The Libertarian Party and RFK Jr.
There has been division in the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) over a decision to form a joint fundraising committee with the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Presidential Campaign, known as the Kennedy Victory Fund. With the possibility of both legal issues and bylaws issues, and with Paul Darr, Region 3 South Representative on the LNC, moving to “cease any public execution of the joint fundraising plan,” it seems best to review the facts of the matter, to understand why the motion was approved, what are its problems, and what would be the right decision for the LNC moving forward.
First, why did the LNC, or at least certain members of the LNC, agree to having a joint fundraising committee with RFK Jr? Well, according to Adam Haman, Region 1 Representative for the LNC, it’s money:
“I think this fundraising deal gives the LNC much needed funds at the cost of precisely nothing. We make money while not endorsing RFK Jr in any way. The Oliver campaign will benefit from this deal greatly. If we want to spend money on expensive ballot access drives or adding much needed staff, we need to bring in more money.”
Indeed, it appears that the Libertarian Party (LP) has been running low on finances: since the original election of Angela McCardle to the LNC as its chair and the “Mises Takeover,” support and revenue to the LP has significantly decreased, according to the treasurer’s report from Todd Hagopian, published as Appendix E in the May 2024 LP Convention Minutes. As Steven Nekhaila, At-Large Representative on the LNC, stated, “we [the LP] are in a bind financially and have been for some time quite frankly.”
How would the joint fundraising committee give financial support to the LP? Well, in all honesty, it doesn’t seem the LNC fully knows: McCardle, when questioned by Keith Thompson, Region 3 Alternate for the LNC, responded that she will “get you [Thompson] clarification later today or tomorrow after we touch base with the team.” According to Thompson, no such clarification from McCardle has occurred, leaving only confusion regarding the actual requirements of the LNC and how the fund would work.
According to the Kennedy Victory Fund’s official website, the RFK Jr. Campaign would be allocated the initial $6,600 from an individual, and then the next $41,300 would be allocated the LNC. From what is currently understood by members of the LNC, 10% of those allocated funds would go the LNC and the other 90% would go the RFK Jr. Campaign. However, it appears that the 90% would be spent by the LNC on the RFK Jr. Campaign, as noted by Thompson. If that is the case, the LNC would be directly spending funds against the LP’s chosen presidential and vice-presidential candidates to support RFK Jr, in return for a fee.
Certain members of the LNC do not appear to have an issue with this conflict of interest. Haman states in an email regarding a motion to rescind the joint fundraising agreement that he’d “be fine if every political donation given to every politician of every party in this country ran through the LP and we got a 10% cut. I’m guessing we could do a huge amount of good with that kind of dough.” While he ostensibly claims that RFK Jr. is bad on many issues and is not a libertarian, he believes that this deal is necessary in order to make the LP money.
Adrian Malagon, the Region 4 Alternative for the LNC, also believes that the joint fundraising committee is a good idea, on the basis that “we [the LNC] would not be fundraising for anyone. We would be the recipients of the fundraising efforts of someone else. This has been made clear multiple times.” This however contradicts with the fact that, as mentioned earlier, the LNC would have to directly give the RFK Jr. Campaign those received funds directly to them.
This does not get into the violations of the LP bylaws and the possible FEC violations that the agreement could lead to. As reported by Hagopian, this agreement violated Section 4 of Article 14 of the bylaws, which states that “The National Committee shall respect the vote of the delegates at nominating conventions and provide full support for the Party’s nominee for President and nominee for Vice-President as long as their campaigns are conducted in accordance with the platform of the Party.” Because this agreement would lead to the LNC directly providing aid to the RFK Jr. Campaign, the LNC would be going against the LP nominees, which in no sense could reconcile with the command to provide full support. It also would violate the fiduciary duties that the LNC has towards its candidates.
As for FEC violations, Hagopian points out three concerns, with the first one seeming to be of greatest importance: a contributor to a party committee may have his contribution counted against the contribution limit for a candidate if that contributor knows that the contribution will be made to a particular candidate. Since, as implied by Hagopian, the joint-fundraising committee would fall under the purview of the LNC as a party committee, the effort to handle greater funds than as allowed by the contribution limit for a candidate would directly go against the FEC rulings. The LNC may get itself into legal trouble by going through with this agreement.
This builds up the case against the agreement, which currently is being reviewed by the LP Judicial Committee (JC). Filed by Caryn Ann Harlos, the secretary of the LNC, the Judicial Committee held a hearing on July 31st to ascertain whether the joint fundraising agreement violated the LP bylaws. As of yet, no opinion has been submitted by the JC. Background information and documents, alongside the hearing, can be found here.
The future of this decision is unclear and muddy. Whatever may happen, it appears clear that, despite the best intentions of certain members of the LNC, that this agreement goes against the long-term goals of the LP and violates its principles by helping support an opposing candidate rather than organize support for its own. Mistakes are being compounded upon mistakes, as accountability and responsibility have not been properly held and acted upon by the LNC. Serious changes are needed if the LP wishes to move forward, and to better support liberty for all.
Angela McCardle was unable to be reached for comment.
