PDA

View Full Version : Crazy? I want my IRS tax money going to Dr. Paul!




Bryan
12-29-2007, 11:23 PM
I know the "take the matching funds" is hugely controversial but given that some of it was our money to begin with, is it reasonable to say that you'd like your money going to something you support, namely Dr. Paul's campaign in the form of matching funds?

Crazy? How about a "pledge" website to sign up on with the amount of your taxes- even "pledges" of half of ones tax money would certainly get us to the max quickly, no?

So I ask, why not in light of the new $23 million figure? :)

steve005
12-29-2007, 11:42 PM
agree

Yom
12-29-2007, 11:43 PM
Good idea. I know he doesn't want to take the taxpayer's money, but it's going to be difficult to reach $23 million on such short notice!

The Lantern
12-29-2007, 11:50 PM
I know the "take the matching funds" is hugely controversial but given that some of it was our money to begin with, is it reasonable to say that you'd like your money going to something you support, namely Dr. Paul's campaign in the form of matching funds?

Crazy? How about a "pledge" website to sign up on with the amount of your taxes- even "pledges" of half of ones tax money would certainly get us to the max quickly, no?

So I ask, why not in light of the new $23 million figure? :)

That's a good idea. How about a tax refund money bomb? It would be poetic justice to use our tax refunds to abolish the IRS.

Mark
12-30-2007, 02:10 AM
Crazy like a fox

risiusj
12-30-2007, 02:17 AM
The money has already been given to the government. It's almost like the earmark argument. It's a tough call, but it just may well be worth it to get that big of a boost in money.

me3
12-30-2007, 02:25 AM
I thought the FEC was offline in the New Year. Will this effect applications for matching funds?

Big Lou
12-30-2007, 03:09 AM
If he takes the matching funds, the talking heads will eat him alive. On the other hand, if he declines to take them, it may make for some positive news coverage (although probably not).

Bryan
12-30-2007, 12:39 PM
That's a good idea. How about a tax refund money bomb? It would be poetic justice to use our tax refunds to abolish the IRS.
Thanks- that's not a bad idea either, but different.


Crazy like a fox
:)


The money has already been given to the government. It's almost like the earmark argument. It's a tough call, but it just may well be worth it to get that big of a boost in money.
Exactly- we want to put in our own earmark. That could be a good part of the name of the project. "Citizen Tax Earmark" or something. :) But then again- earmark has a bad association too.



I thought the FEC was offline in the New Year. Will this effect applications for matching funds?
Don't know.


If he takes the matching funds, the talking heads will eat him alive. On the other hand, if he declines to take them, it may make for some positive news coverage (although probably not).
I wouldn't count on much positive news coverage- but doing a program like this could help soften the blow of the talking heads... but sure, it will still happen some- the question is, is it worth it? Worst case is if we set something up they at least the PCC has an new option.

phoenixrising
12-30-2007, 01:37 PM
hey brian....

man tough call....yet i was reading other posts at Freemarket news & saw this:

10/8/2007 - 11:4:20AM
BY: Kevin Houston
There is a way to do this and stay within the NIOF principle:

Have each contributor send Dr. Paul a letter and a photocopy of their taxes. (with SSN blocked out, of course)

The letter "authorizes" Dr. Paul to take matching funds up to the amount that contributor actually paid in taxes.

The contributor specifically states that the taxes paid were paid "voluntarily", so long as Dr. Paul makes use of the tax monies.

Thus if I paid $8,000 in Fed taxes (Income, FICA, Excise, whatever) then I can authorize Dr. Paul to accept that much in matching funds (even if the amount exceeds the $2300 contribution limit)

This should be run as a heavily promoted campaign so as to get the idea into the press long before Dr. Paul actually takes the matching funds.

If this convinces enough big donors, then perhaps Dr. Paul won't have to actually take the matching funds. but if he does, then he will already have ethical "cover" from the "authorizations" of his supporters.

PatriotOne
12-30-2007, 01:52 PM
I think RP should prepare to request matching funds.

It's obvious that we are too busy talking about student visa's, Mike Huckabee, evolution, general whining and bitching, and other such minutia that most people posting on this forum have become absolutely worthless and unable to focus on important tasks at hand. 23M to finish this race is looking pretty grim right now.

Wyurm
12-30-2007, 01:59 PM
I have to find the article, but honestly, this is a moot point. See, as of the first of the year, there will be only 2 members of the FEC board and the matching funds requires 4 votes. Nobody is going to be getting matching funds until the FEC problem is solved.

Edit: here's the story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502489.html?hpid=sec-politics

GoRon2008
12-30-2007, 02:00 PM
Hey guys, this is a good idea to have a Tax Return Bomb.

That could generate some media attention. .

smartpeople4ronpaul
12-30-2007, 02:01 PM
Genius idea. I can make a page on my website for it if you want. PM me.

Paul4Prez
12-30-2007, 02:04 PM
I think there is a strategic advantage in not taking federal matching funds.

When John Edwards took matching funds in the Democratic race, many supporters saw it as a bad move that weakened his campaign. If a candidate takes matching funds for the primaries, it puts a hard cap on how much they can spend prior to the nomination. With the nominating conventions in late summer, he couldn't spend anything against the Republican nominee for several months. Obama and Clinton wouldn't have the same weakness, since they can raise lots of cash.

Ron Paul has that same Obama/Clinton advantage! With monthly money bombs and widespread grassroots support, Ron Paul can compete with the Democrats all year if he is the nominee. Romney and Giuliani may be able to raise that kind of cash, but McCain and Huckabee are practically broke.

Strategically, Ron Paul is a better nominee for the Republican Party than McCain or Huckabee, simply on fundraising prowess.

mosquitobite
12-30-2007, 02:05 PM
I have to find the article, but honestly, this is a moot point. See, as of the first of the year, there will be only 2 members of the FEC board and the matching funds requires 4 votes. Nobody is going to be getting matching funds until the FEC problem is solved.

Not to mention, it's not tax related IIRC, it's that box you check to "donate" to Presidential campaigns. It's what $3 a return or something like that?

And on top of it not being a lot of money, it comes with federal regulations on how it can be spent. There's a reason Bush wouldn't take it... (if I'm remembering correct)

Myerz
12-30-2007, 02:07 PM
I like this idea!

Let do it.......FTIRS!

Bryan
12-30-2007, 02:16 PM
hey brian....

man tough call....yet i was reading other posts at Freemarket news & saw this:

10/8/2007 - 11:4:20AM
BY: Kevin Houston
There is a way to do this and stay within the NIOF principle:
Thanks- yes, that's basically it. It's a simple thought so it's bound to have been bounced around some...



Genius idea. I can make a page on my website for it if you want. PM me.
Thanks! Let's see how things work out for a little... :)


Not to mention, it's not tax related IIRC, it's that box you check to "donate" to Presidential campaigns.
Well, it is still my money that was taken from me by force- I can say how I want it used. :)