Ron Paul - Five Million Dollar Man?

[Truth-Bringer]

GOP Ron Paul - Five Million Dollar Man?
Thursday, June 07, 2007
FreeMarketNews.com


Congressman Ron Paul’s donations have moved up - not by hundreds of thousands - but by millions as a result of his debate performances and groundswell of support on the Internet and in New Hampshire, observers close to the campaign say.

The move is especially impressive since as of March 31, 2007, he had perhaps $500,000 on hand (see candidate estimates below).

FMNN had previously reported – after the GOP presidential debate in South Carolina - that candidate Ron Paul’s (R-Tex) donations, large and small, had nearly doubled.

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=42336

Now observers close to the campaign are revealing – with some astonishment – that donations to the campaign in recent weeks have pushed the total up to perhaps $4 or $5 million.

“That’s a huge number at this stage,” says one observer. “That starts to put him in a position where he can compete – state by state, anyway – with the major candidates.”

And this source added, “Of course, it’s hard to tell because the numbers keep changing – and thus nobody at the campaign has a firm count, at least not hour to hour. But the numbers are big. It’s definitely over three, probably over four, and if it hasn’t hit five yet, it will soon.”

At this rate, say observers, Ron Paul could have something like $10 million in his coffers inside of several months, and the total could keep growing – so long as he continues to hit on themes that Americans support – how to return the country to a true, small government, constitutional republic and how to end the war in Iraq.

To be sure such amounts are somewhat speculative. But to put the amount of money Ron Paul is said to have raised recently in perspective, here are the figures of cash on hand for GOP candidates as of March 31, 2007:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/gop.html

Sam Brownback
cash-on-hand: $806,626

Jim Gilmore
cash-on-hand: $90,107

Rudy Giuliani
cash-on-hand: $11,949,735

Mike Huckabee
cash-on-hand: $373,918

Duncan Hunter
cash-on-hand: $272,552

John McCain
cash-on-hand: $5,180,799

Ron Paul
cash-on-hand: $524,919

Mitt Romney
cash-on-hand: $11,863,653

Tom Tancredo
cash-on-hand: $575,078

Tommy Thompson
cash-on-hand: $139,723

Source: CNN

If you believe in this man's message, then do the right thing and contribute to his campaign: http://www.ronpaul2008.com

 

[USMC the Almighty]

What's his position on campaign finance?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

What's his position on campaign finance?

Not sure, but I know he viewed the McCain bill as unconstitutional, which it was. Paul is getting the bulk of his contributions from $25, $50, and $100 donations. He's never taken a junket paid for by any political action committee.

I think people have a right to contribute to candidates they support. I wouldn't mind seeing tv advertising provided equally to all candidates, but I have a real problem with a lot of the restrictions in the McCain / Feingold bill. Bottom line, you will NEVER be able to keep money out of politics. But you can keep money from influencing your politicians if you elect honest people. And Ron Paul has proven his honesty over the years. His voting record matches his rhetoric.

 

[PLC1]

So long as the sheeple of this great country continue to vote based on party loyalty and the content of political ads, money will always win elections. Look at the stats in the opening post. Who are the front runners? How much do they have compared to the other candidates?

We have a government of the money, by the money, and for the money, while the voters sleep and watch spot commercials uncritically. If only we could get them to ask a couple of important questions, perhaps the situation would improve: Who paid for this commercial? What do they expect in return?

When money talks, people listen. When people talk, money just sits there.

We seriously need real campaign finance reform, but as long as money buys elections, no one is going to vote for real change. It's up to the people, who, at least for now, are fat and happy.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

Not sure, but I know he viewed the McCain bill as unconstitutional, which it was. Paul is getting the bulk of his contributions from $25, $50, and $100 donations. He's never taken a junket paid for by any political action committee.

I think people have a right to contribute to candidates they support. I wouldn't mind seeing tv advertising provided equally to all candidates, but I have a real problem with a lot of the restrictions in the McCain / Feingold bill. Bottom line, you will NEVER be able to keep money out of politics. But you can keep money from influencing your politicians if you elect honest people. And Ron Paul has proven his honesty over the years. His voting record matches his rhetoric.

Corporations don't contribute to "candidates they support". They simply buy votes, legislation, and political cover in Washington. The Mcain/Feingold ban on soft money is a step in the right direction.

For someone who advocates great change in the direction of American Gov't I'm surprised by your comment... you will NEVER be able to keep money out of politics. That's a pretty defeatist outlook.

Would you say Ron Paul will NEVER be elected president? The Federal Reserve system will NEVER be abolished.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Corporations don't contribute to "candidates they support". They simply buy votes, legislation, and political cover in Washington. The Mcain/Feingold ban on soft money is a step in the right direction.

For someone who advocates great change in the direction of American Gov't I'm surprised by your comment... you will NEVER be able to keep money out of politics. That's a pretty defeatist outlook.

Would you say Ron Paul will NEVER be elected president? The Federal Reserve system will NEVER be abolished.

Your premise is that the rich could only influence politics in a negative manner, and that's false.

We need an honest system - meaning full disclosure. If you see XYZ corporation or Bill Gates give such and such candidate $5 million, and that is broadcast publically, then you can choose to work against that candidate and vote against them based on that knowledge.

The reason the Democrat and Republican politicians don't want that system is because it would allow for 3rd parties to get into the game. There are rich Libertarians and rich Greens and rich Reformers that would contribute more to their parties and candidates if only they weren't limited by the $1,000 per candidate law.

And as far as influencing legislation, forget about the contribution angle. You're simply going to have to have tougher laws against politicians breaking the law or violating their oath of office in any way. Make it a mandatory life sentence with no parole for any politician caught doing anything illegal. You've got to get tough on these guys if you want real change.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Ron Paul Tops McCain in Cash on Hand

"ABC News' George Stephanopoulos Reports: Though often regarded as a longshot candidate for president, Republican Ron Paul tells ABC News that he has an impressive $2.4 million in cash on hand after raising an equal amount during the second quarter, putting him ahead of one-time Republican frontrunner John McCain, who reported this week he has only $2 million in the bank."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/ron-paul-tops-m.html

 

[Beetle Bailey]

Not sure, but I know he viewed the McCain bill as unconstitutional, which it was. Paul is getting the bulk of his contributions from $25, $50, and $100 donations. He's never taken a junket paid for by any political action committee.

I think people have a right to contribute to candidates they support. I wouldn't mind seeing tv advertising provided equally to all candidates, but I have a real problem with a lot of the restrictions in the McCain / Feingold bill. Bottom line, you will NEVER be able to keep money out of politics. But you can keep money from influencing your politicians if you elect honest people. And Ron Paul has proven his honesty over the years. His voting record matches his rhetoric.

There is no such thing as an honest politician. Money has more influence than ever on the outcome of elections. And more influence on congressional votes. The very real perception that our leaders and representatives are all bought and paid for undermines the foundations of democracy. It would be a very simple matter to change that perception. They just have to vote for it. People are tired of the same old bull**** in Washington. It's reaching a point of critical mass. If there is not a systemic change soon, there will be a political change at election time.

 

[bokile]

hahaha

I hope for 100 million so he could win

 

[Truth-Bringer]

There is no such thing as an honest politician.

Then your "solution" of voting in different politicians is irrational.

 

[Beetle Bailey]

Then your "solution" of voting in different politicians is irrational.

Incoherent. Maybe you would like to revise your statement.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Incoherent. Maybe you would like to revise your statement.

I'm just going by what you said. I'll post it again:

There is no such thing as an honest politician. Money has more influence than ever on the outcome of elections. And more influence on congressional votes. The very real perception that our leaders and representatives are all bought and paid for undermines the foundations of democracy. It would be a very simple matter to change that perception. They just have to vote for it. People are tired of the same old bull**** in Washington. It's reaching a point of critical mass. If there is not a systemic change soon, there will be a political change at election time.

Emphasis added. You're saying - honest politicians do not exist, but the solution is to vote for politicians who will then vote to change the perception that politicians are not honest.

That is irrational, since according to you, honest politicians do not exist.

 

[Beetle Bailey]

How about if we just don't vote for any politicians that do not support campaign finance reform? How about that for a start?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

How about if we just don't vote for any politicians that do not support campaign finance reform? How about that for a start?

That's just one issue. I'm not going to vote for someone on one issue if they have crazy positions on other issues. How about if we don't vote for politicians that don't support the original intent of the Constitution? How about that for a start?

Look, I don't agree with your assessment. 95 to 99% of politicians may be dishonest, but Ron Paul has a record, and his actions back up his words.

You can't ever reform the government unless we get honest people in the highest offices. Once you get honest people in, then you can make laws with tougher sentencing for crooked politicians. I would advocate an automatic life sentence with no parole for any politician who breaks any law other than a minor traffic violation or violates their oath of office in any way. You've got to start getting tough with these people if you want real change.

But the key isn't campaign finance reform, it's limiting the power of the goverment to defending the unalienable rights of individuals under Natural Law so that people don't try to buy politicians off.

I highly recommend that you take the time to read the following:

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/rapecon.shtml

 

[Beetle Bailey]

That's just one issue. I'm not going to vote for someone on one issue if they have crazy positions on other issues. How about if we don't vote for politicians that don't support the original intent of the Constitution? How about that for a start?

Look, I don't agree with your assessment. 95 to 99% of politicians may be dishonest, but Ron Paul has a record, and his actions back up his words.

You can't ever reform the government unless we get honest people in the highest offices. Once you get honest people in, then you can make laws with tougher sentencing for crooked politicians. I would advocate an automatic life sentence with no parole for any politician who breaks any law other than a minor traffic violation or violates their oath of office in any way. You've got to start getting tough with these people if you want real change.

But the key isn't campaign finance reform, it's limiting the power of the goverment to defending the unalienable rights of individuals under Natural Law so that people don't try to buy politicians off.

I highly recommend that you take the time to read the following:

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/rapecon.shtml

There's one born every minute. From what universe will these "honest" beings come? Who are these selfless altruists? Who are these noble men that won't take money to promote their own power and influence?
So, on the one hand you believe that politicians should face harsh penalties if they get caught doing something. But, at the same time should have access to unlimited amounts of money. And we should pretend that money doesn't buy influence. Act as though there isn't an obvious conflict of interest. What hypocracy. It's apparent that you just want to maintain the status quo. And try to justify it with some vague bull**** about natural law and the original intent of the constitution. I wonder what your real agenda is? It certainly has nothing to do with promoting honesty in politics.