The letter dame in the form of a letter from her attorneys. You can read it here.
In short, her attorneys reject all of the LNC’s claims.
On Sunday March 1, at 7:30 PM the LNC will have a Zoom meeting. The debate on the LNC Public list leading up toward the Zoom meeting has been heated. I will live-blog it.
Most Libertarians do not pay attention to the Libertarian National Committee. Most Libertarians do not even know who is on it, much less what they are doing.
Angela McArdle could pay back all of the money that went to Freedom Calls tomorrow, with interest, and it would not make that much of a difference in the current state of the party. Sure, it would be nice for the LNC to have another $47,000-$50,000 or whatever the amount would be (I think my numbers are close), and a small handful of people who quit the party might return, but none of this would be enough to really move the party ahead by any noticable difference.
Those who get wrapped up in all of this inner party LNC drama overestimate the number of people who care about or even know about this stuff.
Go out and talk to small “l” libertarians, registered Libertarian Party voters who are not party members and party members who do not follow the online party drama. These people do not care about any of this. Most of these people have no idea who Angela McArdle is and most of them could not name any current LNC members. Most of them could not name anyone who has ever been on any LNC. Some of them do not even know that the Libertarian National Committee even exists. They know that there is a Libertarian Party but they know nothing about its internal governance.
I am not saying that what Angela did in regards to
the Freedom Calls scandal was right, I do not think it was, but I do not think that this makes much of a difference in how well the party is doing.
The LNC could sue Angela, win the money back, she could pay it if she is able to pay it (hypothetically; my guess is that she can’t pay it, unless maybe it is in installments over a period of years), and party dues paying membership and fundraising would still be way down.
The party has lots of other problems which need fixing if it is to ever get very far ahead.
Most Democrats probably don’t know who Ken Martin is either. You’ve made this argument before and I don’t think I’d be that confident that the name recognition of the former LNC chair convinces anyone that legal action is counterproductive.
Particularly if dues-paying members and activists who have been heavily involved in the party do know who she is (like a Democratic Party activist would know who Ken Martin is). I would guess it has some level of impact on “party dues paying membership and fundraising” when several announce a boycott of both.
Does this have an insignificant portion of fundraising and activism and recruitment? That’s an argument to make and could be an incredibly persuasive one. Her own personal obscurity, while funny, isn’t the issue and has never been.
I would like to add here because the frankly revolting defense needs it. The SIC was NOT wrong (in my non-lawyer opinion) to quote § 29–406.70. Conflicting interest transactions; voidability. McArdle DEFINITELY had a “financial interest.” Do any amount of research in DC law as a lay person. A financial contract benefiting one’s household is a financial interest. Now such a transaction is not automatically voidable (for example, the LNC did in fact properly authorize prior payments to Padgett before this one–and did it pursuant to DC law as it recognized payments to Padgett would be something in which McArdle had a financial interest – and then passed that Policy Manual amendment so nothing would be done without prior disclosure again – one really needs to ask oneself WHY she hid this one) it is not voidable IF, and only IF, certain things were done. One of those being full disclosure or later ratification despite lack of disclosure. NONE OF THOSE THINGS HAPPENED (ergo IT IS VOIDABLE), and it is THOSE things that can only be changed by Bylaws to make it even unvoidable then.
The obfuscation and misdirection on this is going to be something that soon is going to be very unwelcome in this Party or it will die.
And I encourage people who understand statutes to read what it actually says about the bylaws. In context. It simply means the bylaws can make it voidable even if all those conditions were met. That is not the case here. Those conditions were not even met…. Ergo it is voidable under that statute and wrong even without the Policy Manual. I am glad that apparently the Litigation Committee and the firm they consulted agree.
With that I await their vote.
Some folks simply cannot read the law though ultimately a court will decide. Licensed attorneys have already supported the LNC. Nothing was “solely voidable” based on that but based on not getting the vote threshold and the concealment. Further, “ or have a financial interest” is met in this case and this case deals with a transaction specifically disallowed by vote.
As I’ve heard someone say, I am more than willing to testify to the facts of that meeting as I authored that policy manual provision in a court of law.
They should pursue her to gain any member trust.
So much deflection.
The problem is that the statute cited does not permit a policy manual to govern. At best, a bylaw MAY have been sufficient, but there is none.
Licensed attorneys have noted that the statute cited did not apply.
I remind everyone I am not an attorney. Neither is ANYONE in this thread. And any attorney not barred in DC is irrelevant and risks Bar trouble if they opine. What matters is the opinion of the Judge and properly licensed DC (or in DC) lawyers. And again while not an attorney and thus unqualified to give a legal opinion of any sort, I have at least worked in law (paralegal) for nearly forty years which is more exposure then most of the armchair taking heads here have.
But more importantly I wrote that policy manual provision. That meeting is recorded. McArdle circumvented it. That is the real issue.
All of us non lawyers frankly should let the lawyers do their work.
And any attorney not barred in DC is irrelevant and risks Bar trouble if they opine.
I doubt that. Attorneys have a First Amendment right to voice their legal opinions in a non-official capacity. Many TV “legal commentators” do that for a living, commenting on cases outside their jurisdiction.
I would not be surprised if they did not know. Things like this have happenee in the past. For example, a long time ago, I will just say more than a decade ago, I found out via reading FEC reports that 47% of the LNC’s ballot access budget, and even more money if one throws in presidential campaign spending on ballot access and state affiliate spending on ballot access, went to one person, under a corporate shell, who had some problems on their record. When I questioned the LNC members about it most of them had no idea that this had happened while they were on the committee, who the person was or anything about the details of what happened. They were asleep at the wheel. .
How did the LNC let this go on for so long without finding out more details about it? – Answer: The majority of the LNC (esp the officers) were complicit in this theft. They had knowledge but chose to support their master vs. their fiduciary duty to the organization.
This quote is NOT from the attorney letter:
“The SIC Report cited DC Statute § 29–406.703 on p. 34. However, a plain reading of the text of that indicates that it is only applicable if the officer or director has a financial interest, not to if someone relate to that person has a financial interest as per Part A of the Code:
(a) A contract or transaction between a nonprofit corporation and one or more of its members, directors, members of a designated body, or officers or between a nonprofit corporation and any other entity in which one or more of its directors, members of a designated body, or officers are directors or officers, hold a similar position, or have a financial interest, shall not be void or voidable solely for that reason, or solely because the member, director, member of a designated body, or officer is present at or participates in the meeting of the board of directors that authorizes the contract or transaction, or solely because his or their votes are counted for that purpose.
To trigger this provision, SIC would have had to demonstrate that McArdle was an officer, director, or owner of FC; something that was never proven or even suggested. The last clause of the section notes that “(c) This section shall be applicable except as otherwise restricted in the articles of incorporation or bylaws.” The Policy Manual is neither an article of incorporation nor a bylaw.”
It is from 9/28/25 amicus filing in the Roos appeal. The LNC cannot claim that they were unaware of this statute. It was also raised during the hearing before the Judicial Committee.
It is my understanding that her domestic partner/husband filed the corporate paperwork with the state of Delaware to found Freedom Calls.
Assuming that this is correct wouldn’t this have violated the rule the LNC passed earlier in the term which said something to the effect of that hiring or contracting with a domestic partner or family member has to be approved of by the LNC beforehand and didn’t she do this without LNC approval or knowledge? They found out that she contracted with a call center but they were not told that her domestic partner/husband incorpated that call center.
Hiring or contracting with people or a corporation to make political calls is a legitimate function for a political party and from what I have heard the calls were really made and the amount paid for this service was within standard market rates, although the fundraising result from the calls was not that good (this is why fundraising works better on commission). I do not know what list or lists they were calling but the best list would be one of people who have donated in say the past 2-4 years, and who donated over $200 in a calendar year, even better would be if they donated $500 or $1,000 or more in a calendar year. If they were just calling registered Libertarian voters or people who typically donate $25 or $50 per year this is more difficult and is not likely to raise as much money. Note that I have done some telephone fundraising as a volunteer and for commission pay, so I have personal experience in this.
If the political calls were really made I do not think they can get her on embezzlement charges and this is likely why she has not been prosecuted since I know this was reported to multiple government agencies and thus far nothing has happened, and it was reported over a year ago. Anyone can report the crime of embezzlement, the person does not need to be an LNC member or even a party member in order for a criminal investigation to get started over it.
Did her domestic partner/husband profiteer from this call center deal? I would guess that he did but I do not know this as a fact.
How did the LNC let this go on for so long without finding out more details about it? Jake Porter is the one who finally got to the bottom about who incorporated Freedom Calls and he is not even an LNC member. The LNC was asleep at the wheel on this, but it is not the first time that most LNC members did not really know the details for how the LNC was spending money as I have seen past LNCs where most members did not really know what was going on with party spending, so this is not the first LNC to be asleep at the wheel.
I would think that she could be held liable in civil court over this but maybe I am missing something.
If you agree or disagree say why you agree or disagree.
You are correct.
There is a problem that you noted,. While this action probably did violate the adopted policy, it neither violated the statute that the LNC cited or a bylaw.
The LNC made claims that the statute was violated, and did it in writing. They have opened themselves up to a libel suit.
Further, because there was a JC appeal, McArdle has exhausted her remedies internally, which is a requirement for litigation.
Would violating the adopting policy requiring prior LNC approval for hiring or contracting with a family member or a domestic partner be enough to hold her financially liable in civil court?
It is fair to say that it is not covered under the cited statute.