The topic is the RFK Joint Fundraising Agreement. The electronics were annoying, but I did get in. Reporting what was said was a bit challenging, since all sides were well-prepped with discussion and spoke quickly.
The presenters supporting the appeal are Caryn Ann Harlos, Todd Hapopian and if needed Richard Brown. The presenter opposing the appeal is Angela McArdle.
Harlos speaks first. She quotes the original argument in favor, namely that the arrangement would let the Kennedy campaign to use the LNC’s campaign finance limits.
Seebeck questions the appeal on the grounds that the signatories did not read the full appeal. Harlos notes that the appeal filing used the same process as several other past appeals.
Krawchuck asks how the agreement violates our bylaws. Harlos answers in detail starting with article 2, the article 3, 14.1, 14.3 — this is a constructive disaffiliation.
Rob Latham asks about article 5.4. Does the restriction on affiliates restrict the LNC? Harlos defends the claim, but the issue seems to be one of the weaker claims.
Tarnoff asks if there is an intent to hurt the party. Harlos: There are people who do not respect our party structure, which harms the party. Tarnoff: I see three questions. 1) Does this move public policy in a contra-libertarian direction. Time called.
We advance to the respondent, Angela McArdle. She has added Jonathan Jacobs as a respondent. McArdle: There are a lot of candidates. Oliver has taken some stands that are unpopular with some members. I am working hard to support our candidates. We run out of cash in two months. The JFC will help us through the rest of the year. McArdle: “I am the one in charge of this organization”
Jonathan Jacobs claims that there is no bylaws violation.
Questions to McArdle: McArdle says the agreement was run by large numbers of attorneys. Says an endorsement violates the bylaws.
Tarnoff: Is there a bylaws violation if the messaging moves the image in a non-Libertarian direction. He asks if doing things that are inconsistent with article 2 are bylaws violations. Jacobs tries to say no. Asks McArdle if the agreement blurs our party image. McArdle says that it does not. Tarnoff to McArdle: What does ‘distinct’ in Article 2 mean. Latham: What protection do we have that money is not directed to our people who are not our supporters.
Discussion as to what the bylaws mean. Very rapidly stated.
McArdle rebuttal: Petitioner has made a lot of arguments. LNC has members saying that we are supporting our candidates. We don’t intend to endorse Kennedy. No questions for her.
Harlos: There is a fiduciary duty. Running out of money is an emotional argument that does not cure bylaws violations. If our bylaws are contradictory, the JC should resolve. Joint Fundraising ads point people at Kennedy 2024, who is not Libertarian. Oliver opposes the Joint fundraiser.
Tarnoff: How does the Kennedy campaign matter? How do we determine the original intent of the bylaws. Plain meaning is clear.
Harlos: Joint fundraiser does not direct to our web site only to Kennedy’s.
Kinsella to McArdle: will the LNC do a press release say we are not endorsing Kennedy? Will the funds raised be used to support Oliver? M: There are legal limits. Refuses to answer if we will contact Kennedy donors.
Q: Do single-issue events violate bylaws. Harlos: No.
Tarnoff: Preparatory Rule canon: Perhaps article 2 is a preparation, not a strict bylaws. Harlos: Bylaws opening makes clear it is not preparatory.
Tarnoff to McArdle: Did the attorneys actually approve the agreement? McArdle: Yes.
Latham: Are there costs to the LNC for this…McArdle: Kennedy fund pays our costs for compliance and transfer issues.
Tarnoff: Does this agreement move public policy in a non-libertarian direction. Tarnoff discusses more aspects of Article 2. McArdle: Kennedy is using the agreement to advertise his side only.
Krawchuk to Harlos: Asks about the issue that we restrict affiliates, but do the bylaws restrict the LNC? There’s a debate as to whether or not they do.
Hagopian rattles off bylaws and FEC regulations saying teh agreement is improper.
Q: Has the agreement been finalized? Why did the ExComm vote on an agreement that they had not actually seen? McArdle: We were in a hurry?
Q? Does it matter that Kennedy joined us. Harlos: The bylaws do not mention that. Kennedy is the candidate of multiple other parties. McArdle: We are not endorsing him.
Kinsella: Can we exit it? McArdle: We can, but it might take a few days to do. The contract has an exit arrangement for either party.We would still have FEC filing agreements.
Harlos: Appeal was filed before the contract was filed, and the chair knew this when the contract was filed.
Montoni: We are adjourned. Followup hearing is left up in the air.
McArdle’s inclination to play power politics with the big boys is much diminished by her incapacity to drag the party along with her.
Blay Tarniff could just ask D Frank Robinson the original intent, since he helped write that section.
There may have been amendments since then, which do change the intent.
Party officers being judged by members of the party’s Judicial Committee as to whether it is proper for LNC “leadership” to destroy the campaign of the POTUS nominated by delegates at the Party’s Convention.
These same people wonder why the LP membership numbers have fallen off the proverbial cliff, donors stopped donating / left, and the party is now financially insolvent.
I am very happy I walked away. None of this nonsense is worth anyone’s time.