**Blimp crew still here and listening**

[Mckarnin]

This is Katharine from the Ron Paul Blimp and I just wanted to let you all know that we are back from a Christmas day break and working on a lot of blimp related tasks. One of our highest priorities is providing answers to your questions. We have made note of those questions that we have not answered before and those that consistently come up in emails and threads and hope to post answers soon.

If you have a question that you have not seen asked before please feel free to post it in the blimp folder here or email us at inquiries@ronpaulblimp.com.

[Real_CaGeD]

Will the blimp travel the I-95 corridor from Savannah to Jacksonville?

I am in Brunswick and would like some pictures.

[bucfish]

Welcome back Blimp Team Hope you had a Wonderful Christmas!

Now let's make something happen!

[all4one]

Yes, please do keep all of us "grounded" R.P. supporters informed.

There have been a great deal of negative threads and replies regarding the Blimp, that it seems as if those people can't get their heads around the simple facts that:

1) THE BLIMP IS A REALITY!
2) Blimps need ideal weather conditions.
3) The F.A.A. has its regulations.
4) The "r[EVOL]ution" blimp isn't lighted at night.

A lot of us understand that maintaining/planning/flying a blimp is no easy task. But, for those who just don't get it - or just simply yearn for correspondence from the Blimp folks - PLEASE provide more insight to the Blimp's and the folks' daily plans/activities. And I don't mean in just these forums, but also in the Blimp's blogs...

[vadimg]

Please let me know your paypal address i have $600 dedicated to the blimp but i can only paypal it to you as ive said many times before, thanks, please email to vadim54@gmail.com

[vadimg]

see 6 hours later no response or email, are you listening? NOT

[Mckarnin]

see 6 hours later no response or email, are you listening? NOT

I am listening but we do not yet have a business Paypal account and are looking into the feasibility of using another account. I have said "more info. soon" enough times that I figured you wouldn't want to hear it again. :-)

[DirtMcGirt]

just keep that blimp flying, obviously this is the first time for a blimp to be part of a campaign so this is new territory, just keep it fun and productive for the supporters...


RP08

[JS4Pat]

Northeast Florida is Ready!!!

Blimp Rally Planned at the Jacksonville Landing on Friday, December 28th!

Meetup Event Invitations sent out to 7 Norteast Florida Meetup groups + Brunswick, GA and Gainesville!

http://ronpaulsupporters.camp7.org/Default.aspx?pageId=70855

Event Description:
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/872/calendar/6973010/

[ronpaulfan]

Blimp flying = massive donations

Blimp in hangar = :(

[pacelli]

This is Katharine from the Ron Paul Blimp and I just wanted to let you all know that we are back from a Christmas day break and working on a lot of blimp related tasks. One of our highest priorities is providing answers to your questions. We have made note of those questions that we have not answered before and those that consistently come up in emails and threads and hope to post answers soon.

If you have a question that you have not seen asked before please feel free to post it in the blimp folder here or email us at inquiries@ronpaulblimp.com.

Nice long list of questions from someone waiting for you to answer before he gives $5000.. but you have to go to a forum you don't visit-- Blimp Q&A. It isn't looking too good that the sub-forum Blimp Q&A has filled up with lots of questions, and the only semi-answers being provided are from "Official" / "Self-Appointed" Blimp Volunteers.

[francisco]

I am listening but we do not yet have a business Paypal account and are looking into the feasibility of using another account. I have said "more info. soon" enough times that I figured you wouldn't want to hear it again. :-)

"Soon" in Blimpspeak= before the proton decay of the universe.

[OptionsTrader]

Blimpspeak!

[Dave Pedersen]

Hey I have a little suggestion which might be worth more as time goes by. Notice how your graph is showing the total from day one.. as the total grows the appearance of the graph makes any additional growth less and less noticeable. Maybe weekly or monthly charts would provide more accurate feedback of recent donation patterns. I think Ron Paul's donation success has been boosted quite a bit by people feeling they can make a difference. Just an idea which can provide some encouraging feedback on donation patterns. I know not much new in the way of donations lately but I think as the blimp generates more interest and enthusiasm as it moves south this graph adjustment will pay off.

[LibertyEagle]

McKarnin,

Here are some questions for you.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=64465

[ronpaulfan]

My #1 Question:

Do days in the hangar count against total blimp flying time?

[Cyclone]

See, all you doubters. The blimp team IS here and is watching and listening.

[Mckarnin]

My #1 Question:

Do days in the hangar count against total blimp flying time?

We have already been credited for 3 days because of the banner repairs that had to be done. So at this point the first month full month should end around the 17th or 18th of January.

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

nt

[Elijah]

Can someone tell me how to get the feed for the GPS lat/long/altitude of the blimp? I made a 3D model and an self updating kml file for Google earth. I wrote a script that parses the lat/long from the ronpaulblimp.com website but I am unable to get altitude from it. I'm having trouble deciphering the javascript for the altitude function.

I'm trying to have a real time blimp tracker for Google earth. I'm the person who made the blimp wars video. So if anyone can hook me up with someone who could get me that information for the GPS feed that would be fantastic. It's really cool, and I'll host it and promote it. I think it would be an awesome novelty and it may go super nova.

Very Important... please contact me: RonPaulRules@Gmail.com

Check your email! Loved the video btw!!

[Man from La Mancha]

I'm a 100% blimp supporter, and will keep giving money because I see it still flying, but I see so many people answering questions and see no responses, not even why they can't respond. So for the Nervous Nelly's, will you please do. Thanks

.

[Dave Pedersen]

Another little suggestion.. a time remaining widget showing how much fly time remains.. something which could tick up as people donate.

[mdevour]

Another little suggestion.. a time remaining widget showing how much fly time remains.. something which could tick up as people donate.

+1

Sweet idea...

Mike D.

[Ilhaguru]

Is it too complicated to change the "money for ad time" system? Spending 25 bucks for less than 3 minutes sounds terribly uninspiring to me. . . I think a different method could get people more excited about it.

I am all behind you guys at the blimp team!

[pacelli]

Yeah, the widget could be a mini-blimp or something.

[Politeia]

The schedule on the Blimp blog says it will travel from Jacksonville to Orlando on the 29th. Will it fly over the Daytona Beach area on the way (slightly off a straight-line route, but a lot of exposure)? My sister lives there; thought I'd tell her to watch out if there's a chance of seeing it.

[Tarzan]

The schedule on the Blimp blog says it will travel from Jacksonville to Orlando on the 29th. Will it fly over the Daytona Beach area on the way (slightly off a straight-line route, but a lot of exposure)? My sister lives there; thought I'd tell her to watch out if there's a chance of seeing it.

Please keep in mind that things are subject to changes... BUT
The planned route is to follow the coast to Rockledge then make a small double back and follow 528 into the Orlando area.

Orbits of the Daytona Beach area are planned.

http://ronpaulideas.com/images/signatureblimp.png (http://RonPaulBlimp.com/)

[troyd1]

Originally Posted by troyd1
Also, please provide an update on the sponsors getting rides. Has there been a drawing yet?

That would be helpful. ANyone who has gotten a ride, post your experiences? Also, what media have been on the blimp and for what newspapers/TV stations did they write or produce for?


I posted this a while ago and got no response. Please give an update on this.

[troyd1]

Anyone, anyone? Please reply to my previous post.

[svillee]

Anyone, anyone? Please reply to my previous post.

Consider yourself lucky. You have only been waiting 7 days for an answer to your question (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=682370&postcount=87). JohnnyWrath has been waiting 8 days for answers to his questions (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=666670&postcount=1) 1 and 3.

I hope you're beginning to see how unresponsive the blimp team really is.

[pacelli]

I posted this a while ago and got no response. Please give an update on this.

It isn't within the blimp's interest to give negative answers to questions, because they're engaging in a fundraising drive right now.

[Cyclone]

I can understand not wanting or not being able to disclose all of the legal problems they are having right now, but if it is legal to donate to the blimp, which is one of the questions flying around, it seems that not only should they answer this question right now, but they must answer it. Stalling on that particular issue seems completely unacceptable.

Either it is legal under this new scheme of sponsoring a tour or it is not. I see once again the name LPA appears on the site, but still there is a new way to buy "time" in fact, you can't buy time at all, all you can do is donate money to them as a sponsor.

If this is legal, then they need to say so, and cite reasons for their claims. Right now.

You cannot come on here and ask for illegal contributions. Period.

Since you have come on here multiple times and seen that question and refused to answer it, one can only assume that you are hiding something.

Either it is legal and you can tell us right now, immediately, or it is not. In the meantime you continue to monkey with the website so that it appears you are trying to MAKE it legal, which again implies that it has not previous been LEGAL.

[Mckarnin]

Troy, I answered the question that you put into another thread...

[Mckarnin]

I can understand not wanting or not being able to disclose all of the legal problems they are having right now, but if it is legal to donate to the blimp, which is one of the questions flying around, it seems that not only should they answer this question right now, but they must answer it. Stalling on that particular issue seems completely unacceptable.

Either it is legal under this new scheme of sponsoring a tour or it is not. I see once again the name LPA appears on the site, but still there is a new way to buy "time" in fact, you can't buy time at all, all you can do is donate money to them as a sponsor.

If this is legal, then they need to say so, and cite reasons for their claims. Right now.

You cannot come on here and ask for illegal contributions. Period.

Since you have come on here multiple times and seen that question and refused to answer it, one can only assume that you are hiding something.

Either it is legal and you can tell us right now, immediately, or it is not. In the meantime you continue to monkey with the website so that it appears you are trying to MAKE it legal, which again implies that it has not previous been LEGAL.



I'm very confused. Ever since we began taking sponsorship money on the 1st of December we have been taking purchases of sponsoship. At no point have we ever had things set up to take donations.

[Man from La Mancha]

Troy, I answered the question that you put into another thread...
Could you please give a link to that question, it is hard to follow where answers are. Thank you.

.

[Mckarnin]

Could you please give a link to that question, it is hard to follow where answers are. Thank you.

.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=66410

[Ronin]

Is it true Liberty Advertising is teaming up with the operationnh folks to offer your "sponsorship" model for television ads?

Edit:

Here's the quote I'm referring to



However, soon we will be setting up a website devoted solely to my ads. We are filming more after the new year, and hope to have around a dozen or so in total. And, as I said, there will be a website setup in conjunction with Trevor's legal help, where the grassroots can chip in to have the ads shown in whatever city they choose. It will work like the blimp, and not be subject to FEC laws. Except you get to chose where you want the ads to be shown- region by region, state by state. With the blimp, you paid for "airtime". With the commercials people will pay for "viewership head counts". The more money raised, the more it will show in that particular region.

- jeremiah black, NY, NY

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=62179&page=3

[LibertyEagle]

McKarnin,

Would you please answer these questions...
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=64465

[Dave Pedersen]

I think you should refrain from making commitments to rendezvous with people on the ground. This wastes a lot of hours running to and fro in order to be at a certain point at a certain time.

To optimize your effect I think.. it is my opinion.. unprofessional opinion.. that you should circle along the seacoast and maximize visibility during all daylight hours circling and weaving inland and back out to the coast.. giving people ample time to gather and party under the Ron Paul banner.

Crisscrossing hundreds of miles in bee lines prevents people from forming spontaneous gatherings which grow as more people notice your proximity.

Also.. intentionally cruising stretches of highway to get the notice of drivers is in my opinion very ill advised. You could be held liable for intentionally distracting drivers. What if there was even one accident as a result. Bad PR is NOT our objective.

Just my opinions.

[Cyclone]

I'm very confused. Ever since we began taking sponsorship money on the 1st of December we have been taking purchases of sponsoship. At no point have we ever had things set up to take donations.

You miss the whole point. According to your website, or should I just call it the blimp website, it states, or at least it used to state, I think you are changing that phrasing as I type, that in order for any money accepted from others to fly the blimp that money must come in as purchases of advertising "time" from an advertising company. I don't know the FEC laws, I am only going by what the blimp website itself said. It is possible that information is incorrect.

However, the blimp website is now set up differently. I don't know where this concept of donations comes from, or what you are trying to say. You have ignored the question of whether or not it is legal to go to www.ronpaulblimp.com and give money so that the blimp can keep flying.

I don't know what word you want to use, donations, purchases, whatever, but you had it set up one way and you keep changing things and the changes could have changed into something illegal.

Why are you having such a problem answering whether or not it has been, changed into, and or/ continues to be legal to give money to you folks? It seems a very straightforward question.

Let me walk you through the changes:

1. One went to your site and purchased ad time from LPA LLC.

2. LPA LLC disappeared from the website and then money was being sent to an apartment in Florida.

3. No longer did it say on the website that one was "purchasing" ad time from an ad company, but that if you give money through Google checkout, you are doing so by sending money to an apartment in Florida to "sponsor a blimp tour."

4. LPA LLC returns mysteriously on the website as the place where money is sent, instead of Florida, it is now N.C. that you send money to, but still the concept of purchasing ad time is gone and now remains as a sponsorship gig.

5. You are re-working the wording of your explanation section "why not a PAC" but you haven't explained why all of these changes.

So, what is going on? Does the changing of thing from a purchase to a sponsorship change the legality of the whole thing? Why does the company keep disappearing and then returning without any explanations? Was it legal under some of these iterations and not under others?

Why must I go through these contortions to get a simple answer? What about, Is it legal to give money to you folks to keep the blimp in the air, is not clear?


Hopefully, that clears up all of your questions, now can you explain how this new sponsorship gig thing is legal. Will you please provide legal citations and/or court cases to back up your claim? Feel free to cite to the FECA if you like. Although, it would be nice if you also provided a copy of the law you are citing because it is difficult to find the actual statutes online.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm very confused. Ever since we began taking sponsorship money on the 1st of December we have been taking purchases of sponsoship. At no point have we ever had things set up to take donations.

McKarnin,

As I recall, until recently the money given to the blimp company was termed buying advertising time. It is only recently that it has been changed to sponsorship of the blimp tour. Why the change?

[Mckarnin]

McKarnin,

As I recall, until recently the money given to the blimp company was termed buying advertising time. It is only recently that it has been changed to sponsorship of the blimp tour. Why the change?


We've been asking people to sponsor advertizing time on the website since we first began accepting payments 12/1/07. I can't say that we've been making a point of not using the term buy. In fact we've been using buy and sponsor pretty much interchageably.

We have made several changes to the additional information on the site but at no point have we switched from a legal "sponsorship" model to a less than legal model. sponsorship is legal. People sponsor segments of advertising all the time.

We will provide more information about the clerical changes we have been through but at no point have we changed the legality of what we are doing.

[pacelli]

We've been asking people to sponsor advertizing time on the website since we first began accepting payments 12/1/07. I can't say that we've been making a point of not using the term buy. In fact we've been using buy and sponsor pretty much interchageably.

We have made several changes to the additional information on the site but at no point have we switched from a legal "sponsorship" model to a less than legal model. sponsorship is legal. People sponsor segments of advertising all the time.

We will provide more information about the clerical changes we have been through but at no point have we changed the legality of what we are doing.


Hi, I've donated time before and I know the blimp is hurting for more funds, I'm trying to work out with my wife how much we will be able to afford to give.

There's a huge section of potential funds that you haven't had a chance to tap into yet. A minimum of a $5000 pledge from a user, located here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=221 I think that cadre of folks 'not yet supporting the blimp' could be made to support the blimp if their questions were answered. There are alot of threads.

[LibertyEagle]

We've been asking people to sponsor advertizing time on the website since we first began accepting payments 12/1/07. I can't say that we've been making a point of not using the term buy. In fact we've been using buy and sponsor pretty much interchageably.

We have made several changes to the additional information on the site but at no point have we switched from a legal "sponsorship" model to a less than legal model. sponsorship is legal. People sponsor segments of advertising all the time.

We will provide more information about the clerical changes we have been through but at no point have we changed the legality of what we are doing.

McKarnin,
Again, it used to be that we were buying a certain amount of advertising time on the blimp. Now, that has completely changed on the blimp website to, sponsoring the blimp tour. VERY different legally.

One more time, please answer these questions:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=64465

[Cyclone]

McKarnin, your responses calling the difference between sponsoring a tour and purchasing ad time, show that you do not understand the legal issues about giving money to you all. Do you know that the FEC, the Federal Elections Commision has an Act, called the FECA that regulates when and how you can give money supporting a candidate. If you do not follow these laws, you can be thrown in jail and or pay heavy fines just for supporting your candidate with money. I know it sucks and it is astonishing that a country like ours has laws like this and hopefully that would be one thing that Ron Paul would abolish when he got into office, but it is still here and exists.

The fact that you came on here, ignored my post completely about the legality of your whole blimp scheme at different times as your website changed to jump over to an easier one tells a lot.

Clearly you are not a lawyer and I get that, no problem. At this point however, we need more than a laymen to come in here and answer these legal questions, we need a lawyer. One who understands the FECA and knows what those letters stand for.

It is such a shame that Trevor has not been able to come here and answer any questions. Although, I don't think he is a lawyer either, but it might have helped some.

Again, you folks come on here, frantic for money in the main section, begging for money with a three day deadline and then promise to answer questions in four days. Amazing how the timing always works out that way.

[pacelli]

McKarnin, your responses calling the difference between sponsoring a tour and purchasing ad time, show that you do not understand the legal issues about giving money to you all. Do you know that the FEC, the Federal Elections Commision has an Act, called the FECA that regulates when and how you can give money supporting a candidate. If you do not follow these laws, you can be thrown in jail and or pay heavy fines just for supporting your candidate with money. I know it sucks and it is astonishing that a country like ours has laws like this and hopefully that would be one thing that Ron Paul would abolish when he got into office, but it is still here and exists.

The fact that you came on here, ignored my post completely about the legality of your whole blimp scheme at different times as your website changed to jump over to an easier one tells a lot.

Clearly you are not a lawyer and I get that, no problem. At this point however, we need more than a laymen to come in here and answer these legal questions, we need a lawyer. One who understands the FECA and knows what those letters stand for.

It is such a shame that Trevor has not been able to come here and answer any questions. Although, I don't think he is a lawyer either, but it might have helped some.

Again, you folks come on here, frantic for money in the main section, begging for money with a three day deadline and then promise to answer questions in four days. Amazing how the timing always works out that way.

QFT. Is it possible to get Bradley Smith, of the blimp's legal team, to type something up for the consumers of the blimp with regard to the legal issue? I think alot of us would learn something from it.

[troyd1]

McKarnin,
Again, it used to be that we were buying a certain amount of advertising time on the blimp. Now, that has completely changed on the blimp website to, sponsoring the blimp tour. VERY different legally.


I do not get what is different, please explain. I own a business and if someone want me to sponsor something, they may ask me to sponsor them, or buy a sponsorship. Different phrasing, but the same thing. Legally, what is the difference?

[LibertyEagle]

I do not get what is different, please explain. I own a business and if someone want me to sponsor something, they may ask me to sponsor them, or buy a sponsorship. Different phrasing, but the same thing. Legally, what is the difference?

When the blimp website was first launched, we were buying advertising time from an advertising company. On the revised website, we are sponsoring the blimp tour. I'm not an attorney, but this seems different to me. I just want to be reassured that with this change, we are still within the guidelines of the FEC regs. I'm wondering why these changes were made.

Note: With the change, the name of the advertising company was removed from the main page and was removed from the payment page. Yesterday afternoon it was added back to the payment page.

[Knightskye]

Flip the donation table around on RonPaulBlimp.com. It's a little intimidating seeing "$1 million for ten weeks" as the first thing you see. I'd prefer to have the "$25 for 2.7 minutes" on the top or bottom left spot on the table, as it would scare less people. Thank you.

EDIT: And maybe instead of newspaper ads, Mr. Lepard could...

[dc74rp]

[Hey all,


McKarnin, your responses calling the difference between sponsoring a tour and purchasing ad time, show that you do not understand the legal issues about giving money to you all. Do you know that the FEC, the Federal Elections Commision has an Act, called the FECA that regulates when and how you can give money supporting a candidate. If you do not follow these laws, you can be thrown in jail and or pay heavy fines just for supporting your candidate with money. I know it sucks and it is astonishing that a country like ours has laws like this and hopefully that would be one thing that Ron Paul would abolish when he got into office, but it is still here and exists.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've done some looking into independent expenditures. Here's a post I made on the subject. I hope it helps people wondering about legal issues feel at least a little better informed:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=37238


Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer! This is not legal advice, as I am in no way qualified to give any legal advice. I've been told there's alot to it, and someone qualified to give legal advice should be consulted. In addition, this information does not refer to donations or contributions to an organization or candidate, only to independent expenditures.

That said, I found these on the FEC site:

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml#ie


Independent Expenditures

Independent expenditures provide yet another way to support Federal candidates. An independent expenditure is money spent for a communication that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified Federal candidate. It is "independent" only if the individual making the expenditure does not coordinate or consult in any way with the candidate or campaign (or agent of the candidate or campaign) benefiting from the communication. Independent expenditures are not considered contributions and are unlimited. You may spend any amount on each communication as long as the expenditure is truly independent.

You may, for example, pay for an advertisement in a newspaper or on the radio urging the public to vote for the candidate you want elected. Or you may produce and distribute posters or yard signs telling people not to vote for a candidate you oppose.

When making an independent expenditure, you must include a notice stating that you have paid for the communication and that it is not authorized by any candidate's committee. ("Paid for by John Doe and not authorized by any candidate's committee.") Additionally, once you spend more than $250 during a calendar year on independent expenditures with respect to a given election, you must file a report with the Federal Election Commission (either FEC Form 5 at http://www.fec.gov/pdf/forms/fecfrm5.pdf , or a signed statement containing the same information).

Because this brief explanation does not cover all you need to know about independent expenditures, contact the Commission for more information.



More on independent expenditures, I strongly recomend you check out the page:

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/indexp.shtml#IE


Independent Expenditures

An independent expenditure is an expenditure for a communication “expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate that is not made in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate’s authorized committee, or their agents, or a political party or its agents.” 11 CFR 100.16(a).

Who May Make Independent Expenditures

Persons permitted to make contributions in connection with federal elections (such as individuals and political committees) may make independent expenditures. Persons prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in connection with federal elections (such as corporations, labor organizations and individuals or businesses with federal government contracts) are similarly prohibited from making independent expenditures. However, there is one exception to this rule.

Certain Nonprofit Corporations May Make Independent Expenditures


In addition, I looked up on Findlaw.com the case of BUCKLEY v. VALEO (1976), where it appears limits on individual expenditures were struck down. There have been many new laws and cases since then relating to campaign finance, so I can't say this is a definitive answer, but in my not legally qualified opinion this is good:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=424&invol=1

In addition, cases citing BUCKLEY v. VALEO can be found here:

Sureme Court:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/casesearch.pl?court=us&CiRestriction=424+u.s.+1&

Circuit Courts:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/casesearch.pl?court=circs&CiRestriction=%22424+U.S.+1%22&

Important information Exceprted from BUCKLEY v. VALEO (1976):


In upholding the constitutional validity of the Act's contribution and expenditure provisions on the ground [424 U.S. 1, 16] that those provisions should be viewed as regulating conduct, not speech, the Court of Appeals relied upon United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). See 171 U.S. App. D.C., at 191, 519 F.2d, at 840. The O'Brien case involved a defendant's claim that the First Amendment prohibited his prosecution for burning his draft card because his act was "`symbolic speech'" engaged in as a "`demonstration against the war and against the draft.'" 391 U.S., at 376 . On the assumption that "the alleged communicative element in O'Brien's conduct [was] sufficient to bring into play the First Amendment," the Court sustained the conviction because it found "a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the non-speech element" that was "unrelated to the suppression of free expression" and that had an "incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms . . . no greater than [was] essential to the furtherance of that interest." Id., at 376-377. The Court expressly emphasized that O'Brien was not a case "where the alleged governmental interest in regulating conduct arises in some measure because the communication allegedly integral to the conduct is itself thought to be harmful." Id., at 382.

We cannot share the view that the present Act's contribution and expenditure limitations are comparable to the restrictions on conduct upheld in O'Brien. The expenditure of money simply cannot be equated with such conduct as destruction of a draft card. Some forms of communication made possible by the giving and spending of money involve speech alone, some involve conduct primarily, and some involve a combination of the two. Yet this Court has never suggested that the dependence of a communication on the expenditure of money operates itself to introduce a non speech element or to reduce the exacting scrutiny required by the First Amendment. See Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 , [424 U.S. 1, 17] 820 (1975); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, at 266. For example, in Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965), the Court contrasted picketing and parading with a newspaper comment and a telegram by a citizen to a public official. The parading and picketing activities were said to constitute conduct "intertwined with expression and association," whereas the newspaper comment and the telegram were described as a "pure form of expression" involving "free speech alone" rather than "expression mixed with particular conduct." Id., at 563-564.

Even if the categorization of the expenditure of money as conduct were accepted, the limitations challenged here would not meet the O'Brien test because the governmental interests advanced in support of the Act involve "suppressing communication." The interests served by the Act include restricting the voices of people and interest groups who have money to spend and reducing the overall scope of federal election campaigns. Although the Act does not focus on the ideas expressed by persons or groups subject to its regulations, it is aimed in part at equalizing the relative ability of all voters to affect electoral outcomes by placing a ceiling on expenditures for political expression by citizens and groups. Unlike O'Brien, where the Selective Service System's administrative interest in the preservation of draft cards was wholly unrelated to their use as a means of communication, it is beyond dispute that the interest in regulating the alleged "conduct" of giving or spending money "arises in some measure because the communication allegedly integral to the conduct is itself thought to be harmful." 391 U.S., at 382 .

Nor can the Act's contribution and expenditure limitations be sustained, as some of the parties suggest, by reference to the constitutional principles reflected in such [424 U.S. 1, 18] decisions as Cox v. Louisiana, supra; Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966); and Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (1949). Those cases stand for the proposition that the government may adopt reasonable time, place, and manner regulations, which do not discriminate among speakers or ideas, in order to further an important governmental interest unrelated to the restriction of communication. See Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 209 (1975). In contrast to O'Brien, where the method of expression was held to be subject to prohibition, Cox, Adderley, and Kovacs involved place or manner restrictions on legitimate modes of expression - picketing, parading, demonstrating, and using a soundtruck. The critical difference between this case and those time, place, and manner cases is that the present Act's contribution and expenditure limitations impose direct quantity restrictions on political communication and association by persons, groups, candidates, and political parties in addition to any reasonable time, place, and manner regulations otherwise imposed. 17 [424 U.S. 1, 19]

A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the event. The electorate's increasing dependence on television, radio, and other mass media for news and information has made these expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of effective political speech.
The expenditure limitations contained in the Act represent substantial rather than merely theoretical restraints on the quantity and diversity of political speech. The $1,000 ceiling on spending "relative to a clearly identified candidate," 18 U.S.C. 608 (e) (1) (1970 ed., Supp. IV), would appear to exclude all citizens and groups except candidates, political parties, and the institutional press from any significant use of the most [424 U.S. 1, 20] effective modes of communication. Although the Act's limitations on expenditures by campaign organizations and political parties provide substantially greater room for discussion and debate, they would have required restrictions in the scope of a number of past congressional and Presidential campaigns and would operate to constrain campaigning by candidates who raise sums in excess of the spending ceiling.

By contrast with a limitation upon expenditures for political expression, a limitation upon the amount that any one person or group may contribute to a candidate or political committee entails only a marginal restriction upon the contributor's ability to engage in free communication. [424 U.S. 1, 21] A contribution serves as a general expression of support for the candidate and his views, but does not communicate the underlying basis for the support. The quantity of communication by the contributor does not increase perceptibly with the size of his contribution, since the expression rests solely on the undifferentiated, symbolic act of contributing. At most, the size of the contribution provides a very rough index of the intensity of the contributor's support for the candidate. A limitation on the amount of money a person may give to a candidate or campaign organization thus involves little direct restraint on his political communication, for it permits the symbolic expression of support evidenced by a contribution but does not in any way infringe the contributor's freedom to discuss candidates and issues. While contributions may result in political expression if spent by a candidate or an association to present views to the voters, the transformation of contributions into political debate involves speech by someone other than the contributor.

[dc74rp]

Again, I'm not qualified to give legal advice, so don't take this as legal advice, but that said, let me repeat information from my last post, with an important part highlighted in red this time:

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/indexp.shtml#IE


An independent expenditure is an expenditure for a communication “expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate that is not made in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate’s authorized committee, or their agents, or a political party or its agents.” 11 CFR 100.16(a).

Now let me add, since the Ron Paul Blimp doesn't "expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate", I'd interpret this to strengthen the legal position of the Blimp.

But I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know. You'll either need to research it yourself or consult a lawyer because I'm not qualified to give legal advice.

[Chris Conyers]

Will the Blimp be at the Superbowl?

[DirtMcGirt]

http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/

Check out this guys work... for visual data analysis...diabolical..

[DirtMcGirt]

Donation widget needed on site... how bout a comic book mini version of RP on top of the meter holding the constitution....

[Mckarnin]

I do not get what is different, please explain. I own a business and if someone want me to sponsor something, they may ask me to sponsor them, or buy a sponsorship. Different phrasing, but the same thing. Legally, what is the difference?

There is no difference that I know of and we have been using the terms sponsor and buy interchangeably all along. We have not used the word "donate" though which would be a legal problem.

[askdrj]

I also have money to donate but will only use PayPal.

[texasliberty]

There is no difference that I know of and we have been using the terms sponsor and buy interchangeably all along. We have not used the word "donate" though which would be a legal problem.

Well, that was definitely worth everyone getting all riled up about :rolleyes:

I'm gonna go back to watching the Blimp fly over Florida now :D

Pimp: blimp purchase matching thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=58747

[pacelli]

Tornado watches and warnings look pretty intense in western florida and alabama. Watch out for winds today.

[Cyclone]

There is no difference that I know of and we have been using the terms sponsor and buy interchangeably all along. We have not used the word "donate" though which would be a legal problem.


No you have not. You first used the term purchase, as in give money to a company to buy something, then you changed it. Why? If they are interchangeable then there would be no need for a change. Also, your company disappeared and then came back.

You are not a lawyer. You are not giving an accurate representation of what the website used to look like. The word sponsor and donate are very close in meaning so if donations are a legal problem as you say, then why aren't sponsorships?

In fact, from your post right here, I would have to suspect that a sponsorship scheme is completely illegal.

definition of sponsor: a patron: someone who supports or champions something wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Definition of patron: One that supports, protects, or champions someone or something, such as an institution, event, or cause; a sponsor or benefactor www.discoveringthestory.org/goldenage/springer/glossary.asp
Definition of benefactor: A donor; backer; supporter. www.advservices.uidaho.edu/default.aspx
Definition of donor: One who makes a contribution or donation. [i.e. one who donates] www.onencnaturally.com/pages/glossary.html Or in our case, one who may not give to the cause of the blimp without having a "legal problem" according to your post.

See how all of these words mean roughly the same thing.

Now purchaser: a buyer: a person who buys wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


Nothing about giving or donating at all in the word purchase. I am sure that is why your attorney used the term purchase to begin with, because he knew that making donations to a cause that supports a candidate without some kind of PAC being set up is illegal, so he tried a new kind of game to see if it would fly with the FEC. But this new little wordplay is 100% different and if you have been using the term purchaser and sponsor interchangeably then your English is off. Using the term sponsor and donor interchangeably, now that would be reasonable.


But again, instead of answering the question directly or having an attorney come on here and explain why the FEC will be happy to accept sponsorship money going to a company when clearly donating money to that same company is illegal, as you have just noted yourself, you try to play a game of semantics and dodge the question directly.

Now perhaps you didn't mean to, and I would be shocked if that was your intent, but that is what you have done.

So, since you have an FEC lawyer on retainer why don't you get him to issue a statement on his letterhead, signed by him that you post here or on your website explaining why it is legal to sponsor this project. In case you miss the logic above, a sponsor is a patron, a patron is a benefactor, a benefactor is a donor. So turn it around, a donor is a benefactor, a benefactor is a patron, a patron is a sponsor, therefore a sponsor is a donor. It is illegal you state to be a donor (one who submits donations) but you want us to believe that it is legal to be a sponsor which is a donor?

[Cyclone]

...

[Man from La Mancha]

Sorry, an interpretation of the law is giving legal advice and practicing law without a license is not legal.
BOO HOO.

.

[Mckarnin]

No you have not. You first used the term purchase, as in give money to a company to buy something, then you changed it. Why? If they are interchangeable then there would be no need for a change. Also, your company disappeared and then came back.

You are not a lawyer. You are not giving an accurate representation of what the website used to look like. The word sponsor and donate are very close in meaning so if donations are a legal problem as you say, then why aren't sponsorships?

In fact, from your post right here, I would have to suspect that a sponsorship scheme is completely illegal.

definition of sponsor: a patron: someone who supports or champions something wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Definition of patron: One that supports, protects, or champions someone or something, such as an institution, event, or cause; a sponsor or benefactor www.discoveringthestory.org/goldenage/springer/glossary.asp
Definition of benefactor: A donor; backer; supporter. www.advservices.uidaho.edu/default.aspx
Definition of donor: One who makes a contribution or donation. [i.e. one who donates] www.onencnaturally.com/pages/glossary.html Or in our case, one who may not give to the cause of the blimp without having a "legal problem" according to your post.

See how all of these words mean roughly the same thing.

Now purchaser: a buyer: a person who buys wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


Nothing about giving or donating at all in the word purchase. I am sure that is why your attorney used the term purchase to begin with, because he knew that making donations to a cause that supports a candidate without some kind of PAC being set up is illegal, so he tried a new kind of game to see if it would fly with the FEC. But this new little wordplay is 100% different and if you have been using the term purchaser and sponsor interchangeably then your English is off. Using the term sponsor and donor interchangeably, now that would be reasonable.


But again, instead of answering the question directly or having an attorney come on here and explain why the FEC will be happy to accept sponsorship money going to a company when clearly donating money to that same company is illegal, as you have just noted yourself, you try to play a game of semantics and dodge the question directly.

Now perhaps you didn't mean to, and I would be shocked if that was your intent, but that is what you have done.

So, since you have an FEC lawyer on retainer why don't you get him to issue a statement on his letterhead, signed by him that you post here or on your website explaining why it is legal to sponsor this project. In case you miss the logic above, a sponsor is a patron, a patron is a benefactor, a benefactor is a donor. So turn it around, a donor is a benefactor, a benefactor is a patron, a patron is a sponsor, therefore a sponsor is a donor. It is illegal you state to be a donor (one who submits donations) but you want us to believe that it is legal to be a sponsor which is a donor?



Because I am the person who came up with the the sponsorship terminology a day after the site went live I can tell you exactly what the transition was. The site said buy "timeshare" of the blimp for a day before I suggested that we switch to a sponsorhip model. This model is much like that which you hear refered to during football games or ad free television segments when they say that "x" has been sponsored by MetLife, Budwiser, etc.... It is a business transaction all our lawyers reviewed th term thoroughly before giving it the ok.

[dc74rp]

Cyclone,


No you have not. You first used the term purchase, as in give money to a company to buy something, then you changed it. Why? If they are interchangeable then there would be no need for a change. Also, your company disappeared and then came back.

You are not a lawyer. You are not giving an accurate representation of what the website used to look like. The word sponsor and donate are very close in meaning so if donations are a legal problem as you say, then why aren't sponsorships? Both of them imply giving something to someone getting nothing in return. In a purchase, you get something in return.

In fact, from your post right here, I would have to suspect that a sponsorship scheme is completely illegal.

I am not a lawyer, and not qualified to give legal advice. Also, I'm not studied up on the terms in dispute being used. But first, in my opinion, you should read through my posts in this thread, #50 and #51.

When it comes to the law, sometimes just changing words makes a big difference. As far as "buying time" or "sponsoring" the blimp, I don't see why either would get a "sponsor" in trouble. As far as "donating", that may be a word that triggers the need to comply with certain regulations. It might imply a non-profit, charity, or political cause.

Dictionary definitions don't overrule primary law. The fact that "sponsor" and "donate" might be close in meaning in your dictionary doesn't mean there's not a legal difference. How many times have you heard a radio or tv station say: "And now a word from our sponsors................." right before they ran a paid advertisement? I think as far as what words they're allowed to use, you likely got a straight answer from Mckarnin. If you didn't like the answer, I don't think that's her fault.

This is not to say I don't think you shouldn't have concerns. I'm not totally aware of what all you've seen going on with the blimp site, I haven't seen it all. I don't know what legal problems the blimp might or might not be having, but in my non-qualified opinion, I don't think it likely it's the individuals "sponsoring" the blimp that would get in any trouble for campaign finance violations as long as you read the information and followed all the guidelines from the links to the FEC pages in post #50 and did what those links advised.

Likely, to the FEC, the Blimp looks like a what a big waving red cape looks to a bull. And I'm in no position to have any inside information as to any legal proplems the Blimp project might be facing. I'd guess it would withstand a legal challenge, but I'm sure the FEC is looking for a way to bring the Blimp down. It seems to me, it's a test of the First Amendment rights of individuals vs campaign finance regulation.


I'd have to agree with those who say the Blimp needs to have page that explains the legal status of the Blimp. But for all I know, maybe they're trying to say as little as possible on the subject to avoid giving regulars any ammunition to use against them. Again, I'm not a lawyer, and not qualified to give legal advice, so this is just my ignorant opinion. You'll have to research it yourself and make up your own mind.

[Cyclone]

Good Mckarnin, you are here,
Here is a big question that has been hanging around and you must have just missed it on another thread.

Can you NOW tell us about the legal settlement you said you were dealing with for weeks? You said back then you should be able to let us know in a few days. At least I think so, I may be confusing things.

Anyway, where do stand on that settlement? How much did it cost? Who sued you or were you sued? Did you use donation money to pay off the settlement? If not, how did you pay? Or was it even a paying matter?

If you can't answer any of these questions, can you tell us when you will be able to tell us the answers to those questions?

[Mckarnin]

Good Mckarnin, you are here,
Here is a big question that has been hanging around and you must have just missed it on another thread.

Can you NOW tell us about the legal settlement you said you were dealing with for weeks? You said back then you should be able to let us know in a few days. At least I think so, I may be confusing things.

Anyway, where do stand on that settlement? How much did it cost? Who sued you or were you sued? Did you use donation money to pay off the settlement? If not, how did you pay? Or was it even a paying matter?

If you can't answer any of these questions, can you tell us when you will be able to tell us the answers to those questions?


Hey,


No "settlement" as it is traditionally understood legally. I think I must have misphrased something somewhere along the line. Things did have to be settled. Paperwork for the business had to be settled and had to be set up in a way the 3 principles and the lawyers could agree on so of course there were negotiations and there was some trial and error. NO money was spent getting things settled, no payments were made...it was, as you said, not a paying matter. We just had to get the paperwork and legalese to catch up to the business which went from inception to blimp airborne in 2 weeks.

[Man from La Mancha]

Wow all this hastle just on presumptions, how many hours spent by some over this. The only criticism is that these issues are not addressed right away so as to save all this speculation. McKarin if you need help to keep up to date by all these questons, maybe some can help. The reason for this is this forum seams to be the basis for grassroots and should be #1. to answer any questons. I see a day of stupid speculation just because the blimp people won't answer simple questions and I can only imagine your so busy you can't so it appears you can't. Do you need help. No question should not go unanswered for an hour. I'm behind you 100% just respond fast. This is your base that want to help you we just need your participation. Trevor doesn't even address us at all. Just a minute or so a day is not asking too much is it?

[Mckarnin]

Wow all this hastle just on presumptions, how many hours spent by some over this. The only criticism is that these issues are not addressed right away so as to save all this speculation. McKarin if you need help to keep up to date by all these questons, maybe some can help. The reason for this is this forum seams to be the basis for grassroots and should be #1. to answer any questons. I see a day of stupid speculation just because the blimp people won't answer simple questions and I can only imagine your so busy you can't so it appears you can't. Do you need help. No question should not go unanswered for an hour. I'm behind you 100% just respond fast. This is your base that want to help you we just need your participation. Trevor doesn't even address us at all. Just a minute or so a day is not asking too much is it?


I will do my utmost to be here for a little while daily. I do not think there is a day yet when I haven't ducked into the forums. To be honest many of us working on the blimp become so disheartened after reading the accusatory PM's and posts when we visit here that it is hard to make it a daily priority. Since you seem to stay abreast of what's going on here perhaps you'd like to send me an email at inquiries@RonPaulBlimp.com when you see important questions going unanswered. Just be sure to specify that it is for the forums and I will reply ASAP. Due to volume of mail I sometimes have to delay answering individual's questions but would prioritize the forum since it reaches more than one person.

[LibertyEagle]

Hey,


No "settlement" as it is traditionally understood legally. I think I must have misphrased something somewhere along the line. Things did have to be settled. Paperwork for the business had to be settled and had to be set up in a way the 3 principles and the lawyers could agree on so of course there were negotiations and there was some trial and error. NO money was spent getting things settled, no payments were made...it was, as you said, not a paying matter. We just had to get the paperwork and legalese to catch up to the business which went from inception to blimp airborne in 2 weeks.

Ooohhh!!! :) Good news. Man, McKarnin, you could have kept things around here a lot calmer if you would have answered this question when it was first raised, long ago. I've seen it on here about 10 times. Each time going unanswered.

Glad to hear the news. :)

[NerveShocker]

Everyone, there is a thread on the main page about the blimp.. can you post in it so the majority of people will know what is going on..? Posting in here reaches about 5% of the people on the forums....

[Mckarnin]

Everyone, there is a thread on the main page about the blimp.. can you post in it so the majority of people will know what is going on..? Posting in here reaches about 5% of the people on the forums....

Please paste a link to it and I'll copy the most important stuff I write in here to that thread.

[NerveShocker]

Link is here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=67002&page=4

It's time to clear things up :O

Everyone should go to that link and keep it bumped.. and help shut down any nay-sayers with their newest accusations.

[Mckarnin]

Please ask me your questions. If the blimp is continue flying we have to clear the air. Several business matters have been settled recently and I am prepared to answer most (I hope) of your questions now.

Post questions in this thread or in the blimp subforum, PM me through the forum, if you'd like I'll even call you if you PM or email your phone number to me at: inquiries@ronpaulblimp.com. I really believe in this project and think it has great value. I have been dealing with everyone involved and am confident that the blimp is an excellent investment based on the returns so far. Those returns will only continue to increase as the blimp's reputation for getting media coverage and word of mouth grows.

I have been out of the loop on Ron Paul news events lately because my focus has been the blimp and timing with the primaries but when I saw the news about Fox trying to exclude Ron Paul saturate the forums last night I realized again how very much we need loud, unmistakeable, unignorable publicity like what the blimp, sign waves, the march for Ron Paul, live free or die, dvd bombs, etc... generate. We have to make the news, package the news and distribute the news whether by strength or by stealth until everyone in America has been given the chance to choose Ron Paul. We can get Ron Paul the name recognition he deserves, we can tie personal interest to political policy and get the word out through stations that may be adverse to featuring Ron Paul but not to covering what people are doing in their coverage area.

Don't let the blimp die.

[NerveShocker]

These are sub-forums. Maybe 5% of the people are looking at this now.. and most never even come here. The link to the main grassroots thread is here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=67002&page=4


Help save the Ron Paul Blimp! Details at www.RonPaulBlimp.com

[Bill M DC]

I waited all day in downtown Orlando for that dang blimp to show...had a great time any way thanks to the Orlando Ron Paul meet up people. Great show guys! The Citrus Parade had good coverage (signs and lit) and the guys editing the video have their work cut out for them. We got kicked out of the free Joan Jet concert too!!! Gotta fly in the a.m. back to DC...too bad. I got home and found out the blimp flew right past my parents house. Arrrgh!

[Mckarnin]

I waited all day in downtown Orlando for that dang blimp to show...had a great time any way thanks to the Orlando Ron Paul meet up people. Great show guys! The Citrus Parade had good coverage (signs and lit) and the guys editing the video have their work cut out for them. We got kicked out of the free Joan Jet concert too!!! Gotta fly in the a.m. back to DC...too bad. I got home and found out the blimp flew right past my parents house. Arrrgh!

Sorry we had to change our plans. The weather wasn't kind to us yesterday morning. We'll be in Orlando for the next two days ...not that it will help you see it. Hopefully we'll be back up in DC with clearance to flyover in a few weeks.

K

[Cyclone]

I can understand not wanting or not being able to disclose all of the legal problems they are having right now, but if it is legal to donate to the blimp, which is one of the questions flying around, it seems that not only should they answer this question right now, but they must answer it. Stalling on that particular issue seems completely unacceptable.

Either it is legal under this new scheme of sponsoring a tour or it is not. I see once again the name LPA appears on the site, but still there is a new way to buy "time" in fact, you can't buy time at all, all you can do is donate money to them as a sponsor.

If this is legal, then they need to say so, and cite reasons for their claims. Right now.

You cannot come on here and ask for illegal contributions. Period.

Since you have come on here multiple times and seen that question and refused to answer it, one can only assume that you are hiding something.

Either it is legal and you can tell us right now, immediately, or it is not. In the meantime you continue to monkey with the website so that it appears you are trying to MAKE it legal, which again implies that it has not previous been LEGAL.

Well, in reading the news today it appears that Trevor does not know if this venture is legal and I quote him here: Lyman said a legal challenge to the blimp fund-raising effort would be "a good thing," since it would only bring more publicity to Paul's candidacy.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5410952.html

Glad to know that he is so happy to land in court. Is this transparency? Where is the "we have no idea if this is legal and we are only giving this a go and will see where it takes us" comment on the transparency page?

It is one thing to throw the dice with your own money and lives but you all could have told us about it.

[NewEnd]

It is one thing to throw the dice with your own money and lives but you all could have told us about it.

You have not donated a god-damned thing to the blimp, nor did you ever plan to.

[Jobarra]

Well, if the blimp is still flying on Jan 26th, might I humbly suggest that it comes down to Mobile, AL for the Senior Bowl? Mobile County Alabama is also voting on Jan 30th even though the rest of the state votes on Feb 5th. We do this because we have a lot of Mardi Gras parades on that Tuesday(Fat Tuesday I think it is?) The Senior Bowl is usually packed with tens of thousands of people and I believe I saw that it will be televised. Also, we usually have a few Mardi Gras parades going on in the weeks before and after Fat Tuesday, so there are thousands more captive audience members on the streets of Mobile looking up in the air for parade throws ;)
If the primary race is still indecisive at that point in time, then Mobile County might become a miniature Iowa for exit pollsters since the results of our voting aren't released until the rest of the state votes on Jan 30th. If Dr. Paul shows well there, exit pollsters show up in droves, and the media actually reports the exit polling, it may give people courage to get out and vote for him or to google him to find out why he is doing so well.

[Cyclone]

You have not donated a god-damned thing to the blimp, nor did you ever plan to.

And you know this because? I suppose you curse at me because I speak truth and you hate truth, correct? As long as no one says the Emperor is naked all is good with the world. Do you also scream at people that they are either with Bush or the terrorists?
You are using the same tactic you know. Proud of that?

I suppose screaming about some tangent will help the truth NOT exist?

[Man from La Mancha]

And you know this because? I suppose you curse at me because I speak truth and you hate truth, correct? As long as no one says the Emperor is naked all is good with the world. Do you also scream at people that they are either with Bush or the terrorists?
You are using the same tactic you know. Proud of that?

I suppose screaming about some tangent will help the truth NOT exist?The truth of some 911 truthers exists but we don't bring it up on positve projects so as to help. Your supposed opinion by someone who is not a former FEC head can't mean much and is just detrmental. Is that the truth your talking about? Just about what you beleive, hell with helping the blimp get funded!!

.

[Dave Pedersen]

Sorry we had to change our plans. The weather wasn't kind to us yesterday morning. We'll be in Orlando for the next two days ...not that it will help you see it. Hopefully we'll be back up in DC with clearance to flyover in a few weeks.

K

Going back north? Why not the Florida coastline? All this crisscrossing reduces your potential. Linger along the coastline and draw out the people. Can you fly any lower? The lower you fly the bigger, more amazing you look.

I know the line of sight is also reduced when flying lower but you can compensate for line of sight in two ways, looping inland and then returning to the coast where the line of sight is least obstructed. Make it fun.

Flying hundreds of miles not knowing for sure if the weather will hold is a constant gamble and flying over sparsely populated forested areas is a waste of valuable time.

The whole objective should be to get television publicity and people excited about seeing the blimp.. television coverage rules.

Fly low.. Fly slow.. You have no destination.. destinations are for machines of labor and industry.

YOU are a traveling circus. A novelty of magical proportions. NOT a speedy zipping can be anywhere in an instant aeroplane. The blimp averages what? 30mph? You must adopt a strategy which does not require speed. Linger along the coastline.. please consider it.

I do wish the blimp the best of good fortune.

[DirtMcGirt]

i love the blimp!!! you guys are what we are all about...

[dc74rp]

Cyclone,

While it is understandable for people to be wary of how they use thier money, especially in how it relates to campaign finance, through the Private Messages you've sent me it's clear that either:

1: You have almost no understanding of how the law works, but will make claims you do anyway, or......

2: You are just so against the Blimp, you're asking questions and making statements is not for the purpose of recieving answers to satisfy real concerns, but to fight against the Blimp project.

You don't understand the law, you cannot cite any laws that would make it illegal for individuals to sponsor the Blimp, yet you are unwilling to accept valid answers, and don't take the time to actually comprehend the answers given. I am not advocating people sponsoring the Blimp, but I am interested in Paul supports at least having as accurate infomation on it and being in a position to make an informed choice in the matter.

While I am not a lawyer, and I am not going to advise anybody on what they should do with thier money, or that I am qualified to give legal advice, I will state that in my opinion, if you have any questions about independent expenditures by individuals, a good place to start looking for answers is in my post #50 earlier in this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=732085#post732085

This is not the whole post, but I'll quote a short excerpt below:



Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer! This is not legal advice, as I am in no way qualified to give any legal advice. I've been told there's alot to it, and someone qualified to give legal advice should be consulted. In addition, this information does not refer to donations or contributions to an organization or candidate, only to independent expenditures.

That said, I found these on the FEC site:

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml#ie


Independent Expenditures

Independent expenditures provide yet another way to support Federal candidates. An independent expenditure is money spent for a communication that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified Federal candidate. It is "independent" only if the individual making the expenditure does not coordinate or consult in any way with the candidate or campaign (or agent of the candidate or campaign) benefiting from the communication. Independent expenditures are not considered contributions and are unlimited. You may spend any amount on each communication as long as the expenditure is truly independent.

You may, for example, pay for an advertisement in a newspaper or on the radio urging the public to vote for the candidate you want elected. Or you may produce and distribute posters or yard signs telling people not to vote for a candidate you oppose.

When making an independent expenditure, you must include a notice stating that you have paid for the communication and that it is not authorized by any candidate's committee. ("Paid for by John Doe and not authorized by any candidate's committee.") Additionally, once you spend more than $250 during a calendar year on independent expenditures with respect to a given election, you must file a report with the Federal Election Commission (either FEC Form 5 at http://www.fec.gov/pdf/forms/fecfrm5.pdf , or a signed statement containing the same information).

Because this brief explanation does not cover all you need to know about independent expenditures, contact the Commission for more information.

Since before the Blimp project was first changed to a for profit company (which I thought was a smart move), people who had just joined this site and had very few posts started trying to raise doubts or even ouright attack the Blimp. To have doubts and concerns is valid. Everyone should be looking out to make sure they're doing the right thing with thier money and stay out of trouble. But in the time I spend reading here, I see alot of people vehemently trying to get people riled up about this or that, and instigate them to do things that would hurt the campaign. I cannot claim there aren't Paul supporters who go on to sites of other candidates supporters and stir up trouble, so I realize some of us here are guilty too. But we need to realize not every who comes on this board and tries to rally people to bomb some offender with emails or boycott some project has the best interest of the Paul campaign at heart.

Each of us needs to take a step back from the "mob mentality" of getting all riled up and joining a stampede. Take a breath, gather what the known facts are. Take your time to evaluate the information you have, and the methods used by the people who are providing the info. Is someone simply trying to inform or rally to action? Or are they trying to BS you, ignoring or attacking valid arguments and info that would make people see the situation more clearly?

I have no doubt this board has quite a few infiltrators. I'm not going to accuse any particular posters, and likely many who advocate positions that might undermine the campaign are simply mistaken or have fallen for the arguments of an infiltrator.

Again, I'm not advocating support of the Blimp. It very well may be true that there are valid reasons to not send your money to the Blimp people. But let's base our decisions on reason, not rumor and attacks. Unlike posters here who I have no idea what thier commitment or credentials are, I know Trevor Lyman is a Paul supporter who has proved his value to the Paul campaign, and he's recruited Brad Smith who used to be the Director of the FEC.

And yet we have posters trying to act like the Blimp people are trying to lure Paul supports into sponsoring the Blimp in violation of FEC regulations and get them thrown in jail? Yet can't cite any law or court case to back up thier claims? Agian, there may be problems with the Blimp, and it's correct to be cautious, but if someones going to critisize the project, at least give valid concerns and be willing to accept valid answers.

[Dave Pedersen]

One thing I've noticed..

tha Blimp people are eminently huggable. I guess tha huggable blimp wears off on tha people and they become huggable too ;)

We ARE withya ! Go Blimp Team !

[Mckarnin]

Well, if the blimp is still flying on Jan 26th, might I humbly suggest that it comes down to Mobile, AL for the Senior Bowl? Mobile County Alabama is also voting on Jan 30th even though the rest of the state votes on Feb 5th. We do this because we have a lot of Mardi Gras parades on that Tuesday(Fat Tuesday I think it is?) The Senior Bowl is usually packed with tens of thousands of people and I believe I saw that it will be televised. Also, we usually have a few Mardi Gras parades going on in the weeks before and after Fat Tuesday, so there are thousands more captive audience members on the streets of Mobile looking up in the air for parade throws ;)
If the primary race is still indecisive at that point in time, then Mobile County might become a miniature Iowa for exit pollsters since the results of our voting aren't released until the rest of the state votes on Jan 30th. If Dr. Paul shows well there, exit pollsters show up in droves, and the media actually reports the exit polling, it may give people courage to get out and vote for him or to google him to find out why he is doing so well.


Noted, Thanks!

[Mckarnin]

One thing I've noticed..

tha Blimp people are eminently huggable. I guess tha huggable blimp wears off on tha people and they become huggable too ;)

We ARE withya ! Go Blimp Team !

Do I get the first hug? Happy New Year!!

[all4one]

Do I get the first hug? Happy New Year!!

:D Happy New Blimp - er - Year, Kat! :D

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

nt

[Mckarnin]

:D Happy New Blimp - er - Year, Kat! :D

Thanks! Happy New Year to you too and may all your days be Ron Paul days :-)!

[Benaiah]

Is the Blimp going to hang out in South Carolina anymore? It would be cool to get it there for the Republican Debates on Jan 10th.

[Mckarnin]

Is the Blimp going to hang out in South Carolina anymore? It would be cool to get it there for the Republican Debates on Jan 10th.

That was our plan but the weather is looking bad for being in SC on the 10th. We may try t go in later in the week. We have yet to decide for sure, we're trying to see how the weatehr develops.