Palmer & Fearless Slate, 2026 ESD 87
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: PALMER AND )
FEARLESS SLATE ) Protest Decision 2026 ESD 87
)
Protestor. ) Issued: May 21, 2026
)
______________________________) OES Case Nos. P-134-032626,
P-147-042226, and
P-148-042326
INTRODUCTION
John Palmer is a candidate on the Fearless Slate and is running for General Secretary-Treasurer for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT). On March 26, 2026, Palmer filed a pre-election protest, assigned as P-134-032626 (“P-134”), against Sean M. O’Brien, General President of the IBT and a candidate for re-election and against the O’Brien Zuckerman Teamsters United 2026 Slate (“OZ Slate”). Palmer claims that O’Brien violated campaign finance rules by discussing the election on various episodes of his weekly podcast, “Better Bad Ideas with Sean O’Brien,” which the protestor alleges is funded with employer contributions in violation of the Rules for the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (the “Rules”). Employers may not contribute “anything of value” to campaigns for International office. Rules, Article XI, Section 1(a). At the time the protest was filed, the podcast had aired 61 episodes dating to January 15, 2025, and consisting of well over 60 hours of recorded dialogue. In P-134-032626 Palmer did not specify which episodes of the podcast contained objectionable campaign-related speech, but merely alleged, in relevant part:
Members of the OZ Slate, including Sean O’Brien, have appeared on the podcast and have used the platform to:
• Promote the policies and leadership of the OZ Slate
• Advocate positions favorable to O’Brien’s candidacy
• Criticize and attack members of the Fearless Slate
These discussions include campaign rhetoric and election-related messaging directed at Teamsters members.
Accordingly, the podcast has been used as a campaign communication platform during an active election cycle. (emphasis original)
Palmer was requested by the investigator to narrow down and specify the episodes of the podcast containing objectionable speech and to further specify within each episode where the speech could be found. See Rules, Article XIII, Section 1. The protestor complied with this request by filing an “amendment” to P-134 on April 22, 2026, in which he specified his allegations that Episodes 55 and 58 contained improper campaign speech. He further provided transcripts of those particular episodes and pinpointed the time stamps where the objectionable speech could be found. Palmer also provided a zip file with transcripts of all episodes and requested that our office review all episodes to identify objectionable campaign speech. Consistent with past practice, we decline to do so here absent specific allegations as to the alleged improper conduct. See Rules, Art. XIII, Section 2(d); see e.g., Anderson, P-537 (Feb. 25, 1991). We treated this “amendment” as a new protest and assigned case number P-147-042226 (“P-147”) to this newly filed protest.
On April 23, 2026, Palmer sought to further amend his protest to include the latest podcast episode, No. 65, which aired the day before, April 22, 2026. We elected to treat this as a new protest and assigned case number P-148-0423026 (“P-148”). Since all three protests arise out of the same or similar conduct, as protestor notes in his “amendments,” we have consolidated them for decision.
OES Investigator Joe F. Childers investigated these protests.
PROTESTS
P-134 lacked sufficient specificity to permit investigation; at the investigator’s request, P-147 was later submitted and provided the necessary detail to allow the OES to investigate those allegations. Accordingly, P-134 was absorbed into P-147. The speech alleged to be objectionable in P-147 includes dialogue found in Episode 55, aired February 11, 2026, and Episode 58, aired March 4, 2026. Episode 55 contains the following dialogue:[1]
Episode 55 -- February 11, 2026
Guest: Tom Erickson
(0:00) This episode of Better Bad Ideas is brought to you by Labour First.
(29:01) That's when, like, Avril Thompson, who's on on our board now, that useless fucking piece of shit, Palmer.
(29:08) Yep.
(29:08) No.
(29:08) He won No.
(29:09) He's South.
(29:10) He won in the South.
Tom Erickson, O’Brien’s guest on Episode 55, is a candidate for Vice-President at Large on the OZ Slate, according to the December 3, 2025, slate declaration form. We find that the reference to Palmer in Episode 55 is to the protestor, currently a Vice-President at Large of the IBT, and formerly a Vice-President for the Southern region of the IBT. Palmer hails from Texas.
Episode 58 contains the following dialogue:
Episode 58 -- March 4, 2026
Guests: Victor Mineros and Lindsay Dougherty
(0:00) This episode of Better Bad Ideas is brought to you by Labour First.
(43:30) When you are running a small local in Philadelphia, where over the last thirty three months, you've lost $1,100,000.
(43:39) You're in the red every fucking month, and y'all are declining.
(43:42) But yet but yet your platform is oh, 100%.
(45:13) But you want your issue is because you are too fucking weak to go organize.
(45:19) Right?
(45:20) You wanna reduce per capita?
(45:23) That's your thing because you want smaller locals to survive.
(45:26) There's a lot of good small locals out there that are surviving and thriving.
(45:31) But you wanna go to the convention and reduce per capita?
(45:35) Like, this guy's making a 150,000 a year.
(45:37) That means you're gonna reduce your old salary.
(45:39) Right.
(45:39) Right?
(45:40) You're gonna reduce the amount of money going to the strike and defense fund.
(45:43) You're gonna reduce the resources and the education that we're investing in.
(45:48) Come on.
(45:48) That's I mean, let's let's be realistic.
(45:50) It's easy to be fearless when you don't do a fucking thing.
(45:53) Oh, man.
(45:54) He's a clown.
(45:54) Ignorance.
(45:55) And by the way, when I see him, he puts his head down.
(45:59) Oh, same thing.
(45:59) You saw him too.
(46:00) He puts his head down.
(46:01) Right?
(46:01) Fucking tough guy like, hey.
(46:03) If you were my opponent, if you were running against me, guess what?
(46:06) I'd be in your grill all day.
(46:09) Like, tell me tell me how you're better at this job than we and We have a great team.
(46:12) I mean, our team is unbelievable.
(46:14) Not about one person.
(46:15) But when this guy's out there fucking quoting scripture in the Bible, like, have an original thought in your fucking head.
(46:21) Like, yeah, I can quote Isaiah.
(46:24) Fuck it.
(46:24) I can quote quote John three sixteen.
(46:26) Right.
(46:26) Like, tell me what the fuck y'all gonna do different than we are.
(46:29) Or be part of the movement.
(46:31) Be part of that.
(46:31) He doesn't wanna be part of it.
(46:32) It's just, like, criticizing, You look you look at that team.
(46:36) Right?
(46:36) You look at that team.
(46:38) Right?
(46:38) They're all career fucking they're career, like, under you know, I don't I don't what's the right word?
(46:44) Losers?
(46:45) I don't wanna say losers.
(46:46) No.
(46:46) I mean, that's I mean, they've never accomplished anything in their lives.
(46:49) Miners.
(46:49) They're miners.
(46:50) They don't do anything.
(46:58) Are they gonna go out I mean, you took your local from 12,000 to 15,000 right now.
(47:01) Right.
(47:02) Are they gonna be able to do what you do?
(47:03) No.
(47:03) But you know what they're gonna do?
(47:04) Here's what they do.
(47:05) They sit on the sideline and they critique everything because you know what?
(47:09) Everything.
(47:10) They can't do it.
(47:11) Right.
(47:11) Right.
(47:12) And I can't wait for the debate.
(47:13) I mean There won't be one.
(47:15) He is not Yeah.
(47:16) Listen.
(47:16) He has no idea.
(47:17) Like, I wanna when he when I see him walking, I wanna go, hey, bro.
(47:20) Bro, what's up?
(47:21) Let's have a conversation.
(47:22) He puts his head down.
(47:23) We negotiate that UPS agreement.
(47:25) Right?
(47:25) That's right.
(47:26) He left a member out in the street for six months.
(47:30) The company said, you know, he he played politics with the grievance procedure because we negotiated his own panel.
(47:37) He wanted.
(47:38) He come to me, I want my own panel.
(47:39) You got it.
(47:40) I can't afford to go to the Atlantic area.
(47:41) No problem, bro.
(47:42) I'll get it for you.
(47:43) We get it.
(47:44) And he played a game with this part timer who was out of work six months.
(47:48) Wow.
(47:49) Right?
(47:49) I he comes to DC, and he's got his agents.
(47:52) Right?
(47:52) This is the best.
(47:54) Sits at the table, and he goes agent goes, why wasn't Richard Hooker on the fucking negotiating committee?
(48:02) Because I didn't want him on it.
(48:04) He's no good.
(48:04) Like, he did he's not gonna represent.
(48:06) He represents his own interest.
(48:07) Right.
(48:07) And then we start going through the contract and the grievance pursuit.
(48:10) They weren't filing grievances.
(48:12) They weren't they weren't doing anything.
(48:14) Time, I go, if y'all members ever knew what you were doing here right now Oh, he But yet, he's out there criticizing everybody else.
(48:20) Right?
(48:20) Right.
(48:21) It's a joke.
(48:22) It's a fucking joke.
(48:23) Like Right.
(48:23) It's it's actually a disgrace.
(48:25) Like, if someone's better than us, we gotta step aside.
(48:55) Outside of the UPS agreement, that one or two contracts this clown . . . doesn't have strike language.
(49:00) So he could do a national strike, but he'd be telling his people go across the fucking picket line.
(49:03) Well, I mean, yeah, he talks about national strikes.
(49:05) Let's do one then.
(49:07) Yeah.
(49:08) You you don't need anybody's permission to do it.
(49:10) Just do it?
(49:11) Yeah.
(49:11) Do it.
(49:12) Tough guy.
(49:12) Tough guy.
(49:13) And when when we struck Amazon Right.
(49:15) His lawyer was calling us, calling the division, like, we can't do this.
(49:20) Like, we're gonna get sued.
(49:21) Well, your your guys out there, have you ever seen him get arrested, like, in a civil disobedience thing?
(49:27) There's a guy, like, he sat down Indian style and put his hands right behind his back.
(49:31) Right.
(49:31) When I'm getting arrested and We have I make it I make them work for it.
(49:35) I make them fucking work for it.
(49:36) Oh, yeah.
(49:37) You know what I mean?
(49:38) It's not pretty, but It's Whatever.
(49:40) It is what it is.
(49:41) It is what it is.
(49:42) Now you guys have an opponent in the West.
(49:43) Right?
(49:43) Oh, yeah.
(49:44) A few.
(49:44) A few.
(49:45) One from my local, one from his.
(49:47) Yep.
(49:47) That aren't even like, the guy that ran against me in my local union election, which we creamed them three to one is running, he but hasn't even run as a delegate.
(49:55) He's not even a delegate.
(49:56) Right.
(49:56) So he can't even vote for himself Right.
(49:57) At the convention.
(49:58) I mean, the the team they put together, they have one waste guy.
(50:02) We're the largest waste local in the country.
(50:04) They have one waste guy.
(50:06) That guy crossed the picket line.
(50:08) What's his platform, though?
(50:09) Like, what?
(50:10) Oh, we can do it better.
(50:11) We can do it better.
(50:12) Free trip to Las Vegas.
(50:13) Yes.
(50:14) That too.
(51:41) So why is this guy running?
(51:43) They're running their their thing is called the they're they have no Do you a whole slate?
(51:49) Do you have whole slate against you?
(51:50) Yeah.
(51:50) You have what?
(51:51) 17
(51:52) 17.
(51:52) 17 and 17 alternates.
(51:54) So, I mean, they came in and nominated themselves.
(51:57) They didn't even do the research.
(51:58) The guy is a scab.
(51:59) A scab is like stealing from your mother.
(52:01) It's the worst thing.
(52:02) He crossed the picket line.
(52:04) When you guys were were when Boston or local twenty five was out there, he crossed the picket line.
(52:09) I mean, crossing the picket line, like spitting in your mother's face.
(52:12) Something you just never did.
(52:13) Yeah.
(52:13) We can never forget all.
(52:15) Just unforgivable.
(52:16) Yeah.
(52:16) You put you put, like, scabs across picking lines.
(52:19) They're up there with racist and child molesters.
(52:21) Oh, yeah.
(52:21) Exactly.
(52:22) You know I mean?
(52:22) There's a special place in hell for There's no way of coming back from that.
(52:25) Right.
(52:26) Oh, yeah.
(52:26) So what's your guy's problem?
(52:28) He just he wants to be somebody.
(52:30) I mean, I don't he wanted a job, which is why he ran for the secretary treasurer position, lost.
(52:36) And he just want he thinks there's corruption in the union, that there's it's being ran like a dictatorship.
(52:42) All the things that he can say is wrong with the union, but there's no solutions.
Mr. O’Brien’s guests on Episode 58 are both members of the OZ Slate, including Ms. Dougherty, a candidate for re-election as Vice-President at Large, and Mr. Mineros, a candidate for re-election as Vice-President, Western Region. We find that in the above dialogue from Episode 58, Mr. O’Brien and his slate mates are discussing Richard Hooker, currently a candidate for General President of the IBT on the Fearless Slate and principal officer of Local 623 in Philadelphia.
Episode 65 aired on April 22, 2026, and contains the following dialogue:
(0:00) This episode of Better Bad Ideas is brought to you by Labour First.
(10:58) But, you know, We have an opponent or We have a dissident, somewhat of a slate that wants to challenge this international union's leadership, and they want to, run this organization, into the ground.
(11:17) I mean, some of their positions and some of their, goals and objectives would destroy everything that our leadership team, the O'Brien Zuckerman team, has built over the last four years.
(11:33) And it's unfortunate that people, our opponents, are more concerned about getting their face in the newspaper and pointing fingers, and they have the worst performance of anybody.
(11:54) I'm the first person you'll always hear me say, if there's someone better than our team, if there's a team that has better ideas and better vision that is actually capable and has demonstrated by running their local unions, by running their joint councils, that they could be more effective, you don't have to convince me.
(13:05) Matter of fact, my opponent, he fancies himself as somewhat of a preacher.
(13:18)You know, someone was just telling me the other day they pulled into his union hall to do a u-turn about a year ago, and he has a huge picture of himself.
(13:20) A huge picture of himself in the parking lot, like, that's his.
(13:29) And when you have an ego that big and you forget who you actually work for and you're running a local union and you're continuously losing members, and he'll blame UPS, he'll blame everybody else.
(13:45) When you're not organizing new members, he has a charter where he can go out in order organize new members.
(13:51) And you are operating your local union where 80% 70 to 80% of your expenses, a salary and benefits for 2,100 members, and you only have two contracts, maybe three that you don't even you've only negotiated one, I believe.
(14:29) I ran a local union that had 12,500 members.
(14:33) I ran a local union that we had 250 white paper agreements that we were responsible for negotiating.
(14:39) I ran a union where we negotiated conditions that were high held at the highest standards where we got picket line protection.
(14:48) He might have two or three contracts outside of UPS, and I'm not even sure he has that, where he doesn't have pick and line protection, where he doesn't have health and welfare union health and welfare or union pensions.
(15:00) Yet, he wants to be out there being a social justice warrior, and he wants to be out there criticizing each and everything we do.
(15:08) He wants to be calling for nationwide strikes, and he doesn't even have the ability to honor any nationwide strike because he doesn't negotiate pick and line protection.
(15:20) The guy's a fool.
(15:22) He's not capable of running a newspaper stand.
(15:26) He's fiscally irresponsible.
(15:29) He has continuously got pay increases while membership decrease continues.
(15:35) He lost over $1,000,000.
(16:00) But when you're out there criticizing and you're calling people out on shit that's not true, and you are trying to destroy an organization that provides tremendous opportunity.
(16:11) When you talk about the strike and defense fund, you know, this fool because he won't can't organize anybody because he's lazy.
(16:18) He wants to be out in the street being a social justice warrior, and he wants to criticize everybody that doesn't look like him or doesn't think like him.
(16:26) And he wants a quote bible passages instead of going out there doing his job.
(16:32) Under that UPS agreement, I negotiated card check neutrality for 5,000 specialists that were covered on this agreement.
(16:41) Meaning, all you have to do is get a majority of recognitions card signed, go to an arbitrator, they'll accrete them right to the UPS national agreement where people got $78 an hour raises, gotten into union health plans and union pension funds.
(17:00) He has over 50 of them at his location at the Pittsburgh or the not Pittsburgh, Philadelphia Airport.
(17:08) And he hasn't even organized them yet, but he's telling everybody what they should be doing.
(17:13) I've learned one thing in life.
(17:15) When you're gonna criticize anybody, you're gonna try and take a position.
(17:19) Make sure your home front is taken care of first.
(17:23) And here's a guy that wants to make a proposal to reduce per capita at the international.
(17:31) Now if we reduce per capita at the international, we are gonna compromise, $370,000,000 strike and defense fund where 340 strikes.
(17:42) We're able to be supported with a thousand dollars per week for our members.
(17:46) That would be decimated.
(17:49) We wouldn't be able to organize, over 95,000 members because we'd have to lay off organizers because all those programs organizing, strike and defense fund are all supported by per capita paid to by local unions and joint councils.
(18:05) And more importantly, we would have to lay off the entire education department.
(18:12) Now if this guy is truly in it for the organization and the members, then he should be thinking about what's in the best interest of the members.
(18:21) Thinking about programs like education where we are going out and talking to first generation members, where we are explaining how important it is to hold teams or core values at the highest levels, explaining them the history of the union, explaining them why We have the current conditions We have, why We have health and welfare, why We have pensions.
(18:44) If you don't wanna have programs in place because you are making excuses on why you haven't grown your local union, and you're gonna blame the international, We are gonna make excuses, on why you wanna reduce per capita while you keep increasing your pay, taking those two pensions, making contributions so you have two pensions, and operating a local union where 70% of your expenses are salary and benefits, you're the one, my friend, who should be leaving this organization because you're truly not in it for the cause. And you're in it for the cause of one person, one person only, and that is you.
(19:24) I look forward to this convention.
(19:27) I look forward to debating you.
(19:29) I look forward to hearing the lack of vision you have for the International Union.
(19:35) But more importantly, I look forward to beating your ass in this election.
Each of the challenged episodes begins with O’Brien stating “This episode of Better Bad Ideas is brought to you by LaborFirst.” According to the website of LaborFirst:
LaborFirst serves 510+ unions and employers with 435,000 Medical and Pharmacy lives nationwide. We are dedicated to helping our clients and their active employee, early retiree, and retired members navigate a complex healthcare system, maximize benefits, and improve outcomes.
https://laborfirst.com/who-we-serve/
The YouTube production of the podcast attributes the following statement to the podcast, “Special thanks to our Launch Sponsor, Keches Law Group! Visit www.KechesLaw.com
for your legal needs!” According to its website, Keches Law Group, headquartered in Mount Laurel, New Jersey, has over fifty attorneys who practice injury law and workers compensation cases. They market their services to union members throughout the northeast.
Palmer alleges that “Better Bad Ideas with Sean O’Brien,” the podcast, receives financial support from both LaborFirst and Keches Law Group, who are employers under the Rules, and that the financial support amounts to unlawful campaign contributions.
INVESTIGATION AND FINDINGS
The challenged speech from Episodes 55, 58, and 65 of the podcast “Better Bad Ideas with Sean O’Brien,” quoted above, is unquestionably campaign speech in the context of the 2026 International Officers Election. The speech makes derisive comments about the top two office seekers on the slate opposing the OZ Slate, the Fearless Slate, while strongly touting the accomplishments of the current leadership of the IBT who lead the OZ Slate.
Article XI, Section 1(a) of the Rules provides:
Article IV, Section 5 of the IBT Constitution, provides: "No candidate for election shall accept or use any contributions or other things of value received from any employers, representative of an employer, foundation, trust, or any similar entity. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to prohibit receipt of contributions from fellow employees and members of this International Union. Violation of this provision shall be grounds for removal from office." . . .
Article XI, Section 1(b) of the Rules provides:
The following rules shall apply to all campaigns for nomination or election to the positions of Convention delegate or alternate delegate and of International Officer positions:
(1) Only contributions which are properly solicited, made, accepted, and reported under these Rules may be expended or used by candidates, slates, or independent committees for the 2025-2026 International Union Delegate and Officer Election. (2) No employer may contribute, or shall be permitted to contribute, directly or indirectly, anything of value, where the purpose, object, or foreseeable effect of the contribution is influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate. No candidate may accept or use any such contribution. These prohibitions are not limited to employers that have contracts with the Union; they extend to every employer, regardless of the nature of the business and include, but are not limited to, any political action organization that employs any staff; any nonprofit organization, such as a church or civic group that employs any staff; and any law firm or professional organization that employs any staff.
We find that both Keches Law Group and LaborFirst are ”employers” as contemplated by Article XI, Sections 1(a) and 1(b) of the Rules. While we have no evidence to suggest that either employer intended for their funding of O’Brien’s podcast to be used to further the campaigns of O’Brien or the OZ Slate, we find that the “object, or foreseeable effect of the contribution is [to] influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate.” Article XI, Section 1(b)(2). This is because O’Brien, a declared candidate for the office of General President of the IBT in the 2026 International Officer Election, “used” the employer-funded podcast to advance the campaign of the OZ Slate.
ANALYSIS AND LEGAL REASONING
I. The Foreseeable Effect Standard
As noted above, the foreseeable effect inquiry does not turn on the intent of the contributing employer. In re Frank Halstead, 2005 ESD 31 (Dec. 6, 2005) (prohibited employer contribution found in display of campaign bumper sticker in restaurant window; employer intent to assist the campaign is not required). The prohibition in Article XI, Section 1(b)(2) reaches any contribution of value where the purpose, object, or foreseeable effect is to influence the election of a candidate, positively or negatively. That foreseeable effect triggers the prohibition of Article XI, Section 1(b)(2) of the Rules regardless of whether either sponsor intended any electoral effect.[2]
We further note that in Episode 65, the candidate himself eliminates any ambiguity as to the electoral purpose of the content. That episode closes with the statement: “I look forward to beating your ass in this election.” That statement, delivered by a declared candidate using a platform funded by employer sponsors, is campaign speech. The employer contribution that funds it is a prohibited employer contribution. No additional analysis is required.
II. Timeliness – P-147 (Episodes 55 and 58)
Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules requires that a protest be filed within two working days of the date on which the protesting party knew or should have known of the alleged violation. Protests that are not filed timely are dismissed without reaching the merits. See In re O'Brien and Zuckerman, 2025 ESD 4 (Sept. 11, 2025).
Episode 55 aired February 11, 2026. The two-working-day filing period expired on or about February 13, 2026. Episode 58 aired March 4, 2026. The two-working-day filing period expired on or about March 6, 2026. Palmer's filing identifying Episodes 55 and 58, the document OES treated as a new protest and assigned as P-147, was filed April 22, 2026. That filing was approximately seventy calendar days late as to Episode 55, and approximately forty-nine calendar days late as to Episode 58. Palmer knew or should have known of the campaign content in each publicly available episode when it aired, or shortly thereafter.[3]
Palmer argues that his general protest P-134, filed March 26, 2026, was timely and encompassed the earlier episodes. We do not agree. P-134 challenged the sponsorship arrangement in general terms; it did not identify Episodes 55 or 58 or any specific content within them as campaign speech. The Rules require identification of a specific violation. A general protest challenging a course of conduct does not preserve the right to pursue particular episodes indefinitely. This rule applies to an even greater extent to episodes that aired weeks before the general protest was filed. See e.g., In re O'Brien and Zuckerman, 2025 ESD 4 (Sept. 11, 2025) (dismissing a podcast-related protest filed outside the two-day window).[4]
V. Timeliness – P-148 (Episode 65)
Episode 65 aired on April 22, 2026. Palmer filed P-148 on April 23, 2026 – one calendar day after the episode aired and squarely within the two-working-day filing period. P-148 is timely. We reach the merits of P-148 and find, for the reasons stated above, that the employer-sponsored content in Episode 65 constitutes a prohibited employer contribution in violation of Article XI, Section 1(b)(2) of the Rules.
IV. Remaining Arguments
Respondent's representative, Edward Gleason, Jr., (“Gleason”) advances three additional arguments in his May 6, 2026 letter response to the OES: (1) that candidates retain First Amendment rights that limit the OES's authority over podcast content; (2) that the Rules do not contemplate or regulate podcasts as a medium; and (3) that the campaign-related comments in the challenged episodes were unscripted, incidental banter in the context of otherwise newsworthy labor content. None of these arguments requires extended treatment.
1. First Amendment. The First Amendment prohibits government action that abridges speech. The OES is not a government actor. It is an independent election administrator operating pursuant to a consent decree governing the IBT's internal elections – a private regulatory scheme to which every candidate consents as a condition of candidacy. Private enforcement of private election rules does not constitute government action and does not implicate the First Amendment. United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 896 F. Supp. 1349, 1355 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (Election Officer not a state actor; First Amendment challenge to election rules dismissed because election rules derive from IBT Constitution, a private agreement, not from state or federal law); United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 954 F.2d 801, 806-07 (2d Cir. 1992) (same).
Even setting that threshold point aside, the violation found here does not restrict O'Brien's speech. He may say whatever he chooses on his podcast. What the Rules prohibit is the receipt of employer contributions to fund the platform on which that speech is delivered. The distinction between restricting speech and restricting the source of funding for speech is well established in campaign finance law: restrictions on contribution sources are subject to a substantially more permissive standard than restrictions on expenditures or expression. The employer contribution prohibition in Article XI, Section 1(b)(2) is precisely the kind of source restriction that has been sustained consistently in analogous contexts. O'Brien's First Amendment argument provides no defense to the violation found here.
2. Podcasts not regulated by the Rules. Gleason argues that because the Rules do not specifically mention podcasts, the OES lacks authority to regulate them. This argument conflates the medium with the violation. The Rules prohibit any employer from contributing “anything of value, directly or indirectly,” where the foreseeable effect is to influence the election. Article XI, Section 1(b)(2). The prohibition attaches to the employer contribution, not to the particular medium the contribution funds. Whether an employer pays for a bumper sticker on a restaurant window, an email solicitation, or a podcast sponsorship, the foreseeable-effect analysis is the same. See In re Frank Halstead, 2005 ESD 31 (Dec. 6, 2005) (employer contribution found in display of campaign sticker in restaurant window; no intent required); In re O'Brien et al., 2026 ESD 26 (Jan. 6, 2026) (podcast-linked campaign email addressed on the merits under the same Rules framework). The Rules do not enumerate every medium through which an employer contribution can occur, nor are they required to. The phrase “anything of value” covers value delivered in any form, including podcast sponsorship payments.
Gleason's citation to the OES's prior experience with social media in the 2020-2021 election cycle does not help respondent. That the OES has addressed novel media formats as they arise confirms that the Rules are applied to the substance of the conduct, not to enumerated media. The absence of a podcast-specific provision reflects the evolution of technology, not a regulatory gap that immunizes employer contributions to podcast platforms.
3. Newsworthy and unscripted content. Gleason characterizes the challenged segments as “unscripted, meandering asides” in otherwise newsworthy labor discussions. The transcripts do not support this description as to any of the three episodes, and particularly not as to Episode 65. At various times in these episodes, O’Brien is clearly discussing the election. For example, he references Palmer and Hooker by name, references their candidacy, discusses the convention and debate, makes statements about Hooker in the context of being “fearless” which is the name of his slate, and makes comparative claims about job performance that plainly concern the International officer positions. In particular, Episode 65 consists of an extended, sustained monologue by O'Brien attacking his opponent's local-union management record, fiscal performance, organizing ability, and fitness for international office and closes with the explicit statement: “I look forward to beating your ass in this election.” This is not a passing aside; it is the substance of the episode's final ten minutes.
More fundamentally, even if some portions of a sponsored episode address legitimate union matters, that does not immunize the campaign content. The foreseeable-effect inquiry focuses on what the employer contribution actually funded, not on the proportion of campaign to non-campaign content. See In re Frank Halstead, 2005 ESD 31 (foreseeable effect of employer contribution assessed based on actual electoral effect, without regard to employer's subjective purpose). An employer that sponsors an episode containing explicit campaign speech has contributed to the production of that speech, regardless of whether the same episode also contains content of general labor interest.
Lastly, we recognize that Gleason notes that Hooker and Silvera maintain a podcast on which they have discussed their campaign and criticized O'Brien. The status of that podcast's sponsorship arrangements is not before us on this record, and we express no opinion on it. The existence of an uninvestigated podcast by the opposing slate provides no defense to the employer contributions found here. The Rules apply equally to all candidates and slates.
FINDING AND REMEDY
When the Rules have been violated, the Election Supervisor “may take whatever remedial action is appropriate.” Article XIII, Section 4. In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Supervisor considers the nature and seriousness of the violation, as well as its potential for interference with the election process.
ACCORDINGLY, the Election Supervisor DENIES in part and GRANTS in part the protests, as follows:
(1) As to the allegations concerning Episodes 55 and 58 of the podcast, the Election Supervisor DENIES the protest as untimely for the reasons set forth above;
(2) As to the allegations concerning Episode 65 of the podcast, the Election Supervisor GRANTS the protest, and as a remedy orders as follows:
Article XIII, Section 4 of the Rules provides that when the Election Supervisor determines that the Rules have been violated, the Election Supervisor "may take whatever remedial action is appropriate." The Election Supervisor's discretion in fashioning an appropriate remedy is broad and is entitled to deference. Hailstone & Martinez, 10 EAM 7 (Sept. 14, 2010). In fashioning an appropriate remedy, the Election Supervisor considers the nature and seriousness of the violation, its potential for interfering with the election process, whether the respondent has previously violated the Rules, and whether the respondent cooperated with the investigation. Trujillo, 2021 ESD 112 (May 12, 2021) Where violations have occurred, orders to cease and desist, post notices and attest to compliance are all appropriate remedies. Johnson, 2025 EAM 2 (Nov. 4, 2025). Fines for serial offenders and for failure to cooperate are also appropriate when they are proportionate and remedial in nature. In re Teamster Power, 2021 EAM 21 (October 14, 2021).[5] Lastly, financial disclosure is a necessary precondition to any ultimate determination whether a financial assessment is warranted; prior precedent supports assessments ranging from $1,000 to $2,500 where aggravating factors are present. O'Brien-Zuckerman 2021, 2020 EAM 3 (Sept. 4, 2020); Teamster Power, 2021 EAM 21. Accordingly, we impose the following remedies:
(2) LaborFirst and Keches Law Group shall immediately cease making improper campaign contributions including sponsoring any episode of “Better Bad Ideas with Sean O'Brien,” or any substantially similar broadcast platform operated by or featuring a declared IBT International Officer candidate, so long as any such episode or broadcast contains campaign speech within the meaning of the Rules.
(3) Within three (3) working days of this decision, O'Brien shall disclose to the Election Supervisor the total amount of sponsorship payments received from LaborFirst and from Keches Law Group in connection with Episode 65 of “Better Bad Ideas with Sean O'Brien.” Disclosure shall include the payment dates, payment amounts, and the identity of the payee for each payment. Within five (5) working days of this decision O’Brien shall disgorge said funds by forwarding payment equal to such payments received to the Office of the Election Supervisor.
(4) All recordings, transcripts, contracts, agreements, invoices, and financial records relating to the sponsorship arrangements between O'Brien, the OZ Slate, and any sponsor of “Better Bad Ideas with Sean O'Brien” shall be preserved. No such records shall be altered, destroyed, concealed, or transferred pending further order of the Election Supervisor.
(5) Within two (2) days of the issuance of this decision, O'Brien shall remove from YouTube and any other online platform on which such episodes appear the portions of Episodes 55, 58, and 65 of “Better Bad Ideas with Sean O'Brien” identified above in the body of this decision. Within three days of the removal of this dialogue, O’Brien shall certify to the Election Supervisor that such dialogue has been removed and identify all online platforms from which it was removed.
(6) Within two (2) days of the issuance of this decision, the OZ Slate shall post a notice, in the form attached hereto, conspicuously on its website and keep it posted for 30 days following the issuance of this decision. Furthermore, O’Brien shall cause this notice to be posted conspicuously on the YouTube channel of the podcast, “Better Bad Ideas with Sean O’Brien,” and on any other online platforms where Episodes 55, 58, and 65 have appeared, where it will be available for viewing at the beginning of every episode of the podcast and keep it posted for 30 days following the issuance of this decision.
(7) The Election Supervisor retains jurisdiction to impose additional remedies, including monetary sanctions and disgorgement of sponsorship payments, if prohibited conduct continues after this decision or if the disclosures required by paragraph 3 reveal violations not addressed herein.
We do not order equal time or airtime for the opposing slate. The remedy for a prohibited employer contribution is cessation of the unlawful conduct and transparency as to its scope -- not redistribution of campaign benefits. An equal-time order would impose an affirmative campaign obligation on respondents and on the podcast sponsors that is not warranted by the violation found. The orders above are sufficient to address the violation and to deter its continuation.
APPELLATE RIGHTS
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within two (2) working days of receipt of this decision. Any party requesting a hearing must comply with the requirements of Article XIII, Section 2(i). All parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely in any such appeal upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Supervisor. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal, and shall be served upon:
Election Appeals Master
Barbara Jones
Election Appeals Master
IBTappealsmaster@bracewell.com
Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon the parties, as well as upon the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Service may be accomplished by email, using the “reply all” function on the email by which the party received this decision. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
Timothy S. Hillman
Election Supervisor
cc: Barbara Jones, IBTappealsmaster@bracewell.com
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
John Palmer
Richard Hooker
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
James L. Donovan Jr.
David Suetholz
Will Bloom
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Timothy S. Hillman
Paul Dever
Joe Childers
Joe Dever
Kelly Hogan
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the INTERNATIO0NAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
1750 K. STREET, N.W., SUITE 200
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
844-428-8683 TOLL FREE
FAX: 202-807-1074
electionsupervisor@ibtvote.org
NOTICE TO ALL INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS MEMBERS PER ORDER OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
The Election Supervisor has found that Sean O’Brien and the O’Brien Zuckerman Teamsters United 2026 slate campaign (“OZ Slate”) violated the Rules for the 2025-2026 International Brotherhood of Teamsters International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by broadcasting campaign material on Episode 65 of a podcast entitled “Better Bad Ideas with Sean O’Brien,” (the “Podcast”) funded by employer contributions.
The Election Supervisor will not tolerate violations of the Rules. As a result of the violation, the Election Supervisor has ordered O’Brien and/or the OZ Slate to (1) immediately cease accepting or using improper employer contributions including in connection with any podcast episodes or other broadcast content containing campaign speech; (2) disgorge all funds received in violation of the Rules; (3) preserve relevant records and materials; (4) remove the portions of the identified episodes of the Podcast with campaign speech as identified in the decision; and (5) post this notice on the OZ Slate’s campaign website, the YouTube channel the Podcast is posted on, and on any other online platforms where Episodes 55, 58, and 65 of the Podcast have appeared, for 30 days. The Election Supervisor further ordered LaborFirst and Keches Law Group to immediately cease making improper campaign contributions including sponsoring any episode of the Podcast or any substantially similar broadcast platform operated by or featuring a declared IBT International Officer candidate, so long as any such episode or broadcast contains campaign speech within the meaning of the Rules.
The Election Supervisor issued this decision in Palmer & Fearless Slate, 2026 ESD 87 (May 21, 2026), can be found online at https://www.ibtvote.org/Protest-Decisions/esd2025/2026esd087.
Any protest you have regarding your rights under the Election Rules or any conduct by any person or entity that violates the Election Rules should be filed with Hon. Timothy S. Hillman (Ret.), 1750 K Street, N.W., Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20006, telephone: 844-428-8683, fax: 202-807-1074, email: electionsupervisor@ibtvote.org.
This is an official notice of the Office of the Election Supervisor. It must remain posted until for thirty (30) days following the issuance of the above referenced decision, and must not be defaced or covered up.
[1] The timestamps appear in parentheses. Dialogue in italics are spoken by O’Brien’s guests.
[2] As noted above, on this record, we have no evidence that either employer intended for their funding of O’Brien’s podcast to be used to further the campaigns of O’Brien or the OZ Slate, nevertheless, we note that an employer's awareness of the candidate's electoral activities and the nature of the platform it chooses to fund may be directly relevant to whether the foreseeable effect standard is satisfied and whether other remedies are required. Here, LaborFirst and Keches Law Group each made recurring payments to sponsor episodes of a podcast hosted and operated by a sitting IBT General President who had publicly declared his candidacy for re-election. Each sponsored episode opened with an explicit on-air acknowledgment of the sponsorship by the candidate himself. The podcast is distributed on YouTube and other platforms to an audience of IBT members who are eligible voters in the 2026 International Officers Election. It could be argued that a reasonable person in either sponsor's position, a healthcare benefits administrator serving 510-plus unions, or a law firm that markets to union members in the northeast, would foresee that funding this candidate's broadcast platform would influence, positively, his election.
[3] As discussed in further detail below, Palmer filed P-134 on March 26, 2026. While that protest failed to satisfy the specificity requirement and was absorbed into P-147, we note that it was filed 43 days after the February 11th episode and 20 days after the March 6th episode.
[4] We note that the OES has considered the adoption of a continuing violation theory, under which the recurring sponsorship arrangement would be treated as a single ongoing violation tolling the filing period for each constituent episode. This theory has not been adopted in IBT election cases, and we decline to adopt it here. The two-day filing requirement serves the election administration interest in prompt resolution of disputes during an active election cycle. That interest is substantially undermined if a candidate may preserve an open-ended challenge to every episode of a podcast by filing one general protest. We express no view on whether a continuing violation theory might be appropriate in circumstances not presented here. However, we add one observation for the record. O'Brien produced Episode 65 on April 22, 2026 -- twenty-seven days after P-134 was filed and while the sponsorship arrangement was already under active investigation. No respondent sought guidance from the OES before continuing the sponsored podcast activity. That fact does not affect the timeliness analysis for P-147, but it is relevant to the nature and gravity of the violation found in P-148 and to the remedy ordered below.
[5] Here we do not impose a fine. This is not a repeat offense and the Respondents timely cooperated.