Skip to comments.Ron Paul Myth: Military Donations Favor “the Crazy Ol’ Uncle”
Posted on 01/05/2012 10:35:29 AM PST by Starman417
Open Secrets reveals Ron Paul's top 3 contributors as being the following:
US Army $24,503Unfortunately, this doesn't really tell us how many individual donors contributed. Isn't it the case that Open Secrets only counts those (around 11,270) who give $200 or more (FEC- $250?)? I think about a third of donors don't bother listing their workplace on their contribution form. And a combined $65,000 in military campaign donations accounts for very little as a percentage of the millions that the Paul campaign has raised.
US Air Force $23,335
US Navy $17,432
In 2008, much was made by the Paul Bearers regarding military contributions (supposedly) going to Ron Paul. The same thing is happening again:
A posting on his campaign website the same day he appeared on "NewsHour" sheds a little light. Headlined "Ron Paul Campaign Raises Most Donations From Military," it says that Paul has "raised more than any other current presidential candidate in donations from members of the military. Of those donors who indicated their occupation and employer, Paul topped the other contenders."
Back in 2008, I blogged the following:
Paul: Absolutely. The real question you have to ask is why do I get the most money from active duty officers and military personnel?
Is he talking about "donors identified as affiliated with the military,"?
Like everything else Ron-con-related, I believe he is spinning the results of this.
As the reporter in the Houston Chronicle says,"many contributors do not disclose their occupations, making it difficult to determine the total extent of military contributions to any one candidate."More importantly, the amount of contributions are incredibly small, hardly proving much of anything. Beth adds in the Outside the Beltway comment section:
Also not understood by the obsessed Paulbots and other assorted antiwar nutters: the fact that "military employees" includes civil service employees of the various services. That means a GS-7 who works at Whatever Air Force Base in BFE, Idaho has their employer listed as "Air Force." For all we know, not one of those people is someone in uniform. I'm sure there are some, but it certainly is not all, nor is it indicative of some big antiwar sentiment in the military. For Paultards and Sullivan to extrapolate that idea from this is laughably absurd.Furthermore, if one compares the 3rd Quarter statistics of Paul and McCain regarding the contribution amounts of those who do not list their employer, 100 dollars worth was given to Ron Paul's coffers, compared to that of McCain's: 2,244,223.39. Out of all of that money, how much of that could have been donated by active and retired veterans? Or "Affiliates" of the military? We don't know. But it seems clear, by the paltry $100 given by the person(s) not listing employment, that the Ron Paul supporters are overwhelmingly listing their employment when making contributions.
Michael Goldfarb at The Weekly Standard writes,among all the candidates, the total number of contributors surveyed here numbered less than 1,000--out of an Armed Forces of 2.2 million. And, remember, most of these contributors aren't even active duty.
So yes, Andrew [Sullivan], those tasked with fighting this war do get it, which is why they aren't donating to Paul. The only real report we have on political contributions from active duty military in this election cycle has Paul taking in just over $19,000, and that's only counting donations larger than $200. So, maximum, we're talking about 90 active duty soldiers who we know have actually contributed to Ron Paul's campaign. The rest is pure speculation, and the Chron's tally of $63,440, with its average of $500 per donation, is unlikely to be populated by many of the guys who are "actually fighting this war."
I have no doubt a number of active and retired military support Ron Paul and are attracted by what he seems to represent: Limited government and fiscal responsibility, conservative use of our military, and apparent loyalty to the Constitution, channelling the will of our Founding Fathers. That's a seductive message for many Americans- especially the patriots willing to have their blood spilled on behalf of our country.
As this NYTimes piece notes:
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
A very dishonest claim because it is absolutely impossible to prove. Anyone can put anything down (or nothing down) as their occupation.
Next time I make a donation, I am going to list my occupation as “Bankster”
A little digging on the open secrets site is pretty productive and interesting.
Ya’ll gotta do your own research. I gotta take a ride but I leave a starting point.
He may get support for some of his better points regarding fiat money, goverment overspending, limited govt, not using the military for meals on wheels and every UN type mission having nothing to do with our national interests.
However the kook ideas ought to resonate with these people and realize that he can’t be trusted with the presidency. Capt. Kweeg was rational and clear headed in some parts of his life but in others, definitely not. You didn’t want that guy in command in a trouble spot and Paul is Kweeg. All that’s missing is him at the podium rubbing a couple of stress balls together.
There’s no doubt Ron Paul has a group of loyal supporters, but I doubt many of them are military. It would be very interesting to have accurate data on just who are caucusing for and voting for RP. I bet we’d find a significant percentage of mischief making Dims and left leaning Independents.
I also wonder if he will run a commercial explaining that despite being against earmarks, he adds all his earmarks for his district into the budget bills, and then votes against it, knowing there’s a majority without him to pass it, so that even though he ‘votes against (his own) earmarks’ he gets his earmarks on the votes of others. He counts on this happening.
Is this really him going Galt and just helping to take the system down faster or is it really just lip service from Paul? I side on lip service.
It is not a myth it is a damn lie.
Ron Paul is the only one who says this, and all the reports from the MSM are referring back to Ron Paul’s sites and supporters repeating the lie.
What a surprise that Ron “Gut the Military Budget with Barney Frank” Paul lies about donations from military personnel! Paul is a racist, mendacious crackpot.
Setting the record straight post of the day. Take that Paulbots.
Aha, another Paulian Myth. I’ve always wondered why the mil apaprently luvs him so much when he hates them, and voted to force them to have mentally ill sex perverts in their midst.
It’s a load of surrender monkey poop.
As for my occupation, I am going to put this on my donation forms:
Zionist neocon war monger.
What other Presidential gets more according to Open Secrets?
You just proved Ron Paul right. LOL!
This is even though you said it was not true. Tell me what other U.S. Presidential candidate gets higher donations from the military.
Multiple neutral sources making the same claim make it highly likely that it is true.
I’m Ex Army and am currently employed as a civilian contractor with the Army Corps of Engineers as a deckhand on a dredge boat and I support Ron Paul and if Ron Paul isn’t on the ballot, I’ll write him in. I refuse to vote for any other candidate.
Thank you for your service
And as a contractor as well I know many many of those in the service currently and who have recently left that support Ron Paul
I’m separated active duty (Air Force for four years) and have served three tours in the Middle East, and I donated $2500 for Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign. I have seen first hand some of the sentiment among military members which would make them more ready to send campaign contributions to Ron Paul than any other candidate. I think it’s reasonable to assume that 99.99% of people filling out the occupation on the contribution form are telling the truth.
ping for later