350k not paid for by normal CFL funds (special donation just for ad)

[Jeremy]

Looks to be this way now http://coloradoindependent.com/46727/ken-buck-campaign-ad-stirs-up-supporters-and-speculation

[steve005]

does it say who made the donation?

[purplechoe]

this was already posted in the other thread, although might be somewhat buried in the length of it... :)

[romacox]

bump

[LittleLightShining]

So what???

[hugolp]

So what???

The problem I see is that there is no way for the people that donated money to know if this is for real or not.

[constituent]

Sorry for being dense, but this improves the situation somehow?

[LittleLightShining]

No, in fact I think it's equally damaging. What it means is that C4L, who guards their logo from even the slightest misuse by members who may want to make a bumpersticker have absolutely NO problem pimping out the logo to the highest bidder, principles be damned because THEY DON"T CARE ABOUT THE PRINCIPLES.

[constituent]

No, in fact I think it's equally damaging. What it means is that C4L, who guards their logo from even the slightest misuse by members who may want to make a bumpersticker have absolutely NO problem pimping out the logo to the highest bidder, principles be damned because THEY DON"T CARE ABOUT THE PRINCIPLES.

...but if political advancement is the principle?

[MRoCkEd]

This is much more forgivable in my view. They did send the guy the candidate survey (which Ron Paul himself apparently worked on and approved) and he scored 19/20. That probably was sufficient for them to accept the funds to advertise for this guy, which also promoted C4L's survey and potentially opened them up to more funding for other projects.

Clearly, they should have more fully vetted the guy. From the reaction they got from this instance, it is safe to assume they will be more careful in the future.

[klamath]

If it wasn't general funds from the donating members but paid for by an out side special earmaked donation then I dan't have that big of problem with it.
Actually Buck is starting to look pretty darn good. As far as I am concerned Schiff is worse than this guy.

[rancher89]

This is much more forgivable in my view. They did send the guy the candidate survey (which Ron Paul himself apparently worked on and approved) and he scored 19/20. That probably was sufficient for them to accept the funds to advertise for this guy, which also promoted C4L's survey and potentially opened them up to more funding for other projects.

Clearly, they should have more fully vetted the guy. From the reaction they got from this instance, it is safe to assume they will be more careful in the future.

I respectfully disagree.

The bottom line is that the C4L is not supposed to support any candidates. Period.

Not even his son. Not Medina. Not Kokesh. etc etc etc..........

What you do personally is your choice. Ron can go out to Kentucky and stump for his son all he wants, as a person.

The C4L logo is not to be used to support candidates. It doesn't matter who the candidate is.

You can say: "That probably was sufficient for them to accept the funds to advertise for this guy, which also promoted C4L's survey and potentially opened them up to more funding for other projects. " but the premise is wrong....they should have never put themselves in the position of even looking like they were supporting any candidate.

I wish I had a penny for every time I heard that we were to never ever support any candidates and to avoid carefully any possibility of being misunderstood about supporting any candidates with the C4L logo or as a C4L organization.

I was even told that it could keep our state from being chartered if we used the logo "inappropriately" and that it could hurt National as well.

So much for that.

[LittleLightShining]

IF the money did in fact come from Tim Gill, and I have a feeling it did, it was money well spent by a guy who for years has given over $80 million to promote the gay agenda across the country. Here's ONE example (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:bW1bGTZcK_oJ:americansfortruth.com/news/millionnaire-homosexual-tom-gill-commits-more-than-200-million-to-pro-gay-foundations-political-campaigns.html+tim+gill+foundation&cd=17&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) of what he bought and paid for. IF these yahoos running C4L in Virginia are as plugged into the politics game as they allege to be they should have known there was more to this little buy-off for an ad than meets the eye.

Millionnaire Homosexual Tim Gill Commits More Than $200 Million to Pro-”Gay” Foundations, Political Campaigns

Excerpted from For Gill, It’s Not About the Money, by Myung Oak Kim And Burt Hubbard, published Oct 23, 2006, in Rocky Mountain News:

Tim Gill, the 53-year-old founder of the desktop software firm Quark, became a force in Colorado politics two years ago when he and three other wealthy residents spent $2 million to help install a Democratic majority in both houses of the state legislature for the first time in decades.

This year, Gill has dropped almost $5 million so far on state election campaigns – more than any other individual in Colorado.

…”I have never seen in Colorado politics in the 30-some odd years where I’ve been active . . . any individual involved to the degree that Tim Gill is,” said political consultant Katy Atkinson, a registered Republican who works with both sides of the aisle on ballot measures.

“Should he choose to, he can shape any part of Colorado public policy he wants to.”

Gill also is a player on the national stage, funneling more than $2 million into mostly Democratic causes, including the Democracy Alliance, a new group made up of dozens of the country’s wealthiest donors who are lavishing money on think tanks and organizations to counter similar groups established years ago by conservatives.

All of this is on top of Gill’s considerable philanthropy. Gill and his 12-year-old Gill Foundation have spent more than $80 million on gay and lesbian causes and on other organizations friendly to their gay workers, including the Pikes Peak Library Foundation, the Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center and Public Broadcasting of Colorado.

And all of this is just the beginning, according to Gill’s political adviser Ted Trimpa.

“Tim is in it for the long haul,” said Trimpa, a partner at the high-profile law firm Brownstein Hyatt & Farber. “What we’re talking about is strategic philanthropy and strategic politics.”…

‘Unquestionable’ national impact
Much of Gill’s support has gone to 527 groups, which take their name from Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code…

Gill is the top political donor in Colorado and much of the West to national 527 groups, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group that tracks political contributions. He ranks 16th among all individual 527 donors nationwide, said organization communications director Massie Ritsch.

“If you’re No. 16 on the 527 list, you’re in the elite,” Ritsch said. “If I need to put together a dinner party of the biggest left-leaning donors in the country, I’d invite him.”

These 527 donations give Gill a behind- the-scene hand in influencing campaigns far from Colorado. For example, the Lantern Project, a Gill beneficiary, is funding ads against U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.

Steve Farber, the Denver lawyer and political insider who is trying to bring the 2008 Democratic National Convention to Denver, describes Gill as “a very loyal Democrat both locally and nationally.”

“I think his impact nationally is unquestionable,” Farber said.

Gill’s political adversaries say they are well aware of his impact.

“I see him as being the most focused force on a political agenda,” said state Rep. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, a vocal opponent of Referendum I. “He’s trying to mainstream the homosexual community into our culture.”

“I am concerned that he has been very effective and will continue to be very effective,” he added. “That’s the way the system works. He has that right because he has the resources.”…

A focus on local politics
At a three-day Gill-sponsored conference in Miami last March, Gill pushed for a major shift in political strategy in the gay rights movement.

The Gill Action Fund “political outgiving” meeting brought together almost 200 of the biggest advocates and supporters of the gay rights movement. Gill’s message to them was simple: All politics is local.

Until then, wealthy gay donors often focused on “glamour giving” – donations to presidential or congressional campaigns with an eye toward hobnobbing with the rich and famous…

He created the Gill Foundation in 1994 with an endowment of more than $200 million…

Continue reading in Rocky Mountain News… (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/elections/article/0,2808,DRMN_24736_5087094,00.html)

[MsDoodahs]

Is it ILLEGAL for a rich person to influence a PROSECUTOR to prosecute under a certain law - in this case, that hate crime law used in that murder case?

Is it ILLEGAL for a rich person to dangle the carrot of a massive campaign donation IF ONLY the prosecutor does as he (rich guy) wants in a murder trial?

Seriously - is it?

[MRoCkEd]

It's kind of funny because Mike Rothfeld complains about the influence of the "gay lobby."

[UtahApocalypse]

So are beliefs, values, and principles are for sale now?

http://www.unitedlandsales.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/for_sale_sign-300x297.png

[MsDoodahs]

Apparently so.

:mad:

[LittleLightShining]

It's kind of funny because Mike Rothfeld complains about the influence of the "gay lobby."
Then this is even more damning if the $ came from Gill. Rothfeld would know, right?

[aclove]

Personally, I don't care at all, not one bit, about the "gay agenda", whatever the hell that is. If gay marriage is a problem, and you don't believe gay marriages should be legally recognized, then it should be very easy to incorporate that belief into an anti-state philosophy and say that heterosexual marriages should also not have special status under the law...that in fact, government shouldn't be issuing marriage licenses to anyone, because marriage should be nothing more than a voluntary contract between two consenting adults and the deity of their choice, if any.

With that being said, my take is that Rancher is correct. The issue isn't so much whose money or how much of it was spent promoting this guy. The issue is that that ad may not legally be an endorsement, but anyone with a shred of functioning gray matter can see very plainly that the intent was to get as close to endorsing the guy as possible without crossing that legal line. Given how much emphasis is placed on state and local groups not doing that, and how much trouble we could supposedly get into for "misusing" the logo, it smacks of hypocrisy for national to turn around and do something they'd never let the rest of us get away with.

I'm sure there's more going on behind the scenes than we know about. I'm sure there are things that Tate & the gang are legally prohibited from talking about publicly. And I'm sure that, purely from an organizational and financial perspective, the legal entity known as Campaign for Liberty will grow and benefit.

Is that worth engaging in wheeling and dealing, horsetrading, and everything else that goes with obtaining those benefits? Ultimately, I think that's a decision every single one of us will have to make for ourselves. Is it enough to say to yourself, "Well, my money appears not to have been used for this, so I didn't support this move, either deliberately or unknowingly. As long as I do that, I'm not compromised."

Or will your identity as a person who does not compromise only be preserved if you cut ties completely with an organization that uses this kind of strategy?

Again, that's a decision that each of us will have to make. On the whole, if you've been active in your own local area, engaged in your own projects, with little or no direction from national, not much has changed for you, aside from being disillusioned if you weren't already.

[UtahApocalypse]

Another question..... If someone had $350k for an ad why not just buy it? why did C4L have to be a middleman? That alone answers the fact that its just bullshit spin.

[aclove]

Utah -> The only explanation for this that anyone's come up with is that if the money did come from Gill, his financing it directly would tie a well-known, wealthy gay-rights activist to someone running for the Republican nomination for a Colorado U.S. Senate seat. That association would damage Buck politically, hence the need for a third party through which to funnel the money. However, we have no proof of that, only speculation, both here and by the media.

[Alawn]

I respectfully disagree.

The bottom line is that the C4L is not supposed to support any candidates. Period.

Not even his son. Not Medina. Not Kokesh. etc etc etc..........



I think that was only that way because of McCain/Feingold and the part about political commercials was just overturned so now C4L is allowed to make commercials supporting candidates. You might see them doing for other candidates now.