Voices Behind the Curtain - Part 3
An Editor's Note from CobbProb.com
This explainer is provided by CobbProb as a public-interest resource. We received the referenced NDA through open distribution in a delegate group chat and did not sign or agree to its terms. This analysis is offered in good faith, for educational and civic engagement purposes. We do not claim legal authority, but we believe in transparency, accountability, and empowering others to make informed decisions.
The full NDA is available here: https://files.catbox.moe/7jp6fz.pdf
Thinking about running for state party office? You’ll need to talk to delegates. But first—you might be asked to sign something…
Before you do, you may be asked to sign something called the Non-Disclosure and Non-Circumvention Agreement—an official document from the Georgia GOP. At first glance, it looks like a simple way to protect voter privacy. But when you read it closely, it raises some serious questions about access, speech, and fairness.
We’re here to break it down in plain English, with a light-hearted touch—but always in good faith.
1. Want to Talk to Delegates? There’s a Catch…
Georgia GOP rules say that if you're running for a state party office, you’re entitled to access a list of voting delegates. (GAGOP Rule 9.10(E), p 36) That’s a good thing—it allows for open campaigning and grassroots connection.
But then comes the fine print—required by Chairman Josh McKoon, issued under his authority. As both party chair and an attorney, McKoon has chosen to frame the delegate list not as a simple campaign tool, but as something so tightly guarded it comes with a 9-page contract, financial threats, and gag rules. Instead of opening the door to party participation, he’s posted a warning sign and locked it with legal language.
The NDA says you can only use that list to campaign for specific officer positions in 2025. Not for building relationships, not for future campaigns, not even to stay in touch with people who supported you. And once the election ends, the document requires you to delete everything.
Even a simple thank-you note might feel risky under these terms.
🧠 Would You Sign It?
Would you feel prepared to enter into this kind of contract—just to talk to fellow Republicans?
If your answer is “no,” you’re not alone. And that’s exactly why we’re talking about it.
2. The $25,000 Clause
There’s a part of the agreement that sets a $25,000 penalty for every violation (Section 10, p. 6). That’s not just for sharing the list with bad intentions—even accidentally forwarding an email, failing to delete a file in time, or misunderstanding one of the many layered rules could trigger the fee.
But it goes further. If you work with campaign consultants, managers, or even volunteers, they must sign the NDA too before they’re allowed to view the list (Section 3.1(e), p. 4). After the campaign, everyone involved is required to delete the data, then provide written confirmation, and in some cases, even a notarized affidavit that all materials have been destroyed:
“Receiving Party shall permanently destroy all Confidential Information and Trade Secrets provided to the Receiving Party by the GAGOP on or before June 8, 2025, and provide signed, sworn to, and notarized written notice to the GAGOP of compliance.” (Section 3.3, p. 5)
It reads less like a privacy safeguard and more like a digital loyalty oath. This isn’t just a list—it’s a hot potato wrapped in red tape, surrounded by legal landmines. And if one drops, it’s $25,000 per pop.
Meant to protect delegate privacy? Perhaps.
But for candidates—especially grassroots ones—it feels more like a tripwire dressed up in official stationery.
🧠 Ask Yourself
Would you feel confident navigating these terms—or responsible for others doing so—just to run for office?
3. Three Years of Silence
The NDA includes a three-year non-disparagement clause. That means anyone who signs it agrees not to publicly criticize the Georgia GOP or its affiliates—for three years.
That’s a long time in political life.
In that time, elections come and go, leadership changes, and platforms evolve—but this clause stays. And while civility is important, so is accountability. It raises the question: should a political candidate be asked to give up their right to speak freely about party leadership?
🧠 Ask Yourself
How would your campaign—or your conscience—be affected by this kind of speech restriction?
4. Who’s Covered? Pretty Much Everyone You Know
The agreement doesn’t just apply to the person who signs it—it applies to their team, volunteers, family, consultants, and friends who help with the campaign.
Imagine a well-meaning supporter who helps you manage emails accidentally forwards the list to the wrong folder. Under the NDA, that slip could fall back on you.
That’s a lot of responsibility to place on a grassroots campaign. When risk extends to your volunteers and friends, it discourages people from even getting involved.
🧠 Ask Yourself
Would you feel comfortable putting your friends and supporters under this kind of legal obligation?
5. A Trade Secret?
The delegate list is referred to in the agreement as a trade secret, which is typically language used for things like tech patents or secret recipes. In this case, it’s the contact information for party delegates—people who participate in the electoral process and want to be part of the conversation.
It’s reasonable to protect their data, but calling it a trade secret? Sure, it makes sense to guard Coca-Cola’s secret formula. But a list of folks who signed up to vote in a party election? That’s public service, not soda science.
🧠 Ask Yourself
Does it make sense to classify a list of public participants in a political process as a trade secret?
Is this NDA Fair?
In most settings, organizations use mutual NDAs—agreements that protect both parties.
A mutual NDA might say:
"We’ll give you this list for a specific purpose, and you’ll agree not to misuse it. In return, we won’t restrict your speech or penalize good-faith mistakes."
That would build trust.
This NDA, however, is not mutual. It places all obligations on the candidate, while the party retains all rights and control. The agreement includes steep financial penalties, silence clauses, and deletion requirements—but offers no corresponding transparency or protection for the candidate.
Instead of encouraging accountability on both sides, it creates a lopsided power dynamic—where risk, responsibility, and silence are imposed on one party only.
And that’s worth questioning.
In Conclusion… Why Political Parties Should Not Be Using NDAs
Political parties are not private corporations—they are civic institutions, charged with serving the public by supporting open dialogue, democratic participation, and fair representation. Using NDAs to control speech, limit transparency, or discourage candidates from engaging with delegates undermines these values.
While protecting sensitive delegate information is important, that can be done with clear data usage terms—not harsh legal penalties or gag clauses. Labeling a delegate list a "trade secret" or enforcing $25,000 fines for unintended mistakes sends a chilling message: speak carefully, or else.
This kind of restriction doesn't just feel wrong—it may also be unconstitutional. The First Amendment protects political speech above nearly all other forms of expression. When a party asks candidates to give up the right to criticize leadership, organize, or speak out for three years, it may cross the line into silencing dissent.
Political parties should welcome scrutiny—not avoid it. They should empower newcomers—not intimidate them. And they should build trust through transparency—not fear through fine print.
NDAs like this one don't protect democracy. They shield power. At their core, NDAs rely on secrecy and fear of penalty—two forces fundamentally at odds with the transparency, trust, and accountability that form the foundation of a healthy political process. And that’s not the party anyone signed up for.
A lawyer friend of ours noted:
"A contract that violates public policy is not enforceable. An example of this might be a contract that prohibits employees from reporting unlawful activity by their employer. Such a contract is unenforceable because it contravenes public policy."
Why Are We Talking About This?
Because transparency matters.
Because open dialogue matters.
Because delegates, candidates, and volunteers deserve to understand the documents they’re being asked to sign.
You can read the full NDA yourself, which has been shared publicly and converted from its original Word format to PDF, here: https://files.catbox.moe/7jp6fz.pdf
CobbProb didn’t sign this agreement. We’re not under any obligation to stay silent. And we believe in shining light—not to create drama, but to help people make informed decisions.
So we’re sharing what we’ve learned. With a little humor, a little heart, and a whole lot of respect for the grassroots.
What You Can Do?
If this explainer raised concerns for you, here are a few things you can do to help protect transparency and fairness:
Ask your district officers whether they’ve seen or signed an NDA.
Encourage transparency by advocating that party documents be made public before conventions.
Talk to other delegates and candidates about what these documents mean and how they affect open campaigning.
Share this explainer with fellow Republicans who care about grassroots access, fairness, and free speech.
Take a stand: propose resolutions at your next county or district meeting to put an end to NDA use in our political process.
Scroll down, read the FAQ, sign up on our Contact list, and follow on X.
