. That’s misdirection.
Editor’s note: Jake Eaton is an entrepreneur, investor, and Republican political consultant based in Billings, MT. Mr. Eaton is an investor in the parent company of this site.
