Blimp discussion

[jjschless]

QFT, good piece of legislation right there.

How is that a 'good piece of legislation'?

 

[pacelli]

How is that a 'good piece of legislation'?

Your implication is that it is not a good piece of legislation. I support following the law, and that is the law. How is it not a good piece of legislation?

 

[jjschless]

Your implication is that it is not a good piece of legislation. I support following the law, and that is the law. How is it not a good piece of legislation?

You dance when there is no music going, then you answer my question with a question. Do you favor following unjust laws, simply because they are law? How about unconstitutional laws, would you follow them because they are laws?

Can you answer my simple and honest inquiry as to why it is a 'good piece of legislation'? I personally could not make a judgment based on the snippet provided and the fact that it references an Act that I have not researched. So for me to make a judgment one way or another would be utterly foolish which is why I am inclined to seek your wisdom.

How is that a 'good piece of legislation'?

 

[pacelli]

You dance when there is no music going, then you answer my question with a question. Do you favor following unjust laws, simply because they are law? How about unconstitutional laws, would you follow them because they are laws?

Can you answer my simple and honest inquiry as to why it is a 'good piece of legislation'? I personally could not make a judgment based on the snippet provided and the fact that it references an Act that I have not researched. So for me to make a judgment one way or another would be utterly foolish which is why I am inclined to seek your wisdom.

How is that a 'good piece of legislation'?

In my opinion, it is a good piece of legislation because it appears to me to prevent corruption in a political campaign. That's my opinion. This thread is not my first exposure to this piece of legislation.

Yes, I do favor following unjust laws, because I favor following the law and I value my freedom. I also favor the peaceful protest of unjust laws in the form of contacting my congressional and senatorial representatives.

 

[Duckman]

Section 309(d)(1)(A) is the main penalty provision of the FECA (2 U.S.C. § 437g(d)(1)(A)). As amended by section 312 of the Act, it states that "[a]ny person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this Act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure (i) aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or (ii) aggregating $2,000 or more (but less than $25,000) during a calendar year shall be fined under such title, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.". (Before amendment by the Act, section 309(d)(1)(A) of the FECA provided for a maximum term of imprisonment of one year, or a fine, or both.)

IANAL either, but my interpretation of this is that expenditures of less than $2000 per year are legal (or at least, have no penalty). This would seem to imply, IMO, that as long as you donate less than $2000 to the blimp there is no way you can get into any kind of trouble. Can anyone tell me if that interpretation is correct? I think it would motivate alot of fence-sitters.

 

[John P Slevin]

The Blimp project is not subject to FECA. It is a private company offering sponsorship advertising packages.

As for whether or not you could "get into trouble"...that is the whole point of the FEC. It exists to prevent competition to the two major parties, and to anyone within either party who challenges the powers that be.

FEC is equally divided between Democrat and Republican commissioners. They don't take the commissioner job to do good deeds; they take it as party hacks, and to follow orders.

Insurgents can be punished, as can their supporters, so it is up to you to decide if you want to exist in fear of FEC nonsense or if you want to challenge it.

 

[Duckman]

After reading this thread I decided to read the FEC regs directly from their site. See my determination of what I think the "worst case scenario" might be for an individual blimp contributor in terms of the FEC at http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=66863.

 

[John P Slevin]

Duckman, what you cite at the thread http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=66863 seems correct...it would be very rare to go after supporters even if FEC was to conclude their was some way to "get the blimp".

I also am not a lawyer, but for years have worked with campaigns subject to FEC. Campaign finance law does not actually forbid large numbers of Americans consensually joining together to sponsor something like the RP blimp. And, campaign finance laws provide no way for that to be accomplished by any PAC.

So it seems to come down to, are we sheep, or can we agree to work together without interference from our government?

The blimp team got one of the best, most recognized lawyers in the nation to help them craft this answer to a difficult puzzle. The resulting for profit company seems to me a brilliant solution to a very real problem with campaign finance laws.

Blimp On!

 

[Duckman]

John, I am not suggesting the blimp is illegal or that people should not donate to it. I am merely trying to encourage those who do fear the FEC coming after them.

I agree, it seems unlikely this is illegal or that the FEC will come after a small individual contributor (since elsewhere in the regs it says that the panel has to meet to consider each violator individually). But I think there are some fence sitters thinking "well, I'd love to support the blimp, but not if I could possibly be subjected to expensive fines or jail time." You can call those people sheep, but they might have a family that needs them and just be unable to take risks like this that they don't understand.

I hope that my analysis will convince these people to get off the fence, that the worst thing that can happen is a small fine (and even that is very unlikely), so maybe we can get alot more donations coming in!

 

[John P Slevin]

We agree

Duckman, we agree.

And I wasn't calling anyone sheep.

 

[pacelli]

But I think there are some fence sitters thinking "well, I'd love to support the blimp, but not if I could possibly be subjected to expensive fines or jail time." You can call those people sheep, but they might have a family that needs them and just be unable to take risks like this that they don't understand.

This accurately sums up my position. My wife gave me the OK to pay twice for the blimp. I was getting ready to pay again during this fundraising drive, but after she checked the website she informed me that the address on google checkout had changed to an apartment in Florida that was previously registered as the same address as Trevor's music company. This was a red flag for her, understandably so.

Now, the checkout address has changed back to LPA in NC. There has been no explanation for this change, and I'm not being permitted to contribute until a reasonable and specific explanation is posted. Seems understandable and perfectly reasonable. She is a RP supporter and we both support the blimp.

 

[francisco]

... My wife gave me the OK to pay twice for the blimp...after she checked the website she informed me that the address on google checkout had changed to an apartment in Florida... I'm not being permitted to contribute until a reasonable and specific explanation is posted.

Geez, pacelli, as the afternoon shift shop steward for the Husband's Union here on the forum, I have to tell you that you aren't setting a good example by caving in to "management."

Just kidding, on a serious note I know that that marriage is a team enterprise.

 

[John P Slevin]

Here's video news coverage from the blimp in Jacksonville.

 

[pacelli]

Geez, pacelli, as the afternoon shift shop steward for the Husband's Union here on the forum, I have to tell you that you aren't setting a good example by caving in to "management."

Just kidding, on a serious note I know that that marriage is a team enterprise.

Don't I know it, brother

 

[Cyclone]

IANAL either, but my interpretation of this is that expenditures of less than $2000 per year are legal (or at least, have no penalty). This would seem to imply, IMO, that as long as you donate less than $2000 to the blimp there is no way you can get into any kind of trouble. Can anyone tell me if that interpretation is correct? I think it would motivate alot of fence-sitters.

Well, let me explain something to you. As posted, that was cited from a proposed change to rule making, implying that the rule was different and now they are proposing to change it. There was no date on it. I don't know if this passed and I don't know what the law is today. It could be that anyone who donates any amount of money to an illegal scheme will go to jail for a year, it could be a $500 threshold, or they could have changed it to a $5000 threshold. There is no way to know without someone finding the actual law as it reads today.

That will require a stop at a legal library, something I am unable to do, or a law student with free access to Westlaw to look it up, or someone willing to pay whatever it costs to get it off of Westlaw.

Right now, you have no idea what that statement means as it is written, because we do not know enough about it.

It was only posted as an explanation of the things that people think about before donating because as usual, asking any questions in this sub forum gets you attacked viciously. It was meant to be used as an explanatory device, not a definitive section of law.

Moreover, just because that section says one thing, doesn't mean another section doesn't say something much more odious. The act is huge.

 

[Cowlesy]

Guys - Please see www.ronpaulblimp.com, and reach out to their legal team with your issues with the law, and not keep posting unconfirmed items to this forum where one of the 1,000's of laypersons on here may misconstrue something you post.

Thanks!

 

[LibertyEagle]

Guys - Please see www.ronpaulblimp.com, and reach out to their legal team with your issues with the law, and not keep posting unconfirmed items to this forum where one of the 1,000's of laypersons on here may misconstrue something you post.

Thanks!

Cowlesy, the contact information for the "legal team" has been removed from the blimp website.

 

[pacelli]

Guys - Please see www.ronpaulblimp.com, and reach out to their legal team with your issues with the law, and not keep posting unconfirmed items to this forum where one of the 1,000's of laypersons on here may misconstrue something you post.

Thanks!

It is impossible to reach out to their legal team as no contact information is provided.

 

[John P Slevin]

nonsense thread

Cowlesy, the contact information for the "legal team" has been removed from the blimp website.

Good. Lawyers cost money. If the lawyers were answering a ton of calls or responding to a flood of emails that costs....and prevents money from going directly to the blimp.

Thus, contact info is removed from the site.

See, stir up trouble, like Cyclone is doing here, by asking a bunch of questions, petulantly insisting that someone must answer the questions...and then run up the blimp team legal bills.

Cyclone repeatedly uses terms like "fiction" to describe the blimp's legal status regarding FEC. Cyclone doesn't have a clue what Cyclone is talking about, just complaining and insisting that someone answer the questions for cyclone.

There is no FEC jurisdiction, so beware anyone making a fuss, trying to get Ron Paul donors in trouble with the FEC, which is EXACTLY what Cyclone infers, and, perhaps, what Cyclone wants.

 

[Dave Pedersen]

The blimp should unload $5,000 in one dollar bills over every city it flies over. That $5,000 would really kick up a storm of media coverage.. well worth $5,000 and we could say it signifies the "falling dollar" of our endangered economy. We could stamp them all with "BLIMP FALLING DOLLAR vote for Ron Paul for president 2008". They would be collectible. Imagine if everyone knew that the blimp would always do this in every city it visited. Many people would track the blimp just to grab some loot. Imagine all the people telling their stories to each other of how they got their "blimp dollars". Imagine the way the word would spread with all those stamped dollars out there in circulation saying:

"BLIMP FALLING DOLLAR vote for Ron Paul for president 2008"