“A Vote for Trump…”: New Updates On The LNC And RFK
Previously, we had went over the Libertarian National Committee’s (LNC) decision to take part in a joint fundraising agreement, forming the Kennedy Victory Fund (KVF). With new circumstances comes new updates, ones that not only puts the LNC into further controversy, but also implicates a variety of state affiliate parties.
“A Vote for Trump is a Vote for Kennedy”
On September 6th, the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Campaign sent out the a newsletter, calling on his supporters to vote for Donald Trump instead of him.
“A lot of people are asking me, if they live in a red state or a blue state, should they still vote for me? What about swing states?
The answer is easy. No matter what state you live in, I urge you to vote for Donald Trump…
In every state, if you support me and my vision of a government united around common goals, I encourage you to vote for President Trump.”
This change is also reflected on Kennedy’s official website, where the banner at the top says that “A Vote for Trump is a Vote for Kennedy.” This action follows the previous statements made by Kennedy‘s vice-presidential pick Nicole Shanahan, who had stated that they were considering to “walk away right now and join forces with Donald Trump.”
Despite this change, the RFK Campaign is still taking donations, shown by the two links to donate within the newsletter. They redirect to the official donation page which, alongside being able to take $6,600 directly from supporters, also has a link to the KVF page, for additional donations up to $41,300 for individuals. These donations will now be going to help with supporting Donald Trump in his presidential bid indirectly through Kennedy.
This, of course, leads to great controversy, not just because Kennedy has switched to supporting Trump, but that those organizations helping to fundraise for Kennedy will now be financially helping him levy support for Trump, whether they intended to or not. The LNC is not the only party implicated here: according to the official FEC form for the KVF, the state affiliate parties of Hawaii, Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Michigan, as well as the organization Libertarian Mutual Aid, are all part of the KVF. Insofar as they continue being part of this joint fundraising committee, they are helping in giving more support to Trump, in opposition The Problem At The LNCto the official presidential and vice-presidential candidates for the Libertarian Party, Chase Oliver and Mike ter Maat.
Some of the organizations do plan to still be part of it: Austin Martin, the chair of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii (LPHI), confirmed that they would continue being part of it when asked for comment; the state affiliate for Massachusetts’s (known as the Unified Libertarians of Massachusetts, or ULM) official social media, while not directly saying they plan to continue, called it a “baseless claim” that partaking in the KVF would mean not supporting Oliver in his candidacy, “the only candidate we [the ULM] support for President.” Stephen Dincher, the chair of the Libertarian Party of Connecticut, take it farther, saying through their official social media that libertarians who are critical of the KVF “are allergic to success and power” and “want to be irrelevant forever.” He also views Oliver as being “pretty much” a Democrat, showing disdain for the presidential candidate duly chosen by the Libertarian Party’s constituents.
The Root Of All Evil
Looking at the statements made by those who support or plan to still be in the KVF, the overarching reason appears to be money: helping Kennedy raise more money, and getting a 10% cut in the funds raised, allows for these parties and organizations to get needed funds for their own maintenance and upkeep, as well as handle problems within their own reach.
Martin, for instance, who states that taking part in the KVF doesn’t mean that the LPHI endorses either Kennedy or Trump, also states that “our [the LPHI’s] participation is solely for the benefit of the LPHI, is in keeping with our principles & our intent to challenge the two party system, including by the use of strategic alliances, issue coalitions, and other forms of bipartisanship.”
“To those who strongly disagree, I welcome the perspective and would strongly encourage them to get involved in pioneering forward-facing solutions. Perhaps if we had more human action and fundraising, the issue would be moot, and we would have no need to consider such a deal. I can certainly sympathize with distaste for the arrangement, but from our perspective, it seems to be in the best interests of our affiliate and our members. That said, I would much prefer it if our fundraising was so successful that we wouldn’t even consider participating in a deal like this one…
I personally also worry that the future over-reaction from the right might be worse than the current actions of the left — so don’t get me wrong: I see two bad options here. The question (to me) is NOT which one I prefer, but rather how I can best use this situation to benefit our members and advance Libertarianism in Hawaii. The sailing analogy is a good one. We can’t control the waves or wind, but can trim our sails and set our course to make the most of difficult conditions.
I will stress again that I would consider the same deal from any other party; provided that we do not compromise our principles. In my opinion, here is the essence of a good compromise: we will happily compromise on logistics, but not our values. In this way, the deal is a good one, though I share at least some of the critics’ discomfort. In the meantime, I will be working on structuring and implementing our new fundraising policies, and providing strong incentives for members to raise funds and accomplish other objectives for the party.
The UML social page also holds similar reasoning, saying that “the Libertarian Party should take Democrats’ money, since they’re offering it essentially for free.” Dincher also states that “RFK Jr wants to give us some of the money he raises. Only fools would say no.” Ryan Roberts, the District 1 Representative for the Libertarian Party of Michigan (LPMI), also supports being part of the KVF for monetary reasons, saying that his “reason for signing onto it is not because I [Roberts] wanted to help Kennedy win, or Trump win, or anyone other oppositional candidate to win, but because the party needs money to function,” due to the fact that “most of its [the LPMI’s] assets are tied up in lawsuits and most of it will be to pay court fees when all is said and done.”
Members of the LNC also believe money to be an important reason, such as Region 1 Representative Adam Haman, who states that “I’ll take 10% of any of their donations for the LP if I can manage to get that deal. It would be very stupid not to. It would be financially irresponsible not to. To oppose the JFC as a member of the LNC is, in my opinion, to work against the interests of the board you sit on.”
“To be clear, if we could make a fundraising deal like this with every politician on earth from any political party that exists, I would do it. This is using FEC rules to benefit the LP. Of course I am for this. We all should be…
You’d rather that money stay in the pockets of RFK supporters? You’d rather the LP had less money to fund ballot access, help out our state affiliates and candidates? You’d rather the LNC had less money to work on issue coalitions? Less money to oppose war? Less money to fight for free speech? Less money to spread the message of liberty nationally and beyond?”
Money, funding, is the overarching issue in most of these decisions. While some state affiliates may directly have supported Kennedy, such as the Libertarian Party of Colorado putting him on the state ballot as their candidate, most are simply trying to get what’s necessary to keep their party afloat. It’s a great shame in a sense that necessity has overruled principles for many, even if some of them don’t see it as contradicting principles, and some being overall good people. Again, we have Martin who, alongside planning ways for LPHI to be able to raise funds for themselves without having to do any similar deals like this in the future, says that “out here [in Hawaii], it makes very good sense to take this deal — especially in the absence of more robust fundraising.”
“A motivating issue for me, as an individual, which makes me willing to accept a broad position of tolerance toward RFK’s endorsement is that I personally witnessed election fraud being committed by the vendors & officials in my own county in 2022, while I served as an election observer. I was threatened with arrest for trying to file a report about it. I believe this is a more important issue than my distaste for a particular candidate. “Democracy itself”, you could say, is at stake in Hawaii, especially in light of our uniquely sensitive political situation. Previously, our state government has been found to be essentially unlawful, and that an extant monarchy still exists. Most of the locals understand these facts, and are very angry about how they have been treated. Now the state seems to be taking a “by any means” approach to state control, along with the steady militarization of our population.”
What we have is a dysfunctional national party that has so far been inadequate in helping its state affiliates get what is needed for them to deal with these problems and challenges, as well as a lack of any system of coordination amongst state parties that allow them to help each other out. Instead of a decentralized, federal system of cooperation, we have chaos.
The Problem At The LNC
This whole situation brings forward the numerous problems arising from this deal. We had already mentioned in our previous article, linked above, regarding the possible legal trouble and FEC trouble that this deal puts the LNC, as well as other parties, in. Questions regarding proper disclosure of where funds go with the KVF, as well as on legal limitations for contributions, are left unanswered.
What is more worrying is the sense in which multiple members do not seem to see or seem to care for the possible conflict, or for the change in circumstances regarding Kennedy’s endorsement of Trump. We can see that from those members having voted against appealing McArdle’s ruling as chair regarding the motion to rescind pushed forward by Caryn Ann Harlos, as out of order. One of those members, At-Large Representative Andrew Watkins, stated that “I really don’t know what more can be said. We disagree that the situation has somehow changed when the mechanics and our involvement remain the same as before.” Other members, such as Adrian Malagon, derided those within the LNC who were critical of the KVF, calling them deranged and saying that “maybe [their] life really is that sad,” as well as condescendingly insinuating that another member of the LNC, Keith Thompson, is akin to a child and a broken NPC. That such blatant disrespect, which would result in penalties or censure if made in other organizations, is mainly met with a slap to the wrist from the chair seems a misuse of proper authorities and powers of the officers of the LNC.
There is also the trouble of possible conflicts of interest: Pat Ford, the Region 6 Representative, also is the founder, custodian of records and treasurer for the organization Libertarian Mutual Aid. As stated earlier, this organization is also involved with the KVF, and also gets a monetary fee for helping raise funds through it. There’s the question of whether someone who is already securing funds from the KVF through his own private organization should be allowed to vote on the issue of staying associated with the KVF or not, due to possible biases from already being connected with the KVF.
Finally, there’s the issues of Angela McArdle. Her recent actions to deny Harlos the ability to make a motion on rescinding the joint fundraising agreement as out of order, despite there being clear changes in circumstances due to Kennedy endorsing Trump, seems to be more an abuse of power. Even if the majority of members on the LNC would reject the motion either way, debate and argument should still be allowed regarding the motion, and a vote should still take place. That would be in line with libertarian principles of responsibility and free expression, while keeping to the duties of the chair and of the members of the LNC. If proper debate is silenced, and silenced in such a way that does not seem justified, that does not paint a good light on McArdle as a chair.
A similar opinion is shared by Richard Brown, a parliamentarian for the LNC: according to Harlos’s email, which reiterated Brown’s public statement on Facebook, he claims that the motion to rescind “is in order and is not dilatory.”
“A motion can be renewed (made again) at any future session, regardless of whether there have been changed circumstances… However, if you want to take the position that it’s not in order unless there have been changed circumstances, I believe that requirement has been met by the changed circumstances, namely, RFK suspending his campaign. He not only suspended his campaign, but has endorsed Trump…
Voting “yes” just because a voting bloc does (can’t prove that, it certainly looks like that way) is horrid. It has NOT been voted down twice (irrelevant see above but I just wouldn’t do that personally).
One recission [sic] before these greatly changed terms was voted on and completely improperly amended against all rules and logic of parliamentary process.
This motion is clearly in order. You can always vote the main motion down but you are not doing anything at all to assure the membership that the rules matter and desires just want to be rammed through.”
Both from a standpoint of libertarian values and from the standpoint of proper parliamentarian procedure, McArdle, as well as those voting that her ruling was correct, are acting improperly; and there’s a sense of a dictatorial environment created by McArdle through trying to silence debate and motions in an improper fashion.
This isn’t helped by McArdle’s statements within the LNC public mailing list: her calling the criticism levied by Keith Thompson against the KVF by providing evidence regarding Kennedy’s support for Trump as “grandstanding and insubordination” due to Thompson having not provided the email in a way she thought timely, sounds in this scenario more like the statements of a dictatorial figure than of a frustrated officer. Her accusations against Bill Redpath for supporting the motion to rescind instead of “being on top of the finances and helping [her]”, saying that he “did not even have a treasurer’s report for [the LNC’s] first meeting” and that she “can’t get [Redpath] to perform [his] actual duties and on top of that [he] are co-sponsoring dilatory motions,” all ring hollow when Redpath corrects her, stating that, while he does need to dig further in his role, that he has filed FEC reports properly and in a timely manner; had given an oral report for the meeting; have forwarded financial reports to the LNC in a timely manner; and above all that, performing his duties while also being the National Ballot Access coordinator for the Libertarian Party and having gone to five states to petition for Oliver and ter Maat to be on the ballot. Overall, her treatment towards those who dissent have been to attack them and question them, sometimes justifiably questioning, but too many times in a way that is meant to shut down debate rather than stimulate it.
In the end, we have a heavily problematic LNC who, while there are members trying to keep the Libertarian Party a Party of Principles and those trying to look out for the best interests of the Libertarian Party and its members, there are those who either have questionable conflicts of interest or are acting in a rude, disrespectful, and at times authoritarian manner. If there is to be a respectable Party, its officers must also act in a respectable, dignified, and consistent manner, adhering to the principles of the Party, both by the letter and by the spirit.
The Backlash
Due to these actions, there has been considerable backlash from other state affiliates: on July 23rd the Libertarian Party of Louisiana (LPLA) had passed unanimously a resolution against the KVF, stating that “the agreement itself violates multiple National Libertarian Party bylaws” such as Article 2, Sections 1, 2, 4, and 5; Article 5, Section 4; and Article 14, Sections 1 and 4; and that “the procedure used to vote on the agreement violated Article 9, Section 4 of the National Libertarian Party bylaws.” They also called upon McArdle, Ford, Watkins, and At-Large Representative Kathy Yeniscavich to be censured for their support of the agreement. The resolution was authored by Heidi Alejandro-Smith, chair of the LPLA, after meeting with the LPLA’s State Central Committee on July 13th, a day after the KVF was created; after looking at the KVF agreement, “no member approved of the [agreement] and were of the opinion that it violated several national bylaws.”
A month later, on August 24th, Alejandro-Smith would present her objections to the KVF to the LNC. She called on the LNC to end the KVF agreement that day, “especially considering recent events where Kennedy has suspended his campaign.”
“I’ve gone around since July 23rd when we passed [the resolution] in Louisiana, and talked to several state committees about how just exasperated they are that we are doing a joint fundraising with [RFK]…
Anything that goes into that fund will be paying for his campaign debt. We need to pay our bills, we’re not here to pay Kennedy’s bills…
This is not some factional thing anymore, this is a battle for the fundamentals of libertarianism. Are we here to fight for free markets, free trade? Or are we here just for the highest bidder?.. If we don’t stick together with those core tenets, there will not be a party — there might not be a party in two years. I want everyone to think about that, because the people that believe in those beliefs, they’re gonna go.
During that month between the resolution passing in LPLA and meeting with the LNC, Alejandro-Smith worked on contacting other state affiliates, who within a month also passed this resolution, such as the Libertarian Parties of Illinois, Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma, and Utah. According to the official post made by the LPLA, this or similar resolutions “have been passed by at least a dozen state affiliates”, with Alejandro-Smith listing, alongside the state affiliates mentioned above, the Libertarian Parties of Idaho, Missouri, South Carolina, Washington, Indiana, and Ohio. What we have is a variety of state parties who according to Thompson represent “approximately 30% of the membership,” passing resolutions against the joint fundraising agreement made by the LNC. Whatever good intentions that the members of the LNC who supported the agreement had, those representing almost a third of party members have resoundingly rejected the agreement, as being against the laws and principles of, and created by, the Libertarian Party. As Alejandro-Smith asks:
“Do we still hold the roots of our philosophy, such as free markets and free trade or are we willing to sell our hard fought resources to the highest bidder? I (a long with many others) hope to receive an answer sooner than later.”
Let us hope that an answer will come before further detriment occurs to the Libertarian Party.
Conclusion
There isn’t much else to be added. With the election happening in less than two months, there will no doubt be greater chaos, alongside the chaos that already exists in the world around us. But that is life: amidst the chaos, one must choose to act. If any readers can, it is recommended to go out, help your neighbors, do some volunteer work, make a community garden, hold a protest, fight for everyone’s rights and to hold authority accountable, so on and so forth. If anyone wishes to make their voice heard regarding the LNC’s part in the KVF, they can sign this petition calling on the LNC to rescind from their agreement, to walk away from it. We’ll see if they listen; if they don’t, then do what you can to help others, help your local affiliates or state affiliates, and push for greater freedom and greater responsibility.
Angela McArdle, Pat Ford, Rudolph Kohn, Andrew Chadderdon, Hannah Goodman, Jason Brand, Sid Daoud, and Rachael Nelson did not respond to requests for comment.
Updated 9/10/2024 to reflect actions taken by other affiliates against the KVF agreement.
Updated 9/12/2024 to include information from Heidi Alejandro-Smith’s comment.
