Take the matching funds and shove them up your ***

[Sematary]

I know that alot of supporters, including myself, would stop supporting Dr. Paul in a heartbeat if he accepted matching funds. Not only would the regulations strangle his candidacy but I would also lose the respect that I have for him. Needless to say - I know he won't because he is Ron Paul.

[Bradley in DC]

Last time I talked with Lew about it, the campaign had not yet made a decision on the question. Don't make baseless pronouncements.

[LibertyEagle]

I know that alot of supporters, including myself, would stop supporting Dr. Paul in a heartbeat if he accepted matching funds. Not only would the regulations strangle his candidacy but I would also lose the respect that I have for him. Needless to say - I know he won't because he is Ron Paul.

I'm sorry, but that is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. That you would stop supporting him if he accepted matching funds. The only man who could make great strides in turning our country around, before we totally lose it. Unfrickin' believable. :rolleyes:

[Original_Intent]

I think the matching funds would be a good idea and the constraints would not hurt Ron.

What would hurt him would be that he would be labelled a hypocrite, even though the matching funds are comprised of voluntary donations.

The fact that he would be hurt by some of his "true believers" becoming disillusioned would be countered by him reaching a lot more people who have yet to hear of him.

I am sure that RP will do the right thing, and I am not sure myself what that is.

I will say that matching funds were designed to help a Ron Paul type of candidacy. They are much more beneficial to a candidate that is getting many small donors than a candidate who has a few large donors.

[werdd]

Ron paul has never taken a congressional junket.

[Chester Copperpot]

I'll support Ron Paul no matter what his decision on taking public funds is.. In his heart he may not want to take them.. but if he found it necessary to take them and we were able to deliver Liberty back to this America, then I say he should - and it is a small price to pay.

[LibertyEagle]

Ron paul has never taken a congressional junket.

No sh*t. Accepting matching funds isn't a junket, either.

[Cindy]

I'd loose respect for him too. I love his message about taking responcibility for ourselves. He walks the talk and sets the example.

When speaking to others about his principled self, we can just add it to comments about how he won't accept donations from special interest groups, or take matching government funds from out of our taxes.

People who think he should take it don't seem to know or understand him well. He never would.

He wouldn't even let his own children take out government student loans or get government grants for college.

[Dustancostine]

I would be very very disappointed if he took matching funds.

--Dustan

[Dustancostine]

What are the constraints by the way?

[Duckman]

I really hope Ron does not take matching funds. He has already raised enough money that I don't think he needs it... I doubt he expected to raise as much as he has, frankly. And the number will just continue to go up, so I really don't think it is necessary.

Plus, if he does take matching funds, it will upset a good portion of his base and open up more attacks from other candidates that he is a hypocrite. Don't forget that Ron has already had to do some damage control regarding pork projects, and the excuse he used there ("the pork bills will pass anyway") isn't remotely applicable to this situation, where the decision to spend the federal money is his and his alone. I think it will be a very bad move if he takes the money.

[Sematary]

I'm sorry, but that is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. That you would stop supporting him if he accepted matching funds. The only man who could make great strides in turning our country around, before we totally lose it. Unfrickin' believable. :rolleyes:

I support him BECAUSE he doesn't take taxpayer money for unconstitutional reasons. Since he believes the income tax is unconstitutional, thus making the checkbox for donating to presidential campaigns unconstitutional, don't you think it would be a little hypocritical to accept those funds from an unconstitutional source?

[Sematary]

Last time I talked with Lew about it, the campaign had not yet made a decision on the question. Don't make baseless pronouncements.

I'm stating my position on the subject (loud and clear). :D

[Sematary]

No sh*t. Accepting matching funds isn't a junket, either.

Is it constitutional?

[Original_Intent]

There are limits to how much you can spend in any given state in the primaries.

I don't see why people see him taking matching funds as unprincipled.

Even student loans are FORCEFULLY taken in your taxes, the voluntary contribution to matching funds is the only freely given federal taxes.

Some will call it splitting hairs, I wholeheartedly support whatever Dr. Paul chooses to do regarding this.

[Sematary]

What are the constraints by the way?

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1389223

[reduen]

Why would anyone be dissapointed in Dr. Paul if he took the matching funds?

If these said funds are voluntarily donated to this cause then what is the problem?

I could understand the campaign not wanting to be constrained by any more regulation but for the life of me I can't figure out what is wrong with Dr.Paul accepting more voluntary donations...

Maybe somone could straighten me out on this.?.? :confused:

[richard1984]

I'll respect whatever choice Dr. Paul makes. He knows FAR more than I do, and if he accepts matching funds, I'll know if it is for a good reason.
If matching funds allows the campaign to run more commercials and increase name recognition--if accepting matching funds allows Ron Paul to win--then I'm all for it.
There's a time for looking good and humble, and there's a time for kicking ass. I think we should consider this a time for kicking ass! And if Ron Paul and his campaign decide to accept the matching funds, I'll be confident that it is for a damn good reason.
I understand the issue about appearing hypocritical, but again, I'll let the Doctor decide what's best for the campaign.

Victory is what matters.

I am concerned that the media will use any ammo they can dig up against Ron Paul, and it wouldn't be a stretch for them to make a big deal about accepting matching funds. But then again...how could they bash him without bashing the others (and not end up looking like fools--because you know Dr. Paul will put them in their place).


Anyway, I just don't know. I sure as hell won't stop supporting Ron Paul, though. T'hat's crazy talk. :rolleyes:

[DjLoTi]

Why don't we just wait until the numbers come out and stop trying to figure out the end-all and be-all

[Sematary]

Why would anyone be dissapointed in Dr. Paul if he took the matching funds?

If these said funds are voluntarily donated to this cause then what is the problem?

I could understand the campaign not wanting to be constrained by any more regulation but for the life of me I can't figure out what is wrong with Dr.Paul accepting more voluntary donations...

Maybe somone could straighten me out on this.?.? :confused:

As I see it - there is NO constitutional basis for this system as it is routed through the income tax system which, itself, is unconstitutional and detrimental to society.

[trispear]

People who donated into the matching funds MUST have believed in giving lesser-known candidates a choice as there is no other reason to choose it.

Other than that, I have no opinion yet.

[Sematary]

I'll respect whatever choice Dr. Paul makes. He knows FAR more than I do, and if he accepts matching funds, I'll know if it is for a good reason.
If matching funds allows the campaign to run more commercials and increase name recognition--if accepting matching funds allows Ron Paul to win--then I'm all for it.
There's a time for looking good and humble, and there's a time for kicking ass. I think we should consider this a time for kicking ass! And if Ron Paul and his campaign decide to accept the matching funds, I'll be confident that it is for a damn good reason.
I understand the issue about appearing hypocritical, but again, I'll let the Doctor decide what's best for the campaign.

Victory is what matters.

I am concerned that the media will use any ammo they can dig up against Ron Paul, and it wouldn't be a stretch for them to make a big deal about accepting matching funds. But then again...how could they bash him without bashing the others (and not end up looking like fools--because you know Dr. Paul will put them in their place).


Anyway, I just don't know. I sure as hell won't stop supporting Ron Paul, though. T'hat's crazy talk. :rolleyes:

My entire belief system in Ron Paul is based on the concept that he abides by the constitution and has honesty and integrity. I would see matching funds as a hypocritical move worthy of John Edwards. I couldn't vote for him, either.

[Duckman]

I don't see why people see him taking matching funds as unprincipled.

The reason many people here feel it is unprincipled is that the federal matching funds come from income tax revenue, which we are all vehemently opposed to.

As much as I personally wouldn't mind my tax dollars going to support Ron Paul, I think the truly "principled" decision for Ron to make, especially since he has made taxation such a key issue, would be to reject taking any tax money to fund his campaign. If he takes this money now it will make alot of people worry he might be softer than we would hope when it comes to cutting federal spending later.

For another candidate this would not be such a big issue, but Ron has too much staked in this issue IMO for him to do this and not come off as a hypocrite. And clearly, many people on the forums agree with me.

[Bradley in DC]

I'm stating my position on the subject (loud and clear). :D

Stating YOUR position is fine. Stating DR. PAUL'S position wrongly, isn't. :p

[CodeMonkey]

They may be voluntary, but I doubt the government is just willing to let their budget take a hit when people check the box. They probably assume that x% of people will check the box, and so they increase everyone's taxes to cover that, plus a little extra just in case they underestimated.

I would be disappointed if Ron Paul took the funds, but I'd still vote for him.

[Sematary]

Stating YOUR position is fine. Stating DR. PAUL'S position wrongly, isn't. :p

Where did I state Dr. Paul's position?

[reduen]

As I see it - there is NO constitutional basis for this system as it is routed through the income tax system which, itself, is unconstitutional and detrimental to society.


Well, I agree with the entire system being unconstitutional and I can see where you base your opinion. I would just hate to see Dr. Paul loose over something as petty as this. I mean the matching funds are the only thing truly voluntaiy about the current system..:)

[Bradley in DC]

My entire belief system in Ron Paul is based on the concept that he abides by the constitution and has honesty and integrity. I would see matching funds as a hypocritical move worthy of John Edwards. I couldn't vote for him, either.

He follows the law as it stands but works to change them to conform to the constitution. Only President Paul would get rid of matching funds!

A futher complication to the simplistic pronouncements here: how many of you are aware of the ballot access delegate petitioning consequences? For example in Ohio, we would have to get three times as many signatures if we don't take federal matching funds.

[Sematary]

Well, I agree with the entire system being unconstitutional and I can see where you base your opinion. I would just hate to see Dr. Paul loose over something as petty as this. I mean the matching funds are the only thing truly voluntaiy about the current system..:)

Dr. Paul would undoubtedly lose a large percentage of his Libertarian and constitutionalist suporters.

[ConstitutionGal]

I'll support Dr. Paul, no matter his decision on this. With that being said, I think it would be a great strategic move on his part to not take the matching funds and then make a HUGE deal about during any debates. Doing this would highlight his integrity in my humble opinion.

[Bradley in DC]

Where did I state Dr. Paul's position?

Needless to say - I know he won't because he is Ron Paul.

[Sematary]

He follows the law as it stands but works to change them to conform to the constitution. Only President Paul would get rid of matching funds!

A futher complication to the simplistic pronouncements here: how many of you are aware of the ballot access delegate petitioning consequences? For example in Ohio, we would have to get three times as many signatures if we don't take federal matching funds.

So.... He should take matching funds so that people don't have to get as many signatures? ???

[richard1984]

As I see it - there is NO constitutional basis for this system as it is routed through the income tax system which, itself, is unconstitutional and detrimental to society.

Mightn't it sort of counter-act the other unconstitutional laws, such as the $2300 donation limit?
I know that doesn't really justify it, necessarily, but maybe it could excuse it?
(a negative times a negative is a positive, right? ;))

[Sematary]

Needless to say - I know he won't because he is Ron Paul.

keyword being "I"
And I am fairly confident in that statement.

[reduen]

He follows the law as it stands but works to change them to conform to the constitution. Only President Paul would get rid of matching funds!

A futher complication to the simplistic pronouncements here: how many of you are aware of the ballot access delegate petitioning consequences? For example in Ohio, we would have to get three times as many signatures if we don't take federal matching funds.

Good point here. I mean does anyone here really think that Dr. Paul is not currently paying his Federal Income Taxes and by doing so, already participating in the system?

[Bradley in DC]

As I see it - there is NO constitutional basis for this system as it is routed through the income tax system which, itself, is unconstitutional and detrimental to society.

And President Paul would be the only candidate that could win that would implement as policy your goal!

[Sematary]

On further reflection, I would still vote for him even if he took the matching funds. I would be disappointed but he is (imo) the best hope to save America from it's government. I'd vote for the Libertarian candidate but that wouldn't help save our country.

[DrNoZone]

Now I'm starting to wonder about this matching funds stuff. I'll have to give it some more thought, but here's a decent article by Murray Sabrin on it:


Why I Took Matching Funds and Ron Paul Should Too (http://drnozone.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/why-i-took-matching-funds-and-ron-paul-should-too/)

[Duckman]

Look. Here's how I see it...

Not only is taking matching funds bad because it is federal money (we're broke, right?) and comes from the income tax (evil, right?) but you could look at this money as being "candidate welfare," in a way, since it's large amounts of federal money going to Presidential candidates...

I won't stop supporting Ron Paul if he takes this money, but it will damage my enthusiasm for Ron and I think he will lose some loyal supporters, and he will open himself up to attacks, so I really, really, really hope he doesn't take this money.

[reduen]

On further reflection, I would still vote for him even if he took the matching funds. I would be disappointed but he is (imo) the best hope to save America from it's government. I'd vote for the Libertarian candidate but that wouldn't help save our country.

Glad to see this. I mean unless you are not currently paying you Federal Income Taxes, you are already participating in this unconstitutional system right?

[Sematary]

Glad to see this. I mean unless you are not currently paying you Federal Income Taxes, you are already participating in this unconstitutional system right?

Ya - I prefer freedom to prison. Although, I consider the income tax a form of imprisonment, at least the walls are missing. I don't have whatever it is the Brown's have in them to face down the government like that. If it was just me and no family involved, maybe....

[Bradley in DC]

Ron Paul, Matching Funds, and Libertarian Ethics
http://reason.com/blog/show/122756.html

Brian Doherty | October 1, 2007, 10:13am

Libertarian economist Walter Block, author of the wonderful Defending the Undefendable (a controversial book that applies libertarian logic relentlessly to explain why any non-rights-violating action, however disreputable, ought to cheered), wonders whether Ron Paul should accept federal matching funds.

He concludes that Paul would be within his libertarian rights to do so (although most other candidates wouldn't be), but should eschew them anyway for practical reasons. Read the whole thing if you are wondering why.

[SouthernGuy15]

If he takes matching funds I will no longer support him.

[max]

To not take matching funds is RIDICULOUS. RP is already at a disadvanatge...and you want to put him an even greater disadvatage just make an extreme ideological point?

It's not like he is taking food stamps for god's sake! It's a public election!

There are some forms of government spending that are legitimate.

If RP doesn't take making funds, i would seriously question his judgement , as well as the time and money i am putting in.

why should i waste my money if my guy is DELIBERATELY going to disadvantage himself over some petty ideological splitting of hairs...He takes a salary doesnt he?

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/sabrin7.html

Why I Took Matching Funds and Ron Paul Should Too

by Murray Sabrin

I was the New Jersey Libertarian Party candidate for governor in 1997. The primary goal of the campaign was to raise $210,000 by the September 2 deadline to qualify for matching funds and get a spot in three televised debates. One of the "strings" in accepting the matching funds was to participate in three televised debates with Governor Whitman and the Democrat challenger, Jim McGreevey, who was a state senator and mayor of Woodbridge at the time.

Those were the rules. Raise the money, apply for the matching funds, and get the funds. The funds were used by us to spread the message of limited government, free enterprise and personal responsibility throughout the Garden State and expose millions of New Jerseyans to libertarian ideas.

Mission accomplished. We were all over television and radio and before newspaper editorial boards. On Election Day, we received nearly 5% of the vote or about 113,000 votes. Whitman won by about 21,000 votes, receiving less than 50% of the vote, thus ending any chance she had for national office. (She still hates my appearance in the debates, because I showed the world she was and still is a big government Republican.)

If we had not raised the minimum amount to qualify for the matching funds, I would not have been in the three debates, and we would have received much less than 1% of the vote. And the libertarian message would have been silenced in this campaign, for all intents and purposes. Because of the exposure I received during the 1997 campaign, I have become the unofficial spokesperson for libertarianism in the State of New Jersey.

Keep in mind, the New Jersey election commission (ELEC) denied our original application, because of a slight technical issue regarding an interpretation of the rules. We then had a hearing with an administrative law judge who ruled in our favor. The election commission subsequently approved our application on September 19, more than two weeks after our application was first filed, and about six weeks before the November election. In just six weeks, we created a buzz in the state, because we played by the rules. We reached millions of New Jerseyans and Americans because one of the debates was televised on C-SPAN, and we had the funds to pay for radio and television ads.

Ron Paul has been in nearly a dozen debates and forums. Yet, there are tens of millions of American who do not know who he is. Only exposure in the MSM will change that. One way would be to obtain the federal matching funds to get his message out to the general public, not just GOP primary voters. Independent voters could play a major role in some of the early primaries. Whatever the rules are they cannot be very onerous or come with many strings attached.

The Ron Paul campaign should accept the matching funds with a clear conscience, because Dr. Paul would be playing by the rules of the game. After all, he accepts a taxpayer funded congressional salary and taxpayer funds to run his congressional offices. If Ron Paul supporters do not want him to obtain matching funds because they are "tainted," they should also demand he depend on voluntary contributions to pay for all the expenses, including salaries, of his DC and Texas offices. Clearly, that would be an unrealistic application of libertarian principles.

It seems if libertarians or traditional conservatives play by the rules of the game, the MSM call them hypocrites, and if we want to reduce or abolish the welfare-warfare state, we are called extremists. In short, we can never "win" or "please" the media elites and the pundit class. So let Ron be Ron.

Finally, if the campaign will not accept matching funds, then all the Ron Paul supporters in America will have to step up to the plate more than they have already. During the past week, Paul supporters have shown they can rise to the occasion when they are called upon. I estimate that if the Paul campaign raises $30 million in the fourth quarter ending December 31, he will definitely win the GOP presidential nomination.

October 2, 2007

Murray Sabrin, Ph.D. [send him mail], is professor of finance in the Anisfield School of Business, Ramapo College of New Jersey, where he is executive director of the Center for Business and Public Policy. He is the author of Tax Free 2000: The Rebirth of American Liberty. Sabrin's weekly column appears Monday on USADaily.com, and he blogs on NJVoices.com and ShapTalk.com.

[Duckman]

Ya - I prefer freedom to prison.

That's the key difference. We as citizens don't have much of a choice but to pay the income tax, unless you want to live under virtual house arrest with your home surrounded by the feds. But Ron can freely make the CHOICE of whether or not to take the money and benefit from the corrupt system. It's really a case where princples need to triumph over short-term gain. If Ron abandons his principles here, it will be really disturbing, especially since he has raised so much money and continues to raise so much money that I don't think he even needs this money that badly.

[lisajames96]

i copied this from a 1040 instruction book: Presidential Election
Campaign Fund
This fund helps pay for Presidential elec-
tion campaigns. The fund reduces candion
dates’ dependence on large contributions
from individuals and groups and places
candidates on an equal financial footing in
the general election. If you want $3 to go to
this fund, check the box. If you are filing a
joint return, your spouse can also have $3
go to the fund. If you check a box, your tax
or refund will not change.
I read or saw somewhere that all of our income tax collected goes toward national debt and none of it is apportioned. So where does the campaign fund money come from, by the time the candidate needs it. Please correct my reply if I am mistakened. I still would support Dr. Paul either way.

[KingTheoden]

Before everyone catapults invectives, let's stop to think about this situation.

The media is icing out Dr. Paul; they will follow around McCain all day (who went without any supporters while in NH) or just rant about how Huckleberry is a savior for disenfranchised conservatives.

Ron Paul should use what resources are provided to him for this fight. It is kind of silly to withdraw support of the good doctor were he to accept matching funds. It would be much more ridiculous than if Continental soldiers went AWOL because the Green Mountain Boys stole artillery from the British!

Remember, these funds are given voluntarily by tax payers. There is a box for you to tick to give $3; I never do, but clearly many give to this fund. It is basically a government administered charity.

My only concern with taking matching funds is the spending restraints, and I am not clear as to what they are and if they apply only for the primaries or carry into the general election.

[Sematary]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/sabrin7.html

Why I Took Matching Funds and Ron Paul Should Too

by Murray Sabrin

I was the New Jersey Libertarian Party candidate for governor in 1997. The primary goal of the campaign was to raise $210,000 by the September 2 deadline to qualify for matching funds and get a spot in three televised debates. One of the "strings" in accepting the matching funds was to participate in three televised debates with Governor Whitman and the Democrat challenger, Jim McGreevey, who was a state senator and mayor of Woodbridge at the time.

Those were the rules. Raise the money, apply for the matching funds, and get the funds. The funds were used by us to spread the message of limited government, free enterprise and personal responsibility throughout the Garden State and expose millions of New Jerseyans to libertarian ideas.

Mission accomplished. We were all over television and radio and before newspaper editorial boards. On Election Day, we received nearly 5% of the vote or about 113,000 votes. Whitman won by about 21,000 votes, receiving less than 50% of the vote, thus ending any chance she had for national office. (She still hates my appearance in the debates, because I showed the world she was and still is a big government Republican.)

If we had not raised the minimum amount to qualify for the matching funds, I would not have been in the three debates, and we would have received much less than 1% of the vote. And the libertarian message would have been silenced in this campaign, for all intents and purposes. Because of the exposure I received during the 1997 campaign, I have become the unofficial spokesperson for libertarianism in the State of New Jersey.

Keep in mind, the New Jersey election commission (ELEC) denied our original application, because of a slight technical issue regarding an interpretation of the rules. We then had a hearing with an administrative law judge who ruled in our favor. The election commission subsequently approved our application on September 19, more than two weeks after our application was first filed, and about six weeks before the November election. In just six weeks, we created a buzz in the state, because we played by the rules. We reached millions of New Jerseyans and Americans because one of the debates was televised on C-SPAN, and we had the funds to pay for radio and television ads.

Ron Paul has been in nearly a dozen debates and forums. Yet, there are tens of millions of American who do not know who he is. Only exposure in the MSM will change that. One way would be to obtain the federal matching funds to get his message out to the general public, not just GOP primary voters. Independent voters could play a major role in some of the early primaries. Whatever the rules are they cannot be very onerous or come with many strings attached.

The Ron Paul campaign should accept the matching funds with a clear conscience, because Dr. Paul would be playing by the rules of the game. After all, he accepts a taxpayer funded congressional salary and taxpayer funds to run his congressional offices. If Ron Paul supporters do not want him to obtain matching funds because they are "tainted," they should also demand he depend on voluntary contributions to pay for all the expenses, including salaries, of his DC and Texas offices. Clearly, that would be an unrealistic application of libertarian principles.

It seems if libertarians or traditional conservatives play by the rules of the game, the MSM call them hypocrites, and if we want to reduce or abolish the welfare-warfare state, we are called extremists. In short, we can never "win" or "please" the media elites and the pundit class. So let Ron be Ron.

Finally, if the campaign will not accept matching funds, then all the Ron Paul supporters in America will have to step up to the plate more than they have already. During the past week, Paul supporters have shown they can rise to the occasion when they are called upon. I estimate that if the Paul campaign raises $30 million in the fourth quarter ending December 31, he will definitely win the GOP presidential nomination.

October 2, 2007

Murray Sabrin, Ph.D. [send him mail], is professor of finance in the Anisfield School of Business, Ramapo College of New Jersey, where he is executive director of the Center for Business and Public Policy. He is the author of Tax Free 2000: The Rebirth of American Liberty. Sabrin's weekly column appears Monday on USADaily.com, and he blogs on NJVoices.com and ShapTalk.com.

I read it yesterday. I don't honestly know how he can call himself a Libertarian.

[Pete]

I think it's OK for Ron Paul to take matching funds if it's a last resort to keep the campaign going, to get the message out. It's really no different than his stand on pork, that as long as the money is going to be spent anyway, why not some benefits for his constituents?

HOWEVER, I don't think we've even seen the beginning of the support the campaign will receive when it tips. The mass is just starting to come together. I say this as an internet junky in a family of internet junkies, and we just caught onto RP in September.

A few more months and this thing is going to snowball.

[Cindy]

Canidate welfare indeed.

I know people want him to have mega funds to compete with the big boys with.

This isn't the way. He has something they don't, and that is US, and our willingness to do all we have to get his name out, and to get him the funds ourselves.

Welfare goes to the lazy who do not work or can not work. Pauls supporters are not lazy and can work for him in infinite ways.

Look at what the box office takes in on a friday Night in America. The money is out there. We just need to be as much as possible plugging Paul.

I'm going to Bush Gardens in Tampa today and my whole family will be wearing RP T-Shirts. This is a simple thing to do as there are many simple things to do to get him name recognition. Once people get curious, they will find more on him themselves and be won over.

[Sematary]

To not take matching funds is RIDICULOUS. RP is already at a disadvanatge...and you want to put him an even greater disadvatage just make an extreme ideological point?

It's not like he is taking food stamps for god's sake! It's a public election!

There are some forms of government spending that are legitimate.

If RP doesn't take making funds, i would seriously question his judgement , as well as the time and money i am putting in.

why should i waste my money if my guy is DELIBERATELY going to disadvantage himself over some petty ideological splitting of hairs...He takes a salary doesnt he?

Show me where - in the constitution, that this type of expenditure is authorized, and I will agree with you.

[ghemminger]

Why I Took Matching Funds and Ron Paul Should Too

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/sabrin7.html

NICE READ...

[SouthernGuy15]

To take matching funds would mean Ron Paul is not a man of principle.

Quite frankly, I'm hoping Ron Paul is not a pragmatist like so many of the other politicians that so frequently "compromise" on many issues.

If Ron Paul takes the matching funds I will find another candidate to support that refuses to accept them.

[Cindy]

I think it's OK for Ron Paul to take matching funds if it's a last resort to keep the campaign going, to get the message out. It's really no different than his stand on pork, that as long as the money is going to be spent anyway, why not some benefits for his constituents?

HOWEVER, I don't think we've even seen the beginning of the support the campaign will receive when it tips. The mass is just starting to come together. I say this as an internet junky in a family of internet junkies, and we just caught onto RP in September.

A few more months and this thing is going to snowball.

Wow, new too Paul as of Sept!!!:) Welcome to the rEVOLution as they say!!!!!!!:cool:

[KingTheoden]

To not take matching funds is RIDICULOUS. RP is already at a disadvanatge...and you want to put him an even greater disadvatage just make an extreme ideological point?

It's not like he is taking food stamps for god's sake! It's a public election!

There are some forms of government spending that are legitimate.

If RP doesn't take making funds, i would seriously question his judgement , as well as the time and money i am putting in.

why should i waste my money if my guy is DELIBERATELY going to disadvantage himself over some petty ideological splitting of hairs...He takes a salary doesnt he?

Great post, Max, but one slight correction is needed: the presidential fund is not 'government money' per se. It is freely contributed donations from Americans who wish to give a few dollars to ensure some candidates can get matching funds. It is not a tax.

[wbbgjr]

As I see it - there is NO constitutional basis for this system as it is routed through the income tax system which, itself, is unconstitutional and detrimental to society.

but the funds do not come from taxes.

yes, maybe RP would want to get rid of the practice cuz he doesn't think it's the role of the federal govt but he also thinks the same way about education. what about any public schools his grandchildren attend that receive federal funding?

this, I believe us a minor issue.

[SouthernGuy15]

Ron Paul can win without matching funds! We don't need them!

However, it would be better to LOSE than to take matching funds.

Ron Paul should NEVER support government sponsored welfare.

[JS4Pat]

I thought we were accepting matching funds and that is why we are limited to $2,300 per individual.

Are you saying that EVERY American is limited to giving $2,300 to a single candidate whether that candidate is recieving government funds or not? If so - that has to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

Another Question...
So why are Hillary and Romney not accepting matching funds? What is the upside (besides adhering to principle) of NOT accepting matching funds?

[wolv275]

I don't necessarily agree with the matching funds issue, but i'm also a realist and these options were put in place for a reason, and may i add that even though most of us believe that taxes are unconstitutional, we still pay them every year and if "we" choose we check that little box to donate the $3 to the matching funds campaign. So I look at it as a contribution rather than him taking tax payer money? After all when he wins all those people will benefit from checking that little check box.

[Craig_R]

I read it yesterday. I don't honestly know how he can call himself a Libertarian.

I'm with you brother. We Libertarians are famous for splitting idealogical hairs.
thats what makes us, us. :D

If Paul were to take these "public" monies, I may still vote for him, but will no longer actively support the campaign.

Because I would be voting for the lesser of evils.

[max]

Show me where - in the constitution, that this type of expenditure is authorized, and I will agree with you.

You aint gonna restore the constitution unless RP wins first!!!!! And good luck doing that without matching funds!

This type of rigid ideological purity is silly. If u want to do away with matching funds, elect RP first then have him do it.

In the meantime, until the rules change...only a fool would enter a football game without a helmet while his opponents are wearing them

[KingTheoden]

Show me where - in the constitution, that this type of expenditure is authorized, and I will agree with you.

Sematary, it is NOT I say again NOT a government expenditure. These are donations and the government serves as the caretaker of the funds. It is not hypocritical in anyway to accept these funds. The media will not cover Ron Paul so we need to use whatever resources there are to get our message out there.

In the War for Independence, we sure did do more than take British donations offered by London. We stole a bunch of guns and cannons! Was that hypocritical?

The only issue here should be assessing the effects of the regulations that come with the matching funds.

[SouthernGuy15]

Quite frankly, I refuse to support pragmatic candidates. I would rather support someone GUARANTEED TO LOSE that would stand by his principles rather than someone who would WIN that was a good candidate, but occasionally compromised on certain issues.

I vote principled. That is why I am a Libertarian. I refuse to support the lesser of two evils.

[DjLoTi]

Why would anybody let money get in the way of the goal of freedom?

That being said, how about we stop assuming and pretending like we know the future and truly accept RP as our candidate. w/e. these threads are useless and annoying. Sorry.

[Sematary]

You aint gonna restore the constitution unless RP wins first!!!!! And good luck doing that without matching funds!

This type of rigid ideological purity is silly. If u want to do away with matching funds, elect RP first then have him do it.

In the meantime, until the rules change...only a fool would enter a football game without a helmet while his opponents are wearing them

Ok - let's try it another way. The true frontrunners don't take the money because they know it will hamper their efforts and hurt their campaigns.

[Badger Paul]

The money is voluntary yes (forgot about that) but then you have to abide by spending limits and the Supreme Court has said spending = speech? Why limit you're own free speech. Besides, do you think RP supports having government sponsored campaigns? I doubt it.

Let's just keep raising more money so we don't have to deal with this issue.

[Cindy]

I thought we were accepting matching funds and that is why we are limited to $2,300 per individual.

Are you saying that EVERY American is limited to giving $2,300 to a single candidate whether that candidate is recieving government funds or not? If so - that has to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

Another Question...
So why are Hillary and Romney not accepting matching funds? What is the upside (besides adhering to principle) of NOT accepting matching funds?


Yes, the rule applies to everyone.

The upside is not coming across as being pathetic.

However, the front runners who take special interest money are even more pathetic to me.

[SouthernGuy15]

Ron Paul is my candidate. I want him to win. I have been supporting him for months. I've told many people about him.

However, if he takes matching funds then I will find another candidate to support.

[Sematary]

Sematary, it is NOT I say again NOT a government expenditure. These are donations and the government serves as the caretaker of the funds. It is not hypocritical in anyway to accept these funds. The media will not cover Ron Paul so we need to use whatever resources there are to get our message out there.

In the War for Independence, we sure did do more than take British donations offered by London. We stole a bunch of guns and cannons! Was that hypocritical?

The only issue here should be assessing the effects of the regulations that come with the matching funds.

You should also assess how it will affect his core voter base and his core voter base has alot of libertarians and constitutionalists in it and he will need them to win.

[SouthernGuy15]

If he accepts matching funds he will lose a lot of support.

For example, I will probably vote for Steve Kubby.

[Bradley in DC]

So.... He should take matching funds so that people don't have to get as many signatures? ???

I'm pointing out that we're living in a real world that won't conform more closely to our ideals until we get Dr. Paul elected and that that real world isn't so simplistic.

[SouthernGuy15]

We should not compromise because the world is screwed up. We must always stick to our principles.

[JS4Pat]

Yes, the rule applies to everyone.

The upside is not coming across as being pathetic.

However, the front runners who take special interest money are even more pathetic to me.

Are you saying there in no FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE to not accepting matching funds? There must be...

[richard1984]

We should not compromise because the world is screwed up. We must always stick to our principles.

I think that sticking to principles while performing your job as a Representative or other government official is one thing.
Sticking to principles when, say, your house is being broken into is another thing. (Generally, as a matter of principle, I don't shoot people. But if someone breaks into my house and threatens my family, you'd better believe the fool's gonna regret stepping foot on my property.)

[stevedasbach]

I believe it would be fatal for Dr. Paul to accept matching funds. I say that for reasons that have nothing to do with libertarian purity or principles. It would be fatal for Dr. Paul to accept matching funds because it would directly contradict his stated beliefs and actions over his entire political career.

Dr. Paul refuses to accept his Congressional pension. He refused as a physician to accept Medicare (treating patients for free or at reduced cost instead). He refused to allow his kids to accept federal student loans.

Accepting matching funds would turn those couragous acts of principle into grandstanding political stunts. It would make Dr. Paul look like just another political whore.

Other real conservatives could accept the funds and justify it. However, Dr. Paul cannot without contradicting everything his candidacy is based on. No matter how much money is involved, it isn't worth it.

Tactically, it's also a bad idea because of the expenditure limits and other strings that come with the money.

[KingTheoden]

You should also assess how it will affect his core voter base and his core voter base has alot of libertarians and constitutionalists in it and he will need them to win.

And I am one of them. And I have no problem whatsoever with he accepting matching funds because THEY ARE DONATIONS. My only concern is the set of regulations.

You did not comment on my Revolutionary War analogy. And that is what this is, a peaceful revolution. And we should deploy all LEGAL and ETHICAL means at achieving victory.

This is not existential philosophy class, this is the last shot we have at saving our country.

[JS4Pat]

Tactically, it's also a bad idea because of the expenditure limits and other strings that come with the money.

What are these expenditure limits and other major "strings"?

[DjLoTi]

This topic is such BS and I noticed no one quoted me and tried to argue me... there's *no* reason to stop supporting the unequivocal best man for the white house. It's not about making somebody who's 'cool' win, and he loses his 'coolness' by taking matching funds. It's about doing what's right. People need to get off their high-horse.

[TooConservative]

The reason many people here feel it is unprincipled is that the federal matching funds come from income tax revenue, which we are all vehemently opposed to.

Actually, that's not true.

If you choose not to check the box, your money will go to the general fund.

If you do, $3 will be diverted to finance public campaigns.

It's actually very similar to a congressional earmark. Except you can impose it without anyone else having to vote for it. A unilateral earmark is what it most resembles.

[lisajames96]

If we are voluteering the money, how are we giving it to them(govt)? Through taxes? What tax funds the Campaign fund? And is it robbed by the govt on occasion like our SS funds are?

[Craig_R]

I've got to say, this entire debate about matching funds has got me very disappointed. I fear for the future of the country and the freedom movement should we fail in installing RP in the whitehouse. That such support exists within this campaign, to justify the means with the ends. A decidedly neo-con ideology. Is nearly unthinkable. I shudder to think where else people are willing to go, as in do. If it is of benifit to them. what warped justification can be made for any number of things, that to me, is the opposite of what we're collectively attempting. To get Ron Paul the presidency honestly, on principals, and integrity

[happyphilter]

I couldent care less. Im pretty sure it would help get the LARGER casual voting crowd, even if it distanced a few of the hard core followers. but what are you gonna do about it, vote Hillary?

[richard1984]

Dr. Paul refuses to accept his Congressional pension. He refused as a physician to accept Medicare (treating patients for free or at reduced cost instead). He refused to allow his kids to accept federal student loans.

I consider the above to be different than accepting matching funds. The things listed above are not only more personal matters, but also things funded by taxes. The matching funds, again, are donations. I'd probably trust that money with Dr. Paul more than I would trust it to be left in the government's hands (not that it's that much money).
Anyway, I'm not really for or against the matching funds. I'm just saying that there seems to be a difference between them and tax-funded things.

[Original_Intent]

This is not existential philosophy class, this is the last shot we have at saving our country.

I love this line and it sums up why libertarians lose. They are so caught up in remaining purists, and because even among themselves they can find 5% to fight each other about, they never unite and fight the real enemy.

I am torn on the matching funds issue, so I am not sayin ghe should or should not. I support Ron's decision on the matter.

[stevedasbach]

I consider the above to be different than accepting matching funds. The things listed above are not only more personal matters, but also things funded by taxes. The matching funds, again, are donations. I'd probably trust that money with Dr. Paul more than I would trust it to be left in the government's hands (not that it's that much money).
Anyway, I'm not really for or against the matching funds. I'm just saying that there seems to be a difference between them and tax-funded things.

Matching funds are tax-funded. Every dollar of matching funds accepted adds a dollar to the deficit. It's not like Congress cuts spending by that amount.

When you check the box, you authorize the government to spend $3 of tax money on Presidential elections. Since they don't have any spare dollars lying around, the deficit increases by $3, which we borrow from the Chinese.

Some states have check-off systems where a dollar of your refund goes to fund campaigns. That IS a voluntary contribution, since it is your money that you are donating. That's not how the federal system works.

[Ron Paul Fan]

Dear McCain-Feingold proponents,

We don't want matching funds and we don't need them! I'm not sure those of you saying that I should take matching funds are grasping the concept of this campaign. We don't take money from the federal government! And we don't sell our souls to John McCain to get more money! We've got little to no debt and several million dollars in the bank. Why would you want to limit our spending in key states when all of you have been on my ass about not spending enough? I don't want to be a hypocrite like you guys. I'm known for staying consistent and not flip flopping. You guys want to turn me into Mitt Romney! I say no to matching funds! For Liberty!!!!!!!!!!

Ron Paul

[DrNoZone]

Matching funds are tax-funded. Every dollar of matching funds accepted adds a dollar to the deficit. It's not like Congress cuts spending by that amount.

When you check the box, you authorize the government to spend $3 of tax money on Presidential elections. Since they don't have any spare dollars lying around, the deficit increases by $3, which we borrow from the Chinese.

Some states have check-off systems where a dollar of your refund goes to fund campaigns. That IS a voluntary contribution, since it is your money that you are donating. That's not how the federal system works.

Everyone, check out the thread I started on this here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=21747

It has specific information from the FEC on this issue that should make a difference in how you see this issue.

[Brock Landers]

Accepting matching funds would turn those couragous acts of principle into grandstanding political stunts. It would make Dr. Paul look like just another political whore.

Other real conservatives could accept the funds and justify it. However, Dr. Paul cannot without contradicting everything his candidacy is based on. No matter how much money is involved, it isn't worth it.

Tactically, it's also a bad idea because of the expenditure limits and other strings that come with the money.


Word. He's made it this far without compromising his principles....why would he need to compromise right now?

By some of the same logic people are using, one could justify accepting the congressional pension, or student loans.

Ron Paul is up against plenty of those who believe the ends justify the means. Most of them had principles at one point, but those principles were compromised at one point in order to grab that power. After that, it's a slippery slope.

He could have justified accepting Medicare, but to his own detriment he preformed his medicine for free or at a reduced rate. If all that money had been accepted, and grown at a reasonable rate, he'd have a lot more to donate to his own campaign now, right? Ends justify the means, right? Nope...if he has accepted that Medicare, many of us would not be familiar with the name "Ron Paul" right now. And we'd be complaining for yet another election that there isn't a single good choice among the candidates.

I'll vote for him regardless, but I prefer that he choose not to accept matching funds.

[SouthernGuy15]

Quite frankly, it is BETTER TO LOSE and end up with your principles intact THAN TO WIN, but sacrifice what you believe in.

Sticking to your principles is what matters most in this life. It is more important than life itself.

[DjLoTi]

can we get a thread topic title change?

[tmg19103]

What I said in a previous thread on this, and I stand by it:

I can't speak for anyone else on this board, but I consider Dr. Paul the last hope for America. If Hillary gets elected it will be eight years of her HUGE government - and remember, not only did she vote for the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act, but in the most recent Dem. debate she did not promise to have our troops out of Iraq by the end of her first term if elected. How many more hundreds of billions of dollars and lost American lives will that cost? What is the price of the life of even one brave soldier who is fighting in a useless, winless, unconstitutional war?

Think Bill Clinton loved the power of office? Look at how much Bush has contorted that power in his favor with all his executive orders. Billary will be nothing less than a socialist, money gobbling monarchy that just further destroys our rights and takes away our freedoms and liberty.

I realize taking matching funds is something that Dr. Paul would not prefer to do, and I don't like the idea either. HOWEVER, I believe Dr. Paul should take them for the better good. Our rights can be limited for the better good. You have a 1st Amendment right to free speech, but you can't legally yell "fire" in a crowded theater unless there is an actual fire.

I am seeing a perfrect storm developing here for Dr. Paul. It would be great if the Christian Right went third party. The fewer people voting, the better for Dr. Paul. Dr. Paul has been preaching the same message for 30 years, yet why is it now all of the sudden taking off? It's because people are coming to realize how corrupt our government is, and because they want to restore integrity, the rule of law, and constitutional principles to the White House.

Unfortunately, too many people out there are sheep and will just vote for the candidate who "seems" to fit their values - when they really know nothing about that candidate - or Dr. Paul.

Even with the perfect storm, I am afraid Dr. Paul will not win without matching funds. As distasteful as the concept of him taking those voluntary citizen funds sounds, I believe he NEEDS to do it as we are in a point in history where WE can change our country and the world for the for the better - BUT only if Dr. Paul is elected. In my mind, the consequences of Dr. Paul NOT being elected far out weigh the consequences and distaste that comes with accepting matching funds.

Once people hear Dr. Paul and understand his message, they tend to gravitate towards that message, and will thus vote for Dr. Paul. I am afraid that without matching funds Dr. Paul will not be able to get his messsage across to enough voters through MSM advertising, and he thus won't win and the last great hope of restoring our Republic will be lost.

Eight years of Billary or matching funds? I'll take the matching funds, thank you.



It's a slippery slope from there brother. What else should Ron Paul compromise on once he's in office? Pretty soon he'll be just like the rest if he follows that path. No matching funds!

I think we all know Dr. Paul would not further compromise his principles if he took matching funds. I believe the better good of a Ron Paul presidency far out weighs this one issue.

Ths constitution can legally be limited for the better good of the people. It is not an absolute and Dr. Paul has himself stated the constitution is imperfect. I believe in this one case Dr. Paul's principles can be limited for the better good. I see no slippery slope. I actually see that as a sell out to Dr. Paul's firm and principled positions to indicate that by accepting matching funds Dr. Paul would somehow become what - become a neo-con and change his platform? Give me a break. Take the matching funds for the better good of the people and for the future of our children and grandchildren, while Dr. Paul sticks to the rest of his message and platform as he no doubt will.

[happyphilter]

So how does taking matching funds go against his principles?

[SouthernGuy15]

I will boldly oppose Ron Paul's campaign if he takes matching funds.

[LibertyEagle]

People who think he should take it don't seem to know or understand him well.

Oh really? I've only supported him for 25 years. Maybe 26, will be the magic number and I will then "understand him". :rolleyes:

[kalami]

I really don't know why we go on at lengths about a non-issue. There hasn't been any talk of this by the campaign as far as I know. Ron Paul has yet to reveal his financial situation and whether this action would even be a viable strategy.

[LibertyEagle]

Quite frankly, it is BETTER TO LOSE and end up with your principles intact THAN TO WIN, but sacrifice what you believe in.

Sticking to your principles is what matters most in this life. It is more important than life itself.

Is that you Huckabee? It sure sounds like you. :p

[happyphilter]

I will boldly oppose Ron Paul's campaign if he takes matching funds.

then vote for hillary. The fact is that he doe's not have enough money, and he needs more then we can provide. I still fail to see the problem with using the matching funds, what do you think the money is going to be used for if it doesn't go to ron paul?

[LibertyEagle]

I certainly hope those of you who are acting all holier than thou, have put your money where your mouths are and have donated the $2300 maximum. If you have not, you're just blowing smoke.

[Brock Landers]

So how does taking matching funds go against his principles?

If the money is indeed being taken via the income tax, and the only voluntary part of the 'contribution' is whether it goes for matching funds, or general government purposes, then I believe it would be against his principles to accept it.

Also, if the law which allows him to ask for this money is deemed unconstitutional by Dr. Paul, for allowing government to limit and regulate individuals' speech (in the form of campaign contributions), then I don't see how it would be consistent to both claim the law was unconstitutional and accept certain benefits from it.

[American]

Lets talk about what were going to do when we attack Iran, I think it would be more constructive.

[JS4Pat]

What is the financial & tactical advantage of the front runners choosing NOT to accept matching funds?

[DeadheadForPaul]

If Dr. Paul decides to take matching funds and you turn on him then you're as dogmatic/stubborn as a neo-con or communist.

Dr. Paul presents the best chance we have at liberty. Hell, he might be the best chance of my lifetime, and you're willing to turn on him and vote for Hillary, Guiliani, etc because he might take matching funds?

Dr. Paul will change the government and our society for the better. That's really nitpicky to get all up in arms over a small issue such as matching funds. If that's your attitude, good riddance. For your 1 vote lost, we'll get 10 more with our matching funds cash. People who would leave Paul for taking matching funds are the same people who drove me out of the LP in the first place. I cant stand irrational ideologues

[SouthernGuy15]

Don't you dare call me a neocon! I'm a Libertarian!

Quite frankly, I only support principled candidates. So far, I think Ron Paul is VERY principled. However, if he takes the matching funds he will no longer be principled.

In my opinion, not taking matching funds is the most important test. If a candidate takes matching funds he is not worth voting for.

[SouthernGuy15]

Deadhead,

I cannot tolerate pragmatic people who would compromise their principles for political gain.

[American]

Don't you dare call me a neocon! I'm a Libertarian!

Quite frankly, I only support principled candidates. So far, I think Ron Paul is VERY principled. However, if he takes the matching funds he will no longer be principled.

In my opinion, not taking matching funds is the most important test. If a candidate takes matching funds he is not worth voting for.

Just curious, who would be the more principled candidate IF he did take the money? I see what you mean about it being hypocritical and I'm sure he wont for those reasons but if helps him get elected I think it would be a good move. Dont live in a perfect world.

[DjLoTi]

The RPF really has it's days sometimes, today is definitely one of those days.

[SouthernGuy15]

We don't live in a perfect world.

But we must live each day as if the world is perfect. We are to live like the world is how it should be to show others what it could be!

[tmg19103]

Deadhead,

I cannot tolerate pragmatic people who would compromise their principles for political gain.

I personally don't see it as compromising principles for political gain. I see it as limiting a position, within the current rule of law, for the better good of our society, our country and our future in order to get Dr. Paul elected. The consequences of Hillary or any other candidate besides Dr. Paul in the White House are so dire that you will need SOME flexibility in some cases.

Someone saying they won't vote for Dr. Paul if he accepts matching funds is a sell-out, IMHO. I am pro-choice, but I look beyond that issue that differs from Dr. Paul for the better good of getting Dr. Paul elected. You will never find a candidate where you agree on all the issues, and to just take one issue and throw away a vote over that issue for the greatest and ONLY hope our country has is a crying shame.

[American]

We don't live in a perfect world.

But we must live each day as if the world is perfect. We are to live like the world is how it should be to show others what it could be!

I think in terms of progress, not perfection. Besides that I couldnt bring myself to vote for anyone else, there list of miss deeds is like a criminal rap sheet.....and its long....

For me its I get to keep my money and my Guns, I'm there! :)

[TooConservative]

I respect both the purists and the pragmatists on this thread. But I don't think this is a make or break issue.

In a system so broken and skewed against free speech and toward corporatist interests, I will respect Ron Paul's decision. I guess I'll respect it even more if he turns down matching funds though!

[SouthernGuy15]

I supported Michael Badnarik in the last election. However, I was about to stop supporting him if he took matching funds. Thankfully, he did not take them.

[happyphilter]

I supported Michael Badnarik in the last election. However, I was about to stop supporting him if he took matching funds. Thankfully, he did not take them.

looks like not taking them really helped him out with his campaign...

[SouthernGuy15]

It does not matter if it helped him out or not!

The point is that even though he LOST he stuck to his principles.

Principles are more important than winning.

[tmg19103]

I supported Michael Badnarik in the last election. However, I was about to stop supporting him if he took matching funds. Thankfully, he did not take them.

As I understand it, Ron Paul is not much of a fan of Badnarik.

[Ron Paul Fan]

Taking matching funds limits spending in primary states. Taking matching funds limits spending in primary states. Taking matching funds limits spending in primary states. Taking matching funds limits spending in primary states. Taking matching funds limits spending in primary states. Taking matching funds limits spending in primary states. Taking matching funds limits spending in primary states. Taking matching funds limits spending in primary states. Taking matching funds limits spending in primary states. Taking matching funds limits spending in primary states. Taking matching funds limits spending in primary states. Taking matching funds limits spending in primary states.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Deadhead,

I cannot tolerate pragmatic people who would compromise their principles for political gain.

I believe in being practical and taking steps toward liberty. You will never have a 100% pure libertarian candidate winning a major election - at least any time soon

Know how the socialists beat us and enacted their programs? By chipping away at Lady Liberty and making small strides towards collectivism and big government. We must do the same. If they had run 100% pure communist/socialist candidates, they would have stayed at <1%. I'm in this to win and if that means taking matching funds, so be it.

Ron Paul is the most principled man in politics and will continue to be regardless if he takes the campaign funds or not. At the end of the day, only a handful of stubborn libertarians will give a shit whether he took the money or not. I can speak for myself, my friends, and my family and say that we are libertarians and support taking matching funds because we're tired of getting 0.3% of the vote. If that means losing your vote so we can get 10 votes for Joe Public, so be it. There's being principled and then there's being stubborn and difficult

It's not like Dr. Paul is changing his stance of the war, taxes, etc to get votes for something

[Original_Intent]

I hope you can deal with US troops dying for your principles.
I hope you can deal with living in a totalatarian regime because the best candidate did not follow a procedure in your personal "Robert's Rules of Order".

I agree with you that principle is more important than pragmatism, the question is should taking public matching funds even BE a question of principle.

Personally I don't see that principles come into the decision, but I understand why others do.

[DeadheadForPaul]

It does not matter if it helped him out or not!

The point is that even though he LOST he stuck to his principles.

Principles are more important than winning.

Principles get you 0 Presidents, 0 Senators, and 0 Representatives. 30 years and the LP has yet to make any ground for that reason.
In principle, I oppose matching funds, but that's like #304 on my list of important things. Ron Paul is right on the first 303 things and I could give a damn if he breaks #304

[OptionsTrader]

Why I Took Matching Funds and Ron Paul Should Too
by Murray Sabrin

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/sabrin7.html

I was the New Jersey Libertarian Party candidate for governor in 1997. The primary goal of the campaign was to raise $210,000 by the September 2 deadline to qualify for matching funds and get a spot in three televised debates. One of the "strings" in accepting the matching funds was to participate in three televised debates with Governor Whitman and the Democrat challenger, Jim McGreevey, who was a state senator and mayor of Woodbridge at the time.

Those were the rules. Raise the money, apply for the matching funds, and get the funds. The funds were used by us to spread the message of limited government, free enterprise and personal responsibility throughout the Garden State and expose millions of New Jerseyans to libertarian ideas.

Mission accomplished. We were all over television and radio and before newspaper editorial boards. On Election Day, we received nearly 5% of the vote or about 113,000 votes. Whitman won by about 21,000 votes, receiving less than 50% of the vote, thus ending any chance she had for national office. (She still hates my appearance in the debates, because I showed the world she was and still is a big government Republican.)

If we had not raised the minimum amount to qualify for the matching funds, I would not have been in the three debates, and we would have received much less than 1% of the vote. And the libertarian message would have been silenced in this campaign, for all intents and purposes. Because of the exposure I received during the 1997 campaign, I have become the unofficial spokesperson for libertarianism in the State of New Jersey.

Keep in mind, the New Jersey election commission (ELEC) denied our original application, because of a slight technical issue regarding an interpretation of the rules. We then had a hearing with an administrative law judge who ruled in our favor. The election commission subsequently approved our application on September 19, more than two weeks after our application was first filed, and about six weeks before the November election. In just six weeks, we created a buzz in the state, because we played by the rules. We reached millions of New Jerseyans and Americans because one of the debates was televised on C-SPAN, and we had the funds to pay for radio and television ads.

Ron Paul has been in nearly a dozen debates and forums. Yet, there are tens of millions of American who do not know who he is. Only exposure in the MSM will change that. One way would be to obtain the federal matching funds to get his message out to the general public, not just GOP primary voters. Independent voters could play a major role in some of the early primaries. Whatever the rules are they cannot be very onerous or come with many strings attached.

The Ron Paul campaign should accept the matching funds with a clear conscience, because Dr. Paul would be playing by the rules of the game. After all, he accepts a taxpayer funded congressional salary and taxpayer funds to run his congressional offices. If Ron Paul supporters do not want him to obtain matching funds because they are "tainted," they should also demand he depend on voluntary contributions to pay for all the expenses, including salaries, of his DC and Texas offices. Clearly, that would be an unrealistic application of libertarian principles.

It seems if libertarians or traditional conservatives play by the rules of the game, the MSM call them hypocrites, and if we want to reduce or abolish the welfare-warfare state, we are called extremists. In short, we can never "win" or "please" the media elites and the pundit class. So let Ron be Ron.

Finally, if the campaign will not accept matching funds, then all the Ron Paul supporters in America will have to step up to the plate more than they have already. During the past week, Paul supporters have shown they can rise to the occasion when they are called upon. I estimate that if the Paul campaign raises $30 million in the fourth quarter ending December 31, he will definitely win the GOP presidential nomination.

[BillyDkid]

I'm sorry, but that is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. That you would stop supporting him if he accepted matching funds. The only man who could make great strides in turning our country around, before we totally lose it. Unfrickin' believable. :rolleyes:I wouldn't use exactly that language, but I agree with you. THE important thing is to get RP elected. To hamstring yourself and thereby rob yourself of victory when all of the other candidates will use every possible advantage is, well, retarded. RP can not change things - campaign finance laws for example - unless he gets elected.

[OptionsTrader]

Ron Paul would probably pay the money back if he won with 80% of his Presidential salary per year, lol.

[SouthernGuy15]

If we use the tactics of the evil big government folks then we are no better than they are.

[pdavis]

I find it funny that the same people who made fun of Tom Tancredo and John Edwards for taking matching funds are now saying it's okay for Ron Paul to take matching funds.

[tmg19103]

It does not matter if it helped him out or not!

The point is that even though he LOST he stuck to his principles.

Principles are more important than winning.

The principle I look at is the better good of getting Dr. Paul in the White House. Not at all costs by throwng all his principles to the wind, but by staying within within the rule of law and having some flexibility that, while distasteful, will have a greater impact on the better good through limiting just one overall position in one aspect.

I respect your position, but my view is a practical approach that involves playing within the rules in such a way as to give Dr. Paul the best chance to get into the White House.

Also, I don't think Dr. paul has ever taken a political stance on whether the voluntary public matching funds are wrong? Has he? I will respect Dr. Paul's choice, I have stated my opinion, and it is not my place to dictate what Dr. Paul's actual position is on an issue based on his stance on other issues. Whatever Dr. Paul's well-reasoned position on this issue ends up being, I will respect it, but I don't think it is proper to dictate what Dr. Paul's principles are on an issue for which I am not aware of him having spoken about before.

[BillyDkid]

I find it funny that the same people who made fun of Tom Tancredo and John Edwards for taking matching funds are now saying it's okay for Ron Paul to take matching funds.
I have never talked about matching funds and haven't read any comments about others taking matching funds.

[tmg19103]

I find it funny that the same people who made fun of Tom Tancredo and John Edwards for taking matching funds are now saying it's okay for Ron Paul to take matching funds.

Speak for yourself. I never commented on those two, and when they announced matching funds I thought to myself that it is something Dr. Paul should consider.

Ultimately, it is Dr. Paul's decision, which I would respect EITHER way, and I have stated my opinion on this thread.

[OptionsTrader]

Contribution to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund (http://www.fec.gov/finance/2004matching/matching.shtml) is voluntary.

I do not see a problem.

[happyphilter]

If anyone would give up on ron paul over this that is just plain dumb. This money is going to be used either way, wouldn't we want it for ron paul? It makes me feel good my money is going to someone I like!
The fact is, most people still don't know about ron paul, and without money to spend they never will. However, it will limit spending in some states, but has he really got that much to spend anyway?
If RP could double the money he could spend it would help so much. It might alienate a few of us hardcore supporters, but im sorry this is a numbers game, and we need the votes.

[Duckman]

The Presidential campaign fund is no more of a "lockbox" than Social Security. The money DOES come out of the Federal treasury. We WILL cover the $3 per person from some other method (borrowing, etc.) if it is spent.

I agree that Ron Paul is the best candidate out there, and is worthy of support even if he goes for the matching funds, but I think there is a dangerous amount of "ends justify the means" thinking here. You can justify any injustice with "the ends justify the means."

I think you have blinders on if you don't see taking matching funds as being a SERIOUS transgression of Ron Paul's principles, one that is really difficult to accept, and which I think DAMAGES Ron Paul in serious ways amongst his base and opens him up for attack by others, especially others who DO NOT take the matching funds (like Hillary), who can then claim to be costing the taxpayer LESS MONEY than Ron Paul. It will make me want to puke.

[KingTheoden]

Motion to close this thread!

[OptionsTrader]

No one was forced to donate to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund.

For me, there is zero issue with accepting these funds that people donated.

[tmg19103]

The Presidential campaign fund is no more of a "lockbox" than Social Security. The money DOES come out of the Federal treasury. We WILL cover the $3 per person from some other method (borrowing, etc.) if it is spent.

I agree that Ron Paul is the best candidate out there, and is worthy of support even if he goes for the matching funds, but I think there is a dangerous amount of "ends justify the means" thinking here. You can justify any injustice with "the ends justify the means."

I think you have blinders on if you don't see taking matching funds as being a SERIOUS transgression of Ron Paul's principles, one that is really difficult to accept, and which I think DAMAGES Ron Paul in serious ways amongst his base and opens him up for attack by others, especially others who DO NOT take the matching funds (like Hillary), who can then claim to be costing the taxpayer LESS MONEY than Ron Paul. It will make me want to puke.

Ummmm, American taxpayers voluntarily donated these matching funds for presidential candidates that don't have front-runner cash. Ever stop to think that current Ron Paul supporters may have voluntarily donated there own money to this fund in the past, knowing they only support candidates with non-mainsteam ideas, and hoping that it would help get a Ron Paul type candidate elected in the future? Also, last I looked, my FICA tax was not voluntary.

[Lord Xar]

I'd loose respect for him too. I love his message about taking responcibility for ourselves. He walks the talk and sets the example.

When speaking to others about his principled self, we can just add it to comments about how he won't accept donations from special interest groups, or take matching government funds from out of our taxes.

People who think he should take it don't seem to know or understand him well. He never would.

He wouldn't even let his own children take out government student loans or get government grants for college.

well... look at the thermometer..... in 2 days since its close, only 20K!

Matching funds are NOT coherced from the citizenry... it is an authorized borrowing. Also, please consider....

WHEN THE MSM and ALL OTHER ELITES are ignoring you - - and you can't get the name recognition because "those elites" do NOT want him to win, how can he really compete with the Obama's, Hillary's, Ghoulianis, Romeny's etc...

I mean,,, Look at McCain --- horrible, yet he raised 5million.. he is ALWAYS in the papers..

I think taking matching funds isn't a horrible thing... sometimes you have, just to make things a little fair.

Listen, with the MSM ignoring him -- how will people find out about him and donate?

When OBAMA and HILLARY can raise TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS... Uhmmm, people are being cornfed these candidates.. Could you imagine if Ron Paul got the same publicity.. Shit, they give Obama or Hillary a front page in EVERY newspaper all the time for just saying something stupid or for making an appearence somewhere.... peoples minds are being "stamped" with these candidates...

matching funds would help -- I would NEVER EVER leave Ron Paul over Matching Funds..... that is rather goofy.

[DrNoZone]

Think about it this way: If Ron Paul doesn't win, he'll never get a chance to repeal the matching funds authorizations.

[Danny]

For me, there is zero issue with accepting these funds that people donated.


Ummmm, American taxpayers voluntarily donated these matching funds ...

OK, anybody that thinks this fund is made up of donations is just WRONG! Checking the box on your taxes DOES NOT CHANGE THE AMOUNT YOU PAY!

Let's say you owe $1000 in taxes, and you check the box. If it were a donation, you would send them a check for $1003. Instead, you still owe them $1000.

All you are doing is giving them permission to allocate $3 of the taxes that you ARE ALREADY PAYING to the campaign fund.

[OptionsTrader]

FYI:
FEC: How Matching Funds Work
http://www.fec.gov/finance/2004matching/matching.shtml

In addition to regular quarterly or monthly disclosure reports, presidential candidates who seek matching funds must submit information about matchable contributions to the FEC for review. During the 2004 campaign the Commission will place these files on our Internet site. The files are provided as excel and PDF files, and are stored in compressed form so they must be unzipped after downloading.

Contributions from individuals where the aggregate amount contributed by the individual is $250 or less are eligible to be matched on a dollar for dollar basis from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. This Fund includes proceeds from the voluntary check-off of $3 per person from income tax returns of eligible taxpayers. Candidates may submit any contribution from an individual (including those where the contribution amount is more than $250) in order to receive matching funds for the first $250 of the contribution. Some contributions included in these files, therefore, will also be included as detailed entries in the regular financial disclosure reports submitted by the campaigns.

All submissions are reviewed by the Commission to be sure that supporting documentation is in order and that there are no errors in the file before federal funds are certified to be paid. As a result, some contributions may be rejected and campaigns may resubmit rejected contributions if additional supporting material is provided. This means that specific contributions may appear more than once in the files of a particular candidate, so considerable care is required when interpreting these data.

There are two types of submission, threshold and regular. The threshold submission is only used to establish the eligibility of the candidate for matching funds. (Candidates become eligible when they receive at least $5,000 in matchable contributions from individuals in each of twenty states.) All contributions appearing on threshold submissions will also appear in the first regular submission from the campaign.

Finally, note that 2 U.S.C. Section 438a(4) states that "… any information copied from such reports or statements may not be sold or used by any person for the purpose of soliciting contributions or for commercial purposes. . .".

[Danny]

Sorry, but it is impossible to make a voluntary donation that costs you nothing.

[briatx]

First: I'll support Ron Paul whether he takes matching funds or not, and I recommend everyone else do the same.

However.

As the FOURTEEN previous pages make clear, whether it is ACTUALLY against Ron Paul's principles or not to take matching funds is becoming irrelevant. What IS relevant is because of the perception of integrity that Ron Paul exudes and has cultivated in this campaign, taking matching funds will give the APPEARANCE of an unprincipled money grubbing politician robbing the treasury just like all those neocons.

It is PERCEPTION that matters. Taking matching funds would be a huge PR foible (imo), and whether true or not, would give our opponents a solid talking point to throw back in our faces when we say that Ron Paul is different than the rest of the corrupt politicians. It would close minds before they even had a chance to listen.

I mean just look at all the fun the Democrat supporters are having with Ron Pauls alleged racism from ELEVEN FREAKING YEARS AGO.

I don't think the extra money would balance out the bad PR, but I could be wrong.

[Sematary]

looks like not taking them really helped him out with his campaign...

Can you name ONE (just one) person who has taken the matching funds AND won the presidency.

[micahnelson]

I think its not a good idea, but I don't think its hypocritical.

Look at the dissension it is causing here, it would cause much more in the media and as biratx pointed out, could be more negative press than the positive press we could buy with the extra monies.

We don't want to be hamstrung in NH.

[wolv275]

I think this should be a private thread, there could be many trolls just salivating at our bickering.

[Sematary]

Contribution to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund (http://www.fec.gov/finance/2004matching/matching.shtml) is voluntary.

I do not see a problem.

Wrong: From the tax form:

I want $1 of my income tax to go to the
The money comes from income taxes. period.

[Sematary]

I think this should be a private thread, there could be many trolls just salivating at our bickering.

It is a valid discussion that ALL campaigns should be having.

[tmg19103]

OK, anybody that thinks this fund is made up of donations is just WRONG! Checking the box on your taxes DOES NOT CHANGE THE AMOUNT YOU PAY!

Let's say you owe $1000 in taxes, and you check the box. If it were a donation, you would send them a check for $1003. Instead, you still owe them $1000.

All you are doing is giving them permission to allocate $3 of the taxes that you ARE ALREADY PAYING to the campaign fund.

Like I said - American taxpayers voluntarily donated these matching funds. They CHOSE voluntarily for a portion of their tax dollars to go to this matching fund. Perhaps "donation" was not the proper term, but they voluntarily chose for a portion of their taxes to go to this fund.

Again, who is not to say current Ron Paul supporters who always voted for the underdog did not do this to help a Ron Paul type candidate in the future? I, for one, will personally not let this minutia get in the way of helping Dr. Paul win, as opposed to having eight years of Hillary. That's my peronal opinion. Those who would prefer Hillary in office as opposed to not hijacking their perceived principles of Dr. Paul, you are entitled to your opinion.

[Grandson of Liberty]

I think this should be a private thread, there could be many trolls just salivating at our bickering.

Bingo. Ron Paul has united us. . .why bother starting a thread that is so divisive?

[Sematary]

Bingo. Ron Paul has united us. . .why bother starting a thread that is so divisive?

How does having a difference of opinion divide us?

[synthetic]

Asking Ron to not take funds if they help is incredible. If every politician decided not to play the game because they disagreed with the system Ron wouldn't be in Congress and he wouldn't be running for President. Things would only get worse with no one on your side.

I see three groups against taking the funds. First group worries the restrictions involved will hurt. Thats valid and is entirely up to the campaign to decide whats best. The second group thinks its immoral, not realizing rolling over and doing nothing is worse. Ending the campaign early if funding becomes an issue is the last thing anyone should endorse. Third group consists of the people who think Ron lives in a glass house and can't, under any circumstance, be exposed to any negative press. The matching funds issue is a 10.0 on the sky-is-falling meter. Ron is better off dropping out of the race by submitting to the headlines that might come. Not being smeared is priority one, freedom is somewhere in the top 10.

[wolv275]

How does having a difference of opinion divide us?

I will no suggest its dividing us, but i would suggest that its bringing about certain people to want to end their support for RP. We all have different ideas for what we believe is a perfect US, and most of us agree with RP on most of the issues, yet this has been the only issue so far where i have seen people post that they would stop supporting the campaign if he took the funds, go figure.

[LibertyEagle]

It is a valid discussion that ALL campaigns should be having.

No. All of us need to be working our asses off figuring out how we are going to get Dr. Paul's message spread to the early primary/caucus states. We are flat running out of time.

It is not OUR decision whether Dr. Paul decides to take matching funds. It's HIS.

If we do not get our backsides in gear very soon and either get to these early states to help canvas, or provide monetary and technical support in getting ads run in these states, the whole ballgame is going to be over anyway.

Those of you who want to toss around the pros and cons of matching funds, could you please do it AFTER the election? We might just have a few more important things to concentrate on right now.

[Sematary]

No. All of us need to be working our asses off figuring out how we are going to get Dr. Paul's message spread to the early primary/caucus states. We are flat running out of time.

It is not OUR decision whether Dr. Paul decides to take matching funds. It's HIS.

If we do not get our backsides in gear very soon and either get to these early states to help canvas, or provide monetary and technical support in getting ads run in these states, the whole ballgame is going to be over anyway.

Those of you who want to toss around the pros and cons of matching funds, could you please do it AFTER the election? We might just have a few more important things to concentrate on right now.

Hey - if you have mailing addresses - I'll start sending out literature.

[ClockwiseSpark]

How does having a difference of opinion divide us?

I think your original post says it all.

[Sematary]

I think your original post says it all.

And the campaign should know how the people who support it feel.

[tmg19103]

I think its not a good idea, but I don't think its hypocritical.

Look at the dissension it is causing here, it would cause much more in the media and as biratx pointed out, could be more negative press than the positive press we could buy with the extra monies.

We don't want to be hamstrung in NH.

I disagree. RP can easily position this as a reasonable approach and I don't think it is one that American's would harp about. The MSM might try and give it a day of bad press, but it would die down right after that. This is only an issue for hardcore Ron paul supporters (who should support him regardless of the choice he makes on matching funds) but for the average American we are trying to win over with all the extra funds this would give towards MSM advertising - well, the average American could care less if a presidential candidate took matching funds.

I will say that a lot does depend on the 3Q numbers. If RP is on close to an even playing field with cash on hand compared to the other GOP candidates, I'm sure he won't want to take it and won't need to.

However, my take on the race is this: Giuliani has by far the most cash and least debt and RP can't touch it. I personally feel Giuliani will separate himself from the neo-con pack of himself, Romney, Thompson and McCain as he is the most neo-con among them and he has the most cash on hand. So, if we get to Super Tuesday and it is a RP v. Rudy (or one of the others) race and if the cash is not flowing into RP bigtime through fundraising, you do what you have to and take the matching funds. Sorry, but I'll take the matching funds over Rudy or Fred or Hillary in the White House any day.

As for a candidate taking matching funds not winning the White House, that goes to how much of an advantage the monied front-runners have, and how much of an uphill battle RP has - matching funds or no matching funds. candidates who take matching funds are usually well behind the front-runners and they would have lost without the matching funds anyway. The ideal is that the 3Q numbers AND the onging fundraising is enough that matching funds are not needed, but depending on how things play out, matching funds could be the one thing that takes RP over the hump. Never say never as we do not know how this will play out. IF down the road accepting matching funds were to hypothetically be the ONE thing that would take RP to the White House, you gotta take them. They should not be ruled in or ruled out, and I trust the campaign's judgment and will respect whatever decision is made.

[LibertyEagle]

Hey - if you have mailing addresses - I'll start sending out literature.

We should be able to get a mailing list. That's a good idea. Does anyone know how to go about getting such a list?

I'm hoping a lot of people who live in surrounding states will consider actually going to New Hampshire to campaign. Even the most shy of us can manage to walk up to a door and hand them a Slim Jim, or another flyer and say thank you and walk away.

[briatx]

Third group consists of the people who think Ron lives in a glass house and can't, under any circumstance, be exposed to any negative press. The matching funds issue is a 10.0 on the sky-is-falling meter. Ron is better off dropping out of the race by submitting to the headlines that might come. Not being smeared is priority one, freedom is somewhere in the top 10.

IF taking funds means Paul wins, and not taking funds means failure, then that's an easy choice. Take the funds. If the extra advertising that the money will buy will offset the bad PR, then again, take the funds.

But, I think you mischaracterize my argument. My argument is that the money will not be able to offset the bad PR. I know bad press and attacks will come, but this type of thing hits to the core of the campaign. It would be Ron Paul's YEAAAGH!!! of 2008.

How much worse can you get than former Ron Paul devotees going out and saying that I used to support Ron Paul, but by taking federal funds he has betrayed us and shown us that he's just like all the other corrupt politicians.

Ouch.

YEAAAAGH!!!! indeed.

[Sematary]

Ok - again - has anyone EVER won the presidency who used matching funds? Anyone?

[Sematary]

We should be able to get a mailing list. That's a good idea. Does anyone know how to go about getting such a list?

I'm hoping a lot of people who live in surrounding states will consider actually going to New Hampshire to campaign. Even the most shy of us can manage to walk up to a door and hand them a Slim Jim, or another flyer and say thank you and walk away.

I would hope that the campaign has a mailing list of potential voters (they should) so that we can start sending mail to them at the right time.

[LibertyOfOne]

:mad:

[Sematary]

:mad:

What's the angry face for?

[Grandson of Liberty]

And the campaign should know how the people who support it feel.

So send them a letter. Or did you really just want US to know how you felt?

[Sematary]

So send them a letter. Or did you really just want US to know how you felt?

I am not alone, as you can tell. We all have opinions and we should all have not only the right, but the opportunity, to express them.

[DjLoTi]

You know how I feel? Actually, I feel pretty good. I'm at work right now, and since the weather is *great* and I'm a weather man, it's pretty cool

Buttt... I kind of wish I could spend this time at work somehow else, like something I really enjoy... like promoting RP hehe :)

[Sematary]

So send them a letter. Or did you really just want US to know how you felt?

P.S. - the campaign reads this site.

[Grandson of Liberty]

I am not alone, as you can tell. We all have opinions and we should all have not only the right, but the opportunity, to express them.

you are correct in being able to express your opinion. . . my concern is that i just don't think the thread positively promotes the campaign.

[Sematary]

you are correct. . . my concern is that i just don't think the thread positively promotes the campaign.

I didn't realize we were promoting the campaign here. I thought we were already supporters. I promote the campaign OUT THERE. Out there being large events where tons of people show up or parking lots, or malls, etc... In here, well, I thought we were all friends and supporters and if we can't have a friendly discussion about various subjects, what is the point of being here?

[MikeStanart]

In my honest opinion, I'd be dissapointed.

On one hand I want every possible boost for Paul:

On the other I don't feel matching funds is the most honorable thing to do.


HOW ABOUT A SOLUTION?

***Instead of bickering here online....hit the streets....Lets recruit more people.....we can more than match that way! ***

[DjLoTi]

I like chicken sticks. Anyone ever had chicken sticks?

[Sematary]

I like chicken sticks. Anyone ever had chicken sticks?

Uh - no. What the hell is a chicken stick?

[synthetic]

IF taking funds means Paul wins, and not taking funds means failure, then that's an easy choice. Take the funds. If the extra advertising that the money will buy will offset the bad PR, then again, take the funds.

But, I think you mischaracterize my argument. My argument is that the money will not be able to offset the bad PR. I know bad press and attacks will come, but this type of thing hits to the core of the campaign. It would be Ron Paul's YEAAAGH!!! of 2008.

How much worse can you get than former Ron Paul devotees going out and saying that I used to support Ron Paul, but by taking federal funds he has betrayed us and shown us that he's just like all the other corrupt politicians.

Ouch.

YEAAAAGH!!!! indeed.

I'm not worried about the youtube video that gets a 100 hits from it. Or the blogs that get traffic when someone misspells a google search. If the campaign needs the funds to keep spreading the message they'll gain far more people to the movement than the hardliners they'll lose.

[DjLoTi]

Uh - no. What the hell is a chicken stick?

It's a chicken on a stick. It's tasty. Chicken stick.

[aksmith]

As I see it - there is NO constitutional basis for this system as it is routed through the income tax system which, itself, is unconstitutional and detrimental to society.

This is a bit over the top. If they sent out a separate piece of paper with the tax forms, asking for a donation for Feed The Children, that would certainly not be unconstitutional in any way just because it came with the tax forms. It is a voluntary contribution. And the campaign finance checkoff is also a donation. So, no it's not unconstitutional as long as its not mandatory.

If Dr. Paul takes the matching funds, it will mean that he is being majorly outspent by the corporate candidates, and the personally rich ones. And it will mean that Fox and all the other networks are still blacking him out. Now THAT, from federally licensed stations may be unconstitutional. But being unsupportive of Dr. Paul because he took voluntarily given matching funds is exactly why I left the Libertarian Party fifteen years ago and never went back. I understand the argument for not taking the funds, but if someone pulls a gun on me and the government hands me a shield that was donated by another citizen to protect me, I am certainly going to take it and use it in the emergency. Yeah, it doesn't say the government can give me a shield in the constitution, but in some cases, you have to use the tools you are given and a voluntary donation is a voluntary donation.

[DjLoTi]

Man I Fucking Buried This Topic And You Had To Pop It Back Up This Shit Will Never End Ppl Just Stfu And Support Dr Paul Because He's The Only One Who Can Save The Country It's Pretty Clear!!!!!!!! So Get Used To It!!!!

[MusoSpuso]

Dr. Paul would undoubtedly lose a large percentage of his Libertarian and constitutionalist suporters.

What I find most amusing and saddening about statements like this is that it is the same hard-lined rhetoric that the neo-cons and our supposed "enemies" use to justify their positions.

I don't know what's right. I think I'm somewhere in the middle. Yes, I would be somewhat dissapointed but I would still vote for him.

I think some people are trying to make a god-saint out of Ron and the fact is, he's just a man. He's a man trying to make this country better for all of us.

It's scary what some people will do over the "principle" of a thing. Though they say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Do we really believe this single action would somehow turn Ron into a big government tax monster??? I mean seriously people...

[Proemio]

Ok - again - has anyone EVER won the presidency who used matching funds? Anyone?

Crickets - what a shock.

It's a horrible idea. I'm not at all surprised by the promotion itself, but rather by the creative rationalizations by some of the proponents. For those it's probably acute thermometer fatigue...