UNRELEASED: Special Minority Report of Ben Weir, Secretary of the McArdle SIC

Submitted to the Libertarian National Committee · Dated June 13, 2025 

Introduction

As Secretary of the Special Investigatory Committee (SIC), I felt compelled to put together this minority report in dissent from some of the findings and overall conduct of the Committee’s final report dated June 7, 2025. While I acknowledge that any officer of the Libertarian National Committee should be held to high standards of transparency and fiduciary responsibility, it is my opinion that the SIC report was constructed under conditions that render its findings unreliable, its process untrustworthy, and its recommendations inappropriate. The investigation was not conducted in a neutral and fact-seeking manner, but rather driven by political motivations, internal factionalism, and preconceived conclusions. My dissent is grounded in both substantive and procedural concerns and should serve as a call for a genuinely independent inquiry if accountability is truly the goal.

I. Committee Composition and Conflicted Intent

From the moment this committee was put together, it was clear that it would not conduct a fair or objective investigation. A majority of its members had personal or factional reasons to want to see Angela McArdle’s credibility destroyed. While the report declares that all committee members were "independent" as defined by D.C. Code § 29-411.05(f), this narrow legal framing ignores the far more pervasive and relevant reality of political bias. Independence on paper does not equate to neutrality in practice.

I personally witnessed that certain members approached this investigation not with curiosity or fairness, but with the intent to produce a narrative that would support Angela’s removal and bar her from future involvement… much of it led by LNC Treasurer Bill Redpath. This predetermined bias was reflected in how interviews were selected, how questions were framed, and how evidence was interpreted. Efforts to slow down the process to ensure fairness, including my own attempts to raise internal objections, were dismissed or sidelined. The committee’s “investigative” work was functionally prosecutorial from the outset.

II. Freedom Calls, LLC and Alleged Conflicted Transactions

The bulk of the report revolves around the contractual relationship between the LNC and Freedom Calls, LLC… a Delaware LLC tied to Angela McArdle’s domestic partner, Austin Padgett. The report repeatedly emphasizes that this relationship was undisclosed, improper, and financially damaging to the Party. However, the committee selectively presents facts while ignoring mitigating details.

McArdle’s hire of Padgett as a contractor in 2023 was openly disclosed to the LNC. The argument that she sought to obscure the ownership of Freedom Calls is based on assumptions, not hard evidence. Delaware corporate registration does not list owners by default, and the report’s insistence that choosing that state was an act of concealment is a reach.

While the contract with Freedom Calls did not yield a strong financial return, inefficiency is not the same as misconduct. In a nonprofit with limited staff and struggling fundraising infrastructure, experiments with new vendors… especially low-overhead ones… are not inherently suspect. The LNC budgeted for these expenses, and no credible evidence was produced showing McArdle personally enriched herself. While my personal inclination is that due diligence was not performed by the LNC or former chairwoman, I also don't believe the intent behind the non-disclosure had an intent to harm the organization. Dishonest? Probably. However, we were never able to determine any of this based on facts or evidence… It is all based on assumption.

III. The W-9 Form and Allegations of Deception

A key component of the report’s argument hinges on the W-9 form submitted by Freedom Calls. The form is critiqued as incomplete and irregular, particularly with regard to its classification of the LLC and the signature provided. The committee presents this as evidence of deliberate concealment.

However, administrative errors on tax forms, particularly when dealing with small businesses or contractors, are not uncommon. I have personally had to deal with this when managing several companies and nonprofits. Without direct testimony from Padgett… whose participation was declined… the intent behind the form’s irregularities cannot be definitively stated. Nonetheless, the committee repeatedly interprets ambiguity as deception. It is just as likely that this was sloppiness, not subterfuge.

The refusal to even attempt a neutral assessment of alternative explanations again underscores the committee’s bias. Rather than treat the irregularities as issues to be clarified, they were treated as a basis for punitive conclusions.

IV. Swing Vote Strategist and the Kennedy Victory Fund

The committee asserts that McArdle’s paid work through Swing Vote Strategist (SVS), an entity also tied to Padgett, created an additional undisclosed financial conflict of interest relating to her involvement with the Kennedy Victory Fund. This too is based on an assumption of a timeline that cannot be substantiated.

The payments to McArdle from SVS began after her resignation from the LNC and appear to reflect compensation for work performed in a private, non-LNC capacity. There is no indication that she voted on matters directly benefitting SVS or that she was involved in steering LNC resources to the Kennedy Victory Fund improperly. The report implies a conflict because SVS later paid her… but fails to prove that the relationship existed during her tenure in a way that required disclosure under LNC policy.

This section of the report continues a pattern of guilt-by-association and timeline manipulation that is deeply troubling. It manufactures conflict retroactively and imposes disclosure standards that were not clearly triggered.

V. Rescue the Republic Rally and Party Resource Use

The report further claims McArdle improperly used her position and Party resources to promote the Rescue the Republic rally. It suggests this gave the impression of LNC endorsement and constituted an abuse of her office.

This assertion misrepresents the duties and discretion traditionally afforded to the Chair. Chairs routinely use their title to promote aligned causes, events, and public statements. The rally in question reflected LP-aligned themes and was independently organized. At no point was LP funding misused. The notion that sending an email promoting the rally constitutes an ethics breach is extremely unserious and hinders the future ability of LP Chairs to promote liberty-aligned causes.

The recommendation that McArdle be issued a cease-and-desist for using the title of Chair in any communication does seem like the proper due diligence that should be performed for organizational protection. Whether intentional or not, it is not appropriate for the former Chair to be misrepresenting herself or this organization.

VI. Interviews, Witness Selection, and Procedural Flaws

The investigation’s methodological flaws are among my chief concerns. The committee conducted interviews almost exclusively with individuals known to be critical of McArdle or directly involved in the complaints. There was no serious effort to balance the witness pool with neutral or supportive voices.

In addition, the committee treated McArdle’s and Padgett’s refusal to participate as incriminating. This violates basic principles of due process. Their choice not to engage… while unfortunate… should have been treated as a limitation, not as carte blanche to draw negative inferences.

In several instances, the report openly speculates about motives and decisions in the absence of any firsthand testimony. This speculative tendency is inappropriate for an official investigation.

VII. Financial ROI Analysis and the Freedom Calls Contract

The report highlights a poor return on investment from the Freedom Calls contract: roughly $49,600 spent, with only $2,468.57 raised. While these figures are not flattering, they should also be contextualized.

Fundraising was broadly underperforming across the board. Other fundraising strategies, including mailers and consultants, also failed to generate substantial returns. To isolate this one contract and brand it as uniquely negligent is intellectually dishonest. It was a budgeted expense. Its downfall was lack of follow up and reporting, otherwise these discrepancies would have been known much sooner.

It is also worth noting that no staff member or officer raised significant concerns about the contract’s ROI until after political tensions surrounding McArdle’s leadership escalated. If it was so obviously problematic, why did no one object until a political opportunity emerged?

VIII. Legal Interpretation of D.C. Code § 29-406.70

The report’s invocation of D.C. nonprofit law is disingenuous. The cited statute explicitly states that a conflicted transaction is not voidable if the board later approves it in good faith or if the contract was fair at the time it was executed. The Freedom Calls contract, while underwhelming in output, was not facially fraudulent, nor was it executed without budgetary authorization.

In addition, the LNC later retroactively approved similar contracts in the past… including Padgett’s original fundraising contract. The selective application of legal standards here reeks of political convenience, not principled oversight.

IX. Disproportionate and Politically Motivated Recommendations

Perhaps the most egregious element of the report is its list of recommendations. It suggests a potential lawsuit to recoup funds. In my opinion, not only is there no case to be made, but would be completely against the fiduciary duty of this body to spend funds that we don't even have on a lawsuit that is virtually guaranteed to lose in court.

These are punitive, factional recommendations that far exceed what the facts justify… many of these recommendations were proposed by LNC Treasurer Bill Redpath, who is a known and biased antagonist of McArdle. They are designed to exile a political opponent, not protect the Party. If the concern was transparency or process, a reprimand and policy reform would suffice. These recommendations are about power, not ethics.

Conclusion

I dissent from this report in the strongest possible terms. It is a document driven by internal politics, executed with bias, and presented under the pretense of neutrality. It has damaged the credibility of the LNC and reflects the very dysfunction it claims to diagnose. While questions about process and oversight are valid, this report does not answer them responsibly. I don't find it appropriate that multiple non-committee members were allowed to participate in the official private committee chat.

I urge the LNC to reject the findings and recommendations of this report based on extreme bias. If further inquiry is necessary, it must be done by neutral, independent investigators without a political axe to grind. The integrity of our party depends not just on rooting out misconduct… but on doing so in a way that is fair, principled, and transparent.

In addition, this committee was originally formed to investigate ALL possible conflicts of interest regarding the business practices of the LNC. If they were being honest, Mr. Redpath should have recused himself for also taking money from the Kennedy Victory Fund. There are multiple other potential undisclosed conflicts of interest that were not investigated, again, because this committee was driven with a singular purpose in mind. It wasn't to investigate all conflicts of interest, it was to prosecute and discredit McArdle in as many ways as possible.

Respectfully submitted,
Ben Weir
Region 6 Alternate, Libertarian National Committee
Secretary, Special Investigatory Committee

LNC News covers the governance and internal affairs of the Libertarian National Committee. Submissions can be sent to LNCnews.submissions@gmail.com.