+1776
CFL Spent $350,000 on a pro-war Colorado candidate
- Thread starter Knightskye
- Start date
- Status
+1776
The fact is that they took $350,000 and wasted it. If blowing over a third of a million dollars - in very tough economic times - on a mediocre candidate because he returned some survey is Rothfeld's "style", then he should be removed from his position. Imagine all of the good Young Americans for Liberty could do with 350 grand. A lot more than a commercial for some run-of-the-mill Republican, and the dividends would pay off long into the future. Instead YAL gets 25 grand in start-up money and sent on their way.
Most people are upset about much more than just this one incident. It is just an exemplifier of the lack of communication and a pattern of unaccountability and non transparency.
squarepusher
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 4,940
GunnyFreedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 32,882
As an EX- state coordinator for the C4L, I cannot imagine that this
ad campaign is what it looks like it is.....
They are always pounding the "no supporting candidates" drum.
Just sayin....we need more info, but if this is true...................
Ya, I'm like WTF? they could fully fund like 4 state house races like that. I'm still under $2.5k here and I should be bumping $14k about not JUST TO KEEP UP. I can't even afford produce lit, venues, or anything right now, and C4L gonna spend $350k promoting a pro-war neocon??? WTF WTF WTF??? After all that nonsense about how they cant endorse me?????
MsDoodahs
Senior
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 11,373
Ya, I'm like WTF? they could fully fund like 4 state house races like that. I'm still under $2.5k here and I should be bumping $14k about not JUST TO KEEP UP. I can't even afford produce lit, venues, or anything right now, and C4L gonna spend $350k promoting a pro-war neocon??? WTF WTF WTF??? After all that nonsense about how they cant endorse me?????
Gunny, I know - you are one of the people that CFL could have and IMO should have funded. That they did not and chose instead to fund that )(*&^*&(&& has me seeing red.
Vessol
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,237
Hey Glen, I did not know about your campaign. I've bookmarked your page for Valentines Day between now and then I'll be getting a paycheck. Off-topic, just wanted to shout out for a fellow North Carolinian and wish you luck, even if you aren't from my district(I'm out near New Bern).
If I may inject some perspective into this, after fuming over it for the better part of a day.
DO WE REALLY DEPEND ON CFL FOR THAT MUCH THESE DAYS ANYWAY???
Im not happy about this at all and Im sure most of the rage is about money donated long ago, and recently, being used for this purpose. But how many of us really depend on CFL for much today? Not many, Im sure.
Remember that we are the Campaign, not some office full of DC area people (I used to live there, can't trust em...period) in a business park somewhere. This was probably bound to happen at some point, since co-opting and hijacking are par for the course in politics.
Remember what matters! Ron himself has plenty for his re-election (2.6 million at last check) and there's still work to be done for Rand, Debra, Peter and others. Do not let the actions of a small group of people distract you from the big picture!
DO WE REALLY DEPEND ON CFL FOR THAT MUCH THESE DAYS ANYWAY???
Im not happy about this at all and Im sure most of the rage is about money donated long ago, and recently, being used for this purpose. But how many of us really depend on CFL for much today? Not many, Im sure.
Remember that we are the Campaign, not some office full of DC area people (I used to live there, can't trust em...period) in a business park somewhere. This was probably bound to happen at some point, since co-opting and hijacking are par for the course in politics.
Remember what matters! Ron himself has plenty for his re-election (2.6 million at last check) and there's still work to be done for Rand, Debra, Peter and others. Do not let the actions of a small group of people distract you from the big picture!
Personally, I'd like to see the C4L's organizational mandate end by the elections of 2012 along with many of the salaried positions. 
In the interim, the functions currently "managed" by the C4L's staff should be gradually transferred to local chapters with the intention of eliminating the C4L's staff. Then, the local chapters would coordinate activities within their respective states and with their peers in other states as required. The local chapters would retain nearly ALL of the power for decisions on a state and national level by vote. If needed, the main C4L website could remain as a mechanism for voting, communication among the chapters, coordinating the activities of the chapters on a national scale, etc, but NOT managing those activities through a centralized staff.
In the interim, the functions currently "managed" by the C4L's staff should be gradually transferred to local chapters with the intention of eliminating the C4L's staff. Then, the local chapters would coordinate activities within their respective states and with their peers in other states as required. The local chapters would retain nearly ALL of the power for decisions on a state and national level by vote. If needed, the main C4L website could remain as a mechanism for voting, communication among the chapters, coordinating the activities of the chapters on a national scale, etc, but NOT managing those activities through a centralized staff.
Last edited:
Wow, I just read through this entire thread. I've not done something like that in quite awhile, but given the severity of this problem, I made myself.
CFL better do the following.
1.) Tell the truth and not hide anything. No trying to "make this go away.l"
2.) Fire everyone who knew about this and everyone who was involved in this.
3.) Show us where our donations are going.
If CFL fails to do so, I am going to
1.) No longer send them money.
2.) Delete my profile and blog, and cancel my membership.
3.) Tell all of my family to do the same. And although I haven't donated much money, my grandparents have. They have been "big time" Republican donors their entire lives until I turned them onto Ron Paul. Since, then, they have donated all their money to groups like CFL. They will be the first people I call.
CFL better do the following.
1.) Tell the truth and not hide anything. No trying to "make this go away.l"
2.) Fire everyone who knew about this and everyone who was involved in this.
3.) Show us where our donations are going.
If CFL fails to do so, I am going to
1.) No longer send them money.
2.) Delete my profile and blog, and cancel my membership.
3.) Tell all of my family to do the same. And although I haven't donated much money, my grandparents have. They have been "big time" Republican donors their entire lives until I turned them onto Ron Paul. Since, then, they have donated all their money to groups like CFL. They will be the first people I call.
LibertyMage
Member
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2009
- Messages
- 794
Pauls' Revere
Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2007
- Messages
- 11,347
Vessol
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,237
Are you watching the same video I am?
That may have been the intent. But it is not what was conveyed to me when watching it for the first time without any prior knowledge of the situation. I know if I was a voter who saw that advertisement, I would take it as an endorsement of Ken Buck.
newbitech
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Messages
- 8,847
Just a couple of things when reading your response. I don't want to come of as riding a wave of insanity or flipping out about neocons. To be quite frank, if this money was spent on say a Rand Paul ad for the same given reason, I'd raise the same question.
Specifically, you said the ad is not about him (the candidate Buck). I understand the statement made by Gary Howard is a way of preserving the status of the 501c4 corp in not being allowed to endorse specific candidates. So, to me, it looks like that little survey qualifier was thrown in there to stay out of trouble with the IRS. So I think to say that the ad was not about the candidate is a shady excuse at best.
On your reasoning behind the surveys, assuming that is the real reason this money was spent, what evidence do you have that these types of methods are effective? Why are these survey's not being promoted at the C4L guest or subscriber levels? Certainly surveying is no secret strategy that needs to be protected. I get GOP surveys ALL the time. But, no C4L surveys. What's up with that? A search at the C4L website for "candidate survey" turns up one hit. One. As a coordinator, will you stipulate to the fact that this particular strategy has not been openly discussed to the point where the leadership at all levels has determined that general funds to the tune of THREE HUNDRED and FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS should be spent on a survey for ONE primary for ONE district? You want to add that up? That's a pretty big carrot on the stick gimmick to get a politician to fill out your form.
Yes it appears that we are establishing as fact that C4L sent 350k to fund a neocon campaign. One which I might add did have a Ron Paul supporter from the grassroots involved in who happened to tie for 3rd place with Tancredo in an early straw poll. I don't find that laughable at all. Why the hell would I want to become more involved with politics when the only organization who would ever get my political donation would go ahead and fund ads for my opponents? Seems to counter the whole idea of getting involved, no?
If this spending is raising concerns, what do you find so laughable? Is it because the guy who benefited from the infusion of liberty cash is being labeled a neocon?
Hey, maybe the guy deserves our support? BUT, that is not what you are saying. He is an unknown in the liberty movement, until now. He has a very suspect agenda. He could be appropriately labeled a neocon if people want to label, but looking at his issues (and hopefully reading his survey if C4L decides to make them public) should tell us where he stands.
In the mean time, my donations were supposed to go to candidates with the Ron Paul platform. I am almost offended by you saying that the reason for the reaction to this news is people being on the forum. Look, you sure didn't waste your time responding. How can you judge someone's activity from behind your computer screen lurking the site? Do you understand that the research that is done openly on this forum is a HUGE contribution to the cause? Do you understand that its not the politicians that you spend all your time shaking hands with that are going to change our country? Its the faceless nameless people in the crowd that are doing whatever they can, and whatever they do best?
Maybe some people like me are dog spit ugly and have no social skills (not true I just like to degrade myself to make points sometimes). Do you want a jackass who can network representing you in public? OR do you want him on the back end digging up information that you undoubtedly lurk for and then take out to the field with you?
Anyways. Look I appreciate what you are saying and doing. All I ask is that my money be spent wisely. That's it. I really don't even care so much about transparency as some other folks, but when it comes time to be accountable, like right now, I don't want to get fed the same crap that is going to get fed to the IRS.
"It wasn't and endorsement, we are promoting our surveys".
BWWWAHHHAHHAHAHAHAAAA!11
Last edited:
Promontorium
Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2009
- Messages
- 1,091
Yes many good points have been made.
I'm focusing on the larger issue, not this one guy, but it is an eye opener.
We joined Campaign for Liberty because Ron Paul backed it, here is a quote from Ron Paul;
"Today I am happy to announce the official launch of the Ron Paul Campaign for Liberty."
Which is followed shortly by; "Over the next few months I will be developing a program, assembling a team, and announcing new and exciting projects. We will have a permanent presence on the American political landscape. That I promise you.
Right now, I need your patience and support. I want the Campaign for Liberty to be a grassroots campaign; so your energy, your creativity, your feedback, and your participation are essential." - Ron Paul June 13, 2008 (All bold is mine).
What happened to this being the "Ron Paul Campaign for Liberty"? And how is this possibly "grassroots" when it was created by a congressman and then run by his "friends".
I'll admit, I haven't been a watchdog on the issue, but has the Campaign for Liberty asked the common man for any input on its agenda?
Thinking about it, it's just an organization, on our side only in name. Zero accountability. Zero transparency. Yet it constantly feeds on our limited money.
And it's over in Colorado giving out a 1/3rd of a million for some schlub?
When I pay the California Rifle and Pistol Association money, I know exactly where it goes, it fights gun laws.
I have no idea what the C4L is doing.
I support auditing the C4L. We don't know where our money is going, and we need to demand transparency.
The movement needs to live in the light, and it needs to thrive on honesty.
I'm focusing on the larger issue, not this one guy, but it is an eye opener.
We joined Campaign for Liberty because Ron Paul backed it, here is a quote from Ron Paul;
"Today I am happy to announce the official launch of the Ron Paul Campaign for Liberty."
Which is followed shortly by; "Over the next few months I will be developing a program, assembling a team, and announcing new and exciting projects. We will have a permanent presence on the American political landscape. That I promise you.
Right now, I need your patience and support. I want the Campaign for Liberty to be a grassroots campaign; so your energy, your creativity, your feedback, and your participation are essential." - Ron Paul June 13, 2008 (All bold is mine).
What happened to this being the "Ron Paul Campaign for Liberty"? And how is this possibly "grassroots" when it was created by a congressman and then run by his "friends".
I'll admit, I haven't been a watchdog on the issue, but has the Campaign for Liberty asked the common man for any input on its agenda?
Thinking about it, it's just an organization, on our side only in name. Zero accountability. Zero transparency. Yet it constantly feeds on our limited money.
And it's over in Colorado giving out a 1/3rd of a million for some schlub?
When I pay the California Rifle and Pistol Association money, I know exactly where it goes, it fights gun laws.
I have no idea what the C4L is doing.
I support auditing the C4L. We don't know where our money is going, and we need to demand transparency.
The movement needs to live in the light, and it needs to thrive on honesty.
- Status
Similar threads
