to match, or not to match
Submitted by number9 on Sun, 12/30/2007 - 13:41
this is the question:
if anyone, or everyone, accepts the rationale of allowing congressional constituents to claim earmarks for their district; and if anyone, or everyone, who pays federal taxes will allow themselves to claim the maximum, legally allowed, tax credits and deductions:
why not "allow" doc to claim a legal campaign credit from an institution he would like to change - in the form of campaign matching funds?
i am referencing the following piece from freemarketnews.com:
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=49940
it certainly appears that some hypocrisy exists from those facing a crisis of principle, and possibly forced by conscience to withhold further support.
»
He isn't going to take them
He isn't going to take them so whats the poing of discussing it unless it's just to vent.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds”
-Sam Adams
Leverage my contribution to its fullest!
I believe he would be doing me a disservice if he did not accept matching funds.
TAKE MATCHING FUNDS--WE NEED TO WIN, PERIOD!!!!!!!!
I am already maxed out.
PLEASE Explain to me the specific reason(s) for not taking the money. So far no one has been able to give a clear answer. Stating that it is against Ron Paul principles is not an answer, (what is the specific reason). I really do not understand & would love to get an answer.
Below is the FEC website explanation of public funding.
http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_public_funding.shtml
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/checkoff.shtml
I agree with you 100%
I never bought the argument.
Even if the matching funds are not totally from the voluntary contributions and are funded by income tax, so what?
It's not up to Dr Paul to deprive me of my piece of this pie. Otherwise, the government still takes my money, and then distributes my share of the matching fund pie to Dr. Paul's OPPONENTS!
Sure I'm mad that they take my money to begin with, but I'll be even madder if they give it to my candidate's opponents.
So for Dr. Paul not to take matching funds would be to participate in a double taking of my money.
I WANT Dr. Paul to take matching funds if he feels he needs them. I would be offended and feel doubly ripped off if he didn't.