Solution to Matching Funds Controversy

[KingTheoden]

This morning we have seen a point of contention regarding the proposal to accept matching funds. Here is the thread. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=21728)

I have no objection since these funds are voluntarily given by Americans for this exact purpose. My concern is only with regards to the restrictions that come with the money. However, some are saying that they will withdraw support should Ron Paul take this money.

A solution to this issue is actually quite simple. Ron Paul should post an entry on his website and conduct a poll. If enough people are dead set against taking funds, then we can determine it would not be worthy. However, I tend to think that if Dr. Paul explains that a) These are not tax funds b) These funds have been contributed specifically for the purpose of allowing different candidates from having a shot at winning, most people would drop their objections.

The key is finding out what restrictions come with taking the money. Nothing else.

[DrNoZone]

This morning we have seen a point of contention regarding the proposal to accept matching funds. Here is the thread. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=21728)

I have no objection since these funds are voluntarily given by Americans for this exact purpose. My concern is only with regards to the restrictions that come with the money. However, some are saying that they will withdraw support should Ron Paul take this money.

A solution to this issue is actually quite simple. Ron Paul should post an entry on his website and conduct a poll. If enough people are dead set against taking funds, then we can determine it would not be worthy. However, I tend to think that if Dr. Paul explains that a) These are not tax funds b) These funds have been contributed specifically for the purpose of allowing different candidates from having a shot at winning, most people would drop their objections.

The key is finding out what restrictions come with taking the money. Nothing else.

See my other thread about this here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=21747

And I do not think this should be a "majority votes" issue. The campaign and Ron Paul alone should decide.

[G-khan]

I will trust that Ron Paul will do what is best - he seems to most of the time and I will leave this to his judgement. I don't believe I need to voice MO on this.

[SouthernGuy15]

The only solution to the matching funds controversy is for the campaign NOT TO TAKE THEM!

If the campaign takes matching funds it is NOT WORTH SUPPORTING, period.

[Ron Paul Fan]

The only solution to the matching funds controversy is for the campaign NOT TO TAKE THEM!

If the campaign takes matching funds it is NOT WORTH SUPPORTING, period.

YEAH! A majority votes is a terrible idea not to mention it's probably not wise to let the grassroots make a decision related to the campaign because of legal issues. DON'T TAKE THEM DR. PAUL! YOU'RE BETTER THAN THAT AND YOU SHOULDN'T SELL YOUR SOUL LIKE EVERY OTHER POLITICIAN! DO IT THE RIGHT WAY!

[DrNoZone]

The only solution to the matching funds controversy is for the campaign NOT TO TAKE THEM!

If the campaign takes matching funds it is NOT WORTH SUPPORTING, period.

Not worth supporting? What happened to your line of "Ron Paul is our only chance for freedom" line in another thread? Maybe you should amend it to read "...unless he takes matching funds, then we have NO hope for freedom!"

[JPFromTally]

Aren't there more important things to worry about? I think RP and his staff know the system a little better than we do. Wait until the decision comes out before worrying about it.

[SouthernGuy15]

If he takes matching funds he is not worth supporting.

However, I will keep on supporting him UNLESS he takes those funds.

[SouthernGuy15]

I am worrying about it, because if they take matching funds then I have wasted my time on a candidate I would not vote for.

[happyphilter]

I don't see a problem with it. Theres nothing illegal with using recourses provided. If he dosen't take the money theres no way he will have funds to win, money is needed to win this election. Unless you got an ass load of cash to donate, I wouldn't dis the idea.

[KingTheoden]

Okay, I phrased this thread poorly! I did not mean to imply that I wanted some referendum to determine this issue. Rather, I thought it would useful to the campaign to read the pulse of supports on this issue. I am shocked anyone is making hay out of this so it might be prudent to make sure that by accepting funds, people will not stop supporting him en masse.

I doubt more than a few people would actually stop supporting Ron Paul. It is not unconstitutional, it is not a use of tax money, and it is just simply absurd that some people are trying to stir up trouble.

Not to speculate, but remember, we had an amazing victory with our fund raising drive. Ron Paul's campaign is surging in strength and only gaining momentum. It is not hard to believe that other campaigns would dispatch agent provocateurs to stem our gains.

BE WARY OF PEOPLE STARTING FIGHTS. We are going to see more distractions as our movement continues to build.

[kylejack]

For the primaries:


Candidates also must agree to:

Limit campaign spending for all primary elections to $10 million plus a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA).6 This is called the national spending limit.
Limit campaign spending in each state to $200,000 plus COLA, or to a specified amount based on the number of voting age individuals in the state (plus COLA), whichever is greater.
Limit spending from personal funds to $50,000.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml

So yeah, there's no way in hell Ron's going to take this. We're going to blow a hefty load in NH.

[LibertyEagle]

Anyone who would drop support of Dr. Paul over this issue is...

1. Naive
2. Stupid
3. Troll-bait
4. All of the above

[QWE]

Just curious, if the matching funds aren't taken, where do they go?

[kylejack]

Just curious, if the matching funds aren't taken, where do they go?

They stay in the fund for use on another candidate who applies. McCain is going to be taking public funding, for example.

[SouthernGuy15]

Nope. I'm a Libertarian. I totally support Ron Paul. But if he takes matching funds he is not worth voting for.

Anyone who would encourage Ron Paul to accept matching funds is simply a pragmatist.

Quite frankly, in my opinion the matching funds issue is a BIG test for Ron Paul. If he takes the funds then he is willing to compromise his values.

[kylejack]

Nope. I'm a Libertarian. I totally support Ron Paul. But if he takes matching funds he is not worth voting for.

Anyone who would encourage Ron Paul to accept matching funds is simply a pragmatist.

Quite frankly, in my opinion the matching funds issue is a BIG test for Ron Paul. If he takes the funds then he is willing to compromise his values.
He's already proven that with earmarks and partial birth abortion ban. I support him anyway, because who else am I going to support? Ah well.

[Leslie Webb]

Don't take the matching funds. Accepting money from the government, even when the money comes from phony donations such as the matching funds, goes against everything Ron Paul stands for. The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to subsidize political candidates or regulate political campaigns. The FEC is not the League of Women Voters. It is an unconstitutional federal agency, so any funds it disburses violate the Constitution.

[Ron Paul Fan]

Anyone who is advising Dr. Paul to take the matching funds which limits his spending in key states AND has been bitching about Dr. Paul not spending enough money in key states is...

1. Hypocrite
2. Flip Flopper
3. Troll-bait
4. All of the Above

[happyphilter]

If he dosent use the funds someone else will! wouldent we want a good man to benefit from this?!

[SouthernGuy15]

I totally agree Ron Paul Fan.

[gagnonstudio]

Why is it so bad if he takes matching funds? Explain to me the immorality of the situation. If the funds are donated by the people for the election, what is the problem? All I hear on these threads is "I won't support him if he takes them blah blah blah" but no explanation. You make it sound like he's accepting lobbyist money, or corporate donations. You sound pretty quick to leave the campaign for something that doesn't seem to be immoral to me. It sounds to me that this may be an advantage to getting him in the white house. But I guess that isn't your ultimate goal. I'd be surprised if you nay sayers even turn out to vote. So lets hear the explanation as to why it is so bad.

[SouthernGuy15]

The funds are NOT DONATED BY THE PEOPLE!

Some small portion of the funds are donated. The rest is taken from taxpayer dollars.

[kylejack]

It sounds to me that this may be an advantage to getting him in the white house.
You think a requirement to spend no more than $200,000 in New Hampshire is an advantage? Because I think its absolutely horrid for his chances.

[SouthernGuy15]

gag,

The ends do NOT justify the means.

[KingTheoden]

He's already proven that with earmarks and partial birth abortion ban. I support him anyway, because who else am I going to support? Ah well.

Not to get off topic, but the earmarks issue was completely unfair. He would ultimately vote against the budget without fail, so his support during committee of certain local projects is entirely moot.

[JS4Pat]

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

[gagnonstudio]

You think a requirement to spend no more than $200,000 in New Hampshire is an advantage? Because I think its absolutely horrid for his chances.

I understand the limitations problem, but I'm still not hearing why it's immoral. I am sure Ron Paul will not take the money if it hinders his ability to get the message out.

[kylejack]

Not to get off topic, but the earmarks issue was completely unfair. He would ultimately vote against the budget without fail, so his support during committee of certain local projects is entirely moot.
I don't want to get off-topic either, but I'm strongly opposed to earmarks, which take away a department's normal funding (which may or may not be spent constitutionally) and allocate it for unconstitutional projects, in most cases. It takes money that might be used constitutionally and ensures that it will be used unconstitutionally. That's wrong, regardless of the fact that he ultimately votes against the bill.

[kylejack]

What is the financial & tactical advantage of the front runners choosing NOT to accept matching funds?
Fewer restrictions on how they spend their money. Most notably, a candidate can only use $50,000 of his/her own money and can only spend $10 million total for the primary process, and no more than $200,000 per state if he/she chooses to take public funding.

[KingTheoden]

The funds are NOT DONATED BY THE PEOPLE!

Some small portion of the funds are donated. The rest is taken from taxpayer dollars.

Show us that fact, because it simply is not true. And if you are so against using matching funds, why don't you and your posse redouble your efforts so that they would not be necessary.

Still, NO ONE has addressed my War of Independence analogy.

I am calling it right now, I believe there is an attack underway on the Paul campaign that is meant to get supporters to fight with one another over a non issue. I believe there are agent provocateurs on this board and so it is of the utmost importance that we keep our eyes on the ball. And that is to get Ron Paul elected!

[SouthernGuy15]

It's immoral because it's political welfare.

The government should NOT be involved in providing welfare to individuals and should not be providing welfare to candidates.

Both are immoral and unconstitutional.

By the way, the funds are not donated. A small portion of them are donated. The rest come from taxpayer dollars. However, even if they were all donated no candidate should accept funds from an unconstitutional program.

[steph3n]

taking public funds is an admission of fund raising defeat, the ron paul train is picking up steam don't let the "public matching" limit it, we need this train going full speed. Sadly trains in the US aren't as fast as Japan or europe.

[gagnonstudio]

The funds are NOT DONATED BY THE PEOPLE!

Some small portion of the funds are donated. The rest is taken from taxpayer dollars.

What tax is this taken from? Income tax? Show me where you found this information.

[SouthernGuy15]

Show us that fact, because it simply is not true. And if you are so against using matching funds, why don't you and your posse redouble your efforts so that they would not be necessary.

Still, NO ONE has addressed my War of Independence analogy.

I am calling it right now, I believe there is an attack underway on the Paul campaign that is meant to get supporters to fight with one another over a non issue. I believe there are agent provocateurs on this board and so it is of the utmost importance that we keep our eyes on the ball. And that is to get Ron Paul elected!

Steve Dasbach said so on this forum.

By the way, there is no attack on this campaign. The truth of the matter is that a lot of LIBERTARIANS support Ron Paul. Unlike Republicans who are usually pragmatic Libertarians refuse to compromise.

[kylejack]

I understand the limitations problem, but I'm still not hearing why it's immoral.
Its money taken coercively. Ron Paul doesn't take public-paid travel junkets. Ron Paul doesn't participate in the pension system. Ron Paul doesn't drink from those streams.

[KingTheoden]

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

They are limited in spending during the primary season. For Romney and Rudy, this could severely restrict their ability to bathe people in propaganda.

[kylejack]

What tax is this taken from? Income tax? Show me where you found this information.
You can designate $3 of your tax return to go to the presidential election matching fund. Its still $3 you're required to pay.

[KingTheoden]

Its money taken coercively. Ron Paul doesn't take public-paid travel junkets. Ron Paul doesn't participate in the pension system. Ron Paul doesn't drink from those streams.

Coercively? Instead of throwing around these terms, show us how the funds are taken from the people. Already we have posted the FEC guidelines that clearly state these funds come from the voluntary tick box on a tax return.

[Ron Paul Fan]

Guys, where it comes from and whether it goes against Dr. Paul's principles or not is totally irrelevant! KyleJack has been trying to tell you that it LIMITS SPENDING IN KEY STATES! That is the most important issue here. If we're a real contender then we DON'T WANT TO HAVE FUNDS RESTRICTED IN THOSE STATES. Everyone on the forum has been complaining "Why isn't Dr. Paul spending money in New Hampshire?" and now the same people are complaining "He should take the federal funds to better compete in New Hampshire!" Read what KyleJack has written and you'll find out why taking the funds is a bad idea. Dr. Paul has little to no debt! He doesn't need those funds to pay anything off as Tancredo and McCain might. So it's not the principle that's the issue here, it's the limited spending in primary states is what matters.

[SewrRatt]

Attention people who think matching funds are voluntarily donated, you do not know what you are talking about, your premises are wrong, you are arguing from a position of ignorance and wasting everyone's time.

MATCHING FUNDS ARE TAX MONIES DIVERTED FROM OTHER SPENDING BY A CHECK BOX, NONE OF THE TAXPAYER'S CHOICES ARE "KEEP MY THREE DOLLARS," IT IS NOT VOLUNTARY, THESE ARE FACTS

AND it would be stupid for the campaign to agree to spend no more than $200,000 in any given state.

[gagnonstudio]

You can designate $3 of your tax return to go to the presidential election matching fund. Its still $3 you're required to pay.

ITS OPTIONAL... not required. Which means the people actually have a say for once in how tax dollars are spent. Still don't see the problem.

I don't want him to take the funds because of the limitations. But if he feels he has to, I trust that he is doing the right thing, because he always does what he thinks is best. I'm pretty tired of all this party nonsense saying that libertarians are so tough and never budge or whatever, its just another form of party politics. How bout you get off your high horse and become an independent where you don't have to worry about party politics. The whole problem with party politics is everyone thinking they're better than everyone else, and nothing gets accomplished. Even when its a good party like libertarian or constitution.

[kylejack]

Coercively? Instead of throwing around these terms, show us how the funds are taken from the people. Already we have posted the FEC guidelines that clearly state these funds come from the voluntary tick box on a tax return.
If you don't pay your taxes, they throw you in jail. The taxes that you pay include this money, which you can specify to either go to the fund or to general revenue. I'm sorry if you don't know what coercively means. Perhaps you could look it up in your dictionary.

[kylejack]

ITS OPTIONAL... not required. Which means the people actually have a say for once in how tax dollars are spent. Still don't see the problem.
I'd like my tax dollars to be spent on food for myself. Ahhh, I don't have that option. Some tiny little choice doesn't change the fact that it was taken from me coercively.

Again, its a MOOT POINT. Ron Paul will spend way way more than 200K in New Hampshire alone.

[jj111]

Is it possible that some future televised debates may require as a criterion for inclusion in the debates that the candidate both qualified for AND accepted federal matching funds?

[kylejack]

Is it possible that some future televised debates may require as a criterion for inclusion in the debates that the candidate both qualified for AND accepted federal matching funds?

Not going to happen.

[gagnonstudio]

I'd like my tax dollars to be spent on food for myself. Ahhh, I don't have that option. Some tiny little choice doesn't change the fact that it was taken from me coercively.

Again, its a MOOT POINT. Ron Paul will spend way way more than 200K in New Hampshire alone.

I see your point in regards to taxes in general being unconstitutional.

[heiwa]

What tax is this taken from? Income tax? Show me where you found this information.

You can see the 1040 form and the explanation of the election donation (see page 16) here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf.
(http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf)
On the first page of the 1040 at the top is a box you check to give $3 to the campaign. It declares that it does NOT change the total owed or the amount of your refund. This is why people are saying the money comes from taxes.

I wonder why this is such a hot button issue? It took me all of 2 minutes to find this information, yet some of you have gone back and forth on it like little children.

Things are bound to heat up now, so it behooves us more than ever to be more aware of tactics used to divide us. I've noticed too that the tactics are becoming more subtle - provoking unsubstantiated doubt is a powerful weapon. Be aware of it.

In Peace,
Jen

[daviddee]

.....

[KingTheoden]

Kyle, look at a 1040. It is NOT tax money, it is a voluntary program. New Jersey has about six different charities on its tax form to which you can donate.

The key is that this money is purely voluntary. There is no coercion. This entire issue is being used as a wedge by suspicious people on this board to get us to start fighting and thus stem the tide of Ron Paul's juggernaut.

[KingTheoden]

You can see the 1040 form and the explanation of the election donation (see page 16) here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf.
(http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf)
On the first page of the 1040 at the top is a box you check to give $3 to the campaign. It declares that it does NOT change the total owed or the amount of your refund. This is why people are saying the money comes from taxes.

I wonder why this is such a hot button issue? It took me all of 2 minutes to find this information, yet some of you have gone back and forth on it like little children.

Things are bound to heat up now, so it behooves us more than ever to be more aware of tactics used to divide us. I've noticed too that the tactics are becoming more subtle - provoking unsubstantiated doubt is a powerful weapon. Be aware of it.

In Peace,
Jen

Jen, you beat me to it. It is a non issue and we should ignore any agent provocateurs that attempt to make it an issue.

[kylejack]

Kyle, look at a 1040. It is NOT tax money, it is a voluntary program. New Jersey has about six different charities on its tax form to which you can donate.
Incorrect, it does not increase the amount taken from you. You are still required to pay the same amount, but $3 of it is earmarked for the fund. It redirects funds that you're already required to pay.


The key is that this money is purely voluntary. There is no coercion. This entire issue is being used as a wedge by suspicious people on this board to get us to start fighting and thus stem the tide of Ron Paul's juggernaut.
You MUST pay the money. If you wish, you can designate where $3 of what YOU MUST pay goes.

[steph3n]

while interesting the limits on it would mean sure defeat.



The campaign should:

1. Accept the matching funds
2. Immediately cut checks to all the donors that have donated money. He can not wait one minute on this or the press will eat him alive.
3. Immediately issue a press release stating, "Dr Ron Paul has taken the first step in returning the United States Tax payer's hard earned money".

He would accept the money only to give it back to his donors :)

His donors can then donate the money back to him or keep the money... I would suspect most would return the money.

Dr Ron: "It is the tax payers money! I merely got them their money back from this dirty government. It is a small taste of the huge amount of taxes they will be able to keep under my administration"

[kylejack]

while interesting the limits on it would mean sure defeat.

It would also be attacked as a vote-buying scheme.

[steph3n]

true. And there is no reason to get matching funds as I said before, once people like us spread the word there will be MORE donations coming in.

the solution to matching funds, find TWO people to donate what you donated, then you have a double match!

It would also be attacked as a vote-buying scheme.

[Hurricane Bruiser]

Folks,

Matching funds come from general tax revenue and a taxpayer can select to have money go to that fund but it does not increase the taxes they owe. In no way do I support taking matching funds as I don't like to see public money used to finance people's political campaigns that I disagree with.

[Hurricane Bruiser]

I don't like that my tax money will go to support Tom Tancredo who I disagree with on foreign policy.

[steph3n]

Or Edwards/Mccain


I don't like that my tax money will go to support Tom Tancredo who I disagree with on foreign policy.

[DrNoZone]

I don't like that my tax money will go to support Tom Tancredo who I disagree with on foreign policy.

It wouldn't, unless you checked the box that says to set aside $3.