UPDATE! Should Ron Accept "Matching Funds"? Another Viewpoint
What if Ron could get a check for several million $$$ in the next few weeks? This IS a thorny issue among his supporters.
Following libertarian economist Walter Block's article of today, now comes Prof. Murray Sabrin arguing that Ron should and must take the matching funds. He states:
"The Ron Paul campaign should accept the matching funds with a clear conscience, because Dr. Paul would be playing by the rules of the game. After all, he accepts a taxpayer funded congressional salary and taxpayer funds to run his congressional offices. If Ron Paul supporters do not want him to obtain matching funds because they are "tainted," they should also demand he depend on voluntary contributions to pay for all the expenses, including salaries, of his DC and Texas offices. Clearly, that would be an unrealistic application of libertarian principles." Read his entire argument here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/sabrin7.html
Walter Block's argument against it is here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block86.html
IMHO, it's better if we supporters debate this now. Please feel free to post a simple Yes or No, and/or a statement outlining your opinion.
Thank you for the hundreds of thoughtful, intelligent comments so far. They are sincerely appreciated.
Y
No, no, and No.
No, no, and no.
No, Why go for 10 million when his contribution rate is bigger, thus he does not need it?
No, its crazy for a Politician who wants everyone to get off the dole, to put himself on the government dole.
No, such a move would be seen as hypocritical and be used against him in the primaries.
We should agree to agree.
We should agree the extra money sounds good.
We should agree that if we take the money we would be controlled on what we can do.
We should agree that we are going to get larger.
We should agree that we are scared.
We should agree that it seems too large a task to get done sometimes.
We should agree we come here to get more courage. Then we run back to the battle and hold our flag high while the bullets are flying by.
We should agree that we would never stop fighting.
We should agree that we could gain 75 million people (1/4 of or nation.)
to this cause.
We should agree that people need woke up.
We should agree that it is our job to wake them up.
We should agree to shake off doubt.
We should agree that once we have 75 million we will not want to be controlled.
We should agree to stop complaining.
We should agree to work harder.
We should agree to give more.
We should agree to care.
We should agree to lift each other higher.
We should agree that we don’t need their money.
We should agree the campaign is Ron Paul’s.
We should agree to give them the fight of their life.
We should agree to become more positive.
We should agree that Ron Paul is not our last hope, but our first hope in a long while.
We should agree that Ron Paul is not our last hope but theirs.
We should agree that they are scared.
We should agree that we knew they wouldn’t play far.
We should agree to never surrender.
We should agree they should be defeated.
We should agree that we will preserver.
legal and ethical
1) the funds are legal and ethical:
i may accept a position with salary in a gov't department. i can also hold a position that i hope this same department gets phased out by president paul due to the lack of federal authority to have such control. my salary, in the meantime, is not tainted money.
2) are you consistent?
the good doc paul does not believe the income tax on labor is constitutional, yet he pays the taxes that we are all coerced into paying - waiting for the day when his pen might change the status quo.
---> doc, if matching funds are available, take it! and let's see who will be first to cast stones...
Principles
I have enjoyed reading the thoughtful debate over the issue of matching funds. Looking within for my own thought on this subject, I remembered thinking about football once again recently. I came to the conclusion that if I could determine a principle I could subscribe to, with one litmus test being that this is what you would teach your own children, it would be this, though admittedly not original: that "winning" pales into insignificance compared to "how you play the game". And by "playing the game", I mean whether you enjoy what you are doing. Do you feel joy and peace within because you know you are playing for the sake of playing and not for the outcome?
Sports has often taught people that "winning" is everything. And in the face of those who are willing to do whatever it takes to "win", an innocent idealist is confronted with the temptation to do what it takes to get in the game to have a chance at getting your ideas and principles heard. I am reminded of the saying about doing "evil that good may come".
Politics is a rough sport today, as defined by those who have shaped it for the last hundred years or so in this country. Yet, I firmly believe we are on a path of decision that leads either to a future of tyranny of the few over the many, or one of bright hope and promise, where the people wake up to their responsibility over their own destiny. The time truly is now to decide, as all who support Ron Paul have forseen and chosen.
Ultimately, this world is temporary; but the choices we make will determine whether we deserve eternity or not. It is tempting to abandon principles on the grounds of some extenuating circumstance that requires it. We should remember that we shall be judged by the standard we exact on the world around us. I think it is far better to play the "game" fairly and well than to win at all costs. Thanks for the listen.
I Support Ron Paul Regardless!!!!
This issue is a non issue because the money was given freely it was not forced like IRS money.
If this money gets him some tv adds and some positive exposure in mainstream media then so be it. What are the rules regarding taking the money though?
Why would it be wrong to take money that people donated explicitly for candidates like Ron Paul who don't get the Military industrial complex money or medical industrial complex, or oil company money like the others?I don't get it?
It's Ron Paul or it's Revolution!!!!
Opresso De Liber
Life,Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness!
Conscious of Our Creator and Source of our Liberties.
The game won't be played fairly. That much has been established.
The real question is: Which is the greater evil? Global despotism and carnage? or questionable accounting upon which everyone cannot even agree? Where is our conscience? Remember, we can vote ourselves into slavery, but we can't vote ourselves out. Can't we see what is at stake? I say, use any legal means to get the man in office. And I'll sleep just fine... and so will all of the innocent people around the globe whose lives we can save in the process.
Let's have some pity on the poor souls who are to be murdered in these escalations of war. That's a higher principle than an impeccable showing in the campaign game.
"And though I speak with the tongues of men and of angles... and though I... understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."
I Cor. 13:1-2
We are here...
because we are tired of choosing between evils.
These are the same arguments used to get us into all of these messes. Fear of X + compassion for Y = world domination. That isn't us. And so while at first I not so secretly hoped he would take the money but glad that he would not. I re-evaluated my stance, and realized I wanted him to take it because it was the easy out. It would take some of the work off of him and US.
Well, I am taking personal responsibility to see that he is elected. I am finding more ways to give. This is OUR responsibility. Even if you buy the arguments presented for taking the money (which I won't totally discount), I want to say that I took personal responsibility, we took personal responsibility to ensure that we put him in office. That is the job before us, and no shortcuts will help us. I do not want to have to say that we depended on the blind giving of those who did NOT care about this country.
Let's practice what he preaches, and dig in and get the job done on our own, without a coerced populace by Uncle Santa.
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
Taking Matching Funds Sensible
I personally see no problem in the campaign taking the matching funds. The money that would be given to the campaign has already been taken by the government.
We should take a principled stand, but every person who attends public school, drives on a public road, accepts social security benefits, or calls police, uses government services. Not doing these things will do nothing to change the amount the government steals and spends.
I'm sure a Paul adminstration would work to abolish government matching funds. To get a Paul administration, we need to win.
Now I'm a card carrying Libertarian with a big L. Believing in liberty doesn't mean you have to be imprudent. This is the way the game is set up by the politicos.
I'll understand and greatly respect Ron Paul if he says no on the matching funds. That being said, those of you who don't want him to take the funds need to remember that the deck is stacked against anyone who makes that decision. Ron has dedicated his life to working for liberty. Let's let him make his own call on this.
Very well said. Wrongs are upon us. Must choose which to avoid.
Here is some of what I posted below (after your post):
Some supporters are worried about some “principle” that is several orders of magnitude removed from the real principles: starting another war that will kill thousands of Iranians & Americans, borders wide open, the specter of your children living in soviet style tyranny, runaway inflation.
...(see post below)
Talk about straining over a gnat.
On gnats, briefly
I too have many times weighed the great blunders in the world, here and there, and it is very tempting at times to continue to do so. To keep picking between "evils" and trying to live with a lesser one, so that our conscience is clear we did do something instead of nothing.
Wars and so many other seemingly endless major wrongs beckon for black and white judgement. These kinds of problems have been around for a long time, and change is needed. Yet fear that we must choose a specific action now or the end is near, will not make them go away.
There is a movement, a current beneath the waves of unrest in the world, that is teaching people the wisdom of acting and deciding without the pressure of fears of awful consequences. The little decisions to live without undue concern or fear, to choose with principles like love, concern for others, unity consciousness, etc.; are the way to ensure that the bigger picture is what we want to see. If we accept that "this is just the way it is, the world has always been this way, people have always been this way. . .", then there is little chance of changing the big picture.
Little principles of truth, practiced by lots of little people, will turn the tide.
And if...
We avoided fear mongering and stuck to principle, we would not be in this mess...
Just pointing out the obvious.
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
Is federal Matching funds required to get SS Protection?
Does anyone know if this is part of the same kitten caboodle? If it is I say Ron Paul accepts the Federal Matching, so he can get the Protection, then Return the Federal Money + interest back to the treasury when his campaign is over. If they don't go hand in hand, then I am on the fence on whether or not he should take matching dollars.
TRUST RON'S JUDGEMENT
Hey most of us agree with Ron on at least 90% of the issues. Let's see where he comes out and support his decision. The amount of discussion here proves it's not a slam-dunk either way.
Accept the Matching Funds, Then Give Them Back
This is a really tough call. After some thought, I think Ron has two choices based on his principles of limited government, individual liberty, and folllowing the Constitution:
1) not accept the matching funds.
2) accept the matching funds and then immediately donate it right back to the tax payers.
Initially I favored the 1st approach. It follows his history of why he is called Dr. No, voting against anything that is un-Constitutional. Last I checked, matching funds are not anywhere in the Constitution.
But after a bit of consideration, I now favor the 2nd approach. Here's why: it shows he's a real candidate that is able to raise larg sums of money to earn him respect from the establishment. Like it or not, more respect from the MSM translates very directly to more name recognition and time in upcoming debates.
Then there is the issue that if he takes the matching funds he'll be immediately labeled a hypocrite. Well, this is true, UNLESS he gives the funds back directly to the taxpayers (how to do this is still an unresolved issue, considering it would amount to about 5 to 10 cents per taxpayer). I just think of the positive publicity this historic stunt would generate could create the name recognition Ron Paul desperately needs.
We wouldn't do it.
Ron Paul would NOT accept the funds.
Period. End of conversation.
End of conversation?
Let all the Ron Paul for President supporters PRAY that he accepts the matching funds. Our country's at stake!!!!
Thomas Jefferson:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until t
Flase Flags and Ideological Demigods.
For a brief moment I have allowed the false flags and ideological demigods on this thread to disturb me into thinking that these Ron Paul folks are extremists and should be avoided. However at the local RP events I have attended I find the people showing up are normal everyday people who care about the future of our nation.
It's ok with me that there are a couple of extremists here and there as I am a tolerant individual. But please do not think these people are representative of the majority of RP supporters because I believe they are not.
Join PyraBang the peoples search engine.
Interesting...
First there are extremists in every party... However, in our case... I will say this...
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" - Barry Goldwater
So, while my initial response was no doubt one of the statements that was attacked by the people you are refering to. I do not agree that any of us should be ashamed of these people in our Revolution... :)
I have had open disagreements with some of these good people in the past myself, but I would NEVER label and disregard them based on them believing strongly in the goals and ideals that we now fight for. Sometimes we have disagreed about the approach... :) But never about what we are fighting for...
Though, I may be part of that extremist label myself... And if so, that's ok, I would wear that as a badge of honor...
The fact is Paul WON'T accept matching funds. He wouldn't even let his kids use student loans! So this debate is pointless, and if that isn't the kind of integrity and sticking to ones principles that you want, then I am not sure what won you over about RP, not that I am complaining because we need everyone's support.
In addition, I will remind you that our founding father's were idealogues, and thank god. If they had compromised their principles we would not be able to fight the tyrrany in our government today!
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
......delusions of grandeur
"The fact is Paul WON'T accept matching funds"..... can't you people see that by presuming to speak for Dr. Paul you come off like a windbag. You are NOT Ron Paul! You are not running for President!
You have OPINIONS....just like me and everyone else. You think RP should do this or that....but you are not Ron Paul!
I think that some who post here have the same problem with RP that the neocons have....you want more than anything to control him. He's becoming more popular and you've got to control him. He's going to do this or else.......blah blah blah
I think he should take the matching funds because I feel we desperately have to reach more people via radio and television ads. If he decides against it I'll still support him.
Thomas Jefferson:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until t
another example...
You think he would refuse to give Reagan and Rosa Parks a medal at $40K tax payer dollars but will take $10 million of it for himself?
And if you think THAT comparison wouldn't be made in the corporate media daily, you are kidding yourself. It would be digging his own grave, even if he wanted to take it. Which he has never acted easily tempted by money.
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
doc, pick up the tab
the good doc offered his own cash to pay for the medal & challenged the rest of congress to match and do the same - for this non-gov't activity. congress refused the offer. that is all the retort required by doc in the face of a hostile media.
i think that in spite of the fact that most rp supporters would wish to abolish the practice of gov't matching funds, the voting process is within the gov't domain.
I AGREE election for
I AGREE election for president is about PLAYING THE GAME.. i.e. if third party candidates REALLY HAD A CHANCE.. e.g. electors who would vote for them at the electoral college should they win a majority of the vote.. well that might be one thing. but IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY..
Fact is THE MORE FOLKS WHO HEAR AND UNDERSTAND DR. PAULS MESSAGE.. THE MORE SUPPORTERS WE HAVE!!
I gave generously and hope to MAX OUT.. because I want change.. Dr. Paul OWES HIS SUPPORTERS... No he OWES THIS NATION.. the opportunity to WIN.. USING ALL THE RULES WITHIN HIS POWER
He owes us?
This man has spent his life in support of these ideals. You just happen to notice several decades later and all of a sudden he owes you? He doesn't owe us anything, he has already given a huge portion of his life! It is us that owe him, for standing for truth for so long, waiting for all of us late comers to finally catch on so that he can pass the torch so to speak.
He has *earned* our trust, our respect, and our support. And for that he owes us? I don't think so. I will give until I can't give anymore, and still feel like I haven't given this man enough. He has woken more people up than any one of us. And quite frankly, I wouldn't care if he dropped out of the race tom. and I don't care what he does with the money.
The other candidates *owe* their supporters favors. Not ours.
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
ok, you are just kinda rude...
First, if you followed the thread I said I secretly wished he would. Second, you do know what he is going to do based on his past actions. He has made his stance clear on this sort of thing.
His consistency is why we trust him. And I never said I wouldn't support him, in fact, I said that supporters would likely give him the benefit of the doubt because there are arguments which make sense as to why it would be justified but also that if he did, he would be crucified by the press and make non-supporters ignore him as a hypocrite regardless of whether it was true.
You can WANT him to all you want, but you can judge a man's future actions by his past actions. Especially a principled, integrity driven man such as Paul. You think he has never voted against his stated principles in 20 years and he will start now?
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
Not to mention...
there was massive disagreement at times between the founding fathers. There were long sessions with heated debate and much wrangling. This is all good as long as it is kept civil and respect of each other is maintained even if you completely disagree.
================
Who is John Galt? Vote ███ ███ 2012!
Funds Contributed are "Voluntary"
I never check off the box that says part of my income tax (which I have to pay, anyway) is going to the Fund, because I know it probably won't go to the Libertarian candidate for president and why should I help the others?
However, anyone who does check the box must want the money to be given to all the presidential candidates who qualify, right? That's how it works.
http://www.fec.gov/finance/2004matching/matching.shtml#how
If he takes matching funds, I figure he will be spending it for the purpose the payers intended. No conflict there.
Ironically, the rules are in his favor as they pay out based on the number of unique individual contributors (that's us!) rather than the dollar amount.
My question is what happens to the money that isn't spent from the fund? Does it go to a better purpose? Or does it go to his opponents?
Frankly, if I had contributed, and say, too many candidates qualified for funds so that the fund would be depleted and have to be apportioned, I sure would expect him to take as much as he can in order to deprive the other candidates of an unfair share (already unfair due to the bias against alternative party candidates). Campaigns can always donate left over money to charity.
On the other hand, depending on what strings are attached, who needs them?
IMissLiberty
IMissLiberty
Bundlers
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=...
Dear Yvonne
I'm beginning to believe with many other posters that your question is meant to be a divisive attack. But imagine the PR fallout when socialist types refuse the money, but the most strict constitutionalist of all accepts it! LOL!
From Wikipedia: In 2008, most of the leading candidates in both parties, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama among Democrats, and Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney among Republicans, have decided not to take matching funds. By refusing matching funds, these candidates are free to spend as much money as they can raise privately. In addition to primary matching funds, the federal government subsidizes the nominating conventions of the major parties. The nominees are then offered the opportunity to accept government funds for the general election. If they accept the government funds, they agree not to raise or spend private funds or to spend more than $50,000 of their personal resources.
But LOL! The money many keep insisting is theirs and want Ron Paul to "take back" for them never came from them in the first place!
A candidate can only request up to 250 federal reserve notes ("dollars" for the uninitiated) in matching funds for any donor. The law was passed after Watergate and checkoff began in 1976. That makes 30 years so far. So NO ONE, even a person "checking off" for a full thirty years, has ever had more than 90 federal reserve notes of their own go into this fund. The majority of the matching money originally came from OTHER PEOPLE. That's just theft. Theft.
In Response...
1. Raising issues, however controversial, is not a "divisive tactic". Some issues are divisive--that doesn't mean anyone wants to create discord; there's obviously just a lot of principle and a lot at stake here.
2. I think the numbers are wrong. Edwards, for example is capped at spending 50 MILLION in the primaries.
3. This might not be any of our money directly, but it certainly comes from that general pool of taxes, which IS ours, and is certainly LARGER than whatever amount would spread out over an election.
4. There's more to discuss here, but either way, the election is going very well...
If Ron is running for president,
he should take the money. If Ron is preaching a sermon, then he should refuse it.
Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas
"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."
Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas
"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."