Article 5, Section 4 of the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) charter states the group will “exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the presidential candidates and campaigns.”
That is not how the DNC acted during the months leading up to last year’s election.
The DNC’s unethical preference for Hillary Clinton was exposed last year when WikiLeaks published a series of hacked emails revealing a conspiracy to stop Bernie Sanders from winning the party’s nomination. As I wrote in a previous article, the emails are believed to have been leaked by former DNC employee Seth Rich, who was gunned down in DC shortly before the WikiLeaks release.
A group of Bernie Sanders supporters is now suing the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the former DNC Chairwoman who resigned immediately after the email hack.
The class action suit was filed last June, after leaked emails revealed the DNC had been working to promote Clinton from the start – despite public promises of neutrality.
Wildling v. DNC was filed on behalf of 150 Sanders supporters who made contributions to the DNC. These individuals argue that the DNC defrauded them out of their money by promising to be neutral when in reality the organization was working to elect Hillary Clinton.
The Sanders supports accuse the DNC and Wasserman Schultz of “intentional, willful, wanton, and malicious” conduct, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.
“I wouldn’t call this an election case. It’s a fraud case,” said Cullin O’Brien, one of four attorneys representing the Sanders supporters. “You don’t have a right to take people’s money under false pretenses.”
The plaintiffs are seeking a return of the money they donated to the DNC, along with “special damages” and other costs. A dollar amount has yet to be named.
The DNC argues that it is under “no contractual obligation” to follow its own charter, and is making its second attempt to dismiss the case. They insist the word “impartial” cannot be defined, which essentially means the DNC’s neutrality clause is a promise that cannot be guaranteed.
Strangely enough, this massively important case has gotten virtually no media coverage.
“This seems like an important case, as important as you can get,” said O’Brien.
The suit was filed nearly a year ago, but not a single mainstream outlet has covered it.
Jared Beck, the attorney leading the lawsuit against the DNC, says there has been a “total blackout” of the case.
“Honestly, if the Democratic party is seeking unity in a bona fide manger, then it also needs – I believe as part of that mission – has to come to terms with the fact that the people that we represent demand and need justice for what happened,” argues Beck.
If Wildling v. DNC gets past the pending motion to dismiss, Sanders supporters may have the opportunity to dramatically reshape how the DNC conducts business.