Last updated on May 6, 2025
The suggestion was made that we might focus less on the people, and more on analysis since these events were a quarter-century ago. The answer is that some of the same people are here today
A Surprise Confession
Three weeks after the Invoice was disclosed to the LNC, Perry Willis published a response to Famularo’s revelation.
Most Americans know how politicians usually behave when they are caught doing something wrong. If the evidence is weak, there is often a denial of guilt. These denials lead to embarrassment when initially weak evidence is followed by more convincing supporting testimony. If the evidence is strong, a conventional response is based on confession, contrition, and an appeal for absolution. The confession is typically accompanied by statements that the politician misunderstood the rules, made an innocent error, should have listened more carefully to his advisors (unless the advisors get the blame)… . In any event, the action hurt no one and had no significant consequences. There follows the obligatory ritual admission that the politician made a mistake, regrets having hurt people, and is taking responsibility for what was done—a phrase that does not imply that the politician will do anything to correct the error. The phrase ‘take responsibility’ worked for Janet Reno after the Branch Davidian Holocaust at Waco, Texas.
Following the apology to the public, there is sometimes a ritual promise that the politician has learned from his mistake and will never again stray from the path of the honest and the righteous. If you watched President Clinton deal with the Lewinsky issue, you saw all the major steps.
For readers who understood the implications of the Invoice and expected a conventional response, Willis’s remarks must have been astounding. From beginning to end, Willis ignored political orthodoxy.
Willis’s response was downloadable as a .pdf file from the Harry Browne site at ww.harrybrowne.org/policy, and was also available in html form at http://www.lp2000.com/BCI/PWconfess.htm. The response goes on for 20 full pages, close to 10,000 words. Buried within a paragraph on page 13 is a seeming admission that the Invoice is authentic: Willis says that the Invoice could have been obtained from Willis’s hard drive on an unspecified computer. Famularo’s recent statements indicate that the Invoice was in fact found on Famularo’s computer.
Willis did admit that the substance of the Invoice is genuine: He had taken money for performing the described acts. In admitting that he took the money, Willis says (his memo, page 11) “I received exactly one payment before the current policy was put into place, and (if I recall correctly) exactly one payment after.” The reader is left by Willis to wonder if Willis’s recollections are correct, or if afterwards he took other payments. The Browne Campaign filed financial disclosure statements with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Browne’s FEC filings show that Willis took three payments from Browne, not one, before the current policy went over effect.
Willis’s confession makes clear his understanding of the situation. Willis knew at the time that what he was doing was wrong. In early 1996, Willis was the Libertarian Party’s National Director. Long-standing Party rules forbade him to work behind the scenes and assist candidates still seeking the Party’s nomination. “…I had to disobey an LNC Policy,” he admits on page one, sentence two. Later on the same page, Willis again admits that he believed at the time that he was violating Party National Committee (LNC) rules: “As of late 1995,…Bill (Winter) and I were employed by the LNC and a new policy prohibited us from assisting nomination campaigns.” The policy in question actually dates to the early 1980s. We’ll discuss the recent policy below.
Willis goes on at great length to explain why he did what he did. In essence, Willis supported the Presidential campaign of Harry Browne, an investment advisor who in 1996 had recently joined the Party. Browne had spent many years condemning political activity. Indeed, there are reports that for many years he had not voted. Now Browne suddenly wanted to run for President of the United States.
Under several LNC conflict of interest rules, Willis understood that he could not secretly help Browne. As National Director, Willis was required by his employer, the Libertarian National Committee, to remain neutral in word and deed with respect to nominating campaigns. After all, the membership dues of supporters of every candidate were paying Willis’s salary. Following the National convention, the National Director had to be able to work with the Presidential campaign of the Party’s nominee, no matter who that nominee was. A National Director who had not been neutral would create impossible tensions within the Party.
Given that Willis supported Browne, while Party rules demanded his neutrality, what was Willis to do? In his memo (page 2), Willis claims that he had three choices: (1) Resign as National Director and help Browne. (2) Persuade the LNC to change its rules. (3) Stay on as National Director and disobey National Committee rules. Willis did not list a choice (4): Stay on as National Director and obey Party rules.
Willis claims the first alternative would have disrupted party activities. A case could be made that Willis had an extremely elevated sense of his own importance to the Party’s ability to function. The second alternative would have taken months, longer than the Browne campaign could afford. Choice 4 does not appear to have entered Willis’s thoughts, though many Libertarians would say that, once Willis had decided to stay on as National Director, (4) was his only moral choice. Willis instead chose to stay on as National Director, but to ignore Party rules that kept him from aiding Browne.
