DISCLAIMER: I am not an attorney, and nothing in this article constitutes legal advice, a legal opinion, or the practice of law. This is an informal layperson commentary based on publicly available information, statutory text, and general nonprofit governance principles. Any interpretation of D.C. Code § 29-406.70 or related law should be reviewed by a qualified lawyer licensed in DC. Angela McArdle’s attorney has been retained to zealously advocate on her behalf. He is doing his job, as was counsel for the LNC, and counsel in any future suit.

The letter from Angela McArdle’s attorney dated January 5, 2026 to the Libertarian National Committee claims that D.C. Code § 29-406.70 does not apply to the Freedom Calls, LLC transactions by claiming that McArdle “was not a director, officer, or similar position in Freedom Calls, and the Report has no findings that she had a financial interest in it.”

That is a very tidy narrative. It is also one that does not comport with reality, the actual words of the statute, the economic facts of domestic partnerships in the District of Columbia (and in real life), the structure of the D.C. Nonprofit Corporation Act, and the way conflict-of-interest rules function in nonprofit business practice. Nice work if you can get it. Here is why it is, to put it in fancy terms: wrong. The legal framework of domestic partnerships in D.C. is used as a guide only as the McArdle-Padgett household is domiciled in Texas.

The Statute Says What It Says (Unless You Squint Really Hard)

D.C. Code § 29-406.70(a) applies to any transaction with “any other entity in which one or more of its directors, members of a designated body, or officers … have a financial interest.” The key phrase is “has [have] a financial interest. That language reaches not just direct ownership but also includes indirect interests. It is written broadly for a reason: one of which is to catch self-dealing that tries to hide behind separate entities or other artifices. A reading that excludes household benefit through a domestic partner turns the provision into a paper tiger.

Domestic Partners: Just Roommates with Separate Finances, Right?

D.C. law does not treat domestic partners (Title 32, Chapter 7) as unrelated individuals who happen to share an address, and neither do normal human beings, particularly when the partners have a child together. When funds flow to one partner’s business, the benefit does not stop at that partner; it supports the shared household economy.

Household Money Isn’t Real Money If It Goes Through an LLC

The LNC’s Special Investigatory Committee Report found Freedom Calls was owned and controlled by McArdle’s domestic partner, Austin Padgett. The committee documented concealment tactics: a potentially misleading W-9 form; McArdle describing Padgett as a “volunteer liaison;” McArdle removing Padgett’s name from conflict lists; no written contract; and no legal review. All of these steps violated LNC Policy Manual 1.06(3), which requires disclosure and approval for remuneration involving a “closely related party (legal relative, domestic partner …).” More importantly, that rule was passed because of McArdle hiring Padgett in the past without prior approval (in a perceived nepotism hire) and to prevent any unilateral extension of his past contract. In short, this policy existed to make sure that any future such hiring or similar would have to be approved with full disclosure first. How do I know this? I co-wrote the policy and am prepared to testify if called upon. McArdle knew this and took pains to subvert it once Padgett’s prior approved contract ended and then actively concealed it.

Also, McArdle had previously understood that D.C. Code § 29-406.70 was applicable because it was under that exact Code that a post-hire authorization vote was triggered by the LNC the first time she hired Padgett as can be easily proven in discovery/depositions. McArdle knew all of this and yet never got approval to enter into this later contract with Padgett which was explicitly required to be approved not just under the Policy Manual, but under the Code. Everyone must ask themselves, why? I can tell you why. It would not have been approved, that’s why. I am sure the LNC is being well-advised to rely not just upon that Code, but all applicable codes regarding concealment and fiduciary duty. The LNC is not limited to laws mentioned in the SIC report to enforce its rights.

“No Findings” – Except the Ones Staring Everyone in the Face

The attorney letter claims the SIC Report contains “no factual findings whatsoever” that McArdle had a financial interest. Yet the report explicitly identifies the domestic partnership as the source of the conflicting interest and concludes the transactions “may be void or voidable pursuant to D.C. Code § 29-406.70” because material facts relating to her financial interest were not disclosed and the deals were not fair to the LNC. That is a finding. Pretending otherwise is merely interesting.

Why Disclose When You Can Redefine “Financial Interest” Into Oblivion?

The unrealistic interpretation advanced in the letter would allow any officer to direct large sums to a domestic partner’s entity without triggering § 29-406.70, as long as the officer avoids putting her name on the LLC paperwork. That cannot be the intended result of a statute designed to protect nonprofit assets from insider dealing.

This is not an academic quibble. It determines whether the conflict-of-interest statute actually prevents disguised self-dealing or whether it can be sidestepped with a corporate veil and a straight face. Answer: it cannot. King-making be damned.