Matthew Zak
07-31-2011, 10:38 AM
I think the Ron Paul campaign knows better than anyone when they need money and how much they need.
Let's face it: Our scheduled money bombs clash with the campaign's needs. Yes, it's money, which is good: But we take attention away from crucial end-of-the-quarter pushes and other campaign-central events. By holding out, we make Ron's campaign that much more desperate for funds when they need them most. Then we become divided financially which ultimately takes away from the purpose of the money bomb (which, if you've been around since 2007 you know is to generate publicity).
If the purpose is to send the campaign money and for the campaign to spend that money wisely, then money bombs should not be a priority.
If the purpose of the money bomb is to generate publicity then we should have the fewest possible money bombs and focus on promoting them to an event like the Tea Party. This year especially, it could be very effective. Think about it: The Tea Party is an established, recognizable name now. 10 million dollars to Ron Paul in the name of the Tea Party would once and for all solidify his ties to the Tea Party and add clout to the Tea Party it's self. Other Tea Partiers and Conservatives would be more likely to donate to that money bomb than to any other. Imagine how many Bachmann and Palin supporters we could attract!
In the mean time I think it would be wise to save money for when the campaign asks for it. Donate when they need it. They know when they need it and this time around they're proving they know how to spend it.
Let's face it: Our scheduled money bombs clash with the campaign's needs. Yes, it's money, which is good: But we take attention away from crucial end-of-the-quarter pushes and other campaign-central events. By holding out, we make Ron's campaign that much more desperate for funds when they need them most. Then we become divided financially which ultimately takes away from the purpose of the money bomb (which, if you've been around since 2007 you know is to generate publicity).
If the purpose is to send the campaign money and for the campaign to spend that money wisely, then money bombs should not be a priority.
If the purpose of the money bomb is to generate publicity then we should have the fewest possible money bombs and focus on promoting them to an event like the Tea Party. This year especially, it could be very effective. Think about it: The Tea Party is an established, recognizable name now. 10 million dollars to Ron Paul in the name of the Tea Party would once and for all solidify his ties to the Tea Party and add clout to the Tea Party it's self. Other Tea Partiers and Conservatives would be more likely to donate to that money bomb than to any other. Imagine how many Bachmann and Palin supporters we could attract!
In the mean time I think it would be wise to save money for when the campaign asks for it. Donate when they need it. They know when they need it and this time around they're proving they know how to spend it.