Project Veritas Ordered To Pay Democracy Partners $120,000

Project Veritas was founded by James O’Keefe and contends its actions are legitimate journalism. They have long used clandestine activities to obtain embarrassing videos of left-leaning organizations.

A federal jury has found Project Veritas liable for violating wiretapping laws and misrepresenting itself during its undercover operations in making its “Rigging the Election” videos targeting Democratic political consulting firm Democracy Partners.

The jury awarded $120,000 to Democracy Partners because Project Veritas’ tactics were not protected under the First Amendment, according to the court.

Project Veritas said it plans to appeal the decision. During his closing arguments, Project Veritas lawyer Paul A. Calli said that “the sole purpose of the operation was Journalism.”

According to the complaint, Project Veritas infiltrated Democracy Partners by sending an operative to pose as a donor attempting to get his niece an internship at the organization. After $20,000 was wired to the group, Robert Creamer, the co-founder of Democracy Partners, spoke with the woman purporting to be the donor’s niece and gave her an unpaid internship.

The operative used a fake name and résumé to get the job and then secretly recorded conversations and took documents while working inside the offices of Democracy Partners.

Creamer then says they used “heavily edited” footage in their videos to suggest that Democracy Partners planned to incite violence at rallies for then-candidate Donald Trump and promote voter fraud.

Democracy Partners were planning “bracketing” events where they would hold counter-messaging rallies at Trump and Mike Pence events.

The complaint alleges that the Project Veritas operation caused Democracy Partners to lose over $500,000 in contracts.

At the heart of the case was if Democracy Partners lost the contracts because Project Veritas’ infiltration had negatively affected their reputation and caused them to lose the contracts, or if it was solely the content of the videos that caused them to lose the contract or other contracts.

One potential contract, with Dialysis Patient Citizens, was lost because its principal testified that “PR” was the main concern in canceling an appointment with Democracy Partners. However, the court agreed that there was insufficient evidence that the operation and not the reporting caused the loss of the potential contract.

Conversely, two other contracts with Americans United For Change (AUFC) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) were canceled because part of AFSCME’s concern was that Democracy Partners “had allowed their offices to be infiltrated by a Project Veritas operative,” and not solely because of the videos published by Project Veritas.

Meanwhile, AUFC canceled its contract with Democracy Partners primarily because AFSCME canceled theirs.

In the District of Columbia, plaintiffs only have to prove that the actions of the defendants were a “substantial factor” in the loss, but do not require it to be the sole cause.

The jurors further ruled that the operative had intended to breach a fiduciary duty. The judge in the case will assess damages for that complaint.

Democracy Partners said in a statement that they hope the case will “help to discourage Mr. O’Keefe and others from conducting these kind of political spy operations – and publishing selectively edited, misleading videos.”

In responding to the verdict, O’Keefe said in a statement “Project Veritas will continue to fight for every journalist's right to news gather, investigate, and expose wrongdoing - regardless of how powerful the investigated party may be.”