Last updated on November 12, 2025
My contacts associated with the Browne campaign report that Browne was a truly excellent small-business manager. He was closely aware of all the details of his campaign’s activities. Could he have been unaware of events? Why was there an interest in suggesting that Browne might be absolved of responsibility, in the absence of a denial from Browne that he had been aware of events, and an explanation as to how he could have remained unaware?
Under the second resolution the penalties against Browne and Willis were apparently reduced. Under the May 23 resolution, it was recommended that Browne, Willis, and their associated organizations could not rent the LPUS mailing list or advertise in LP News until the full National Committee had acted.
“Recommended” may sound unclear, but Dehn’s words in the Minutes indicate what his fellow LNC members had heard him say as the motion’s author. Under the May 30 resolution, Browne, Willis, and their entities only needed permission of the Party Executive Committee to establish such business relationships.
The July 2001 LP News includes a full-page article ‘LNC Starts Investigation into Willis Policy Violation’. The article is announced in a box on page 1, but its opener appears in the lower right on page 3, with most of the material on pages 16 and 17. There is a reasonable explanation of LNC Executive Committee actions to date, as well as the text of the two Executive Committee motions. While Willis’s confession and its URL (www.harrybrowne.org/policy) are noted, Willis’s most spectacular claim is omitted: There is no hint in this LP News article that Willis claimed that his acts gave Browne the nomination, and that without his acts someone would have beaten Browne and become the Party’s presidential nominee. The article does feature a claim that I have never seen elsewhere about the Dean, Spear and Associates arrangement, namely that is was Willis who “apparently directed” that his payments be passed through that firm “so that there would be no public trail”. No other source that I know asserts that the financial conduit was originated by Willis rather than the Browne campaign. Finally, at a time when most people involved in the event were refusing to talk, LP News was able to secure an interview with Willis and publish several quotes from him, notably:
“There were no instances that I’m aware of, including the letters in question, where anyone in the national office used their official position or a unique LNC asset to influence the outcome of the nomination.”
Willis clearly did not count himself as a unique asset of the National Office. Willis’s claim would still appear to be untrue. The Browne campaign received both a substantial loan and then a direct subsidy from the assets of LNC, Inc.
Party efforts to investigate what had happened continued. In Summer 2001 Browne and others in his campaign were sent emails by National Chair James Lark. By report most of them did not answer at all. Lark sent a second message, asking if they would at least acknowledge receipt of the message. He reports receiving a single answer, a terse response indicating receipt, from David Bergland. At the same time, Editor Bill Bradford of Liberty Magazine—the only newsmagazine other than my own Let Freedom Ring! that at the time consistently covered Libertarian Party internal politics— telephoned Harry Browne. According to Bradford, Browne indicated that he would not answer Bradford’s questions and hung up. The only press outlet to interview a participant successfully was LP News with its quotations from Perry Willis. However, the LNC does not appear to have asked if there were also unpublished notes on the interview in the possession of LNC staffers.
Lark also contacted a much wider circle of Libertarian activists who might have had knowledge of the events. Lark’s full report, including all responses, was available as of this writing at www.dehnbase.org. Highly reliable sources not connected with the Libertarian National Committee provided me as editor of Let Freedom Ring! with a response from former LPUS Treasurer Mark Tuniewicz to Lark, answering Lark’s inquiries as to what Tuniewicz knew about the Browne scandal, and providing Tuniewicz’s recommendations to the National committee. Tuniewicz wrote in part:
“…First, I’d like to express my deep concern and disappointment relative to Harry Browne’s refusal to cooperate in this inquiry. As a contributor and volunteer for Browne’s campaigns, I feel betrayed.
“In my view, unless Mr. Browne fully cooperates with the inquiry prior to the August LNC meeting, the Committee should vote to permanently and prospectively cut all ties to Mr. Browne, his campaign & business associates, and related organizations using the broadest possible interpretation. For example, this would include a ban on list rentals to the American Liberty Foundation, web development by Jack Dean’s firm(s), and support of any type to campaigns that involve Michael Emerling Cloud. Hopefully, the prospect of such a ban (and pressure from these related entities) will bring Mr. Browne to the table to answer the question that everyone wants to hear: What did Harry know, and when did he know it. And why didn’t he disclose it when he found out?
“The honesty and integrity demanded by libertarian ethics demands no less…particularly for someone who holds themselves out as a standard-bearer.
“Second, I’d like to suggest that the Committee also take strong actions against Mr. Willis in this matter. While you may have been led to believe that Mr. Willis’s deceit is not actionable, I’d be happy to refer the Committee to litigators who would be happy to take the case and pursue money damages, small that they may be. I think it’s important that the Committee show the same dogged determination that Mssrs. Dasbach & Bergland showed in the matter of Gene Cisewski in this similar breach-of-trust situation.
“Third, I urge the Committee to view with an extremely critical eye the responses to this inquiry provided by Steve Dasbach. While I’ve not been privy to his responses, I suspect a blanket denial on his part as to any knowledge of the matter.
“My experience is that Mssrs. Willis & Dasbach enjoy an intimate working relationship, and have since the early 1990’s when Mr. Dasbach became Mr. Willis’ boss. During the 2000 Browne campaign, for example, I’d often observe that Mr. Dasbach was far more familiar with the details of that campaign’s strategy and direction than any member of the LNC, indicating to me and others a continued intimacy with Mr. Willis…
“Fourth, you asked for feedback relative to the manner of the inquiry itself.
“With all due respect to the efforts of the Chairman and the intent of the Committee, this inquiry is pointless in its current form. No respondent with anything to hide would give information that would implicate them, as evidenced by Mr. Browne’s lack of cooperation.
“I strongly recommend that in August the Committee vote to employ a private investigation firm to obtain full and complete facts regarding the many important questions raised here, and insure that someone other than the national office (perhaps Bill Hall) be the person involved directly with the ongoing work of the investigators, rather than the national office staff.
“An investigation firm might have the ability to track other financial payments made by Mr. Dean’s entities to other staff members, for example. We have no other way of getting this type of information.”
In the letter, Tuniewicz continued by responding to questions of Lark about his own knowledge of the matter. With respect to Willis’s secret work for Browne prior to the 1996 National Convention, Tuniewicz said that he had “…observed repeated representations made by Mssrs. Willis & Dasbach that no work took place…”
The National Committee did not take Tuniewicz’s advice on dealing with matters.
In a letter dated July 10, 2001 Dan Fylstra announced his immediate resignation as Vice Chair. He claimed overwork as his reason. He was reported to have been unhappy with what he viewed as the unfair treatment that Harry Browne had received at the hands of the National Committee. Dan Fylstra became the second National Officer to resign during the year, again reducing National Committee membership to 17. The National Committee was to fill the vacancy at its next meeting, in Las Vegas in late August.
Writing of his replacement, Fylstra said:
“It’s often said that if you’re going to resign a position, you should be prepared to recommend a successor. For Vice Chair, the one person I can recommend without hesitation is Dr. Ken Bisson. Ken has the ability, the dedication, and the respect of his colleagues needed to fulfill the role of Vice Chair. Moreover, he has the considerable advantage of knowledge and continuity because he has been serving on the EC this term. It is up to the full LNC, of course, to vote upon the appointment of a new Vice Chair. But I’d like to ask my LNC colleagues to support my recommendation and vote for Ken to fulfill this role.”
Be First to Comment