Matching Funds: This Ends Now
Submitted by Casey Marquis on Sun, 12/30/2007 - 13:30
Alright, here is the question I pose:
Are federal matching funds entirely composed of the $3 per person donations on income tax forms?
Matching Paul's funding alone would require over 6 Million Americans to check that box.
Stated on the FEC website:
This Fund includes proceeds from the voluntary check-off of $3 per person from income tax returns of eligible taxpayers.
Includes is not the same as entirely composed of.
If the funding is say 10% involuntary, that is stealing millions of dollars from the American people.
So, Are federal matching funds entirely composed of the $3 per person donations on income tax forms, or would Paul be stealing?
»
The FEC issue gives another angle.
So if you agree to take matching funds, you're restricted in the totals you can spend (they even have restrictions by state!), but because of the vacancies on the FEC, you may not even get your matching funds in a timely manner.
there is no other choice - If we're going for the win
we must take the money. The campaign basically said so with the 23 mil figure, which is exactly what we can get from matching funds
The FEC is broke - What are we arguing over??
Ramasax revealed below that the funds are all from the voluntary checkoff. But this question is pointless because
1) This is Ron Paul's decision, and he has already made it
2) The FEC has NO MONEY to give out! See their press release: ...the Commission has estimated that no funds will be available for matching payments in January 2008.
Just reminded me...
of an article I read last week as well in the WaPo. Apparently the FEC will not even be functioning after the new year so matching funds would be delayed regardless. Kind of makes you wonder if this is not intentional for some reason. :)
Correct
4 of the 6 FEC board seats are now vacant and Congressional democrats won't confirm replacements to get leverage over Bush for other reasons. While the Treasury can still pay out the amounts certified on Dec 20th (at least, once the fund is replenished around March), the FEC cannot certify any additional payments until appointments are made and a quorum is possible.
That means even if the Paul campaign applied for funds, the FEC cannot certify him. He'd be lucky to get any money before May or June.
So this would be bad for McCain, then.
I would think.
Good point. If McCain does
Good point. If McCain does poorly next week he'd likely be broke (barring loans) and would not have much to throw at Super Tuesday.
Fear not though, he is a "front runner" and I am sure the media would carry him regardless.
Which I think pretty much
Which I think pretty much settles the debate on matching funds, at least until the general election. :)
OK - one more time.
It's not all from the voluntary donation checkbox. If that fund runs short, revenues are taken from the general revenues. Some of which comes from the income tax.
There are a LOT of restrictions if you take this. Total primary spending is limited to about 43 million dollars. Dr. Paul already has about 26. So the max he could get (and they match up to $250 per donor, no more) is 43 minus 26 = 17 million. Then he could raise no more money for the primaries.
With regard to using general revenue money for this, it's earmarks all over again.
Say (for sake of argument) that $1000 of my income tax money goes for matching funds. If Paul doesn't use it, someone else will. So not only did the gov't "steal" my $1000, now they are using it to benefit something I am dead set again (Paul's opponent and his/her views).
So by not taking matching funds, Paul is essentially diverting some of the money that was stolen from me to another candidate, where he could otherwise "return" it to me, since it would then be my donation directly to Dr. Paul.
There's no moral/libertarian issue here. The voluntary portion is voluntary. The general revenue portion has already been taken, and will be used to fund another candidate if not Dr. Paul. No one's gonna give it back as a refund.
If it weren't for the ceiling restrictions (imposed by the fictitious COLA), I would INSIST that Dr. Paul take matching funds. Otherwise, my $1000 that they took from me will go to McCain. If I donate now $1000 to Paul, my first $1000 (to general revenues and then to McCain) just offsets the contribution I give to Paul. So I'm out $2000 bucks and left with nothing.
So it's just a strategic decision for the campaign to make, IMO.
Yes let's end this now!
The weak and the strong can not keep the same company!!
If the person who posted before me is correct then Dr. Paul is going to have to believe in us! Like it or not, If we don't dig deep in our pockets and support this man we will not have a country!
We have already been taken over and we must realize we are fighting a war. This is not a game! We are fighting forces in this Country who mean to Rob us of our freedom!
Don't think so, Go look at some Arron Russo video's on youtube and then come back and talk to me! We must win for our children's sake!
People this is not a joke! We have been taken over and we got to realize that we can hold off and not support Dr. Paul and we won't have a country to donate to soon! We will watch how they will come after the Internet next because they realize we can see them and they will put things in place soon to stop what we are doing on this very site!
Support Dr. Paul like you life depends on it, because it just may be that it does!
Google is your friend...
and a little research goes a long way. :)
That's ok, I had not looked into this and was curious as to the rules of this "free money", now I am very opposed to accepting matching funds, and it has nothing to do with Dr. Paul's stance on the issue of taxation and theft. Stick with me.
According to the FEC, all funding comes from the PECF checkbox on your tax return, so it is voluntary. Also, according to the FEC, "Money for public funding of presidential elections can only come from the PECF. If that Fund runs short of funds, no other general Treasury funds may be used."
Since it is voluntary, I would have no problem if Dr. Paul chose to accept on this alone. I must point out that the term "matching funds" does seem to be misleading, and from what I have read only $250 of each individual donor's total amount will be given. That is, if the fund does not run dry to begin with. The chances of Dr. Paul getting $20 million+ seem slim considering.
Most importantly, it is federal funding, and as with anything federal, there are strings attached.
FEC website:
Candidates also must agree to:
In Dr. Paul's case, considering our fundraising success, it appears matching funds would limit the campaign greatly.
There is also a very informative post on the Democratic Underground that sums it up nicely.
I hope this helps.
Bump - No to matching funds, DON'T LIMIT THIS CAMPAIGN!!!
BUMP BUMP BUMP
A little education can go a long way. Please read up on the issue before naively suggesting we can take $19M when in fact, we can't. Hillary and Obama aren't taking matching funds. There's a reason for that people. In their case, it's because they want to raise as much as they can. In Ron Paul's case, I'm sure he also wants to raise as much as he can, but also, look at his record - never voted for a pay raise, never took a taxpayer funded junket, won't take his congressional pension, and is in favor of REDUCING the size of government. The matching fund idea is completely opposite to what his campaign is all about.
This discussion is
This discussion is absolutely pointless. I'm confused what we're trying to accomplish here. Dr. Paul will be the one ultimately responsible for making this decision, has nothing to do with grassroots.
STOP LYING
It IS TAX MONEY. If it was a "donation" you would have the option to KEEP the money.
Hear Hear
Why people keep saying it is voluntary is beyond me. Imagine: I steal 5000 dollars from you, but tell you that I will give 3 bucks of it, if you so choose, to a fund that is open to a select few people who must qualify for it according to my rules before they receive it (but you don't get to choose the rules or the people yourself). Do you want the 3 bucks I stole to be spent that way? You say NO? Then I say, well, I'll just spend it on whatever else I want, then.
See, I already stole your money, and you ain't gettin it back. I just gave you a tiny choice about whether I should spend a miniscule amount of the money I took according to one set of "laws" or another set. That is a TAX, not a voluntary contribution.
The reason he said no is the reason we work
so hard for him and the reason he will win.
T
Unify
imagine the media headlines
imagine the media headlines trying to make dr Paul look stupid. Ron Paul, the strict constitutionalist, raised $20 million and then accepted another $20 million in matching funds, which he does not support. If I never heard of him before, the first question I would ask myself is not if he's a hypocrit, but how come he raised so much money and I never heard of him before. This is not a bad thing at all. Wake up people. Absolutely no bad can come from this.
These are implanted trolls!
The weak and the strong can not keep the same company!!
You are making it difficult to be polite to you! This is my money and seeing as I am a Ron Paul supporter I want him to take that money and use it to save this Country!
You need to go to Kos or where ever you came from and quit being stupid!
He will take the money just like he takes his tax refund, because he is entitled to it!
This site is being bombarded by trolls and when you read this kind of crap, just write their name down and kick them to the curb!
IT'S NOT TAX MONEY, IT'S A VOLUNTARY DONATION.
IT'S NOT TAX MONEY, IT'S A VOLUNTARY DONATION.
IT IS SPECIFICALLY RESERVED FOR THE ELECTION.
I have no problem with him taking it.
WE NEED TO WIN!
No Difference
It makes no difference as to what we decide concerning matching funds. Ron Paul has said no. He has said no because it is his philosophical view point. And knowing Ron Paul, he will never alter his philosophical view for some extra cash.
He can change his mind
He doesn't have to change his philosophical viewpoint. He can change his mind by coming to the conclusion that accepting the funds is consistent with his philosophical viewpoint, which I believe it is.
He might change his mind if
He might change his mind if enough of his supporters ask him to take the matching funds. We've spent a ton of money and time to help him get elected, he owes it to us to take our advice under consideration, and if he did do as many of us suggest, I do not think it would compromise his principles.
Taking back what has been stolen is not stealing
If government steals money from the private sector, then taking it back into the private sector is reclamation, not stealing. The greater evil is leaving it in government and allowing government to spend the money how IT wants to spend it. Taking the money back into the private sector lets the people freely decide how will be spent. Accepting matching funds is consistent with Paul's principles. I hope he realizes that.
Any time you can deprive government of money, do it.
While I agree
I've gotten the impression that those who wish to accept the matching funds aren't convinced by that arguement. Which is why I'm trying to bring it back to the actual source of the funds, possibly millions of dollars that are being sent to further a cause that a certain group happens to think is correct, but many other might not side with.
I don't understand the argument.
So you're so pure, that you will not accept the benefits of any service provided by the Federal government that was funded by the income tax?
How is this different from earmarks, then?
The money has been collected for the benefit of all citizens. So by refusing matching funds, dr. Paul would be depriving his supporters of that benefit. Does he have that right?
Damn right I want him to accept matching funds (if he feels it necessary, of course). ESPECIALLY if they were funded partially out of my income tax payments. Otherwise, they'll go to some other candidate that I don't support.
This is very different than
This is very different from earmarks.
Earmarks allocate funds paid by Paul's constituents back to his constituents.
Matching funds, assuming the funding is not entirely voluntary, direct funds from the budget to Paul's campaign.
So, are the funds entirely voluntary?
Bite Me! It ends when the forum ends it. Are you the decider?
"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." Samuel Adams
“Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information and religions destroy spirituality”
Indeed I am the almighty decider!!!
Relax, It's just a thread title that attempts to imply this thread is more based around finding a specific, "Yes,it's okay | No it would be wrong." Than gathering several hundred Yes/No answers. Onward to that goal, starting with my question of what the funds are composed of.
C'mon Guys
I think we're all getting tense, myself included, as we get closer to the first caucus and primaries. Let's give each other as much slack as we can. Thanks! :)