The Libertarian Party is heading rapidly toward making Gary Johnson its presidential nominee. I’ve previously expressed concern about Johnson’s involvement with political consultant Roger Stone. That’s not the only concern.
Others have complained about Johnson’s support for interventionist foreign policy including sending and maintaining US troops overseas, which is far from the LP position. See for example Libertarian Peacenik.
According to Johnson’s April filing with the FEC, his campaign is $150K in debt. That’s a substantial sum for a campaign that raised $62K in April and spent $63K. Libertarians usually believe in fiscal responsibility, and Johnson is not demonstrating that.
But a bigger concern is the Johnson campaign’s selective use of the money it does spend. It was previously reported by others that fundraiser Jonathan Bydlak has sued the Johnson campaign. Turns out that the campaign is paying some consultants on a consistent basis, but for some reason refuses to pay Bydlak.
There are motions pending in a federal court in Virginia and those should be heard later this month. Below is a pdf of Bydlak’s motion for an injunction to keep Johnson from spending the money coming in on the consultants now in favor.
Here are some key quotes:
“GJ2012′s precarious financial position, combined with the preferential and obscure manner in which GJ2012 has been applying its campaign funds, also provide strong evidence that the controlling members of GJ2012–Nielsen, Goodwin, and Kim Blanton–are abusing their powers as GJ2012 officers to benefit some of GJ2012 creditors (i.e., their own companies), at the expense of the rest–including Mr. Bydlak.”
“[T]hey have every incentive to ensure that their own companies are the first in line whenever it is time to cash a paycheck. Consistent with this motive, the Defendants appear to have been engaged in a course of conduct designed to minimize their own exposure while leaving the rest of GJ2012′s creditors, including fundraisers like Mr. Bydlak, to fend for themselves. This inequity is exacerbated by the fact that defendants Nielsen and Goodwin expressly promised Mr. Bydlak in April that his payment processing would receive priority, and that a portion of the contributions would be specifically set aside to make sure that he is paid on time.”
Is this what the LP really wants heading up its campaign in 2012?