Take the Matching Funds.

[alexa doherty]

Ron Paul should take the matching funds and say f.u. to the media for ignoring him.

[fuzzybekool]

Ron Paul should take the matching funds and say f.u. to the media for ignoring him.
+100

[alexa doherty]

+100

Thank you. It really should be done. If ron doesn't win, the gop will be taking the money and wasting it anyway.

[BarryDonegan]

Dr. Paul will not take the matching funds, and that is why he is the ideal candidate for the message.

i know you are frustrated with the media ignoring him, but cheating just a little bit to win is not who we are supporting. capitol hill is full of people like that that can be supported with a vote. Dr. Paul will do it the right way, no matter how unpopular it is even to us.

[jrich4rpaul]

Matching funds would make him go against his own message.

[Marc3579]

It's been discussed many times, he's decided not to take the matching funds. We can sit here and say that he should, or shouldn't. He chose not to.

[free.alive]

Alexa, I disagree.

Taking matching funds would discredit him. We can get the funds without it.

Oh, you pm'd me but there was nothing in the message. ?

[cheese]

alexa posts fill me with hope... and some other emotions that are wierd and deeping confusing me

[Original_Intent]

alexa posts fill me with hope... and some other emotions that are wierd and deeping confusing me

that's puberty

[alexa doherty]

Well we will forgive him and let him break his promise just this once. :D

[fuzzybekool]

I know RP said he wouldn't take the matching funds, but I would forgive him if he did.

[alexa doherty]

Dr. Paul will not take the matching funds, and that is why he is the ideal candidate for the message.

i know you are frustrated with the media ignoring him, but cheating just a little bit to win is not who we are supporting. capitol hill is full of people like that that can be supported with a vote. Dr. Paul will do it the right way, no matter how unpopular it is even to us.

Well I think we should vote on here and if a majority says he should take them then we can let the campaign know how we feel.

I say he takes them and fights fire with fire.

It will give him multi-millions and he won't have a money problem.

[Marc3579]

It's not going to happen. There was a discussion about it and he's come down on the negative side of doing it. I agree with free.live

[alexa doherty]

I don't care what you think, you're a fool.

I say he takes the funds. It needs to happen.

If anyone else thinks he should, post here or pm me and i'll start a website.

[nate895]

I don't care. You're wrong.

I say he takes the funds. It will happen.

It isn't enough money, if we can raise 9 million dollars over the weekend, we've already matched how much money we could spend with matching funds.

[josh24601]

I forgive you all for posting that he can't because it's against the message blah blah blah because I used to post similarly uninformed, so I can't be too critical.

But people donate this money to the federal government voluntarily for the express intent of providing these funds to candidates, there is ZERO moral or ethical or libertarian or constitutional qualm with using them.

The Matching Funds Bomb must be dropped.

[kill the banks]

not likely at all ... but maybe he could earmark funds by some trick of the trade to prevent their waste on neocon agenda

"neoconned" and i'm not going to take it anymore

nice post cheese lol

kill the banks

[Marc3579]

I'm a fool? So does that mean you're going to call free.live a fool and barry donegan a fool for saying the same thing I said? You can start your website, I wouldn't get too hurt if you don't see him take matching funds though...

[alexa doherty]

15 pm's so far saying he should take the funds. vs. maybe 9 saying he shouldn't.

[josh24601]

The money was freely donated by citizens for the express intent of providing funds to candidates.

There is no problem in taking them.

[alexa doherty]

17 vs 10 now

[kill the banks]

isn't it the rules that come with taking funds that's the problem ?

kill the banks

[Marc3579]

It goes against his message, it would be used in the media to discredit him.

[alexa doherty]

20 vs. 10 for Taking matching funds, wins. We'll be starting a website soon.

[josh24601]

It goes against his message, it would be used in the media to discredit him.

Maybe I'm misinformed (it's been known to happen).

How does it go against his message?

[faisal]

that's puberty

ROFL! This is hillarious...

[josh24601]

20 vs. 10 for Taking matching funds, wins. We'll be starting a website soon.

This person is a troll btw I don't think I'm the only one that's got random cussing PMs out of nowhere.

[Original_Intent]

LOL, if he can stand alone against 434 congressmen, I don't think a website and 20 supporters is going to convince him.:)

[integrity]

that's puberty

lol

[Marc3579]

Nor do I Original_Intent I highly doubt he'll take them. HQ pondered it for awhile In the end he said no.

[virgil47]

Matching funds come from donations tax payers make on thier tax returns. If RP won't take the money is he is telling the tax payers that they are not good enough to help get him elected? There is no justifyable reason to not accept the gift the tax payers are so generously providing. I really do not understand his lack of desire to help the campaign. If he won't take the money on principle what principle is that he won't go against? It would appear he really likes to make himself as much of an underdog as he can. Please explain to me why he will not accept a gift from the citizens of our great land.

[kill the banks]

This person is a troll btw I don't think I'm the only one that's got random cussing PMs out of nowhere.

she's a patriot ... wish i was a little younger ... love her spirit ... can't hurt to think issues out completely ... ron has changed his mind before ie death penalty

kill the banks

[mwkaufman]

Matching funds are entirely voluntary. There is no issue in accepting them.

[alexa doherty]

He'll take them. :D

Btw why are you guys playing with your 2 inchers?

[Paul4Prez]

Take the matching funds and air national TV ads comparing his record to those of the other candidates, on the war, civil liberties, taxes, spending, immigration, health care, etc. Throw in the stats (and pictures from rallies) showing that he has more actual grassroots support (volunteers and small donors) than the other candidates, yet none of them were labeled a long shot.

[MikeStanart]

These threads are pointless. It doesn't matter what we think; Ron is going to do what he as always been doing: What is Right.

[MikeStanart]

Matching funds are entirely voluntary. There is no issue in accepting them.

You have limitations of how and where you can spend them.

[Marc3579]

These threads are pointless. It doesn't matter what we think; Ron is going to do what he as always been doing: What is Right.

QFT +! TY Mike ;)

[josh24601]

You have limitations of how and where you can spend them.

That matters how?

[fuzzybekool]

He'll take them. :D

Btw why are you guys playing with your 2 inchers?

Damn...! who gave you my Adult friend finder profile LMAO !

[Ron LOL]

Posted this before, but: when you're the principle candidate, you don't get to violate your principles.

[Bilgefisher]

Posted this before, but: when you're the principle candidate, you don't get to violate your principles.

I agree. I to want him to accept the funds, but on the other hand I respect him for never compromising. This is why he has such a passionate following. If you start giving in on your principles, before long you don't have any. I respect his wish. That just means we need to canvass more.

[josh24601]

Posted this before, but: when you're the principle candidate, you don't get to violate your principles.

Everybody keeps saying slogans like that but not explaining to the uninformed how it actually violates any principles.

Are the funds or are they not voluntarily donated?

If yes, then what exactly is the hangup?

[josh24601]

I agree. I to want him to accept the funds, but on the other hand I respect him for never compromising. This is why he has such a passionate following. If you start giving in on your principles, before long you don't have any. I respect his wish. That just means we need to canvass more.

How is it compromising?

Anybody have specifics?

[Anti Federalist]

He'll take them. :D

Btw why are you guys playing with your 2 inchers?

The ends do not justify the means.

And how'd you know I was playing with my nose?

[hasan]

he can f them without taking the matching funds. im positive he wont take it.

[josh24601]

The ends do not justify the means.

And how'd you know I was playing with my nose?

What needs to be justified about using money for a campaign that was donated for use on a campaign?

Anybody have answers beyond nebulous generalities?

I'm starting to feel like I'm asking Mitt Romney for a direct answer.

[Bilgefisher]

How is it compromising?

Anybody have specifics?

Ron doesn't believe in wasteful govt spending. This would go against all he has been saying. It would be hypocritical.

[Original_Intent]

Everybody keeps saying slogans like that but not explaining to the uninformed how it actually violates any principles.

Are the funds or are they not voluntarily donated?

If yes, then what exactly is the hangup?

They are not donated.

A donation would increase your tax bill by the amount. It is people saying they want that amount of their tax bill diverted to this fund.

Since government is going to spend just as much regardless, and since money is fungible, you could say that the money in the presidential fund contributes (infinitesmally) to the national debt.

[Anti Federalist]

They are not donated.

A donation would increase your tax bill by the amount. It is people saying they want that amount of their tax bill diverted to this fund.

Since government is going to spend just as much regardless, and since money is fungible, you could say that the money in the presidential fund contributes (infinitesmally) to the national debt.


Thank you, you made my answer for me.

[josh24601]

They are not donated.

A donation would increase your tax bill by the amount. It is people saying they want that amount of their tax bill diverted to this fund.

Since government is going to spend just as much regardless, and since money is fungible, you could say that the money in the presidential fund contributes (infinitesmally) to the national debt.

I knew I'd get an answer eventually. I remember the question on the tax form better now, of course you're correct.

Although isn't it a bit like earmarking funds for your district that have already been collected despite opposition to the collecting of them?

[Dan D.]

Like the freedom candidate is going to legitimize a tradeoff of money for first amendment rights. :rolleyes: Some of you are really nuts.

[stewie3128]

Ron Paul should take the matching funds and say f.u. to the media for ignoring him.

He'd be seen as quite the hypocrite, and it would end up costing him votes.

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

How would he be a hypocrite? Has he ever said anything on this issue?

It's basically just our own money coming back to us instead of the government spending it elsewhere or on other candidates. When do matching funds kick in, and what effect might this have on a possible independent run?

[Original_Intent]

I knew I'd get an answer eventually. I remember the question on the tax form better now, of course you're correct.

Although isn't it a bit like earmarking funds for your district that have already been collected despite opposition to the collecting of them?

I'd say it is similar. But as I said, due to the fungibility of money, and because we run deficits, anyone who marks the box is essentially saying "put it on my tab" or more correctly "put it on my children's tab".

If we were not running deficits, then I certainly think that earmarking your so-called "voluntary income tax" would be a great idea and i don't think there would be any moral dilemma about taking them.

Of course it is not like earmarking in that earmarks are for specific projects. This type of earmark just goes into a general fund that is available to all the candidates who wish to take them.

[paul_v]

If the other candidates take the matching funds then he should too. It would give the other candidates an advantage. It's the same thing as when Dr. Paul puts earmarks in a bill that he's going to vote against. he knows the money is going to be spent anyways so he may as well claim what rightfully belongs to his district.

[JohnnyWrath]

He'd be seen as quite the hypocrite, and it would end up costing him votes.

+1 billion

[amonasro]

Oh come on. If he takes matching funds he'll be limited in how he can spend it, right?

[danish]

He should take the funds. Limited in how he spends it? No

[Joe Schwartz]

Yes, if he takes matching funds, he's limited in how he spends it. If I understand correctly, taking matching funds limits how you spend all campaign funds, not just the matching portion.

[DealzOnWheelz]

Not only does it limit what you can do with it but it limits what you can take in in donations per quarter.


By the way matching funds aren't a match of what you have raised but its a match of funds that you will raise and your limited in how much you can raise

[Spideynw]

Will you guys knock it off we these stupid threads? Why would Ron Paul want to violate his morals and force people to pay for a candidate they do not necessarily want to help?

[amonasro]

Not only does it limit what you can do with it but it limits what you can take in in donations per quarter.


By the way matching funds aren't a match of what you have raised but its a match of funds that you will raise and your limited in how much you can raise

+1

This needs to be drilled into the heads of people advocating matching funds.

[MikeStanart]

Ron Paul taking matching funds...

Would be like a Vegetarian ordering a 16 oz. Ribeye at a Steakhouse.

[hueylong]

No No No No No. If nothing else, matching funds will fudge up the 3rd party run.

[billyjoeallen]

the funds are voluntary. It should be his choice. I'll let the Doc decide.

[Paul10]

...

[GoDrNo]

this link provides some of the rules that a candidate must follow after accepting matching funds:

http://www.campaignfinanceguide.org/guide-50.html

I think the reason they don't take it is because of the limit of $50 million to spend for the whole primary season (if I read that correctly).

[Joe Schwartz]

this link provides some of the rules that a candidate must follow after accepting matching funds:

http://www.campaignfinanceguide.org/guide-50.html
Thanks for posting that link. It contains another tidbit I was unaware of:

"Under rules adopted by the FEC, a candidate who fails to receive 10% of the vote in two consecutive state primaries in which he or she is on the ballot is no longer eligible to continue to earn matching funds. A candidate who fails to meet this threshold can restore eligibility by winning 20% of the vote in a subsequent state primary."

[Bradley in DC]

isn't it the rules that come with taking funds that's the problem ?

There would be spending limits, etc., yes. It would be important to balance all of these issues.