Damages Award Stemming from Project Veritas Project Set Aside by D.C. Circuit

A federal appeals court has set aside a damages award granted to Democracy Partners, LLC against James O'Keefe, founder and former CEO of Project Veritas, a non-profit media organization known for conducting undercover investigations. The decision came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, with Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson joining Judge Harry Edwards in overturning the lower court’s ruling. The case, Democracy Partners, LLC v. O'Keefe, centers around allegations that Project Veritas engaged in deceptive practices during an investigation into alleged voter fraud schemes in the 2016 Wisconsin elections. The legal dispute traces back to early 2016, when Project Veritas assigned one of its investigative reporters, Christian Hartsock, to gather intelligence on possible voter fraud involving Wisconsin elections. Undercover, Hartsock attended an election-watch gathering at a Milwaukee bar, where he met Scott Foval, a Democratic political consultant. Using a fabricated identity and backstory, Hartsock convinced Foval that he represented a fictitious political consultancy whose client was a progressive philanthropist opposed to voter identification laws. Hartsock described a supposed plan to establish a shell company in Wisconsin, recruit out-of-state voters and undocumented immigrants, and provide them with employer IDs to cast fraudulent ballots. Foval found the idea compelling and offered detailed guidance on how to execute such a scheme. He suggested using rental or auctioned vehicles to transport the fraudulent voters to polling locations and proposed expanding the operation to other states, including Michigan and Illinois. Foval also mentioned that Hartsock’s fictional client might have received advice from Bob Creamer, a Democratic political consultant based in Washington, D.C. Foval claimed he regularly collaborated with Creamer, describing him as someone who frequently devises strategies for others. Following the meeting with Foval, Project Veritas shifted focus to Creamer. Again posing as a representative of the fictitious consultancy, Hartsock arranged for Foval to introduce him to Daniel Sandini, another Project Veritas reporter, who played the role of Hartsock’s “client.” Their goal was to engage Creamer in discussions about the alleged voter fraud scheme while also seeking information about staged protests at Republican rallies. Sandini met with Creamer multiple times over the summer of 2016, during which they were secretly recorded. Sandini presented himself under the alias Charles Roth, claiming to be a real estate magnate and the son of a Hungarian immigrant who had amassed wealth through urban development. He expressed guilt over his father’s impact on minority communities and stated a desire to use his resources to oppose Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Believing Sandini to be a genuine donor, Creamer invited him to contribute to Americans United for Change (AUFC), a political consulting firm and one of Creamer’s clients. With funding from Project Veritas, Sandini made a $20,000 donation to AUFC and sought Creamer’s assistance with the surrogate voter scheme. Creamer declined the request. Determined to further their investigation, Project Veritas aimed to penetrate Democracy Partners, Creamer’s consulting firm. Reporter Allison Maass was tasked with continuing the Charles Roth persona, assuming the role of Roth’s imagined niece, Angela Brandt, a young woman with growing political interests. Sandini, still portraying Roth, continued to interact with Creamer, feeding him information crafted entirely from fiction. The legal battle escalated after Democracy Partners filed a lawsuit alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, citing damage to its reputation due to the exposure of the fabricated scheme. In response, Project Veritas argued that its actions constituted protected newsgathering under the First Amendment. The initial trial awarded Democracy Partners damages, but the appellate court ruled that the evidence was insufficient to support the claims, leading to the reversal of the judgment. The case highlights the complex interplay between investigative journalism and legal boundaries, particularly concerning the ethical limits of undercover reporting. It also underscores the challenges faced by organizations accused of spreading misinformation, even when their intent is to expose wrongdoing. The outcome of the appeal could influence future cases involving similar journalistic tactics and their legal implications.