Subscribe via RSS Feed

A Little Story About an Ancient Montana Plutocrat

[ 51 ] June 25, 2012 |

A long, long time ago (the Gilded Age) in a land far, far away known as Montana there was a man named William Clark. Not the Lewis & Clark guy but instead a mining capitalist. Born in Pennsylvania in 1839, he followed his family to Iowa as a teenager and then went to the Colorado gold mines during the gold rush in 1859. Clark found he enjoyed the mining world and thus went north to Montana Territory to pan for gold in 1863. He quickly realized that panning gold was for suckers. The smart move was to invest in the mines or sell things to the miners. Clark began running a supply service between Montana and Salt Lake City and made a good bit of money in it. He used that capital to become a banker where he began buying up defaulted mining properties and by the 1870s was raking money in hand over fist in the copper industry.

Clark became one of Montana’s three Copper Kings, the territory’s (state in 1889) version of monopolists John D. Rockefeller or Andrew Carnegie. Unlike most of the period’s plutocrats, Clark had personal political ambitions. But very similarly to his fellow capitalists, he felt that he should just be able to purchase his political will. He started this by running a powerful Butte newspaper, where he had built a resplendent mansion while the miners who made his fortune lived in conditions nearing slavery. But that wasn’t enough for Clark. He wanted to be a senator. Now remember that before the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, state legislatures chose U.S. senators. One of the big reasons why reformers pushed this amendment was because of William Clark.

When Clark wanted to become senator, he figured the easiest way to do it was to get out his checkbook. Literally. He bought the votes of the Montana state legislature for the 1898 election for about $140,000. Even for the Gilded Age, this was beyond the pale of acceptable corruption. When this came to light early in 1899, the Senate refused to seat Clark. That didn’t stop him though; acting with slightly less obviousness, he managed to get the state legislature to reelect him in 1900 and he served a single term in the Senate. As Clark said, “I never bought a man who wasn’t for sale.”

For reformers, William Clark was Exhibit A for the terrible depths to which the American political and corporate world had sunk. Mark Twain hated Clark with special vigor, writing:

“He is as rotten a human being as can be found anywhere under the flag; he is a shame to the American nation, and no one has helped to send him to the Senate who did not know that his proper place was the penitentiary, with a ball and chain on his legs. To my mind he is the most disgusting creature that the republic has produced since Tweed’s time.”

When Clark died in 1925, he was worth $150 million. Today, that would equal $3.482 billion. His Butte mansion is now a bed and breakfast.

This is the world the 5 Republican Supreme Court justices long to recreate through Citizens United and today’s decision to overturn the century-old anti-corruption laws Montana passed to keep this embarrassment from happening again.


Comments (51)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Mike Clinch says:

    There are two plaques in the rotunda of the capitol building in Helena, Montana. Fortunately, it’s an outside corner projecting into the rotunda, so if you are in front of one plaque, you can’t see the other. One commemorates the life of Clark, as a business leader, philanthropst and politician. Around the corner is one to the editor of the Anaconda newspaper, commemorating his revelation of the Clark corruption.

    I kid you not. Unfortunately, the 5 Supremes have only viewed the Clark plaque.

  2. Holden Pattern says:

    I fail to see the problem here. The people who own the country ought to run it.

  3. DrDick says:

    And let me just say that our modern Montana Republicans are the proud lineal descendents of Sen. Clark.

    • Erik Loomis says:

      What is the feeling in Montana about all of this?

      • DrDick says:

        Liberals are depressed, but the Republicans are rejoicing. Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Loathsome) declared it “a victory for free speech.” I am sure that this has nothing to do with the fact that Rove’s and Koch’s superpacs have dumped a ton of money (outspending both candidates combine by a large margin) running ads attacking Tester.

  4. dp says:

    Clark’s daughter died fairly recently at age 104, and there’s a gigantic fight going on over her estate.

    Thank goodness the Supreme Court is on top of keeping America safe for the plutocracy.

    I commented elsewhere that this is an excellent example of the right-wing majority allowing the fantasies in their heads to serve as established facts that then trump inconvenient observed reality.

    • Erik Loomis says:

      Yeah, I was reading about that. Kind of crazy.

    • Mike G says:

      His daughter died with a massive oceanfront estate in Santa Barbara, CA valued at over $100m. The estate was maintained at huge cost by dozens of staff, but she hadn’t bothered to visit in over fifty years.

      • Anonymous says:

        So what! It was her father”s money to do with as she pleased. If you read anything about W.A. Clark’s life you’d know it was a rags to riches story the author of whom was a brilliant, clever, industrious self made entrepreneur.

  5. dan says:

    It’s about time we started taking the Supreme Court at their word and stopped trying to argue that Citizens United leads to corruption like that described in this post and recognize that, as five members of this Court have essentially stated, what Clark did in purchasing votes is “democracy” and not “corruption”.

  6. rea says:

    If money is speech, why is bribery illegal?

    • Holden Pattern says:

      Shouldn’t be. It’s just a clearly denominated conversation.

    • DrDick says:

      I am pretty sure that it is on the conservative justices’ agenda, just as soon as they figure out how to legalize it for corporations, plutocrats, and Republicans, but not anybody else.

    • UserGoogol says:

      The problem with bribery isn’t so much the giving of money, but the giving of benefits in exchange for that money. Just giving money to politicians would be pretty harmless if the politicians didn’t get corrupted by the money. In principle, campaign spending is supposed to be separate from that. Money isn’t going to the politicians themselves, it’s going to campaign funds (the candidate’s own fund or PACs or SuperPACs or whatever) which are used to fund communications in order to promote the candidate. Of course the problem is that since politicians want to win and think campaigning will help them, there’s still some corrupting possibility there, and the other problem is that if campaigning does help politicians win, then the dissemination of such money distorts electoral outcomes. But that’s still not quite the same thing as bribery.

    • dp says:

      If money is speech, then bribery is just persuasion.

  7. William Burns says:

    His son, William Andrews Clark, set up a rather nice research library in Los Angeles, the Clark Library. So there’s that.

  8. KadeKo says:

    Tangent: Funny that the robber baron’s place is a B&B. Today’s robber barons aren’t building anything I’d want to B&B in a century from now.

    Today’s economic uberlords seem to have more money than ever and less taste.

    • Warren Terra says:

      Today’s robber barons aren’t building anything I’d want to B&B in a century from now.

      How would we know? Whether because they don’t care to open up or because they’re slightly circumspect, they often don’t care to let the hoi polloi see their stately homes. There was an article I saw over the weekend about some ridiculous mansion within helicopter distance of Manhattan (the plutocrat who owns this monstrosity has attracted the ire of his more-or-less equally wealthy neighbors because his ride of choice is especially noisy, the Hummer of the helicopter world, a flying bus that can carry two dozen comfortably when it’s not fitted out to carry him on luxury). Except for perhaps being too large – this monstrosity had two or three dozen bedrooms, most or all likely in suites – and being uneconomical to run, there’s no reason this behemoth mansion with its expansive estates and ocean winds couldn’t be a B&B.

      • KadeKo says:

        You have me caught out.

        My sample size is only two:

        Everything with a bedroom and Donald Trump’s name on it.

        Plus 50-Cent’s mansion in suburban Hartford, CT.

    • Randy Paul says:

      Many years ago I worked for a lecture agency and booked a date for Chris Miller (the main writer of Animal House) to speak there. We had him stay at The Copper King.

      Jeez, a check out time of 9 a.m. and check in time of 4 p.m. for a five room B & B?!?! Is their housekeeping staff made up of the infirm?

      • Randy Paul says:

        Okay it has 34 rooms (I was counting the rooms listed on the description page). Still that is the earliest check out and latest check in times I’ve ever seen. If you stay there for one night you essentially stay for 17 hours.

      • Bill Murray says:

        A group I was part of rented the Copper King for supper and a tour a couple of years ago. The food was tremendous and the tour interesting although I don’t think they talked about what a jerk Clark was too much. We also toured the Rookwood speakeasy found underground in Butte and the site of Frank Little’s lynching. As engineer’s (and several of us in mineral processing and geology) we also had a good tour of the Berkeley Pit. Ah, Butte pretty in a dangerous way

  9. efgoldman says:

    “He is as rotten a human being as can be found anywhere under the flag; he is a shame to the American nation, and no one has helped to send him to the Senate who did not know that his proper place was the penitentiary, with a ball and chain on his legs. To my mind he is the most disgusting creature that the republic has produced since Tweed’s time.”

    Nobody, but nobody, did a takedown like Mark Twain in high dudgeon.
    Brother Pierce is the blogger version, but even he would admit he’s no Sam Clemens.

  10. Poicephalus says:

    Perfectly matched author to current event. And ++ on the site known for legal (battleship) analysis.

    Bravo, Erik

  11. Mark says:

    Great post. I especially love reading about this era of US history.

    anyone else reading (or did I miss a post on) “Rising Tide” The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 by John Barry?. I”m half way through and am convinced its one of the best on American history. I don’t want it to end.

  12. Joe says:

    The Montana ACLU supports the law while the ACLU itself supports Citizens United.

  13. heckblazer says:

    Hmmm. So was Clark the inspiration for the nasty Elihu Wilsson in Red Harvest? Dashiel Hammett did base the novel on his experiences as a Pinkerton in Butte after all. (As an aside, I find it interesting that Hammett was so disgusted by the tactics used by Pinkertons to break strikes he quit working as a detective and become a communist).

  14. Timb says:

    I’m reading “The Copper Kings” right now. I used to think the late19th century was the most boring time in American history. Little did I know they expected me to live in it

    • Erik Loomis says:

      The idea of the late 19th century being boring is one that interests me because I know people feel that way. I think there’s a tendency to think this because by the traditional markers of history–presidents, wars, foreign policy, big legislation–not much happened during those years.

      But the country was going completely insane and that’s why I’d argue it’s probably the most fascinating time in American history, though that’s obviously the most subjective thing in the world.

      • Captain Haddock says:

        I agree. I’m immensely frustrated that the Oxford History of the United States has yet to publish their volume on that time period — I’ve really enjoyed the other volumes in the series. Are there any good survey books that cover the period after Reconstruction?

  15. bradp says:

    The vast majority of SuperPAC spending is funded through extraordinarily wealthy individuals like Clark, and Citizens United doesn’t affect that does it?

    • Joe says:

      Citizens United overall principles blanches at regulation of money in a way that affects SuperPacs & a lower court applied it to them in the influential Speech Now case.

      • bradp says:


        I apologize, but its a little vague for me to understand what you mean, and I want to understand before I respond.

        • Holden Pattern says:

          Here’s one way: rich individual sets up string of shell corporations with nothing but mailboxes for contact information. Said shell corporations pass rich individual’s money around like a joint at a Dead concert, with the money winding up in some politician’s campaign coffers.

          Presto! Zero traceability, zero accountability, except to the rich guy, whose contacts have quietly tipped said politician as to the source of his funding.

          I am not making this up — Mother Jones has been trying to find the source of money in various campaigns and has hit this exact dead end.

  16. Cellar door says:

    […] freedom and liberty.”The loving Christian values of the “Teavangelicals.”“He is as rotten a human being as can be found anywhere under the flag; he is a shame to the American nation, and no one has helped to send him to the Senate who did not […]

  17. […] 1890, copper magnate William Clark paid Montana lawmakers $140,000 to elect him to the U.S. Senate. While most plutocrats did not share Clark’s interest in being politicians, they ensured their […]

  18. […] When the Two Gilded Ages Meet [ 0 ] July 5, 2012 | Erik Loomis var addthis_product = 'wpp-262'; var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true,"data_track_addressbar":false};if (typeof(addthis_share) == "undefined"){ addthis_share = [];}Mitt Romney is having a fundraiser in Hamilton, Montana. Not only is this fundraiser hosted by Charles Schwab, but it is at the home of Marcus Daly, one of Montana’s Copper Kings during the Gilded Age. Among the other Copper Kings–William Clark. […]

  19. […] Because it’s much easier for corporations to cut checks to individual state legislators than trying to buy whole elections. They long for the days of William Clark buying the Montana legislature. […]

  20. […] of corruption everyone worries about today. See, in Montana during the 19th Century, a man named William A. Clark bought his U.S. Senate seat not once, not twice, but three times. He purchased it directly from members of the Montanan state […]

  21. Great Story, and amazing man William Clark (gold man). This is compared to anything else is extra. The other way is not a lot of people have a choice. But this one is special, as well as abnormal.

  22. […] I guess the next move is to make bribery legal. Or at the very least, to repeal the 17th Amendment so that state legislators can be handed bags of cash to name rich people to the Senate. […]

  23. […] spokesperson for destroying teacher unions and privatizing public schools since she left CNN, is now inviting Democratic candidates to events she’s hosting about how teachers’ unions… and when they obviously turn her “offer” down, her and her allies compare the American […]

  24. […] I have discussed Clark before. He was a miner turned capitalist in Montana who became one of Montana’s three Copper Kings. He’s remarkable not so much for that, but for being the personification of Gilded Age corruption. Clark really wanted to be a senator. Of course, in the 1890s, senators were chosen by state legislatures. So he did what any Gilded Age capitalist who wanted to be a senator would do. He bribed them. Supposedly, he later said, “I never bought a man who wasn’t for sale.” This was no doubt true. But he was so corrupt that even the Senate, where there was no shortage of open corruption, would not seat him. He became for Mark Twain, the single symbol of the corruption of the period. He later still returned to the Senate, this time not so openly buying people off. He served a term. All of this inspired the 17th Amendment, which some of the right oppose today, being totally fine with rich people subverting democracy and buying off state legislators to control the Senate. None of this affected his massive wealth of course, as the grave above demonstrates. […]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.