Jake Porter sends us interesting information. First, Angela McArdle created a PAC, the Libertarian Unity PAC, mailing address 14900 Avery Ranch Road, Austin, TX.
According to a document sent to Porter by @JuvenileBluster, one Austin Padgett formed the Swing Vote Strategist, LLC in Delaware. A person of the same name is widely understood to be LNC Chair Angela McArdle’s domestic partner.
The Kennedy Joint Fundraising Committee paid Swing Vote Strategist, LLC $8000 for “fundraising consulting”. The LLC was identified by the Kennedy campaign as using 14900 Avery Ranch Road, Austin, TX as its mailing address. This is the same address as the address of McArdle’s Libertarian Unity PAC.
AH HA! Got em! See? Libertarians getting paid to do work!
We can’t have any examples of capitalism like this around here.
Thankfully, transparency laws work pretty well. I hope Best Vest can rid us of the scourge of capitalism in the libertarianism.
Actually this is better known as “fraud”. When you send money to yourself that people did not donate for the purpose of enriching you, you are just being dishonest. This isn’t difficult stuff.
Can you shill any harder? This isn’t capitalism. It is exactly the sort of thing that enemies of capitalism point out as to why they oppose. It is crony self-dealing and corruption. Is there anything the Meesus people could do that would cause you to say anything negative. All you do is defend the undefendable.
If it was honest why would they be hiding the payments in shell corporations and PACs?
?
Why wouldn’t these be openly disclosed IN ADVANCE to the LNC and membership? Some (but not with full details) were disclosed after pressure AFTER the fact and some never disclosed. None of that is sufficient. And it is just not McArdle, nor is that all. Mr. Ford never disclosed his org was receiving money from the JFC (though he did disclose its existence) nor fact that his org received a donation from an affiliate who’s chair was a main instigator in my attempted removal and ardent defender of what CO tried to do *on the day of the removal vote.* Now that could be completely innocenet or conincidential, but it looks shady AF and should have been disclosed. There is so much wrong going on, it is unreal. If JBH or Sarwark had done 1/10 of this, the same people covering this up or defending it would have had their heads.
The problem is that the concept of disclosing potential conflict of interest requires a level of ethics that would generally exclude people with real conflicts from serving.
By that I mean that if you are honest enough to disclose everything, then you are not likely to be intentionally trying to do something that is a conflict, and any actual conflict is most likely accidental.
On the other hand, people who would not disclose potential conflicts of interest are the most likely to be intentionally doing things that conflict with the interest of the membership that elected them.
A policy designed by well-intentioned and honorable people, but doomed to failure.
However this is just not policy but nonprofit corporate law. Over-disclosure is best. It’s funny they seemed to understand that in the histrionic “report” they released even going so far to say whether IC members voted for me or not or donated to my campaign but the Chair and Mr. Ford didn’t disclose their monetary conflicts.
Yes accidental failures happen. These are not that.
You obviously have no concept of simili. Not everything is red and green, or black and green if you are colorblind.
Well-intentioned and honorable obviously was referring to the legislators that came up with this stuff. Who else could possibly be well-intentioned as well as honorable at the same time? Obviously not most of them, because most of them are corrupt. And corrupt people come up with rules designed to fail. Note that I was also using sarcasm in this paragraph.
Anyway… It is a new year and I don’t really feel like arguing over this for the next 364 days.
I will give my New Year’s prediction: As the derivative lawsuit heats up, more information comes out about the FEC violations, potentially illegal contributions, and quid pro quo between your party’s national chair and Kennedy, I predict that the LNC will turn on her and remove her from office in an attempt to save enough face to be reelected in 2026. No sarcasm in this paragraph. Certainly no simile.
Stewart, also while I could wish that would happen so far the LNC is minimizing and thinking because any one of them did not personally benefit they have “clean hands.” It is quite shocking the lack of knowledge of fiduciary duty exists with them. They will continue to go after me, which just makes things worse but they are too blinded to see it.
CAH is 100% correct. DC is very harsh on “self dealing” as is the IRS & the Feds in general. But I guess ASM is holding out for that presidential pardon. Oh wait – that will not help her when it comes to DC law.
DC is Federal.
George, the derivative suits are not in Federal Court though in DC. I never thought about what you would call those courts, but it is basically analogous to state courts.
Minor correction. It was two payments. One for $8,000 and another for $4,000.
Jake is really on to something here. I would say that the Senate committee that will hold hearings to determine whether Kennedy should be accepted as a member of the cabinet would be quite interested in what he has been collecting.
Whether he was personally involved, or whether it was simply some underling in his campaign may not matter.
And with the sums of money involved in the total amount of donations, I doubt that Kennedy would be unaware of what is going on. RICO