Members of the Libertarian National Committee are currently voting on a motion to terminate a contract between the party and a voter outreach company used during the 2024 election cycle. This comes after a party member recently produced documentation alleging ties between the company and the partner of the party’s chair.
The motion, made on a non-public party list Wednesday morning and later shared in a screenshot, is co-sponsored by members Paul Darr, Adam Haman, Meredith Hays, and Kathy Yeniscavich. It seeks to terminate the party’s current contract with Freedom Calls LLC, a phone banking and canvassing company, effective immediately. A majority of the Committee is required to terminate the contract, and members have until the end of January 29 to cast their votes.
Notably, the timing of the motion follows a report published Tuesday by Jake Porter, a member of the Libertarian Party, alleging that Freedom Calls LLC has unreported ties to the domestic partner of Angela McArdle, chair of the Libertarian National Committee. Porter argues that the undisclosed payments are “in clear violation” of a 2023 policy manual addition.
In his post, Porter provided documents that he claims demonstrate a connection between Freedom Calls LLC and McArdle’s domestic partner, Austin Padgett. His proof includes a picture of the business formation certificate, which he states he received from an attorney, listing Padgett as the incorporator of the Delaware-based business. Porter also provides screenshots of Federal Election Commission filings showing payments from the Libertarian National Committee to Padgett and Freedom Calls LLC. According to the images, the Libertarian National Committee paid Padgett $32,465.38 between August 2023 and January 2024 for contractor services and branding. Meanwhile, Freedom Calls LLC received $45,600 from February 2024 to November 2024 for fundraising-related expenses, including merchandise costs, telemarketing, and advertising.
Porter contends that the party violated an amended section of the Policy Manual, originally passed in October 2023, which requires disclosure and approval of agreements involving Libertarian National Committee members or staff and closely related parties. IPR has confirmed that this language is also still reflected in the most recently available version of the Policy Manual under Section 1.07. The full language reads:
Any proposed contracts or agreements for financial renumeration with a closely related party (legal relative, domestic partner, business associate) to a sitting LNC member or staff member shall be disclosed to the LNC prior to execution and shall be approved by a 2/3 vote of the Executive Committee or a majority vote of the LNC. This relation shall also be disclosed on the LNC’s member’s listing of potential conflicts of interest.
An email received by Libertarian news site Third Party Watch reveals that following the release of Porter’s report and preceding the introduction of the motion, Libertarian National Committee Treasurer William Redpath brought the matter to the attention of the full Committee, asking if there was anything incorrect in the report.
Notably, while unrelated to the broader topic at hand, the earlier referenced screenshot also indicates that Caryn Ann Harlos, who was suspended last year from her role as Secretary and reinstated earlier this month by the Libertarian National Committee’s Judicial Committee, has resumed her balloting duties. However, she stated over X on Wednesday that she was still unable to post notices on the Public Business List.
Editorial note: Jake Porter is the web host of Independent Political Report. He did not contribute to, nor was consulted for, any part of this article.
@Curious
Indeed, “McCardle” is practically universal among detractors but always without explanation.
My guess is that such anti-libertarian loons are trying to draw a comparison between Angela McArdle and either William McCardle or to Eliza McCardle. But in both cases, that would only show what ignorant statists they are, to think that would be insulting to a libertarian: as William McCardle was a victim of totalitarian government overreach, imprisoned for years without trial or charges for practicing his First Amendment rights after Congress illegally stripped the Supreme Court of its authority; and Eliza McCardle was the wife and strongest supporter of the greatest Democrat president the US ever saw – Andrew Johnson (unless one wants to be pedantic and say he was only elected as VP via the Unity Ticket, in which case Grover Cleveland obviously gets bumped up to the spot of least bad Democrat president…)
“Mark, try spelling her name correctly.”
Is there some significance to this spelling which I’m missing? I only see factional opponents of hers ever make this error, but it seems to be commonplace among them.
“Ms. McArdle has resigned her position as national LP chair, for the good reason that she is pursuing new opportunities. The recent very tenuous allegations of her self-dealing to her household, coming from an unreliable source with a chip on his shoulder, will not be the first of these accusations against her to be debunked. We tried inventing similar claims last term, accusing her of signing a contract and making a very minimal disclosure. That situation led her to introduce the tougher language in the policy manual requiring specific approval so as to protect herself from clowns like me.
There’s nothing ‘unethical’ about Ms. McArdle except we invent it to undermine her.”
FTFY
Mark, try spelling her name correctly.
Maybe we should investigate you for any wrongdoings. What skeletons are you hiding?
Ms. McCardle has resigned her position as national LP chair. For good reason. The recently exposed news of her self-dealing to her household is not the first of these situations. She tried doing so last term, signing a contract and making a very minimal disclosure. That situation led to the tougher language in the policy manual requiring specific approval.
There’s nothing “undermining” Ms. McCardle except her own lack of ethics.
The interesting thing is that Yeniscavich, Hays and Haman are co-sponsoring the motion. That obviously does not necessarily mean they are doing so because there is anything to Porter’s allegations. But it does suggest that there must be some compelling reason to terminate the contract effective immediately. Because unlike Darr, Redpath and Harlos, they are not simply out to oppose or undermine McArdle at every possible opportunity.
It is also worth noting that despite co-sponsoring, Yeniscavich did not (yet) vote:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OMLmOstNc1IE2fMrdFZxFVwaz29jzhmn/