Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 04/28/2008 11:34:39 AM PDT by mnehrling
Edited on 04/28/2008 11:41:53 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
HOUSTON U.S. Rep. Ron Paul is considering using $4 million left over from his failed presidential campaign to start a for-profit publishing company that would reflect his Libertarian-leaning views.
The move could test the limits of federal campaign finance rules. “I’ve never heard of anyone taking their campaign money and putting it into a for-profit corporation,” campaign finance-reform advocate Fred Wertheimer told the Houston Chronicle.
Former candidates have leeway in how they use leftover campaign money.
“There’s a provision that says you can use the funds for any lawful purpose, so long as it’s not personal use for the candidate,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the Federal Election Commission.
Federal guidelines say the money can’t be used for things such as vacations, mortgage, rent or household items or to seed a for-profit corporation that benefits an individual or shareholder.
Tales of interest ping
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Buy 4 million copies of “Atlas Shrugged” and distribute them to every high school in America. It will do more good than any politician ever could. ;)
Give the money to Ben Stein and tell him to make a movie about Liberty and the problems with Gigantic Government.
I thought it could only go to a non profit. Cute idea, start yourself a publishing company, finance it with campaign donations. Beats having investors, they’d want a return on their money.
There are 3,077 counties in the United States. That means there are 3,077 county Republican Party organizations. If Paul wants to spread some good will, he could make a donation to each county party. $4 million divided by 3,077 is roughly $1300. Think what kind of a boost that would be to most counties in the nation!!!
Ping
Legally, you are correct.
ping!
If he gets away with it, he’ll start a trend. Why bother with foundations with salaried family members when you can start a business with zero capital costs.
If some of these people had contributed to a decent candidate, instead of Paul we might not be in this mess.
better -
Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics book.
Ah, he could make the check out to my partner “Cash” give me a call and I’ll come pick it up. A million or two will do nicely, then maybe I could pay my taxes and fill my tank. < /sarcsm>
The best way he could use it is to spend it on commercials for Hill & Barry fomenting more division, with phrases like “don’t let X steal the nomination from your candidate”.
Among options being considered for the money, Benton said, are supporting like-minded candidates through Paul’s Liberty PAC
I have a good suspicion that if Murray Sabrin gets the GOP nod here in Jersey (and if I have anything to do with it, he will), Paul will definitely throw at least a few sheckles his way.
As I mentioned to Travis, I believe the laws that govern this predate Campaign Finance Reform. This would be closer to embezzlement, reallocating money donated for one purpose to create a personal for-profit venture.
The best money that leftist Soros can buy!
I don't agree. This will be after his campaign officially closes. Other than returning every single donation, what else should he do with it. I donated a good chunk of change to Paul after Fred dropped out, and I think a libertarian-based publishing company that actually employs people and stimulates the economy is a terrific use of my cash.
It's all about economic freedom. Keep the government out of campaigns, brah.
The law states that he can use it on another campaign or use it in a non-profit PAC. He cannot legally use it for personal expenses or to start a for-profit company.
Oh. Then I’m sure he won’t go ahead and start one then. The dude’s in his mid-70’s and comfortable financially. I’m sure he won’t go risking jail time at this juncture in his life. And if by some slight chance he does just as a “guinea pig”, then all the power to him. These campaign laws are bull$hit anyway.
Unfortunately for him, a lot of people have been doing a lot in his campaign that has needed the excuse it 'wasn't sanctioned by Paul', one of the worst offenders, his campaign manager, is about to become his Son-in-Law. In 1988, $140K was embezzled from the Libertarian Party presidential campaign. One young lady took the bullet and admitted to taking $14k of that, and she went to jail. The remainder was never recovered, but Paul and Rockwell have basically, not been welcome back by the Libertarian Party bigwigs ever since. Seems there have been some not so savory people around him going way back.
That's fine, if it's a not for profit company. However, if he just decides to spend the money on a company that earns him money rather than on his campaign, that's fraud.
While you might be happy with him using your campaign donation for a business venture of his own, others might not be, so unless he wants to return the donations and ask the people if they want to invest in a publishing company, I think he needs to find a non-profit for his remaining campaign funds.
Anyhow, if there were anything of substance whatsoever implicating Paul of wrongdoing in '88, I can assure you it'd be at least mentioned in his Wikipedia entry.
I find it much more preferable to err on the side of non-government intervention vs. government intervention. If people aren't happy with the way he uses the money, they won't pony up in the future. Let the free market decide.
Yes, Eric freaking Dondero is a perfect example of a totally unbiased commentator on Ron Paul.
They donated money to his political campaign. That's not the same as just giving him money.
Also if he's asking people to give him money to use in business ventures, he might be getting into the real of receiving taxable income rather than a tax free donation to his political campaign.
I don't car much for paying the high income taxes that I have to pay, but I sure don't like the idea of having to pay them while politicians can accept money tax free and use it for personal gain.
he should put it into an independent run for the white house instead.
Give it back -— like the damned Government should do with our tax money.
“If Paul wants to spread some good will, he could make a donation to each county party.”
And he should do this because........
Oh, maybe to re-pay the Cino’s and Rino’s for their overwhelming support and respect.
You’ve got to be ******* kidding.
It's kinda funny, though. Right from the start, Paul has been the only by-the-law candidate. That's one of the things that has attracted so many people to him. One of the most commonly known facts about him is that if a bill appeared before him and wasn't authorized by the constitution, Dr. No struck. And yet, in neo-conservative circles that didn't buy him a cup of coffee.
Now the wolves smell a drop of blood, and suddenly the law once again becomes sacrosanct.
I do know that, so far as I've seen, not a single supporter of his who sent money has been upset about this at all, except for the confusion over its legality. I also remember constantly seeing people here talk about how Paul would be using it as a "retirement package" or other such nonsense. Wonder where they all are now. I also notice that I don't see a single person of any political preference stating that this isn't perfectly in line with the ideological spirit of his campaign. In other words, there seems to be no question that this isn't a fitting and consistent use of his campaign funds, only that it might be illegal. Maybe.
I cannot imagine that his team would not have researched this question legally. I tend to doubt that it is, and I also doubt that if it weren't shown to him to be illegal, that he would abandon the venture, as is perfectly in-line with his entire history as a public servant.
In either event, no one that I know of has proven that this is illegal, and the loudest voices demanding that it must be, unsurprisingly, is coming from his detractors. As much as I know so many of you would love to sink your teeth into this, I'd suggest waiting until we have a definitive answer and then, if that occurs, seeing his response before starting your victory laps.
Obama, Clinton, McCain or Paul. I’ll take Paul over the three socialists anyday.
Shouldn't you be putting your full effort to making sure your boy McCain gets elected?
McCain isn’t my boy. I am supporting a bottle of scotch for President.
I think I could support that one with ya. ;^)
That is an absolute no brainer, friend.
“Unfortunately the Libertarian party has little to do with libertarian ideals any more, just picking and choosing little issues. I wouldn’t be surprised if this turns out to be something that turns out Alex Jones or Chuck Baldwin type conspiracy books.”
Sad but true. The days of Hayek and Friedman are long gone.
As if the county parties would be more receptive to Dr. Paul's cash contributions than they were to Dr. Paul's message of peace and freedom, LOL.
While in at my local Barnes & Noble bookstore today, I browsed the just-released book, Pure Goldwater, a collection of the Senator's private writings never before seen by the public.
A very revealing piece on the future Republican Presidential candidate begins on page 367, which I will paraphrase here.
It would seem that one John McCain, then running for re-election to the United States Senate, had organized a "Salute to Goldwater" dinner prior to the 1992 election. He sent out a slew of invitations, at least one of which found its way to Goldwater, who had not been advised by McCain's campaign of the dinner. Goldwater, being the genial person that he was to his fellow Republicans, agreed to attend if the dinner could be renamed "A Salute to President Reagan," since Goldwater thought he'd had enough salutes in his lifetime.
Later, an aide told Goldwater that the dinner was no more than a fund-raiser for McCain, and he was "being used by McCain." So Goldwater wrote McCain another letter (it's in the book) saying he'd be there on the condition that half the proceeds be donated to the Arizona Republican Party.
A month after the election, McCain still had not given the party any money, so Goldwater wrote a third letter telling McCain that if he didn't pony up $35,000 by the following week the remaining staff would not get paid.
Here we have a perfect example of party loyalty: a candidate for re-election runs on the good name of a party icon, then refuses to help the party after he'd received their financial support.
Had Ron Paul's campaign money come from regular Republican organizations, I'd agree that he should split the remainder among party committees. But since it didn't and -- more importantly -- it was mostly donated by first-time contributors who are not "party people," I see no obligation for him to spread the proceeds far and wide among party functionaries who for the most part could care less about the important principles for which Paul campaigned.
I've sat on the board of a non-profit for the past 16 years (most of the time as treasurer).
It always makes a profit, it just isn't taxed.
Not me. i don't want to assist the Kennedy family sustain the manner of life to which they've become accoustomed.
Now if you're going to vote for a bottle of Black Label Bushmills Irish Whiskey, i'm with you.
BTW, this is probably only my 3rd post since early April. I don't have time to wring my hands anymore worrying about which socialist is going to get elected. Screw it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.