CFL - FB - Transparency, openess and control

[constituent]

He founded the Board of Directors. We are skeptical of the government and government licensed institutions such as the Federal Reserve for not being transparent in financial matters. However, they are public institutions and we are private.

...

We received a donation from Ron Paul to help us cover the costs of the Rally. We did not receive the PCC money. We currently rely on donations to fund our operations.

Guess that about says it all.



As an aside: the federal reserve is a public institution?

 

[Andrew Ward]

It's a quasi governmental entity that bills itself as a not for profit institution. It is privately owned but licensed by the Feds. The Board of Governors are nominated by the President. It has extremely light oversight from Congress. It works in conjunction with the Treasury. It can basically be a "public" or "private" institution. Whatever label benefits it at the time.

 

[Andrew Ward]

I've asked for an executive summary of what we did during the bailout. Also, I have been informed that we did pay for newspaper ads. More information to come.

We raised a total of $107,000 for the campaign.

Of that $95,000 was spent on radio and newspaper ads and the rest went to printing and production costs.

We ran radio ads in VA, NC, GA, PA, CO and MS

We also ran newspaper ads in PA, NC, VA, MS and CO. Below are the actual newspaper ad buys in these states.

The Citizens’ Voice Wilkes-Barre, PA
Sunday 11/2/08 Full Pg. 9.667”x11.5”

Scranton Times-Tribune Scranton, PA
Sunday 11/2/08 Half Pg. 11.625”x11.5”

Fort Collins Coloradoan Fort Collins, CO
Sunday 11/2/08 Full Pg. 10" x 21"

Virginia Beach Beacon Virginia Beach, VA
Thurs 10/30/08 Sun 11/2/08 Full Pg. 9.56" x 11.5"

The Madison County Journal Madison County, MS
Thursday 10/30/08 Full Pg. 11" x 21"

The Meridian Star Meridian, MS
Sunday 11/2/08 Full Pg. 10.5" x 21.5"

Sun Herald Biloxi/Gulfport, MS
Sunday 11/2/08 Half Pg. 11" x 10.5"

News & Record, Greensboro NC
Sunday 11/2/08 Half Pg. 11.5” x 10.75”

Herald Sun Durham, NC
Sunday 11/2/08 Half Pg. 10” x 10.5”

News & Observer Raleigh, NC
Friday 10/31/08 Qtr Pg. 5.68" x 10"


I hope this helps.

 

[WRellim]

Gotta love your "selective" quotations... were you by any chance a seminary student prior to joining CFL/CFR?

I don't think you will EVER see anything like this.

In fact, I think one of the PRIMARY motives behind the choice of 501 status was specifically to AVOID the transparency required of political organizations. (FEC requires disclosure of ALL income and ALL expenses... and the RPPCC staffers definitely did NOT like the level of scrutiny that was able to be applied to their reports.) By choosing to be a non-profit, they can essentially pick-and-choose what level of transparency they offer, and can otherwise avoid scrutiny (and the accompanying potential for being held accountable for waste and malinvestment). And all of that DESPITE the fact that the organization is OBVIOUSLY and rather BLATANTLY political in nature. (Thus obeying the "letter" of the law while denying its "spirit" in a rather scofflaw-ish fashion.)

We couldn't do this if we were for-profit?

And THERE is the "spin" ALREADY!

I was NOT advocating that you be "for-profit" but rather that as a POLITICAL group it should be organized under the laws for POLITICAL GROUPS (PACS, 527 etc). That is the spirit and the intent of the laws. You may not like the current laws as they stand, but you should obey them -- and the "spirit" of those law -- TRANSPARENCY of receipts/expenditures -- is a highly ETHICAL concept, and most definitely should be obeyed, rather than "avoided" through legal maneuvering.

And in my experience people who attempt to "maneuver" and do things in such pharisaical ways and expend substantial efforts to AVOID accountability -- are NOT trustworthy (they are up to something... and it ain't good!). In addition, nearly all "non-profits" are in fact quite profitable (but "on the down low", and only for a limited group of core individuals).

But even THAT is irrelevant... regardless of what the laws REQUIRE (which is after all, a MINIMAL standard to meet in order to avoid prosecution).

What the REAL issue should be is WHY THE SECRECY?
Why not be open an transparent and EXCEED the requirements of the law?
Any real effort that wants demands accountability and transparency of OTHERS should demonstrate that in its own activities -- it should be "above the law" in the BEST sense of the phrase, rather than the worst.

As a 501c4 we can be political in nature. We cannot endorse candidates or political parties without a 527.

Ah, more spin...

And a statement, BTW, which has already been proven FALSE in the first "action" of the CFL... the slimjims about the "bailout candidates" violated EVERY aspect of your statement (they may have technically avoided "endorsing" or "opposing" candidates -- but just "barely" -- and this type of DECEIT is both problematic AND sickening; it certainly is not "ethical" in any sense of the word.)

The PRIMARY purpose of a 501(c)4 should NOT be political in nature. That code was established for things like the local "Lions Club" and other similar "civic" organizations -- not for political movements.

From the IRS guidelines (http://www.irs.gov/charities/nonprofits/article/0,,id=96178,00.html):

To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements).

[...]

Seeking legislation germane to the organization's programs is a permissible means of attaining social welfare purposes. Thus, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status.

[...]

The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. However, any expenditure it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f).

[...]

[WLM: Emphasis added]

​

Ironic, isn't it? An organization that is purportedly founded by Ron Paul -- who is a constant advocate for transparency of financial matters -- CHOOSES to form itself in a way that allows it to remove itself from virtually all such transparency requirements. (In other words... do as I say, not as I do.)

He founded the Board of Directors.

We are skeptical of the government and government licensed institutions such as the Federal Reserve for not being transparent in financial matters. However, they are public institutions and we are private.

Interesting statements.

Did Ron Paul personally select the Board of Directors? That would be quite interesting in an organization that claims to 501(c)4 status.

BTW, who ARE the members of the Board? This doesn't seem to be documented or available anywhere. (Not that I could find anyway.) I find THAT to be rather sad... Virtually every organization I have belonged to or aided has never rather openly stated the names of its leadership team, directors, officers, and people in positions of responsibility (whereas CFL seems to go to great extent to avoid the mention of any names).

As to you being a "private" organization -- actually in seeking 501(c)4 status, you are NOT private in the true meaning of the word. You are claiming a "tax-exempt" status (and therefore in our current society an inverse "subsidy" of government that PRIVATE individuals and groups do not receive).

What you are is a SECRETIVE political group that is attempting to use the COVER of a "social organiztion" in order to avoid the accountability and transparency required.

We received a donation from Ron Paul to help us cover the costs of the Rally. We did not receive the PCC money. We currently rely on donations to fund our operations.

Interestingly "spun" there Andrew. Again you are making statements that are "technically" true while being entirely false at the same time.

Your statement makes it seem like "Ron Paul" gave CFL personal check(s) for initial funds -- in fact, the CFL obtained substantial funding from the "Committee to Re-elect Ron Paul" -- his 2008 congressional campaign:

http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch...H6TX22101&contCategory=OTHERDISB&showType=all

CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY, INC.......CONTRIBUTION......LAKE JACKSON TX 77566......06/09/08.......$10,000.00
CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY, INC.......CONTRIBUTION......LAKE JACKSON TX 77566......07/22/08......$100,000.00
CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY, INC.......CONTRIBUTION......LAKE JACKSON TX 77566......08/07/08......$250,000.00
CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY, INC.......CONTRIBUTION......LAKE JACKSON TX 77566......08/07/08......$250,000.00
CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY, INC.......CONTRIBUTION......LAKE JACKSON TX 77566......08/21/08......$200,000.00
CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY, INC.......CONTRIBUTION......LAKE JACKSON TX 77566......09/18/08......$250,000.00
TOTAL Transferred from RP Congress Campaign..............................................$1,060,000.00
​

And where did RP's congressional campaign gain such "largesse" when it only raised $1,478,553 this year?

Hmmm... well a quick check of FEC records reveals that in June, a cool $3.5 Million was transferred to it from the RPPCC:

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M7/C00432914/B_PAYEE_C00432914.html
Committee to Re-Elect Ron Paul......$3,500,000.00
​

So, long and short -- CFL most certainly *DID* receive a significant amount (a cool million) of funding from the PCC. Which means you are either ignorant, have been deceived by others at CFL, or are aware of the facts and are choosing to misrepesent them. (And any of those are quite troubling.)

Now as to what portion of that was used to cover the "Rally" expenses, I have no idea.

Why?
Because an accounting of the financing around the whole "Rally" have not been made public (ZERO transparency).

And therein lies the whole problem with the CFL and 501(c)4 status. Had the group been a "political group" (PAC, 527 or other) then we would already have the accounting records available publicly.

My personal opinion is that there are too damn many "secrets" here with the whole CFL thing. The organization itself seems to be very "childish" in that it does NOT seem to have a clue as to what it wants to be when it grows up -- the goals are amorphous and constantly changing.

The leadership of CFL seems to be investing heavily on maintaining that secrecy and pushing lies and half-truths around (including these claims of being a "private" organization) and avoiding any and every means of being held truly accountable in any form -- yet it desires to solicit funds and impose accountability on an entire national movement of individuals... all of that is a recipe for DISASTER.

In addition, the problems with the NATIONAL organization are unfortunately discoloring and reflecting on the LOCAL groups that are trying to organize as "chapters."

A lot of time and effort by those local/state people will need be expended as they attempt to "answer for" and "respond to" questions about the national group -- questions to which they will really have no solid answers (and thus even well-meaning individuals will promote lies -- I have already seen several statements by "state" coordinators making the claim {proven false above} that the CFL did NOT receive ANY funds from the Presidential Campaign. This makes them complicit in a lie, and will eventually damage the reputation of some good people.)

In addition -- and this is the MOST damning in my opinion -- the efforts by the "CFL" have (IMHO) proven to be detrimental to many REAL grassroots efforts to establish independant organizations within the various states. Anyone trying to setup a non-CFL group is instantly branded as "divisive" and a troublemaker -- even though such groups COULD have been MILES ahead of where the CFL groups now are.

One could easily claim that it is the CFL that is proving divisive, especially given the fact that so many people feel "betrayed" by the RPPCC/CFL leaders (aka the AWOL campaign) and thus find them -- and anything associated WITH them -- to be UN-trustworthy.

 

[WRellim]

It's a quasi governmental entity that bills itself as a not for profit institution. It is privately owned but licensed by the Feds. The Board of Governors are nominated by the President. It has extremely light oversight from Congress. It works in conjunction with the Treasury. It can basically be a "public" or "private" institution. Whatever label benefits it at the time.

That is a really bad description that is wrong on virtually ALL counts.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

Blah blah blah. Warren Miller: a cancer on the Ron Paul movement.

To be honest, I don't have time to read all that, but you've made so many of the same arguments before. I respect your right to your opinions, but if you think you're doing good for the movement at all, you're not.

Warren, what are you trying to accomplish? Is everyone in CFL the enemy here?

Sorry, but after starting to read this post, I just didn't have any patience for it. You make J. Bradley Jansen look like a big soft teddy bear.

Gotta love your "selective" quotations... were you by any chance a seminary student prior to joining CFL/CFR?



And THERE is the "spin" ALREADY!

I was NOT advocating that you be "for-profit" but rather that as a POLITICAL group it should be organized under the laws for POLITICAL GROUPS (PACS, 527 etc). That is the spirit and the intent of the laws. You may not like the current laws as they stand, but you should obey them -- and the "spirit" of those law -- TRANSPARENCY of receipts/expenditures -- is a highly ETHICAL concept, and most definitely should be obeyed, rather than "avoided" through legal maneuvering.

And in my experience people who attempt to "maneuver" and do things in such pharisaical ways and expend substantial efforts to AVOID accountability -- are NOT trustworthy (they are up to something... and it ain't good!). In addition, nearly all "non-profits" are in fact quite profitable (but "on the down low", and only for a limited group of core individuals).

But even THAT is irrelevant... regardless of what the laws REQUIRE (which is after all, a MINIMAL standard to meet in order to avoid prosecution).

What the REAL issue should be is WHY THE SECRECY?
Why not be open an transparent and EXCEED the requirements of the law?
Any real effort that wants demands accountability and transparency of OTHERS should demonstrate that in its own activities -- it should be "above the law" in the BEST sense of the phrase, rather than the worst.



Ah, more spin...

And a statement, BTW, which has already been proven FALSE in the first "action" of the CFL... the slimjims about the "bailout candidates" violated EVERY aspect of your statement (they may have technically avoided "endorsing" or "opposing" candidates -- but just "barely" -- and this type of DECEIT is both problematic AND sickening; it certainly is not "ethical" in any sense of the word.)

The PRIMARY purpose of a 501(c)4 should NOT be political in nature. That code was established for things like the local "Lions Club" and other similar "civic" organizations -- not for political movements.

From the IRS guidelines (http://www.irs.gov/charities/nonprofits/article/0,,id=96178,00.html):

To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements).

[...]

Seeking legislation germane to the organization's programs is a permissible means of attaining social welfare purposes. Thus, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status.

[...]

The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. However, any expenditure it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f).

[...]

[WLM: Emphasis added]

​

Interesting statements.

Did Ron Paul personally select the Board of Directors? That would be quite interesting in an organization that claims to 501(c)4 status.

BTW, who ARE the members of the Board? This doesn't seem to be documented or available anywhere. (Not that I could find anyway.) I find THAT to be rather sad... Virtually every organization I have belonged to or aided has never rather openly stated the names of its leadership team, directors, officers, and people in positions of responsibility (whereas CFL seems to go to great extent to avoid the mention of any names).

As to you being a "private" organization -- actually in seeking 501(c)4 status, you are NOT private in the true meaning of the word. You are claiming a "tax-exempt" status (and therefore in our current society an inverse "subsidy" of government that PRIVATE individuals and groups do not receive).

What you are is a SECRETIVE political group that is attempting to use the COVER of a "social organiztion" in order to avoid the accountability and transparency required.




Interestingly "spun" there Andrew. Again you are making statements that are "technically" true while being entirely false at the same time.

Your statement makes it seem like "Ron Paul" gave CFL personal check(s) for initial funds -- in fact, the CFL obtained substantial funding from the "Committee to Re-elect Ron Paul" -- his 2008 congressional campaign:

http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch...H6TX22101&contCategory=OTHERDISB&showType=all

CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY, INC.......CONTRIBUTION......LAKE JACKSON TX 77566......06/09/08.......$10,000.00
CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY, INC.......CONTRIBUTION......LAKE JACKSON TX 77566......07/22/08......$100,000.00
CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY, INC.......CONTRIBUTION......LAKE JACKSON TX 77566......08/07/08......$250,000.00
CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY, INC.......CONTRIBUTION......LAKE JACKSON TX 77566......08/07/08......$250,000.00
CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY, INC.......CONTRIBUTION......LAKE JACKSON TX 77566......08/21/08......$200,000.00
CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY, INC.......CONTRIBUTION......LAKE JACKSON TX 77566......09/18/08......$250,000.00
TOTAL Transferred from RP Congress Campaign..............................................$1,060,000.00
​

And where did RP's congressional campaign gain such "largesse" when it only raised $1,478,553 this year?

Hmmm... well a quick check of FEC records reveals that in June, a cool $3.5 Million was transferred to it from the RPPCC:

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M7/C00432914/B_PAYEE_C00432914.html
Committee to Re-Elect Ron Paul......$3,500,000.00
​

So, long and short -- CFL most certainly *DID* receive a significant amount (a cool million) of funding from the PCC. Which means you are either ignorant, have been deceived by others at CFL, or are aware of the facts and are choosing to misrepesent them. (And any of those are quite troubling.)

Now as to what portion of that was used to cover the "Rally" expenses, I have no idea.

Why?
Because an accounting of the financing around the whole "Rally" have not been made public (ZERO transparency).

And therein lies the whole problem with the CFL and 501(c)4 status. Had the group been a "political group" (PAC, 527 or other) then we would already have the accounting records available publicly.

My personal opinion is that there are too damn many "secrets" here with the whole CFL thing. The organization itself seems to be very "childish" in that it does NOT seem to have a clue as to what it wants to be when it grows up -- the goals are amorphous and constantly changing.

The leadership of CFL seems to be investing heavily on maintaining that secrecy and pushing lies and half-truths around (including these claims of being a "private" organization) and avoiding any and every means of being held truly accountable in any form -- yet it desires to solicit funds and impose accountability on an entire national movement of individuals... all of that is a recipe for DISASTER.

In addition, the problems with the NATIONAL organization are unfortunately discoloring and reflecting on the LOCAL groups that are trying to organize as "chapters."

A lot of time and effort by those local/state people will need be expended as they attempt to "answer for" and "respond to" questions about the national group -- questions to which they will really have no solid answers (and thus even well-meaning individuals will promote lies -- I have already seen several statements by "state" coordinators making the claim {proven false above} that the CFL did NOT receive ANY funds from the Presidential Campaign. This makes them complicit in a lie, and will eventually damage the reputation of some good people.)

In addition -- and this is the MOST damning in my opinion -- the efforts by the "CFL" have (IMHO) proven to be detrimental to many REAL grassroots efforts to establish independant organizations within the various states. Anyone trying to setup a non-CFL group is instantly branded as "divisive" and a troublemaker -- even though such groups COULD have been MILES ahead of where the CFL groups now are.

One could easily claim that it is the CFL that is proving divisive, especially given the fact that so many people feel "betrayed" by the RPPCC/CFL leaders (aka the AWOL campaign) and thus find them -- and anything associated WITH them -- to be UN-trustworthy.

 

[WRellim]

Blah blah blah. Warren Miller: a cancer on the Ron Paul movement.

To be honest, I don't have time to read all that, but you've made so many of the same arguments before. I respect your right to your opinions, but if you think you're doing good for the movement at all, you're not.

Warren, what are you trying to accomplish? Is everyone in CFL the enemy here?

Sorry, but after starting to read this post, I just didn't have any patience for it. You make J. Bradley Jansen look like a big soft teddy bear.

Jonathan, I sincerely expected better from you.

If the best you can do is an ad hominem attack, you should probably ask for your college tuition back.

And "a cancer on the Ron Paul movement" ??? Sounds more like the definition of the current iteration of CFL to me.... problem is that it looks like it is trying to metastasize throughout the country now.

It's not shifting blame, Will [sic]. It's letting you know what really went on behind the scenes. You see, you're right with many of your criticisms, but unfortunately you don't understand that there were many other people involved in this campaign who were not on payroll.

So... many of my criticisms are "right" -- but I'm a "cancer"???

You really are hilarious some times.

Or maybe they are waiting...

Waiting to see if this is going to be something beyond (yet another) blog and a donation page.

You know... some reason for WHY they should "sign up" -- some sign of actual activity, something, anything with some "substance" to it.

Maybe a lot of people feel frustrated, feel that they got "burned" or "taken for a ride" with the campaign, and don't have a lot of confidence in this...

You know, like that old Texass sayin of GWBush... "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled agin."

There's a lot of truth to this, but the people who were taking you for a ride were not the campaign staff. I'll have more to say about this during tomorrow's interview.

Of course you never really DID have much to say... and I do feel that was a WISE choice, BTW. Public finger pointing doesn't really accomplish much.But neither does sticking one's head in the sand and repeating past mistakes.

I think you're just angry that my past predictions of problems are coming true.

(Which only proves the saying that "People find it easy to forgive others for being wrong... but they can NEVER seem to forgive others for being right when they themselves were wrong.")

And how ironic that is when it applies to people who claim to support Ron Paul?

Ah, well... plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

 

[Andrew Ward]

That is a really bad description that is wrong on virtually ALL counts.

Sure, my description was pretty rough. What is your opinion of the resources found here? http://www.campaignforliberty.com/edu/sound-money.php

I was NOT advocating that you be "for-profit" but rather that as a POLITICAL group it should be organized under the laws for POLITICAL GROUPS (PACS, 527 etc). That is the spirit and the intent of the laws.

I asked if we were a for-profit institution could we not be the least bit secretive?
PACs and 527s focus mostly on candidates.
501c4s focus mostly on legislative issues and other political activities.
http://www.vmfp.org/vmfp501c4.php

You may not like the current laws as they stand, but you should obey them -- and the "spirit" of those law -- TRANSPARENCY of receipts/expenditures -- is a highly ETHICAL concept, and most definitely should be obeyed, rather than "avoided" through legal maneuvering.

Well, I've provided the numbers of how much was earned and spent on the newspaper and radio ads. An updated About section will bring more transparency.

And in my experience people who attempt to "maneuver" and do things in such pharisaical ways and expend substantial efforts to AVOID accountability -- are NOT trustworthy (they are up to something... and it ain't good!). In addition, nearly all "non-profits" are in fact quite profitable (but "on the down low", and only for a limited group of core individuals).

But even THAT is irrelevant... regardless of what the laws REQUIRE (which is after all, a MINIMAL standard to meet in order to avoid prosecution).

What the REAL issue should be is WHY THE SECRECY?
Why not be open an transparent and EXCEED the requirements of the law?
Any real effort that wants demands accountability and transparency of OTHERS should demonstrate that in its own activities -- it should be "above the law" in the BEST sense of the phrase, rather than the worst.

"Why the Secrecy?" asks DHS...
We plan on providing sufficient information to our membership so that they understand we are using the money efficiently and effectively. I understand that the highest salaries will be made public.

Ah, more spin...

And a statement, BTW, which has already been proven FALSE in the first "action" of the CFL... the slimjims about the "bailout candidates" violated EVERY aspect of your statement (they may have technically avoided "endorsing" or "opposing" candidates -- but just "barely" -- and this type of DECEIT is both problematic AND sickening; it certainly is not "ethical" in any sense of the word.)

The PRIMARY purpose of a 501(c)4 should NOT be political in nature. That code was established for things like the local "Lions Club" and other similar "civic" organizations -- not for political movements.

We were strongly opposed to the bailout and did what we could to combat it. We asked voters to contact their Republican or Democrat congressman and ask them not to support the bailout. We have the right to let voters know if their Congressman voted for the Paulson-Bernanke plan. Is this is not public service?

Did Ron Paul personally select the Board of Directors? That would be quite interesting in an organization that claims to 501(c)4 status.

BTW, who ARE the members of the Board? This doesn't seem to be documented or available anywhere. (Not that I could find anyway.) I find THAT to be rather sad... Virtually every organization I have belonged to or aided has never rather openly stated the names of its leadership team, directors, officers, and people in positions of responsibility (whereas CFL seems to go to great extent to avoid the mention of any names).

The board is:
Lori Paul Pyeatt, Jesse Benton, Deana Watts

I understand that John Tate has a seat on the board as President. He wants a new About section up as soon as possible. This comes next for me after FAQ is up.

As to you being a "private" organization -- actually in seeking 501(c)4 status, you are NOT private in the true meaning of the word. You are claiming a "tax-exempt" status (and therefore in our current society an inverse "subsidy" of government that PRIVATE individuals and groups do not receive).

What you are is a SECRETIVE political group that is attempting to use the COVER of a "social organiztion" in order to avoid the accountability and transparency required.

Well, the government politicizes everything it touches. Even Amish farmers are having to get "political" and lobby congress to not intervene into their lives. What we are is a social organization that provides the public service by seeking to advance liberty in this country. Lobbying and education will be a significant part of that service.

So, long and short -- CFL most certainly *DID* receive a significant amount (a cool million) of funding from the PCC. Which means you are either ignorant, have been deceived by others at CFL, or are aware of the facts and are choosing to misrepesent them. (And any of those are quite troubling.)

I was replying to you in regards to us receiving the remaining amount of PCC money. You said "All that has been built with the remaining campaign funds is yet another beltway bureaucracy... of, by, and for more beltway bandits."

I should have been more clear. We understand that the PCC money was transferred to the Committee to Re-Elect Ron Paul. We are not the PCC. We received a donation from the Committee to Re-Elect Ron Paul, which has raised quite a bit of money itself.

Now as to what portion of that was used to cover the "Rally" expenses, I have no idea.

Why?
Because an accounting of the financing around the whole "Rally" have not been made public (ZERO transparency).

And therein lies the whole problem with the CFL and 501(c)4 status. Had the group been a "political group" (PAC, 527 or other) then we would already have the accounting records available publicly.

I understand that we will post the numbers. I will let you know more when I have more information. Expect information like this to be on an expanded About page. Activists decide on their own whether or not they want to use the services we provide. Also, anyone from around the world can donate and their donations are not disclosed to the government. You can't say the same about a 527 or PAC.

In addition -- and this is the MOST damning in my opinion -- the efforts by the "CFL" have (IMHO) proven to be detrimental to many REAL grassroots efforts to establish independant organizations within the various states. Anyone trying to setup a non-CFL group is instantly branded as "divisive" and a troublemaker -- even though such groups COULD have been MILES ahead of where the CFL groups now are.

In my experience, most people are happy that Campaign for Liberty has formed. We have the support of Ron Paul and many other liberty-minded individuals and activists. I feel like we have the ability to bring a lot of independent people together for our common cause. We don't go after individuals for their differing views or organizations.

Many here on RPF want more from the organization, and we're trying our best to deliver. If you feel our services are lacking then you have every right not to donate or participate.

 

[WRellim]

Sure, my description was pretty rough. What is your opinion of the resources found here? http://www.campaignforliberty.com/edu/sound-money.php

Good that you have a resource page, and having read (or seen) majority of those items in the past, they are good quality.

But...
a) there is no new content there (they are all just links to resources hosted elsewhere)

b) it is "information overflow" -- and the minimal "order" that is present will really not assist anyone. Most people will be unable/unwilling to dig through all of that.

c) What people really need is something to "guide" them through the basics.

I asked if we were a for-profit institution could we not be the least bit secretive?

Well, regardless or what type of organization CFL is (and hypotheticals are pointless) there would still be a minimal level of disclosure -- which has not yet been met. And with the level of distruct/dissatisfaction regarding the RPPCC and the later stages of the campaign... you're going have to do a LOT better than replying with a "We don't have to tell you because we're a private non-profit!" -- to those who are skeptical that comes off as a very childish and snide remark, akin to "So there! NanerNanerNaner!"

PACs and 527s focus mostly on candidates.
501c4s focus mostly on legislative issues and other political activities.
http://www.vmfp.org/vmfp501c4.php

PAC's and 527's are POLITICAL organizations -- they do NOT focus solely on candidates... but they DO focus primarily on politics.

And the vast majority of 501(c)4's are either educational or LOCAL social groups -- they are NOT involved in politics on a national level.


BTW read the start of paragraph 4 from your own link above:

A Section 501(c)(4) organization may engage in political intervention, so long as that is not its "primary purpose."
​

The OBVIOUS **primary** purpose of CFL **IS** political in nature... so you're skating on thin ice. (And you can expect a whalloping from the IRS if the organization ever looks to be REALLY threatening to TPTB... currently you have nothing to worry about, as CFL will be perceived by TPTB as a "joke" i.e. a total non-threat.)

CFL wants to be a PAC/527 but doesn't want the scrutiny, and so therefore is trying to masquerade as a 501(c)4 -- a masquerade that is not very convincing. (Organizing members by PRECINCT? you're just asking for trouble, and providing plenty of prima facie evidence that they can use to hang everyone associated with CFL out to dry).

Well, I've provided the numbers of how much was earned and spent on the newspaper and radio ads. An updated About section will bring more transparency.

"Why the Secrecy?" asks DHS...
We plan on providing sufficient information to our membership so that they understand we are using the money efficiently and effectively. I understand that the highest salaries will be made public.

Day late, dollar short, minimal effort.

We were strongly opposed to the bailout and did what we could to combat it. We asked voters to contact their Republican or Democrat congressman and ask them not to support the bailout. We have the right to let voters know if their Congressman voted for the Paulson-Bernanke plan. Is this is not public service?

But treading on thin ice the moment you included a listing of candidate/office-holder names based on how they voted.

The board is:
Lori Paul Pyeatt, Jesse Benton, Deana Watts

I understand that John Tate has a seat on the board as President. He wants a new About section up as soon as possible. This comes next for me after FAQ is up.

Well, with THAT level of political savvy, I'm sure the natives of Beltway land will be quakingin their boots, and the walls of Jericho will come tumbling down any day now.

Well, the government politicizes everything it touches. Even Amish farmers are having to get "political" and lobby congress to not intervene into their lives. What we are is a social organization that provides the public service by seeking to advance liberty in this country. Lobbying and education will be a significant part of that service.

"the government politicizes everything it touches" is a tautological statement.

I was replying to you in regards to us receiving the remaining amount of PCC money. You said "All that has been built with the remaining campaign funds is yet another beltway bureaucracy... of, by, and for more beltway bandits."

Has something ELSE been "built" with the rest of the remaining campaign funds?

Plain and simple -- your statement was constructed to mislead people into thinking that CFL did NOT receive funding from the leftover RPPCC campaign monies, and THAT is a blatant LIE. I have seen this repeated in countless of other emails and posts from people associated with CFL. (And thus damages the reputation and believability of everything else from those people... if you continue to state it, you will continue to damage the CFL's standing in people's eyes... NOT the best way to start an organization. Simple fact is that most people do not like organizations that lie; and they definitely do not trust them, nor willingly donate money to them.)

I should have been more clear. We understand that the PCC money was transferred to the Committee to Re-Elect Ron Paul. We are not the PCC. We received a donation from the Committee to Re-Elect Ron Paul, which has raised quite a bit of money itself.

I don't doubt that YOU understand it -- but your statement is misleading nonetheless (and it doesn't matter that the money was "technically" channelled through the Congressional campaign first -- it is money that was raised BY and FOR the RPPCC -- even a small, near-sighted child would see through that handoff).

As to the Congressional campaign raising "quite a bit of money itself" -- the link I provided gave conclusive data there. The Congressional campaign raised $1,478,553 in 2008 (and spent $1,291,743) -- but then received a transfer of $3,500,000 from the RPPCC. Now if you think people are going to believe that the funding for the CFL came from the Congressional campaign, when the PCC had millions left over... well, how would you like to buy some swampland in Florida?

I understand that we will post the numbers. I will let you know more when I have more information. Expect information like this to be on an expanded About page. Activists decide on their own whether or not they want to use the services we provide. Also, anyone from around the world can donate and their donations are not disclosed to the government. You can't say the same about a 527 or PAC.

And (unless you are completely *naive*) you cannot say the same about CFL either.

The Federal government can and WILL know not only how much money is raised from who, but will be able to identify the transaction down to the banking institution that the money came from, the date and time of the transfer, etc. etc.

In my experience, most people are happy that Campaign for Liberty has formed. We have the support of Ron Paul and many other liberty-minded individuals and activists. I feel like we have the ability to bring a lot of independent people together for our common cause. We don't go after individuals for their differing views or organizations.

Many here on RPF want more from the organization, and we're trying our best to deliver. If you feel our services are lacking then you have every right not to donate or participate.

A lot of the people here on RPF (and many who are not on RPF) are DISsatisfied with CFL -- a significant number to the point that they no longer care and/or have given up on it.

I was an early skeptic -- and I must say that CFL has so far "lived down" even below my own expectations -- but I'm hardly the only critic, and indeed am not the one starting threads like this one.

It's not simply your "services" that are lacking, but IMO, the whole thing from concept thru non-execution.

And since I now have a better idea who is actually "directing" the group -- well, suffice it to say that I now know enough to tell me NOT to increase my expectations -- it is inherently obvious as a nepotistic elephant that CFL will end up simply squandering whatever was left (it's Ross Perot redux.)

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

We raised a total of $107,000 for the campaign.

Of that $95,000 was spent on radio and newspaper ads and the rest went to printing and production costs.

We ran radio ads in VA, NC, GA, PA, CO and MS

We also ran newspaper ads in PA, NC, VA, MS and CO. Below are the actual newspaper ad buys in these states.

The Citizens’ Voice Wilkes-Barre, PA
Sunday 11/2/08 Full Pg. 9.667”x11.5”

Scranton Times-Tribune Scranton, PA
Sunday 11/2/08 Half Pg. 11.625”x11.5”

Fort Collins Coloradoan Fort Collins, CO
Sunday 11/2/08 Full Pg. 10" x 21"

Virginia Beach Beacon Virginia Beach, VA
Thurs 10/30/08 Sun 11/2/08 Full Pg. 9.56" x 11.5"

The Madison County Journal Madison County, MS
Thursday 10/30/08 Full Pg. 11" x 21"

The Meridian Star Meridian, MS
Sunday 11/2/08 Full Pg. 10.5" x 21.5"

Sun Herald Biloxi/Gulfport, MS
Sunday 11/2/08 Half Pg. 11" x 10.5"

News & Record, Greensboro NC
Sunday 11/2/08 Half Pg. 11.5” x 10.75”

Herald Sun Durham, NC
Sunday 11/2/08 Half Pg. 10” x 10.5”

News & Observer Raleigh, NC
Friday 10/31/08 Qtr Pg. 5.68" x 10"


I hope this helps.

That's very interesting... you ran newspaper ads in 10 markets, and yet of none of the people making the 1,154 page views or 89 that actually voted in the poll from all over the country.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=166845

out of all those people not a single one of them saw a newspaper ad! - That's incredible! - in fact it's unbelievable! I don't suppose you have artwork you'd be willing to post of what any of these ads looked like?

then you ran radio ads in those markets + GA and 2 people heard them - I believe both were in a NoVa market. Also incredible...

And printing and production expenses of $12,000 - a project launched less than 2 weeks before the election and you were able to do a large print run AND get them shipped AND get them distributed - WOW! - I didn't know superman worked for the CFL. Just what got printed and distributed? - the CFL site said it was download and print at home.

As to the areas these were run - who was the Incumbent with the bad vote, and was the person running against them a liberty candidate? if so, who and who won - you know just the important stuff - did any of the ads have the desired effect?

thanks,

-t

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

One thing that does seem to continue with the cfl is plenty of grassroots supporters pissed off at them already. Not the best start...

Is Ron Paul really backing this completely and knows the ins and outs of the cfl or is it more ran by trevor and the like?

 

[Nate K]

i say we give the CFL some time before we start boycotting it..

It seems they're attempting to turn things around and it's been a blessing someone has come to answer our questions finally. i won't argue with the critics, just a few days ago I was right with you guys.. but let's see if we can work things out before both sides become combative.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well...it is pretty much as I expected. Ron Paul set up his granddaughter and grandson in law with a non profit so they can make a living. ok. i don't fault him for that...i just don't see anything "grassroots" going on. Just call it what it is, it's an income for his granddaughter and her friends. I would probably do the same thing for my family, but I would make them be honest about it so people can decide if that's what they really want to do. I don't see it being a grass roots organization at all, but a private non profit, and chances are there will be no voting on board member, or officers, no treasury reports, no minutes..etc....it's an internet marketing business. I am sure if i like the Homeschool program they come up with, or if i want to pay to take a class I'd do it. I just don't think it's something I can put my heart and soul behind. I want to be more involved...and I want a real BOARD, with real committee members. That's how a grassroots organization should work, where other people who would like to be nominated for the board or whatever , have the chance to do so. Who sez Benton is the best one for it? Maybe someone down the line is better. It is what it is and I'm glad to know. tones

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

...

 

[Andrew Ward]

Good that you have a resource page, and having read (or seen) majority of those items in the past, they are good quality.

OK, I'm happy you agree with the information provided.

"We don't have to tell you because we're a private non-profit!"

Don't put words into my mouth.

PAC's and 527's are POLITICAL organizations -- they do NOT focus solely on candidates... but they DO focus primarily on politics.

And the vast majority of 501(c)4's are either educational or LOCAL social groups -- they are NOT involved in politics on a national level.

PACs most certainly focus mostly on candidates. Ron Paul's LibertyPAC.net is a good example of this. The National Rifle Association, NAACP, National Right to Life, Sierra Club, and Americans for Tax Reform are examples of national 501c4s.

The OBVIOUS **primary** purpose of CFL **IS** political in nature... so you're skating on thin ice. (And you can expect a whalloping from the IRS if the organization ever looks to be REALLY threatening to TPTB... currently you have nothing to worry about, as CFL will be perceived by TPTB as a "joke" i.e. a total non-threat.)

CFL wants to be a PAC/527 but doesn't want the scrutiny, and so therefore is trying to masquerade as a 501(c)4 -- a masquerade that is not very convincing. (Organizing members by PRECINCT? you're just asking for trouble, and providing plenty of prima facie evidence that they can use to hang everyone associated with CFL out to dry).

We don't support or donate to political campaigns. We can push for changes in Federal government policy. We'll worry about the IRS, thank you.

But treading on thin ice the moment you included a listing of candidate/office-holder names based on how they voted.

No, we have every right to tell people how candidates voted and whether or not we agreed with it.

Well, with THAT level of political savvy, I'm sure the natives of Beltway land will be quakingin their boots, and the walls of Jericho will come tumbling down any day now.

You're wasting my time.

Has something ELSE been "built" with the rest of the remaining campaign funds?

I don't know. We are not the Committee to Re-Elect.

Plain and simple -- your statement was constructed to mislead people into thinking that CFL did NOT receive funding from the leftover RPPCC campaign monies, and THAT is a blatant LIE. I have seen this repeated in countless of other emails and posts from people associated with CFL. (And thus damages the reputation and believability of everything else from those people... if you continue to state it, you will continue to damage the CFL's standing in people's eyes... NOT the best way to start an organization. Simple fact is that most people do not like organizations that lie; and they definitely do not trust them, nor willingly donate money to them.)

I don't doubt that YOU understand it -- but your statement is misleading nonetheless (and it doesn't matter that the money was "technically" channelled through the Congressional campaign first -- it is money that was raised BY and FOR the RPPCC -- even a small, near-sighted child would see through that handoff).

As to the Congressional campaign raising "quite a bit of money itself" -- the link I provided gave conclusive data there. The Congressional campaign raised $1,478,553 in 2008 (and spent $1,291,743) -- but then received a transfer of $3,500,000 from the RPPCC. Now if you think people are going to believe that the funding for the CFL came from the Congressional campaign, when the PCC had millions left over... well, how would you like to buy some swampland in Florida?

I did not intend to mislead anyone. If anyone looks at what I said in context, I was meaning to convey that all the PCC money was not transferred to us by the Committee to Re-Elect. The congressional campaign raised its own money too and transferred a portion of the funds it had on hands to us. You make it sound like this procedure it illegal. I assure everyone here that it is not.

The Federal government can and WILL know not only how much money is raised from who, but will be able to identify the transaction down to the banking institution that the money came from, the date and time of the transfer, etc. etc.

We do not have to disclose our donors to the government. There are also no contribution limits.

A lot of the people here on RPF (and many who are not on RPF) are DISsatisfied with CFL -- a significant number to the point that they no longer care and/or have given up on it.

We'll try to make up for a very slow start. No one is obligated to support or contribute to Campaign for Liberty.

That's very interesting... you ran newspaper ads in 10 markets, and yet of none of the people making the 1,154 page views or 89 that actually voted in the poll from all over the country.

89 votes in an online poll. .?

I don't suppose you have artwork you'd be willing to post of what any of these ads looked like?

I'll ask if we have this available.

Just what got printed and distributed? - the CFL site said it was download and print at home.

Those were the 2 types of slimjims that we provided. One was professional and double sided, the other was made by me: 3 one-sided slimjims per page.

As to the areas these were run - who was the Incumbent with the bad vote, and was the person running against them a liberty candidate? if so, who and who won - you know just the important stuff - did any of the ads have the desired effect?

I don't have the information on hand. I'll ask for a summary.

Is Ron Paul really backing this completely and knows the ins and outs of the cfl or is it more ran by trevor and the like?

Ron Paul certainly backs and understands what's going on with CFL. Trevor Lyman is not affiliated with CFL.

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

Ron Paul certainly backs and understands what's going on with CFL. Trevor Lyman is not affiliated with CFL.

Yet he runs the money bombs for the cfl?
http://www.teapartyforliberty.com/ contact - [email protected]

Are you sure he isn't affiliated in at least SOME form? No % earned or anything then correct? I know it says the site is ran independent of the cfl but I believe his other bombs in which he did make a % said the same exact things. I would assume the , NOT affiliated part to assume that he is NOT getting any form of commission of any kind then.

Either way, I am happy ron paul is onboard. For some reason however I just see him running the ship differently is all.

I guess many were thinking it was going to be more grassroots oriented instead of top down is all.

Either way.... once again, I do hope it does end up progressing into whatever the cfl was meant to be or should be and hope all goes well.

Burning bridges with the grassroots supporters and online communities won't get you there any faster however. I just hope the cfl remembers where all of their ideas actually came from...

 

[Andrew Ward]

Yet he runs the money bombs for the cfl?

We did not hire or ask him to do this. From what I understand, he is not getting commission.

I guess many were thinking it was going to be more grassroots oriented instead of top down is all.

We think members will appreciate the focus and coordination provided by the organization.

I just hope the cfl remembers where all of their ideas actually came from...

Right...

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

We did not hire or ask him to do this. From what I understand, he is not getting commission.



We think members will appreciate the focus and coordination provided by the organization.



Right...

I almost feel a "better than you" attitude. Either way good luck with the effort and hope all goes well for you. Off to do productive things now.

 

[aravoth]

Blah blah blah. Warren Miller: a cancer on the Ron Paul movement.

Jonathan, I sincerely expected better from you.

If the best you can do is an ad hominem attack, you should probably ask for your college tuition back.

And "a cancer on the Ron Paul movement" ??? Sounds more like the definition of the current iteration of CFL to me.... problem is that it looks like it is trying to metastasize throughout the country now.

This thread has degraded into a steaming pile of shit. If all you guys want to do is bitch and point fingers, run for congress. You're all just pissing people off now. Which would make you guys perfect for the job. No one told anyone that you had to follow orders from the CFL. Don't like it? Do your own shit. Make your own PAC. Don't want to include the grassroots more than you do? Then don't, it doesn't matter. Right now everyone here could be working on something to further the cause. That cause is your common denominator, how you accomplish it is up to you, be it with the CFL or without. In short, your on the same team, so stop fighting over the Ball and get it in the fucking endzone.

Right...

Don't.......do not continue that thought process, period. Just stop.

 

[WRellim]

I almost feel a "better than you" attitude. Either way good luck with the effort and hope all goes well for you. Off to do productive things now.

There doesn't seem to be any "almost" about it.

This is what happens when organizations plant their offices anywhere NEAR Washington D.C. -- it's inevitable (and I still think there's something in the environment there... maybe Toxoplasma gondii or some other similar protozoa [water-borne?] that negatively affects the brain, especially the moral and ethical centers?)