Six Democrats seeking their party’s nomination in Virginia’s 1st congressional district have escalated their dispute with the Democratic Party of Virginia, arguing newly disclosed federal campaign finance records undercut party leaders’ claims that they have remained neutral in the crowded primary field. 

In a new letter sent Monday to DPVA Chair Lamont Bagby, members of the party’s Steering Committee and other top Virginia Democrats, the candidates point to Federal Election Commission filings showing the state party participating in the Shannon Taylor Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee created while early voting was still underway in the Aug. 4 primary election.

“The notion that this is free and fair looks differently based on the documentation,” said candidate Jason Knapp, who spearheaded the effort, in a phone interview Monday. 

The candidates also question DPVA Treasurer Abbi Easter’s paid consulting work for Taylor’s campaign and ask party leaders to address what they describe as governance and conflict-of-interest concerns before voters choose a nominee. 

The letter builds on complaints first raised last week after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee promoted Taylor in a coordinated Instagram post during early voting. Since then, Democratic candidates Tim Cywinski and Ericka Kopp have joined the effort. 

The latest letter is signed by Elizabeth Beggs, Cywinski, Salaam Bhatti, Knapp, Kopp and Mel Tull. Taylor’s campaign declined to comment Monday. 

FEC filing fuels new dispute

At the center of the escalation is a July 14 FEC filing establishing the Shannon Taylor Victory Fund, which lists Taylor’s campaign and the DPVA as participating committees. The candidates argue the arrangement is “difficult to reconcile with the repeated public assurances of neutrality” made by party leaders. 

The letter also points to records showing DPVA Treasurer Abbi Easter, a 33-year veteran of the party’s Steering Committee, received $22,000 from Taylor’s campaign for consulting during the primary while serving as a party officer. 

Calling it, “at minimum, an appearance of conflict,” the candidates asked who approved the Victory Fund arrangement and whether party officers should disclose consulting relationships or recuse themselves from campaign matters. 

Bagby rejected the criticism Monday, saying that the Victory Fund is part of the Democrats’ coordinated campaign and is intended to benefit whichever Democrat wins the nomination. 

“If either one of them wins, guess what they get to do? They get to spend the money that Shannon Taylor raised into the Victory Fund,” Bagby said in a phone interview, referring to the Democrats who signed the letter. 

The coordinated campaign is the party’s joint general election effort, which pools fundraising to pay for shared mailers, advertising and voter outreach benefiting nominees from the top of the ticket down to congressional and legislative candidates. 

“A lot of candidates raise money into the coordinated campaign, even before the primary is over,” Bagby said. “That’s been a common practice, that’s an effort that if they win, they hit the ground running. The gamble is if they lose, they raise money for the Democratic Party to set the other person up.” 

Bagby also said Taylor has no control over the money in the coordinated campaign fund. He emphasized that the same fundraising mechanism is available to every Democratic candidate. 

The candidates maintain that the issue is not the existence of the coordinated campaigns, but whether the state party should formally participate in a fundraising committee tied to one candidate while the nomination contest is still underway. 

Last week, Bagby dismissed suggestions the party was backing Taylor in an interview with The Mercury, likening the DPVA to legendary boxing promoter Don King. 

“We will continue to be like Don King in a boxing match,” Bagby said at the time. 

The comment came one day after the July 14 FEC filing listed the DPVA as a participating committee in the Shannon Taylor Victory Fund. 

Bhatti, one of the Democrats who signed both letters, rejected that comparison.

“The state party is acting like Don King by putting its weight behind a candidate at a time when neighbors across the district can’t afford groceries, gas, and healthcare,” Bhatti said in a text message Monday. “If it’s one thing voters in America’s birthplace know, it’s that we don’t bow down to kingmakers.”

The dispute over the party’s neutrality has also spilled over into another Democratic congressional primary. 

In Northern Virginia’s 8th District, Democratic challenger Mo Seifeldein said his campaign recently asked the DPVA to correct what it described as a coordinated campaign text message asking voters whether U.S. Rep. Don Beyer, the Democratic incumbent, could count on their support in the Aug. 4 primary. 

According to Seifeldein’s campaign, party officials acknowledged the text message resulted from a mistake by a junior staff member working with Democratic U.S. Sen. Mark Warner’s team.

The campaign said DPVA officials told them the message was not intended as an endorsement. It also said it later learned the coordinated campaign had organized a canvass launch for Beyer’s campaign during the contested primary. 

While accepting that missteps happen, Seifeldein’s campaign said the party declined requests to send a corrective text or clarify that the original message was sent in error.  

“Everyone makes mistakes,” Seifeldein said in a statement Monday. “The issue isn’t that an error occurred — it’s that DPVA did not correct it. Democratic voters deserve confidence that their state party is administering a contested primary fairly and impartially.”

Questions over Easter’s role

Monday’s letter also questions Easter’s dual role as DPVA treasurer and a paid political consultant working for Taylor’s campaign, arguing the arrangement creates at least the appearance of a conflict of interest because she simultaneously serves as a state party officer. 

They also alleged Easter, in her DPVA role, directed a local committee to remove a social media post concerning Taylor’s campaign. 

Easter declined to comment for this story. 

Bagby rejected the suggestion that Easter’s consulting work created a conflict. 

“We don’t tell consultants of different campaigns that they can’t participate in the Democratic Party,” he said. “There’s a number of individuals that are members of the Central or Steering Committee that are engaged in campaigns. I mean, that’s what she does for a living.” 

He also said Easter’s position as DPVA’s treasurer does not give her authority over party spending decisions. 

“She’s a Democrat, so I certainly don’t see a conflict with a consultant being a member of the Central or Steering committees, and the treasurer certainly doesn’t make decisions on money,” Bagby said. 

Knapp said campaign finance filings raise questions the party should answer before Democrats cast their ballots. 

“The fact that the DPVA has in the statement claimed neutrality, and an officer within a DPVA is a paid consultant for a singular campaign, flies in the face of that neutrality,” Knapp. “It is clearly and undeniably a conflict of interest with an officer of the DPVA monetarily benefiting from one candidate.”

Knapp said he has not heard from Bagby since The Mercury first reported the dispute last week, and while he has no evidence the chairman personally knew about the arrangements reflected in the FEC filings, he said responsibility ultimately rests with the party’s leader. 

“The decision lands with the person who is ultimately responsible, and as the chair, that is where it lands,” Knapp said. “The buck stops here, and as the chair, he is ultimately responsible for the actions and the decisions of the people that serve him and work under him.”

Knapp said he and the other four candidates want party leaders to publicly answer the questions raised in the letter and reassure candidates that the nomination process remains impartial.

“I would like DPVA leadership to reaffirm a fair and neutral election and ensure that they are not putting their thumb on the scale, and do so in a truly meaningful way to correct the perception that is now grown increasingly large that the party is pushing on one candidate to win in this primary over six others.”

Debate over neutrality

The debate also reached local Democratic Party leaders in the district. 

David Dustin, chairman of the Northumberland Democratic Committee, said DPVA officials recently reminded local party chairs they were expected to remain neutral until the primary and that he believed the same standard should apply statewide. 

“In a meeting just last Monday night, they said they maintain their neutrality, because us chairs are told that we have to be neutral and can’t support a candidate until after the primary,” Dustin said. “So we try as very hard as we can to be neutral.”

The DPVA Party Plan does not expressly prohibit party officers from working for campaigns during contested primaries or bar the party from participating in a joint fundraising committee before a nominee is chosen. 

It does prohibit the party from formally endorsing candidates before they are nominated and says its role during contested primaries is to remain neutral and administer a fair election process. 

“It’s very disappointing that they speak out of two sides of their mouth, telling us one thing, and then, behind the scenes, doing something else,” Dustin added.

“It may not explicitly violate the bylaws, but it seems that it does violate the spirit of the bylaws. And if we have our treasurer working for her campaign, that seems out of line.”