How the Idaho GOP Punishes Those Who Dare Ask Questions

Uncovering the Ada County Republican Central Committee's playbook used against party members who dared to call for transparency

The Idaho Republican Party once valued integrity, honesty, and transparency—principles that used to be at the core of conservative leadership in the state. But under Dorothy Moon and her Idaho Freedom Foundation-aligned allies, those values have been abandoned in favor of deception, deflection, and gaslighting. Instead of addressing legitimate concerns raised by local Republicans, Moon and her team deployed their tried-and-true playbook: discredit the source, shift the focus, and attack anyone who dares to demand accountability.

It started, as these things often do, with whispers. Party insiders, particularly those aligned with the Idaho Freedom Foundation’s political machine, began floating accusations about who was behind Party Watch. The allegations weren’t about whether the financial reports were accurate or whether voters deserved transparency. Instead, the focus shifted to motives, casting the reporting as a political hit job. The truth, however, was far more inconvenient: the numbers didn’t lie, and no amount of deflection could make them disappear.

Party Watch had uncovered a troubling reality: a pattern of spending and reimbursements within the Idaho GOP that raised serious questions about transparency and financial stewardship. Over a year, Dorothy Moon reported $143,992.96 in travel and meal expenses, far beyond what past party chairs had claimed. Among the more startling figures was her mileage reimbursement total of $19,481.26, the equivalent of 29,076.51 miles driven, all at party expense. The numbers didn’t add up. Was there proper documentation? Who was approving these reimbursements? Meanwhile, the party's blank-check credit card expenditures included thousands of dollars in travel, meals, and office costs, with little transparency on all the expenses.

Then there was Bryan Smith, the party’s National Committeeman, whose legal firm was tied to $82,000 in legal fees that Idaho GOP allegedly failed to disclose properly in campaign finance reports. This wasn’t just about astronomical fees but an apparent lack of accountability. Rather than addressing these issues head-on, the party leadership chose a different path: attack the messenger, discredit Party Watch, and bury the questions before too many people started asking them.

Instead of asking the reasonable question—Why are they spending so much money?—the conversation became Who is behind Party Watch? The tactic was straight out of the abuser’s playbook: shift the focus, attack the credibility of the source, and intimidate anyone who might dare to echo their concerns. This wasn’t about Party Watch being wrong; it was about making sure no one cared if they were right.

At the center of the backlash was Thad Butterworth, the chairman of the Ada County Republican Central Committee (ACRCC). If his response had been measured—if he had called for an internal review, sought clarification from Party Watch, or even acknowledged the concerns raised—it might have signaled an interest in honest leadership. Instead, he took a different route from the IFF playbook: attack, deflect, and destroy.

At a recent ACRCC meeting, Butterworth presented what he framed as damning evidence: a tenuous digital connection between Party Watch and the now-defunct Gem State Conservatives (GSC). This group had helped recruit Republican precinct officers during the 2024 primaries. Butterworth’s claim was based on a domain mask in an email system—a technicality that was, at best, circumstantial. Yet, to those already eager to discredit Party Watch, it was enough. Almost immediately, the accusation was amplified on Facebook and X.

alleged “evidence” - image credit: X post

But there was a critical problem with Butterworth and Spoon’s so-called evidence—one that they conveniently omitted. The email header they posted, claiming proof that Party Watch was connected to GSC, revealed something much more important: the sending domain was politasend.com—a bulk email service. The displayed domain was merely masked, a tool used by bulk email services to ensure recipients see a familiar address instead of an unfamiliar one like politasend.com. This is standard industry practice, and the masked domain could be set to anything—meaning it could have been manipulated.

Butterworth, who works in IT, likely knew this already. If he didn’t, someone on his team certainly should have. But acknowledging this inconvenient truth would have completely undercut their narrative. So, instead, they presented the email header as definitive proof when, in reality, it held no credibility.

And then there was the second problem: proving a negative. Their accusation wasn’t built on facts or real evidence—it was a demand that GSC, and those wrongly implicated prove they weren’t behind Party Watch. This is a classic logical fallacy, a tool wielded by abusers and extremists alike. Rather than presenting real proof, they put the onus on the accused to somehow prove an absence of involvement. How does one prove they weren’t involved with something? The answer is—you can’t.

Despite never being part of GSC or Party Watch, I was named in the accusations. Yet simply stating that fact wasn’t enough. No matter what I said, the response was the same: You are just a liar, and of course, you’d say that. And they then manufacture the baseless claim that I am a liar, creating a false circular logic. It wasn’t until a former contractor for GSC publicly confirmed that I had never been involved that I had anything resembling proof. But why should it have taken that? Why wasn’t the burden of proof on Butterworth and Spoon to provide real evidence before making the accusation?

This is how they operate: throw out a false claim, force the accused to prove a negative, and when they fail to do the impossible, insist that their silence is confirmation of guilt. It’s a dishonest and abusive tactic, and Butterworth, rather than questioning it, allowed it to happen under his leadership.

Meanwhile, the alleged financial irregularities remained unaddressed. Dorothy Moon still had no explanation for her excessive reimbursements. Questions remain on about the lack of filings by the Idaho GOP for Smith’s legal expenses. And what about Bryan Smith’s attempt to squeeze over eighty thousand dollars from a fellow Republican for “attorneys fees.” But none of that mattered. The story wasn’t about financial conservatism and transparency anymore—it was about Party Watch being divisive.

This is likely why Party Watch chose to remain anonymous. Look at what happens when you put your name on something like this. These are people who have aligned with groups that show up outside private homes to harass their political enemies. They’ve doxxed police officers, judges, healthcare workers—anyone who stands in their way. Their response to exposure isn’t to answer questions or defend their actions—it’s to make life miserable for those who speak out.

This is not a party that welcomes accountability. It is a party run by people who will destroy anyone who demands it.

I contacted ACRCC Chairman Butterworth to request he retract the false accusation and apologize. I texted, attempted a phone call, and even sent an email he requested. I made a good-faith effort to encourage Butterworth to demonstrate integrity and do the right thing. I wanted to believe there was still reason to give Butterworth the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he had been misled. Perhaps he believed what Spoon and others were telling him. But those assumptions wouldn’t hold for long. The more I tried to engage with him in good faith, the clearer it became: this wasn’t a misunderstanding. It was a deliberate choice.

Part two of this article series will explore that choice—how Butterworth responded when presented with the truth, refused to do the right thing even when it became clear he was wrong, and how his ambition led him to cozy up to some very shady characters. Because, as it turned out, shooting the messenger was only the beginning.

---

About the Author
Gregory Graf is the creator of Political Potatoes and a lifelong conservative Republican. His articles often criticize the hypocrisy committed by far-right grifters who’ve taken control of the GOP. Graf is the CEO of Snake River Strategies, a communications and political consulting firm based in Eagle, Idaho. He and his family moved to Idaho Falls from Utah in 2013 and reside in Star.

Disclaimer
The following is intended to convey an opinion on newsworthy events of public concern regarding public figures and/or public officials in exercising their official duties. No implications or inferences—beyond those explicitly stated in the preceding— are intended to be conveyed or endorsed by the Author. Wherever available, hyperlinks have been provided to allow readers to directly access any underlying assertions of fact upon which this opinion is based.

Don’t forget to share this article with your friends on Facebook, Nextdoor, Reddit, and email!

Follow Political Potatoes on Facebook and X.