[Editor: Yes, we have an anonymous correspondent. He or she  sent us the following editorial, a call for investigation.  We know his or her name.  You will know him or her as Ebenezer Plowjogger.]

An Editorial on Michigan from Ebenezer Plowjogger

I am writing to suggest a Michigan political story that deserves considerably more scrutiny than it has received this election cycle: what has happened inside the Libertarian Party of Michigan following the factional battles that consumed the national Libertarian Party in 2024. The national story provides context, but it is not the story I am asking you to investigate.

At the 2024 Libertarian National Convention, the Mises Caucus suffered several conspicuous setbacks. Donald Trump, invited to address the convention, was loudly booed and heckled by Libertarian delegates. Delegates whom Mises Caucus supporters had sought to exclude, including members of the disputed Michigan delegation, ultimately participated. The caucus’s preferred presidential candidate, Michael Rectenwald, also failed to win the nomination.

Back in Michigan, however, the fight was far from over. What followed goes well beyond another ideological squabble inside a minor political party. It involves recruitment and control of delegate seats, candidate nominations, documents filed with the State of Michigan and, ultimately, the candidates being presented to Michigan voters under the Libertarian banner.

One of the first warning signs appeared during that same 2024 election cycle. At the Libertarian Party of Michigan’s July 20 candidate-nominating convention, delegates from Michigan’s 8th Congressional District voted NOTA, None of the Above, rather than nominate a candidate for Congress. Nevertheless, Steve Barcelo subsequently appeared on Michigan’s November ballot as the Libertarian nominee for the 8th Congressional District.

I obtained the underlying nomination documents through a Freedom of Information Act request. Those documents represent that Barcelo was subsequently nominated at a district nominating proceeding that members of the district say never occurred. There is also video of the actual July 20 convention showing District 8 delegates voting for NOTA rather than Barcelo. The nomination paperwork bears the names of then-LPMI Chair Andrew Chadderdon, Vice Chair Trevor Step and Secretary Daniel Ziemba. I have submitted a request for investigation to the Michigan Bureau of Elections and can provide the FOIA documents, convention video and investigation request for independent examination.

That episode may have been a warning of a larger transformation underway inside the Libertarian Party of Michigan. One important part of that story involves numbers. The Libertarian Party is a relatively small organization in Michigan. A dozen organized new members might be insignificant inside one of the major parties. At an LPMI caucus or convention attended by only a few dozen voting members, they can change who becomes a delegate, who controls the organization and ultimately who appears on Michigan ballots carrying the Libertarian name. The process was visible before the 2024 national convention.

At one LPMI unaffiliated-region delegate-selection caucus, newly joined members appeared alongside established Mises Caucus members who helped walk them through nominating themselves and obtaining delegate positions. One of those new members was Bay City activist Jayden Scott. Scott was not known for Libertarian activism. His public political identity has instead been associated with conservative and Christian nationalist causes and Republican political campaigns.
Scott later attracted national attention after traveling to Minneapolis during anti-ICE demonstrations in January 2026. Widely circulated video showed him using a megaphone to tell protesters, “We executed one of you yesterday,” while calling for “patriots” to come to Minnesota. His legal history has also received substantial media attention.

The point is not that Scott’s political beliefs disqualified him from joining the Libertarian Party. The question is why newly joined outside activists were being organized and assisted in obtaining Libertarian delegate seats, and what effect that had on the composition of the Michigan party. The recruitment did not end there. One of the most consequential later arrivals was Anthony Hudson, who had previously pursued the Republican nomination for Governor of Michigan. Hudson has stated that his path toward the Libertarian nomination began with contact from LPMI member Paul Urban and that he received continuing support from Vice Chair Trevor Step while seeking the nomination. Hudson has also described representations that considerable party financial support would be available to his campaign.

Hudson did not arrive alone. Approximately a dozen of his supporters also became involved. The relationship continued after Hudson obtained the nomination. Former LPMI Chair and Michigan Mises Caucus Chair Andrew Chadderdon now serves as Hudson’s campaign treasurer.

The significance of those additional votes became apparent at the LPMI candidate-nominating convention on June 28, 2026. Only about 26 members outside the Mises Caucus and recruited voting bloc attended. Their opposition numbered approximately 37. In a convention where a few dozen people can determine nominations for statewide and federal office, those numbers mattered.

Anthony Hudson emerged as the Libertarian nominee for Governor. His background presents matters worthy of independent examination, including an alleged documented domestic violence criminal case, his representations concerning previous military service, campaign finance activity and other allegations concerning his conduct. His running mate has maintained a much lower public profile, but his business history also contains litigation and judgments that can be examined through public records.

Kevin Vayko presents a different issue. Vayko was not part of the Republican recruitment effort. He has been involved with LPMI for several years, serves as an officer in its Thumb affiliate and was already the party’s 9th Congressional District candidate in 2024. The question surrounding Vayko is not how he entered the party. It is what the organization knew about his background when it continued entrusting him with party responsibilities and again nominated him for Congress.

Vayko is reportedly presently facing a felony charge involving an alleged failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements, with court proceedings scheduled during the general election campaign. There is also an extensive public history surrounding him in the Thumb that reporters can examine through court records, local reporting and public discussion.

Perhaps the most revealing moments of the June 28 convention, however, had nothing to do with the personal histories of the nominees. A Republican speaker addressed the Libertarian convention and urged members not to run candidates in races where doing so could hurt Republicans. Former LPMI Secretary Daniel Ziemba subsequently made an impassioned but unsuccessful argument against nominating a Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate against Republican Mike Rogers. His argument was essentially that Libertarians should avoid interfering with Rogers’ election and position themselves to work with him afterward.

That raises an unusual question for an organization whose purpose includes nominating and electing Libertarian candidates: Why are Libertarians being asked, at their own candidate-nominating convention, not to run Libertarians against Republicans? None of this requires a reporter to accept the characterization that LPMI has been “taken over” or to choose a side in years of Libertarian Party infighting.

The records allow some much more concrete questions. How did a congressional candidate appear on Michigan’s 2024 ballot after district delegates voted NOTA, and what proceeding actually produced the nomination documents filed with the State? Who was recruited into LPMI, by whom, and how did those new members affect delegate selection and candidate nominations? What did party officials know about the backgrounds of candidates they nominated or continued to support? Why were Libertarians being urged at their own nominating convention not to field candidates who might interfere with Republican electoral prospects? And what has all of this done to a political party Michigan voters have historically understood to be an independent alternative to Republicans and Democrats?

There is also a financial component that may become relevant. Libertarian organizations participated in the Kennedy Victory Fund, the 2024 joint fundraising arrangement involving Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign. Questions concerning that arrangement and possible FEC scrutiny have circulated within Libertarian National Committee leadership. I am attempting to obtain documentation and would not ask a reporter to represent an FEC investigation as established until documentation confirms its existence and scope.

I am not asking a reporter to accept my conclusions. I am asking someone to examine the evidence and reach their own. I can provide the Barcelo nomination documents obtained through FOIA, video of the District 8 NOTA vote, my Bureau of Elections investigation request, LPMI convention videos, party documents and correspondence, campaign finance and court records, and documentation concerning the individuals and events described above. I can also identify current and former Libertarian Party members representing differing sides of these disputes, so a story need not depend upon one person’s account.

There is a legitimate Michigan public-interest story here involving political-party governance, ballot nominations, candidate vetting, election filings, campaign finance and the increasingly complicated relationship between an independent political party and activists whose electoral objectives sometimes appear aligned with the Republican Party.

The question is a simple one: What has happened to the Libertarian Party of Michigan? I think Michigan voters deserve someone willing to find out.