Ben Swann Explains Gary Johnson and the 5% Rule

Suppose I checked the box. I'm a libertarian (and a Libertarian). I would be very annoyed if they gave my money to both of the dominant parties, and none to mine.

Don't the people who check the box really have the right to say where it goes?

Of course, I never check the box because I don't want it to go to either dominant party. But there are plenty of people who think elections should be publicly funded. I have no problem accepting their money as long as I can live with the strings attached.

P.S. One reason to check the box is to keep the money out of the bureaucrats' hands, especially if it would be spent on making wars.

considering the LIBERTARIAN Party is aiming this as it's main goal, that's not a good sign.

But what's in a name? It's about those who are in the party that decides everything.

There is no way in the world that someone not supported by big political action commitees (funded by banksters) can compete with just personal donations.

Political campaigns ARE determined by who spends the most - don't pretend to be naive on that.

And if there is no source for funding for NONcorporate interests - then ONLY corporate interests will be able to elect candidates.

Individual contributions can NEVER keep up.

And we reaaly will have a government by plutocracy or of the rich.

Thank you so much for that article educating folks in the Washington State on why they should vote Gary Johnson.

Thank you.

Because as recently as 2008 he wasn't discouraging third-party efforts, rather just the opposite. He not only endorsed Chuck Baldwin he said "I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better.". And the rest of that letter makes it clear that although he chose to remain a Republican, he thought the liberty movement was strengthened by diversity. Which, from a liberty-minded viewpoint, is the only thing that makes sense.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/23001.html

Also:

Before election day in 2008, Ron Paul held a press conference in DC, featuring the third party candidates for president; Ralph Nader (Green), Chuck Baldwin (Constitution) and, in absentia, Bob Barr (Libertarian). Ron urged his supporters, as well as all who were frustrated and fed-up with the two-party monopoly to vote for anyone of the third party contenders, rather than the lesser of two evils.

In this video, he recounts the story of what happened when the McCain campaign called asking for Ron's endorsement. He said: "Well, I don't like the idea of getting two or three million people angry at me". The McCain people countered with the argument that he would do less harm than the others. Needless to say, Ron said NO.

http://lewrockwell.com/yk/what-paul-said-to-mccain.html

As for Rand, contrast Ron Paul refusing to endorse a warmonger like McCain, with Rand's decision about what to do for Mitt. They're different people.