Should Paul match funds

[remaxjon]

Should Ron Paul match funds yes or no

[remaxjon]

Poll

[SouthernGuy15]

Heck No! He Should Not!

[SouthernGuy15]

Heck No!

[OptionsTrader]

The title of the poll does not make sense grammatically.

"Should Paul match funds yes or no"

Ron Paul isn't doing any sort of matching, he would be accepting matching funds.

[remaxjon]

The title of the poll does not make sense grammatically.

"Should Paul match funds yes or no"

Ron Paul isn't doing any sort of matching, he would be accepting matching funds.

thanks grammer police just don't tase me:rolleyes:

[OptionsTrader]

tase them subjeckts and vurbs.

[brumans]

What are the arguments against matching funds?

[happyphilter]

Why shouldn't he?

This money was volunteered for the purpose of matching funds.

He needs the money, still hardly anybody knows about him, the money will give him the opportunity to reach many more voters.

[Joe Knows]

Should Ron Paul match funds yes or no

Philosophically you can make a case for it either way. You can say no because you will not take government money. Or you can say yes because in reality individual taxpayers checked off a box on their IRS tax form and directed that those tax dollars specifically go for matching funds.

Keep in mind, if you take those dollars, you are limited on what you can spend in the primaries on a state to state basis. So you have to decide number 1, if you can live within those limits. You then also have to decide how you want to spend the money. Do you want to use it on election expenses or do you want a big press conference and give it back? How do you get the biggest bang for your buck?

Do you get more media from accepting the money or is it better media to refuse the funds?

You could also just qualify for the funds to make a point and then never take them.

This is something that the campaign will have to figure out which is the best route to go. I have every confidence that Dr. Paul is entitle to matching funds at this point. He has certainly met the requirements. I would be inclined to accept those funds because millions of individual taxpayers have directed that they would like a few of their tax dollars spent this way.

[Chester Copperpot]

I would have preferred a 3rd Choice which is "Whatever the campaign decides is fine with me"

I havent voted.;

[OptionsTrader]

THE BOTTOM LINE:

Ron Paul always makes the right call. Let him decide. I'll back him either way.

[jjockers]

I've been reading these threads today (4 of them now) and am a bit confused. I see no ethical problem accepting voluntary donations from citizens for a presidential election. As long as it is voluntary and the people are not forced/taxed to pay, I don't see a problem. I know when I do my taxes that I have the option to donate - no one forces me to.

I've read here that the government uses more than just the money from voluntary donations - 'it' throws in more money from unsuspecting tax payers - is this true? If so, then I would not be in favor of matching funds. What's the point of voluntary donations if the 'pool' is going to be subsidized anyways by all of those who clearly decided they did not want to donate?

If I opt not to donate and am taxed for a donation anyway, then is it not better to just donate $.01 and not get taxed? I'm quite sure I am missing something here.

[dsentell]

THE BOTTOM LINE:

Ron Paul always makes the right call.

Let him decide.

I'll back him either way.

Ditto!

I would love for him to have the money. But it seems to me that it runs aganist his philosophy.

[KingTheoden]

I would have preferred a 3rd Choice which is "Whatever the campaign decides is fine with me"

I havent voted.;

Exactly. The staff and Dr. Paul are the ones who make this decision and it will be predicated on whatever is best for the campaign.

[Joe Knows]

I would have preferred a 3rd Choice which is "Whatever the campaign decides is fine with me"

I havent voted.;

I agree.

[Duckman]

I've read here that the government uses more than just the money from voluntary donations - 'it' throws in more money from unsuspecting tax payers - is this true?

Granted, I don't 100% know, but it seems to me that with the current level of financial restraint we have in Washington (e.g. "none") that the odds of your $3 "voluntary" contribution actually going to a "lockbox" where it won't be used except for this purpose seems unrealistic. Even Social Security is not being treated that way. Plus, it's not like they charge you an extra $3, they ask you if you want $3 of your taxes to go to the fund. I think it is smoke and mirrors.

The bottom line, I think, is that the money comes out of the federal treasury and if it is not spent as "campaign welfare" it could go to some better use like reducing the deficit.

This is the main reason I oppose taking the funds - I think ultimately Ron Paul would be taking tax money away from the general treasury. But if it turns out that there is, in fact, a true "lockbox" and the candidate pool money goes in there and can never be spent for any other reason, I might reconsider my objection.

[DjLoTi]

omg if he accepts public voluntary funding, I'll cede my rights over to the NWO and Rudy Giuliani/Hilary Clinton. Money is more important then freedom.

[happyphilter]

Granted, I don't 100% know, but it seems to me that with the current level of financial restraint we have in Washington (e.g. "none") that the odds of your $3 "voluntary" contribution actually going to a "lockbox" where it won't be used except for this purpose seems unrealistic. Even Social Security is not being treated that way. Plus, it's not like they charge you an extra $3, they ask you if you want $3 of your taxes to go to the fund. I think it is smoke and mirrors.

The bottom line, I think, is that the money comes out of the federal treasury and if it is not spent as "campaign welfare" it could go to some better use like reducing the deficit.

This is the main reason I oppose taking the funds - I think ultimately Ron Paul would be taking tax money away from the general treasury. But if it turns out that there is, in fact, a true "lockbox" and the candidate pool money goes in there and can never be spent for any other reason, I might reconsider my objection.

Just speculation. We can all let our minds wander and come up with crazy ideas to oppose or support matching funds. But the bottom line is that we got to trust the system, and if ron paul takes the money it will do much more good when he wins rather then not taking it and losing.
We all know he needs the money.

[Duckman]

We all know he needs the money.

I think he actually doesn't need the money, he has a huge base of followers that is more valuable than anything money can buy. And he might lose a fair number of those followers by taking the matching funds.

Yes, that would probably be a petty decision on the part of such followers. Honestly, there is nowhere else to turn except Ron Paul, but if he will compromise his staunchly anti-tax and anti-wealth redistribution principles here, where else might he compromise those principles? :eek:

[leipo]

I think he actually doesn't need the money, he has a huge base of followers that is more valuable than anything money can buy.

Exactly.

[LBT]

Someone please explain to me how a libertarian can define that accepting matching funds is non-principled, while taking a congressional pay check, or receiving government services such as roads or buying discounted goods from subsidized industries is principalled?

Where do you draw the line?

What is just use of government monies or services and what is not?

Too many libertarians tend toward illogical extremes. Some believe government itself is theft and voting is hence immoral.

But we have what we have concerning government. It gets better or it gets worse.

We achieve little by trying to opt out of it. We can hardly survive without taking part in the imperfect system, like it or not.

If people are going to blame Ron for compromising, they had better be very clear on how this compromise is significantly different than taking a salary for government work in the first place.

Presumably people voted for him to receive a salary legally, as they voted for matching funds.

I don't like the idea of matching funds, nor do I like much of what goes on in elections, nor do I like public roads and government subsidized industries, but the playing field is what it is.

[remaxjon]

Someone please explain to me how a libertarian can define that accepting matching funds is non-principled, while taking a congressional pay check, or receiving government services such as roads or buying discounted goods from subsidized industries is principalled?

Where do you draw the line?

What is just use of government monies or services and what is not?

Too many libertarians tend toward illogical extremes. Some believe government itself is theft and voting is hence immoral.

But we have what we have concerning government. It gets better or it gets worse.

We achieve little by trying to opt out of it. We can hardly survive without taking part in the imperfect system, like it or not.

If people are going to blame Ron for compromising, they had better be very clear on how this compromise is significantly different than taking a salary for government work in the first place.

Presumably people voted for him to receive a salary legally, as they voted for matching funds.

I don't like the idea of matching funds, nor do I like much of what goes on in elections, nor do I like public roads and government subsidized industries, but the playing field is what it is.


interesting point... I have to think about this more now

[Duckman]

Someone please explain to me how a libertarian can define that accepting matching funds is non-principled, while taking a congressional pay check, or receiving government services such as roads or buying discounted goods from subsidized industries is principalled?

I think there is a basic expectation that a government employee should draw a salary, and there is also a basic expectation that you should be able to drive on a publicly funded road since everyone "funds" it and therefore everyone can benefit from it (some libertarians are against publicly funded roads, but I've never heard an explanation for how privately funded roads would work (outside of highways) which I thought was workable).

However, I think it's a far cry from there to say there is an expectation that a Presidential candidate can draw matching funds (which could be millions of dollars) from the public treasury. This is akin to saying that there is an expectation that there should be corporate welfare, bailouts, public welfare, publicly financed health systems, or any other form of large scale "benefit" to a given few from the many.

Maybe I am a stickler. But I think this is an important principle that Ron Paul is (I think) 100% on board with, and it will sadden me if he takes public funds and proves otherwise.

[LibertyEagle]

He should do what HE thinks he needs to do and if any of us walk away from him because he chooses something that we do not like, WE are the hypocrites.

[mconder]

Does the poll results represent something bigger here, for instance the percentage of Ron Paul supports who truly get IT, and those who don't?

There's people on this forum extolling the virtues of public surveillance cameras, facial recognition and biometrics. It's almost like we are getting to mainstream for our own good. I think we are actually starting to attract people who oppose the foundational principles of Ron's message, but support him for pet issue like the war.

The great thing, is I feel I know Ron's thinking well enough to know there is no way in hell he will take the matching funds!

[JMann]

Someone please explain to me how a libertarian can define that accepting matching funds is non-principled, while taking a congressional pay check, or receiving government services such as roads or buying discounted goods from subsidized industries is principalled?

Where do you draw the line?

What is just use of government monies or services and what is not?

Too many libertarians tend toward illogical extremes. Some believe government itself is theft and voting is hence immoral.

But we have what we have concerning government. It gets better or it gets worse.

We achieve little by trying to opt out of it. We can hardly survive without taking part in the imperfect system, like it or not.

If people are going to blame Ron for compromising, they had better be very clear on how this compromise is significantly different than taking a salary for government work in the first place.

Presumably people voted for him to receive a salary legally, as they voted for matching funds.

I don't like the idea of matching funds, nor do I like much of what goes on in elections, nor do I like public roads and government subsidized industries, but the playing field is what it is.


You are very much correct and worded far better than I could. There is absolutely no good reason not to take what is available.

[Sematary]

Looks pretty conclusive to me.

[LBT]

I think there is a basic expectation that a government employee should draw a salary, and there is also a basic expectation that you should be able to drive on a publicly funded road since everyone "funds" it and therefore everyone can benefit from it (some libertarians are against publicly funded roads, but I've never heard an explanation for how privately funded roads would work (outside of highways) which I thought was workable).

However, I think it's a far cry from there to say there is an expectation that a Presidential candidate can draw matching funds (which could be millions of dollars) from the public treasury. This is akin to saying that there is an expectation that there should be corporate welfare, bailouts, public welfare, publicly financed health systems, or any other form of large scale "benefit" to a given few from the many.

Maybe I am a stickler. But I think this is an important principle that Ron Paul is (I think) 100% on board with, and it will sadden me if he takes public funds and proves otherwise.

I see your point Duckman. I do think there is some difference in accepting matching funds, compared to a salary for example, but I think it is hard to draw a line here.

Say you're starting a tech company and the government is providing 50,000 to start up tech companies. Not taking that 50k puts you miles behind your competitors.

In the real world we get presented with a bunch of hoops and the occassional government benefit. In the end, the benefits rarely even out the obstacles. We may not support the benifits or the obstacles, but if we refuse to take any of the benefits we're just punishing ourselves. A kind of asceticism.

I think Ron Paul will have to make many political compromises if he becomes president. He may not like to, but there are forces in this game that make it impossible to play according to a libertarian guide book. At least as far as I can tell.

I believe Ron approves subsidies for farmers in his district, though I'm sure he'd like ot see all subsidies removed. These are the kind of compromises I refer to. RP must represent many people. Many who are supporting him will want him to take the money if it can improve his chances.

I expect, whatever Ron decides, he will present a decent argument for his decision.

[Duckman]

We may not support the benifits or the obstacles, but if we refuse to take any of the benefits we're just punishing ourselves. A kind of asceticism.

I appreciate your well-worded points, but consider... is it asceticism for Ron Paul to refuse his pension? Refuse to take junkets? These are the principles Ron sacrifices if he takes the public money here, in my opinion. I think Ron Paul fires people up because he is so RIGHT on so many issues and because he seems extremely principled and tarnish free. I feel by taking these funds he will tarnish his good name for percieved short term gain, which is not like him at all.

[DeadheadForPaul]

I'm amazed that so many people are opposed to matching funds. I'll leave the decision with the good doctor.

I bet some people change their tune when they see the Q3 donation numbers

[Zarxrax]

Taking the matching funds does not at all go against his principals! People CHOOSE to donate to this cause through their tax returns. What if the government doesn't keep the money in some kind of lock box or whatever? Is this Ron Paul's fault in some way? Should he simply ignore the share of this donated money that is entitled to him simply because others in government may have been irresponsible?

[Joe Knows]

I think he actually doesn't need the money, he has a huge base of followers that is more valuable than anything money can buy. And he might lose a fair number of those followers by taking the matching funds.



I have an idea. Suppose Ron Paul can have $3,000,000 from matching funds. How about a big publicity campaign where we all can donate $3,000,000 and match it ourselves?

[Joe Knows]

Taking the matching funds does not at all go against his principals! People CHOOSE to donate to this cause through their tax returns. What if the government doesn't keep the money in some kind of lock box or whatever? Is this Ron Paul's fault in some way? Should he simply ignore the share of this donated money that is entitled to him simply because others in government may have been irresponsible?

Does it go against principal to take a social security check, because that sure isn't in a lock box?

[Duckman]

Suppose Ron Paul can have $3,000,000 from matching funds. How about a big publicity campaign where we all can donate $3,000,000 and match it ourselves?

GREAT idea!

I'll donate to that cause!!

The website could make a big deal out of it, maybe call it "donating on principle" or something like that.

[Joe Knows]

"donating on principle"

That's a great idea. Donating on Principle.

[Sematary]

Does it go against principal to take a social security check, because that sure isn't in a lock box?

I've paid tens of thousands of dollars of MY hard earned money into social security. I damn well hope to get MY money back.

[Sematary]

GREAT idea!

I'll donate to that cause!!

The website could make a big deal out of it, maybe call it "donating on principle" or something like that.

I'd go for that too.

[DjLoTi]

I like cheese. Cheese is kewl, esp. when it's spelled 'cheeze'

[Proemio]

Should Paul match funds yes or no

Emphatic NO.
Would be the establishment's wet dream come true - a Dean Scream equivalent.

[maiki]

No, unneeded restrictions, also, gives appearance that campaign is not going well.

[goRPaul]

Absolutely not.

Dr. Paul should not and will not accept federal matching funds. End of arguement, I really hope we don't have to talk about this from here on out.

[happyphilter]

WHY NOT TAKE IT!
The money was given to be used in campaigns! so why not use it? This wasn't taxed from the people without them knowing, it was an accepted fact that their money would be used for this...

So if its not morally wrong, and it will help, why not do it?

And don't give me speculatory answers like "its being taken from the federal reserve!!!!" I want facts why it would be wrong.

[Mort]

WHY NOT TAKE IT!
The money was given to be used in campaigns! so why not use it? This wasn't taxed from the people without them knowing, it was an accepted fact that their money would be used for this...

So if its not morally wrong, and it will help, why not do it?

And don't give me speculatory answers like "its being taken from the federal reserve!!!!" I want facts why it would be wrong.

Its not morally wrong, but it is against his principles. We need less government assistance and less governement intervention. It is money collected by the government from people and then passed to someone else. The match would be money coming from people who may not support ron paul. This is inconstent with ron paul's beliefs that we should not take from one group to give to another.

[Duckman]

WHY NOT TAKE IT!

Because it's from the federal treasury.
Because only candidates desperate for cash typically take it.
Because it's "candidate welfare."
Because it will require we follow rules that will tie our hands in New Hampshire.
Because some core RP supporters may walk away from the campaign if we take it.
Because it goes against Ron's values as seen by his refusal to take his pension.
Because they will attack us if we take it for being hypocritical and inconsistent.

...most importantly...

Because WE DON'T NEED IT.
We have the best, most energized volunteers in the entire 2008 race, BAR NONE.
We have Ron's intellect, ideas, and integrity on our side.
We will soon see that the other candidates are shams, that only Ron Paul can turn out real voters.

[happyphilter]

Because it's from the federal treasury. Its our money to give
Because only candidates desperate for cash typically take it. RP needs cash, and when was the last time anyone voted based on this? I never have, and most people dont even notice
Because it's "candidate welfare." No its not, its more so a donation from tax payers(they chose to donate)
Because it will require we follow rules that will tie our hands in New Hampshire. Not having money ties our hands in every state
Because some core RP supporters may walk away from the campaign if we take it.I they walk away for that reason they arent real supporters. We will gain many more voters then we will have lost
Because it goes against Ron's values as seen by his refusal to take his pension.This is different then a pention...
Because they will attack us if we take it for being hypocritical and inconsistent.They may, they may not. all speculation

...most importantly...

Because WE DON'T NEED IT.yes, we do, unless you have more money to donate
We have the best, most energized volunteers in the entire 2008 race, BAR NONE.
We have Ron's intellect, ideas, and integrity on our side.and when was the last time that won an election?
We will soon see that the other candidates are shams, that only Ron Paul can turn out real voters.we may see, but nobody else will see if we dont have the money to spread the message

okay

[Duckman]

okay

If you want to sell out Ron Paul's principles to win this election, I can't join you.

[Mort]

Because it's "candidate welfare." No its not, its more so a donation from tax payers(they chose to donate)



It is considered candidate welfare. I don't care where the money comes from. It is money that was not donated to him.

I will respect Ron Paul's decision in the matter. Support him either way.

[happyphilter]

If you want to sell out Ron Paul's principles to win this election, I can't join you.

Who even said this was against his principles?! If you have a link or something you aren't sharing Id love to see it. Last time I checked he hasn't decided on it yet. Just stop speaking for Ron Paul. It seems like these are your principles, not his.

[Duckman]

Who even said this was against his principles?! If you have a link or something you aren't sharing Id love to see it. Last time I checked he hasn't decided on it yet. Just stop speaking for Ron Paul. It seems like these are your principles, not his.

You're right, I was frustrated and I apologize for my comment.

I do seriously think these are Ron's principles though. I just don't think he should or would take federal tax dollars to fund his campaign. I know there is a box asking if you want money to go to the fund, but it's not a "donation" per se, it's a routing of some of your tax money to that purpose (and theoretically takes tax dollars away from some other purpose) so in my mind if you direct money to the fund that means extra borrowing is needed to cover the expenses it could have been used for instead, thus equating (in my mind) this with any other tax revenue.

It really bothers me to think of Ron adding $3.5+M to the federal debt to fund his campaign. I just think that's the complete polar opposite of his entire fabric of being. That's why so many core supporters are so worked up about this issue, even to the point of talking about abandoning the campaign (although I personally wouldn't go that far).

[Ron Paul Fan]

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it until people get the point. Whether or not it goes against Ron Paul's principles is totally IRRELEVANT! It's the stipulation that he must limit what he can spend in each state(including Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, etc.) that is the reason he shouldn't take it. If we want to go hard at New Hampshire like I'm sure he plans to do then he can't take them and expect to compete. Contenders for the nomination don't take federal matching funds. I'd like Dr. Paul to have the best chance to compete and that's why I don't want him to take the funds. I don't think he will anyway and I don't see the big hooplah about this.

[DjLoTi]

we should make this a sticky because I'm sick of this stuff popping all the time when 'what if's' and 'maybe he should...' just never end, but since everyone is so inundated with this idea they should have their own little space on the forum where they can talk about the future.

[Matt Collins]

Those funds are voluntary on everyone's tax form.

His opponents WILL be taking these funds, he should too.

[Electrostatic]

No, most of his opponents (the ones who think they have a chance to win) will NOT be taking those funds... It puts HARD AND SEVERE UNWINNABLE LIMITS on how much advertising you are allowed to buy in the early primary sates.