About moneybombs and other things

[jp5065]

I have seen a lot of confusion and disappointment recently about moneybombs and what should be the best way for the grassroots to spend our money. Although I do not post often here, I have been lurking almost everyday since mid 2007 and have seen what this board can do. So I offer my opinion as to how we should proceed regarding these matters.

The moneybombs in the 2008 campaign were amazing, they were a new creative idea that sparked a lot of excitement in the community and they brought in a lot of money. These days the moneybomb is feeling a little stale. The original idea behind the moneybomb was to make a media splash, to get people to notice Ron Paul and take him seriously. The problem with recent moneybombs is that if you don't out-due your last moneybomb the media has no real interest, also most people already know who Ron Paul is this time around and the media, most of the time, is portraying him as top tier.

So what is the point of the moneybomb this time around? Is it to make a media splash? Or is it just to fund the campaign? If it is to just fund the campaign it should be scraped all together, "give early give often" is a much better mantra for financing the campaign. If we intend to ever make another media splash with moneybombs we need to change our strategy a bit. It seems to me as soon a moneybomb is over these days people are scrambling to be the first to suggest the day of the next moneybomb, next month. Moneybombs need to be special, they need to be BIG, and we need time to reload.

Here is what I propose:


Two more moneybombs for the official campaign until the primary
A Revolution PAC moneybomb
Start getting creative and come up with a new fundraising idea




Limiting the moneybombs to two and setting both dates soon will give the grassroots direction and focus. It will give people clear goals to save up for down the road and give them the time to actually put some money together.

I also think we should have a moneybomb for Revolution PAC. And with this moneybomb I'm not talking about your average Ron Paul supporter giving $20.12 or even $100. I'm talking about networking with wealthy people who can contribute large portions of money. Remember there is no cap on donations to this PAC. How many celebrities support our freedom movement? What if we could convince them to all donate to Revolution PAC on the same day?

The moneybomb was a brand new creative idea back in 2007. we need some new creative ideas. So let's not just fall back on the old moneybomb idea, but move forward, maybe someone has an idea that will be even bigger!

[PaulConventionWV]

I have seen a lot of confusion and disappointment recently about moneybombs and what should be the best way for the grassroots to spend our money. Although I do not post often here, I have been lurking almost everyday since mid 2007 and have seen what this board can do. So I offer my opinion as to how we should proceed regarding these matters.

The moneybombs in the 2008 campaign were amazing, they were a new creative idea that sparked a lot of excitement in the community and they brought in a lot of money. These days the moneybomb is feeling a little stale. The original idea behind the moneybomb was to make a media splash, to get people to notice Ron Paul and take him seriously. The problem with recent moneybombs is that if you don't out-due your last moneybomb the media has no real interest, also most people already know who Ron Paul is this time around and the media, most of the time, is portraying him as top tier.

So what is the point of the moneybomb this time around? Is it to make a media splash? Or is it just to fund the campaign? If it is to just fund the campaign it should be scraped all together, "give early give often" is a much better mantra for financing the campaign. If we intend to ever make another media splash with moneybombs we need to change our strategy a bit. It seems to me as soon a moneybomb is over these days people are scrambling to be the first to suggest the day of the next moneybomb, next month. Moneybombs need to be special, they need to be BIG, and we need time to reload.

Here is what I propose:


Two more moneybombs for the official campaign until the primary
A Revolution PAC moneybomb
Start getting creative and come up with a new fundraising idea




Limiting the moneybombs to two and setting both dates soon will give the grassroots direction and focus. It will give people clear goals to save up for down the road and give them the time to actually put some money together.

I also think we should have a moneybomb for Revolution PAC. And with this moneybomb I'm not talking about your average Ron Paul supporter giving $20.12 or even $100. I'm talking about networking with wealthy people who can contribute large portions of money. Remember there is no cap on donations to this PAC. How many celebrities support our freedom movement? What if we could convince them to all donate to Revolution PAC on the same day?

The moneybomb was a brand new creative idea back in 2007. we need some new creative ideas. So let's not just fall back on the old moneybomb idea, but move forward, maybe someone has an idea that will be even bigger!

I like this idea. I think the two should be September 17th (Constitution Day) and November 11th. I don't see anything wrong with holding another one in December, though, since there is still plenty of time left to raise money. Why not have a third after those two are complete?

Here is the thing that I cannot stress enough: The moneybombs MUST happen because they encourage people to donate who wouldn't normally donate. We on the forums can give all we want in the time in between, or we can choose to wait. I think there will still be funds coming in, and the campaign so far is in pretty good shape, financially. However, we will not be even CLOSE to achieving the success of a moneybomb simply by donating on a regular basis all on our own. It simply won't work. The two dates I suggested, I think, are good ones that I think we should get behind. We can discuss them, but we really need to make a unified decision soon.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I like this idea. I think the two should be September 17th (Constitution Day) and November 11th. I don't see anything wrong with holding another one in December, though, since there is still plenty of time left to raise money. Why not have a third after those two are complete?

Here is the thing that I cannot stress enough: The moneybombs MUST happen because they encourage people to donate who wouldn't normally donate. We on the forums can give all we want in the time in between, or we can choose to wait. I think there will still be funds coming in, and the campaign so far is in pretty good shape, financially. However, we will not be even CLOSE to achieving the success of a moneybomb simply by donating on a regular basis all on our own. It simply won't work. The two dates I suggested, I think, are good ones that I think we should get behind. We can discuss them, but we really need to make a unified decision soon.


I'm not for any moneybombs, but I'd support these two (9/17 and 11/11). And the notion that we can't raise the kind of money we need to without a moneybomb is silly. The first moneybombs EVER happened 4 years ago. How do you think political campaigns raised money before then?? We need to be able to raise good money through conventional means or we won't win this election.

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm not for any moneybombs, but I'd support these two (9/17 and 11/11). And the notion that we can't raise the kind of money we need to without a moneybomb is silly. The first moneybombs EVER happened 4 years ago. How do you think political campaigns raised money before then?? We need to be able to raise good money through conventional means or we won't win this election.

By milking the corporate funds and banker contributions. I think it is pretty obvious that we're not going to raise millions by simply donating day to day. Alone, we don't average near enough to make multimillions in a quarter. Do you realy think we would have had 4.5 million if we hadn't had those 3 moneybombs last quarter? I'm glad you support those dates, but do you deny that the moneybombs encourage people to donate because they feel they are making a difference? To me, it just seems obvious that a special date would encourage more donations that we wouldn't normally get. Do you think we would have had 18million in the 4th quarter of 2007 without those large moneybombs? If you have an average of 10-30k per day and then have a couple of days that raise millions, do you really think the total would have been as high without them? I just can't wrap my head around that.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

By milking the corporate funds and banker contributions. I think it is pretty obvious that we're not going to raise millions by simply donating day to day. Alone, we don't average near enough to make multimillions in a quarter. Do you realy think we would have had 4.5 million if we hadn't had those 3 moneybombs last quarter? I'm glad you support those dates, but do you deny that the moneybombs encourage people to donate because they feel they are making a difference? To me, it just seems obvious that a special date would encourage more donations that we wouldn't normally get. Do you think we would have had 18million in the 4th quarter of 2007 without those large moneybombs? If you have an average of 10-30k per day and then have a couple of days that raise millions, do you really think the total would have been as high without them? I just can't wrap my head around that.

Absolutely, yes. We don't need a planned moneybomb at all. The money will come in. Maybe it wouldn't have in 2007, but we'll never know. This time we don't need it, as shown by plenty of people donating every paycheck. We do need constant reminders to donate, but that has nothing to do with a moneybomb. Campaigns always are constantly asking for money.

[asurfaholic]

I think once Ron Paul takes the win at Ames and continues to build his support base, we will see more and more people who are willing to participate in the moneybombs. Right now, its kinda early, and while I don't know everything about how these things work (Im fairly new here), I am confident that as people see the Paul campaign hit new levels, the money will come. I do agree that we should limit the amount of money bombs we do.

My suggestion is rather than do moneybombs, lets do a monthly pledge. How much will you pay each month? If we look at it like we subscribe to liberty, its easy to swallow a $20/month contribution. $20 is rather cheap for freedom, I mean, how much do you pay for the biased crap that comes on your TV? If we can get as many people as possible to sign up for a monthly fee to the RP campaign, the donations are regular and will add up to be HUGE. Maybe RP campaign could even kinda "budget" for the future, knowing that on the 1st of every month, or whatever a whole slew of donations will come in.

[PaulConventionWV]

Absolutely, yes. We don't need a planned moneybomb at all. The money will come in. Maybe it wouldn't have in 2007, but we'll never know. This time we don't need it, as shown by plenty of people donating every paycheck. We do need constant reminders to donate, but that has nothing to do with a moneybomb. Campaigns always are constantly asking for money.

I don't understand how you can think eliminating a few million dollar days would even out with the rest of the 10-30k days. The moneybombs last quarter made up over 3.5 million of the 4.5 million we raised.

Also, why would you think that 2012 was somehow different from 2007 in terms of moneybombs having an impact? That's an argument from ignorance. Do you really deny that there is no redeeming quality for the moneybomb for its ability to attract donors that wouldn't normally donate? Our campaign is different from others. Do you think some Joe-schmoe who kinda likes Ron Paul is going to be motivated without a reason to? Remember, we're not all hardcore supporters who are dedicated enough to send in a portion of our paycheck. Some Joe-schmoes, however, will rally behind a unifying concept. Are you honestly going to say this is not the case and that everyone is going to dilligently send in their money even when they think it won't make a difference? People operate on feeling, and yes, the moneybomb helps them feel like they are making a difference because they can see the impact they are making and they get their name on the ticker. It is just inconceivable to me that you can hold this view for no reason. Are you just fed up with the arguments? Because I understand that, but it's no reason to say the moneybombs don't work. They do, there is just no plausible way to deny that.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I don't understand how you can think eliminating a few million dollar days would even out with the rest of the 10-30k days. The moneybombs last quarter made up over 3.5 million of the 4.5 million we raised.

Also, why would you think that 2012 was somehow different from 2007 in terms of moneybombs having an impact? That's an argument from ignorance. Do you really deny that there is no redeeming quality for the moneybomb for its ability to attract donors that wouldn't normally donate? Our campaign is different from others. Do you think some Joe-schmoe who kinda likes Ron Paul is going to be motivated without a reason to? Remember, we're not all hardcore supporters who are dedicated enough to send in a portion of our paycheck. Some Joe-schmoes, however, will rally behind a unifying concept. Are you honestly going to say this is not the case and that everyone is going to dilligently send in their money even when they think it won't make a difference? People operate on feeling, and yes, the moneybomb helps them feel like they are making a difference because they can see the impact they are making and they get their name on the ticker. It is just inconceivable to me that you can hold this view for no reason. Are you just fed up with the arguments? Because I understand that, but it's no reason to say the moneybombs don't work. They do, there is just no plausible way to deny that.


Moneybombs made up a majority of funds raised because we had a moneybomb every other day (obvious exaggeration, but you get the point). That's like saying, "look at how much our farmers produced last year! How could they harvest so much without subsidies!?" It's a fallacy. 2007 is different from 2011 because in 2007 we were seriously lacking media presence. Therefore, we created these stunts that the media couldn't ignore. We don't need to do that anymore, and actually doing so can make us look amateurish. We need to run a very aggressive, yet very conventional campaign.

The amount of people who need to be motivated by a moneybomb is small in comparison to the base of the Republican party. And that's the vote that we need. Ron Paul raised about $30 million last go around. We need to triple that this time. We can only do that by appealing to a wider range of people. Moneybombs might do that if there are few and timed correctly, and I say that not being convinced of it.

The moneybomb is not some magical tool the grassroots has at it's disposal to wield whenever it needs money.

I understand your position, and I have very specific reasons for holding mine. If you do not understand my position, please take some time to think about it. :o

[pacelli]

bump..