The Shady RFK-Trump Scheme That Nearly Destroyed the Libertarian Party – Part 2 – The JFC
Jake Porter’s Analysis & Investigations
Endorsements, Pardons, & Embezzlement. This series details how MAGA/MAHA & Libertarian Party leadership nearly grifted the 50 year old party out of existence.
“This is still clearly something we need to do. This makes us money. We are broke. This isn’t an endorsement. It’s a deal.” Adam Haman-Libertarian National Committee Representative July 2024
Desperate to escape a financial death spiral—with revenues plummeting by nearly half since the 2022 Mises Caucus takeover—the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) didn’t just look for donors. They entered into a bizarre, legally questionable financial pact with a candidate who wasn’t even their nominee. Even worse? The party Chair personally enriched herself in the process.
While Part 1 detailed how Robert F. Kennedy Jr. flirted with the nomination while party leadership actively sabotaged their own candidate, Part 2 dives into the Joint Fundraising Committee (JFC): the moment the party of principle became a shell company for RFK Jr. and MAGA interests.
The Mechanics of the Grift
In May 2024, Hector Roos of Libertarians for Kennedy reportedly approached Glenn Rink, a Kennedy supporter, to blueprint a JFC between the Kennedy campaign and the LNC.
To understand a JFC, think of it as a “one-stop shop” for high-dollar donors as described by NBC News. Instead of writing small, individual checks to different groups, a donor writes one massive check. The JFC then slices the pie according to a pre-set formula, allowing donors to bypass certain optics while hitting the legal ceiling for multiple entities at once.
The incentive for Kennedy was clear. By tethering his campaign to the Libertarian Party, his donors could exploit the much higher contribution caps allowed for national parties ($41,300) compared to individual candidates ($3,300).
The Price of the Soul:
- The LNC would receive 10% of the donations (reportedly $100,000 per month).
- The Kennedy campaign kept the remaining 90%.
- State parties that signed on would get a small “kickback” for their participation.
Jake Porter’s Analysis & Investigations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support his work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
https://jakeporter.substack.com/ for Jake Porter’s articles.
While Mr. Rink gives me credit for the JFC, this was pitched to the campaign months prior and rejected. I was stunned when the JFC proposal was made public. Imagine being the guy who gets the “credit” for this work but then isn’t paid from it. I hardly consider Mr. Porter’s imaginative writing to accurately capture how ad hoc, unplanned and unexpected the actions of the Kennedy Campaign were.
Walter Ziobro very good point.
It would actually help to discourage such deals if the federal government simply abolished the cap on individual contributions altogether. And, doing so would make it much either for folks to see from whom the money is actually coming.
That would solve the problem in a fundamental way. But that’s not the most likely response to a political party that was so unscrupulous that it monetized its “national party status” by renting itself out to another candidate (and was so incredibly stupid there are people on record saying “Hey guys let’s do this we’re broke and need the money lol”).
Bureaucrats (much less legislators) are not likely to make systemic changes when there’s only one entity accused of transgression in this very specific manner.
The most likely response is to raise the bar for “national party status” even further so it’s intentionally out of reach for anyone but the duopoly.