Since there's no PAC, why not allow donations over $5k ?

[someguy200]

Since the people in charge decided it would be too much trouble to setup a PAC doesn't that mean there are now no limits to what people can donate to the blimp fund ? If so this opens the door for people that have big money to spend, but have already maxed out to the official campaign and really want to see this idea take off. I know there probably aren't very many people that were effected by the $5k limit, but it only takes a few of them to really help this project out. Of course these large pledges should be verified, but they're already doing that for the $5k ones, so it's no big deal.

[kylejack]

Doing this without a PAC is illegal.

But anyway, why not just use one of the PACs that has already been set up? It would be a cinch. Pledges are phantom money. When will actual collections start?

[Elijah]

Since the people in charge decided it would be too much trouble to setup a PAC doesn't that mean there are now no limits to what people can donate to the blimp fund ? If so this opens the door for people that have big money to spend, but have already maxed out to the official campaign and really want to see this idea take off. I know there probably aren't very many people that were effected by the $5k limit, but it only takes a few of them to really help this project out. Of course these large pledges should be verified, but they're already doing that for the $5k ones, so it's no big deal.

We will release the limit this evening. And I am so sorry but the new legal way cannot allow foreign nationals to influence a political election.

[Elijah]

Doing this without a PAC is illegal.

But anyway, why not just use one of the PACs that has already been set up? It would be a cinch. Pledges are phantom money. When will actual collections start?

Unfortunately, doing this with a PAC is illegal. We have legal counsel. If we did a PAC then every donation would go towards your 2,300 limit for Ron Paul. And then $5,000 wouldn't even be possible.

[kylejack]

Unfortunately, doing this with a PAC is illegal. We have legal counsel. If we did a PAC then every donation would go towards your 2,300 limit for Ron Paul. And then $5,000 wouldn't even be possible.
PAC contributions are not tied to campaign donations unless the PAC co-ordinates with the campaign on advertising. The maximum donation to a PAC is indeed 5000. Spending more than $1000 on advertising for a candidate for a federal office is illegal without a PAC.

[KCIndy]

PAC contributions are not tied to campaign donations unless the PAC co-ordinates with the campaign on advertising. The maximum donation to a PAC is indeed 5000. Spending more than $1000 on advertising for a candidate for a federal office is illegal without a PAC.


If that's the case, how did llepard get by with dropping 80K+ on that Thanksgiving ad?

And what about all the meetup groups? Would the same limits apply to them?

If there's a good First Amendment attorney being consulted, perhaps a clear, concise explanation posted as a "sticky" would be a helpful.

[kylejack]

If that's the case, how did llepard get by with dropping 80K+ on that Thanksgiving ad?

And what about all the meetup groups? Would the same limits apply to them?

If there's a good First Amendment attorney being consulted, perhaps a clear, concise explanation posted as a "sticky" would be a helpful.

An individual can make an "independent expenditure" of an unlimited amount. If llepard had taken donations to run it, he would have had to form a committee, which is why he paid for the whole thing himself. Llepard was still required to report the expenditure to the FEC, but since he spent it all himself, he was not required to form a committee.

Yes, the same limits would apply to Meetups, but small projects are less likely to draw the FEC's attention. The TV ads ran by grassroots in NH and Iowa used a PAC. The same PAC could probably be used for this project.

[Elijah]

PAC contributions are not tied to campaign donations unless the PAC co-ordinates with the campaign on advertising. The maximum donation to a PAC is indeed 5000. Spending more than $1000 on advertising for a candidate for a federal office is illegal without a PAC.

From http://www.ronpaulmax.com/


PAC's
Single Candidate PAC's

The only PAC's we know of that are supporting Ron Paul at this time are single candidate PAC's for Ron Paul. Donating to a single candidate PAC for Ron Paul counts as a donation to Ron Paul's campaign. Source: 11 C.F.R. 110.1(h). (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/12feb20041500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/janqtr/11cfr110.1.htm)

If you have already given the legal maximum to Ron Paul's campaign, you may not also give to a single candidate PAC that is supporting Ron Paul, or to any PAC where you reasonably expect the money to be used to expressly advocate his election.

This means, for example, that if you have already given the legal maximum to Ron Paul's campaign, you may not donate to many of the Ron Paul ChipInfunds being promoted, since the Federal Election Commission would consider many of those funds to be single candidate PAC's, no matter what the organizers may be calling them.

If you can reasonably expect that a substantial portion of your donation to a fund will go to the express advocacy of Ron Paul's election, then your contribution to that fund would count as a contribution to Ron Paul's campaign.

If you know something I don't by all means please let me know. We have good counsel but there is always a possibility we don't know something.

[kylejack]

From http://www.ronpaulmax.com/



If you know something I don't by all means please let me know. We have good counsel but there is always a possibility we don't know something.

That's a good point. Regardless, the fact remains that spending >1000 on advertising for a federal candaidate without a committee is illegal. Your counsel should have advised you of this.

[Elijah]

That's a good point. Regardless, the fact remains that spending >1000 on advertising for a federal candaidate without a committee is illegal. Your counsel should have advised you of this.


The new way avoids this.

[kylejack]

The new way avoids this.

I'll believe it when its explained.

[Elijah]

I'll believe it when its explained.

Sure thing!

[Naraku]

Sooo, what exactly is this new way?

[Platondas]

I am also curious what the new way is.

[kylejack]

Sooo, what exactly is this new way?


I am also curious what the new way is.

Raise twice as much as is needed, then burn half of the money on a shrine dedicated to the FEC.

[ItsTime]

this thread is putting even more serious doubts of the legitimacy of this whole venture. I already think its a total waste of money and time. We need PACs to be running ads in New Hampshire and Iowa not flying in the sky when no one is looking.

[austin356]

this thread is putting even more serious doubts of the legitimacy of this whole venture. I already think its a total waste of money and time. We need PACs to be running ads in New Hampshire and Iowa not flying in the sky when no one is looking.


This is what I said from the get go (not the part about legitimacy), but please such is said and done. If you have problem with the blimp concept this subforum is not for you.

This coming from one of the largest opponents of the blimp when it was still in the theoretical stage.

[Platondas]

I am not an opponent of the blimp; in fact I have already pledged money for it, furthermore its the reason I finally joined as a member of the forum. That being said I really do want to know what the new form that this project will take is, simply because I feel like I have a stake in it.

[austin356]

I am not an opponent of the blimp; in fact I have already pledged money for it, furthermore its the reason I finally joined as a member of the forum. That being said I really do want to know what the new form that this project will take is, simply because I feel like I have a stake in it.



Yea I am curious; Hopefully a press release will make it out on time tonight.

[MRoCkEd]

he said he will tell us this evening

[Austin]

How does Lord Xar accept $5000 donations, then?

[Siri Das]

I stumbled upon a meetup group post in Amerstdam about their frustration that they could not donate money to RP's campaign.

I looked into PAC's and the law allows contributions from American companies that have subsidiaries in foreign countries and also from foreign companies that have subsidiaries in the US.

Googling PACs also showed that foreign companies hire PR firms/lobbyists to influence US politics.

Foreign money always been a factor in US politics. With the worldwide grassroots support that RP has, this is could be a nice boost.

[Storm3]

And I am so sorry but the new legal way cannot allow foreign nationals to influence a political election.

Elijah, I didn't really understand this. Does that mean that foreign nationals CANNOT donate to the blimp project?

[TwiStEr]

Elijah, I didn't really understand this. Does that mean that foreign nationals CANNOT donate to the blimp project?

in that case you can eliminate one of the 25$ pledges :( ... I was so happy to finally be part of something .... I mean come on, 25 $ is like 15 € for me now :P

[kylejack]

he said he will tell us this evening

Whatever happened?

[Wayne Hammond]

Unfortunately, doing this with a PAC is illegal. We have legal counsel. If we did a PAC then every donation would go towards your 2,300 limit for Ron Paul. And then $5,000 wouldn't even be possible.

I have a question...

If indeed it is illegal to do this with a PAC, as you say above, why hasn't Trevor changed the web site at www.RonPaulBlimp.com, which says...

What will you do with my money?

Currently we are accepting pledges for the amount you wish to donate. We are in the process of forming an official Political Action Committee to take care of the funds. If you would like to help please email us here.

And what relationship do you have with the project, Elijah? When you say "we have legal counsel", who is the "we" you speak about?

I'd like a little more openness about this project. Did Trevor contact you? What's the series of events that led up to this?

Maybe I missed a thread somewhere?


.

[jenninlouisiana]

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/nongui.pdf

It is illegal to do this without a PAC. I called the FEC about my own personal attempt at getting donations online for an AD in my local paper.

Anything over 1,000 makes the organization a PAC and you have to file within 10 days after collecting 1,000.

[moberley]

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/nongui.pdf

It is illegal to do this without a PAC. I called the FEC about my own personal attempt at getting donations online for an AD in my local paper.

Anything over 1,000 makes the organization a PAC and you have to file within 10 days after collecting 1,000.

Since I have not seen any official clarification of the supposed non-PAC strategy. My interpretation of the comments that have been made, and the request for help that was posted a while back, is that the organizers plan to do this outside of the FEC regulatory. That is, organizer "Elijah" has noted that legal counsel was consulted and the request included a "First Amendment Attorney". My conclusion based on that data is that the plan is to launch the blimp as an expression of First Amendment rights to free speech. In other words, civil disobedience.

According to my understanding of the Paulian "just read it" approach to Constitutional interpretation the FEC system is not constitutional. But, like the USA PATRIOT Act, the Internal Revenue Code, and other such legislation and regulation it is still "the law". In any such conflict between natural rights (like free speech) and government laws individuals can choose to assert their rights. However, in doing so they have to recognize that they are doing something technically illegal and therefore subject to government prosecution.

On the other hand, I'm not a lawyer (and I'm not even an American citizen) so this is just speculation. I think the blimp is a totally great idea and that individuals should be allowed to associate in order to launch such a thing. But, given the information I have available to me I think that actually doing it probably requires civil disobedience.

[NinjaPirate]

in that case you can eliminate one of the 25$ pledges :( ... I was so happy to finally be part of something .... I mean come on, 25 $ is like 15 € for me now :P

Why do you have to rub that shit in????? ;) :D

[TwiStEr]

hehe ... I guess I should plan a US visit with those exchange rates :P ....

but this is actually bad for us too, bc our exporting firms lose a lot of money ... nevertheless sorry I just couldnt resist! ;)

[jenninlouisiana]

Since I have not seen any official clarification of the supposed non-PAC strategy. My interpretation of the comments that have been made, and the request for help that was posted a while back, is that the organizers plan to do this outside of the FEC regulatory. That is, organizer "Elijah" has noted that legal counsel was consulted and the request included a "First Amendment Attorney". My conclusion based on that data is that the plan is to launch the blimp as an expression of First Amendment rights to free speech. In other words, civil disobedience.


Don't get me wrong-- I would LOVE to see a civil disobedience blimp! :D But does the lawyer's counsel cover all 300,000 worth of pledg-ers (soon to be donators)?

I will wait for the official answer... will be interesting....

[traviskicks]

People should be able to donate as much as they want. We should at least act like this is the free country we desire. I doubt the FCC is going to enforce it's own laws even if this does violate some of them. Screw 'em. The FCC and McCain-Feingold.

[jenninlouisiana]

I know, Travis, it is really frustrating. And it isn't just the laws.. you should see all the paperwork and forms and publications for the forms on the FEC website.

[LFOD]

Since I have not seen any official clarification of the supposed non-PAC strategy. My interpretation of the comments that have been made, and the request for help that was posted a while back, is that the organizers plan to do this outside of the FEC regulatory. That is, organizer "Elijah" has noted that legal counsel was consulted and the request included a "First Amendment Attorney". My conclusion based on that data is that the plan is to launch the blimp as an expression of First Amendment rights to free speech. In other words, civil disobedience.

According to my understanding of the Paulian "just read it" approach to Constitutional interpretation the FEC system is not constitutional. But, like the USA PATRIOT Act, the Internal Revenue Code, and other such legislation and regulation it is still "the law". In any such conflict between natural rights (like free speech) and government laws individuals can choose to assert their rights. However, in doing so they have to recognize that they are doing something technically illegal and therefore subject to government prosecution.

On the other hand, I'm not a lawyer (and I'm not even an American citizen) so this is just speculation. I think the blimp is a totally great idea and that individuals should be allowed to associate in order to launch such a thing. But, given the information I have available to me I think that actually doing it probably requires civil disobedience.

yeeboy. The plan for this thing needs to be presented, pronto.