$100million for Ron Paul

[TaoWarrior]

I think that foreign nationals can still contribute to 527's so if we could get one going it would be an outlet for non-us-citizens to kick in.

I wish that I could do more money wise but I was just diagnosed with MS and the medication is well crazy expensive.

Raleigh Meetup is talking about having a free car wash to raise awareness.

Just wondering on the legality if I had a charge car wash could I donate the procedes in my name? Or would it have to go in the name of those getting their car washed? Also I repair computers on the side, does anyone know what the rules would be regarding me advertising that 1/2 of all procedes went to the Ron Paul 2008 campaign?

I am just trying to think of ways that a broke joe like me could do more than moral support.

 

[Razmear]

If an envelope addressed to the campaign with no return address contained only a $20 bill, would the candidate be required to turn it over to the FEC or could he accept the donation?
If it got turned over to some fed agency, what would they do with it?
If it did not need to be turned over, what if 1000 of those envelopes showed up all from the same postmark?

eb

 

[Bradley in DC]

I think that foreign nationals can still contribute to 527's so if we could get one going it would be an outlet for non-us-citizens to kick in.

Republicans Abroad are not considered a "state" organization and have more less restrictive limitations.

 

[Bradley in DC]

I would like to know if that is per ELECTION (as in one 2300 contribution towards the primary and then another 2300 towards the presidency, or is it 2300 for BOTH?

The FEC is a good resource. It's $2300 for the primary and another $2300 towards the general election. The top tier have funds for both and are maxing out individual contributions for both. Money raised for the general election can (with some restrictions) be used during the primary season.

 

[MsDoodahs]

Okay, the FEC mumbo jumbo "here let's confuse the shit out of average citizens so they are too CONFUSED to contribute" manure leads me to believe that ...

IF I were to - all on my own - buy a half page of space in some Iowa newspaper, use it to republish some of Ron's writing (a few paragraphs on the war, a few on taxes, a few on gun control), along with some general Ron stats (never voted to raise taxes, etc), add in 'AD PLACED BY: MsDooDahs with my contact info eek: ) IN NO WAY AFFILIATED WITH THE PAUL CAMPAIGN OR ANY OF ITS AFFILIATES,' my date of birth, ssn, and an individual sample of my DNA in each paper - and of course, so long as I don't exceed 10K on these ads AND I complete all of their paperwork for reporting my ads - THEN...I won't go to jail.

How does this OH SO UNAMERICAN FEC decide what is "campaign material?" Would paragraphs from 5 year old speeches count? By "campaign material," does the FEC mean only those things currently in use by the official campaign?

GRRRRR the more I read their "rules," the less respect I have for the FEC.

INSERT HURL ICON!!!!

 

[lbadragan]

Corporations are allowed to give as much as they want.

And the tyranny continues. How the hell can this be constitutional? It basically granted corporations more power than the people have. Exactly what the founders envisioned.

And it's only going to get worse due to inflation. In 20 years that $2,300 is going to be like today's $1,000 in terms of real purchasing power.

The more time passes, no matter if the administration is democrat or republican, they keep consolidating power to the elite super-rich and keep stripping the people of LIBERTY! Damn them.

 

[MsDoodahs]

I've been reading more at that FEC site, and it says contributions from corporations are prohibited.

 

[MsDoodahs]

Well, corporations can't just outright contribute. They have to create a PAC and THEN they can contribute.


"Corporations, Labor Organizations and National Banks
Contributions made from the treasuries of corporations, labor organizations and national banks are prohibited. Additionally, national banks and federally chartered corporations may not make contributions in connection with any election, including state and local elections. Contributions may, however, be made from separate segregated funds (also called political action committees or PACs) established by corporations, labor organizations, national banks, and incorporated membership organizations. 11 CFR 114.2 and 114.5."

 

[lbadragan]

Even if corporations would be completely prohibited from contributing, limiting the amount of $ individuals can contribute is ridiculous and unconstitutional. It means we'll never see the average citizen run for high office. It's going to be left only to the wealthy and we all know that the wealthy represent the poor very well.

 

[Phil M]

And the tyranny continues. How the hell can this be constitutional? It basically granted corporations more power than the people have. Exactly what the founders envisioned.

And it's only going to get worse due to inflation. In 20 years that $2,300 is going to be like today's $1,000 in terms of real purchasing power.

The more time passes, no matter if the administration is democrat or republican, they keep consolidating power to the elite super-rich and keep stripping the people of LIBERTY! Damn them.

Actually, I think the amount goes up every year automatically to deal with inflation.

 

[MsDoodahs]

Exactly.

IT IS A FRIKKEN RACKET SET UP TO KEEP ONLY THE SUPER RICH IN POWER.

And I have NOTHING against the super rich. I DO have a real problem with the super rich controlling elections via these fucked up laws.

 

[Exponent]

Wait, I'm confused. How do campaign contribution limits help the rich? Without the limits, the rich could donate millions upon millions for each individual rich person, while individual poor/middle class wouldn't be able to keep up.

But with the limits, 5 rich people can't (as easily) out-contribute 50 non-rich people. The biggest problem is that even among middle class, and especially among the poor, it can be difficult to contribute the full $2300, while for the rich, $2300 is a drop in the bucket. Which would tend to suggest that the limit could be even lower, if you wanted to help the non-rich maintain some significant monetary influence.

 

[MsDoodahs]

The super rich can afford LAWYERS to set up all the PACS they need so they can contribute all they want to the candidate of their choice.

Average joes can't fucking do that.

Hell, I'm struggling just to understand whether or not I'll be within the law placing ONE FRIKKEN NEWSPAPER AD.

The super rich don't have the same concerns AT ALL.

It is a built in bias to ensure THEY maintain control.

 

[tnvoter]

I donated more today, saving the rest to donate right after the next debate. WOO!

 

[KingTheoden]

Wait, I'm confused. How do campaign contribution limits help the rich? Without the limits, the rich could donate millions upon millions for each individual rich person, while individual poor/middle class wouldn't be able to keep up.

But with the limits, 5 rich people can't (as easily) out-contribute 50 non-rich people. The biggest problem is that even among middle class, and especially among the poor, it can be difficult to contribute the full $2300, while for the rich, $2300 is a drop in the bucket. Which would tend to suggest that the limit could be even lower, if you wanted to help the non-rich maintain some significant monetary influence.

It is far more complicated. Technically if I give Ron the full $2 300 and then with friends buy up billboards, that can get me in federal rape prison if I faced a prosecutor like Giuliani. They write the laws such that it restricts an individual's right to participate in the political process; the major corporations and landed families give far beyond the $2 300 because as others said, they set up PACs.

The solution is to limit government, not limit contributions of individuals. If the government operated within the constraints of the Constitution, the extremely wealthy would not spend millions on campaigns because there would be nothing to gain from doing so. But today since the government is so massive, people essentially payoff politicians through the contribution process. Campaign finance laws are sold to us as 'defending our political say' but they in fact do the opposite.