Breaking News!: We have a report from a recent candidate of the Libertarian Party in Michigan that the McArdle complaint was directed against one of the Michigan groups.
Libertarian National Committee Chair Angela McArdle has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission.
Located on the LNC list is the MUR 8130 FEC Complaint Acknowledgement. You can see it here or read a copy of the letter listed below. [Editorial team note: as of the afternoon of 4/27/2023, the FEC complaint thread has been deleted from the LNC list. The URL now redirects to a thread deletion error page.]
As a result of FEC policy, there is no indication as to whom the complaint is against, or for which client McArdle filed the complaint. I do not recall another occasion in which the LNC Chair filed an FEC complaint.
So this is the litigation that the LNC wants to bankrupt themselves over, although it holds no merit. Also, the FEC won’t hear cases presented from organizations who 1) can’t file financial reports on time (they’ve all been late since the new administration took over) and 2) have outstanding past due fines relating to late financial filings.
Stewart Flood…
RE: “I am down to just over 180lbs a year after a massive “widow maker” last March. That’s about 80 pounds less than the last time we spoke at the 2018 convention’
Good for you, Stewart. I’ve had some improvement with my medical issues and so was able to start a slow weight-loss program. Have lost 100 lbs. in last year, down to 265 lbs.
Libertarian action starts at home. Keep at it!
This is hilariously ironic, with the party supposedly against the force of government and alphabet soup bureaucracy, attempting to enlist both in service of controlling the actions of others.
I personally expect everything to made public eventually. This isn’t my area of expertise so I could be completely wrong on that. in reading your info it seems likely I am. When it is, it is.
George that is not true when there is a successful conciliation- that is what I meant by resolution – as the opposite of enforcement. At least as far as I understand. But I’m no FEC expert.
And I commented simply as a matter of historical record. I’m not going to comment on ongoing matters or engage in gossip (not saying you are, but some are, and I’m not interested). You know history is my primary interest. I’ve said what I wish. See you at next meeting.
For readers who want to know much more about this, there is an FEC document. Note that the complaints become public at the end:
https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/respondent_guide.pdf
R. Confidentiality
To protect the interests of those involved in a complaint, the law requires that any
Commission action on a MUR be kept strictly confidential until the case is resolved.
2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(12). These provisions do not, however, prevent a complainant or
respondent from disclosing the substance of the complaint itself or the response to that
complaint or from engaging in conduct that leads to the publication of information
contained in the complaint.
S. Public Disclosure Upon Termination of an Enforcement Matter
Because the public has the right to know the outcome of any enforcement proceeding,
within 30 days after the parties involved have been notified that the entire matter has been
closed, the redacted files for closed enforcement matters are available for review at the
Enforcement Query System found on the Commission’s web site at
http://eqs.nictusa.com/eqs/searcheqs. The redacted files are also available to the public in
the Commission’s Press Office and the Office of Public Records. Complaints and
responses are placed on the public record, though in some cases, sensitive or privileged
information such as personal phone numbers or financial information is redacted. The
First General Counsel’s Report is also placed on the public record, subject to appropriate
redactions. For further information, please refer to Statement of Policy Regarding
Placing First General Counsel’s Reports on the Public Record, 74 Fed. Reg. 66132
(December 14, 2009), also available at
http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/ej_compilation/2009/notice_2009-28.pdf.
George the FEC keeps them confidential if resolved. I never thought to keep a list. I know in the not distant past there was literally someone pretending to be the national party. The long ago ones I read about in passing – if I run across them again, I’ll note them. Past chairs would likely know.. it’s not often but also not completely unheard of. Just like people forgetting there have been at least two past trademark suits and multiple “threatened” ones across the ideological spectrum. One was last term.
Just popping in to congratulate Stewart on the improvements to health, and hope we can argue many more times over the next 50 years!
CAH: As I said “I do not recall another occasion in which the LNC Chair filed an FEC complaint.” So much for my memory. Thank you for the correction. A list of occasions would be interesting.
George, you are incorrect. Several FEC complaints have been filed over my tenure. And in my historical research many over the years.
We were fortunate to get a copy of the letter while we had the opportunity. The article has been amended to note that the FEC complaint thread has been deleted from the LNC list as of sometime this afternoon. The URL now redirects to a thread deletion error page.
My comment was not a reference to any specific faction of the LP and was not intended to classify you into one or slight you in any manner. My understanding has been that you are still a member. I am not, thus the use of “your” in my comments. The extent to which the initiation of force applies to any particular situation can be subjective, and in this case we do not yet know what the complaint is.
Anyway, I will go back to “radio silence.” I do continue to follow IPR and wish you great success.
Side note: you would probably not recognize me these days. I am down to just over 180lbs a year after a massive “widow maker” last March. That’s about 80 pounds less than the last time we spoke at the 2018 convention.
I am not sure what you mean ‘my political party’, though that force-initiation claim has been made on Facebook. If you were assuming I support one of the Massachusetts factions over the other, you are mistaken, though I am a dues-paying member of both of them. I personally see no conflict between the McArdle complain and the initiation of force pledge.
When will the nature of the complaint become known?
George,
In the nearly 12 hours since you posted this, I would have thought that someone from your libertarian party would have pointed out that this is the initiation of force for political gain. A direct violation of the oath/pledge (your choice) required to be a member of your party. I would think this would just add to the already mounting grounds for removal from office.
This one is so disgusting that I had to break radio silence.