FSP-Rebel
Mr. Republitarian
- Joined
- May 19, 2007
- Messages
- 11,528
Yeah, I know.
phfffttt
CFL Spent $350,000 on a pro-war Colorado candidate
- Thread starter Knightskye
- Start date
- Status
pcosmar
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 54,940
At the risk of a derail, (though possibly related)Yeah, I know.
There was a vibrant bunch of folks in Michigan at the Mackinac Conference. Paul Garfield was the state coordinator when they were trying to exclude Dr Paul. We flooded Saul Anuzis, we got Ron to Mackinac and had a lot of folks there. (the media ignored that)
Suddenly and without any explanation Garfield was out,
Adam DeAngelis and Debbie Hooper were in, and shit went downhill.
Go figure.
johnrocks
Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,501
I came on here to see if we had learned anything yet and this post told me all I needed to know
Free Moral Agent
Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 399
delete
R
RonPaulCult
Guest
Statement Concerning C4L's Issue Discussion Program
Posted by John Tate on 01/29/10
Last updated 01/29/10
Throughout 2010, Campaign for Liberty will be running an issue discussion program through our candidate surveys in every state to promote our issues and agenda and to lobby candidates for federal office and to get them on the record in support or opposition on our issues.
Since our inception, we have had many requests from our members for such an effort to help in their work to educate those around them.
As part of this program, mail, radio and TV ads, banner ads, and other forms of communication may be run to encourage candidates to go on record in support of our Liberty agenda, to highlight the responses of the candidates on our issues, and to hold those candidates who ignore our cause accountable.
There have been some questions as to why certain candidates have received surveys while others haven't. This is simply a matter of putting in place a systematic approach based on candidate filing deadlines and clear survey response deadlines in order to send out surveys in an organized fashion.
For example, Texas candidate surveys have been mailed, and Kentucky surveys will be mailed next week. Illinois survey results are already available on our web site.
As we launch this new undertaking, I also want to take a moment to address your inquires about one of our first public survey ads in Colorado.
First, I think it is important to state up front that, in keeping with our 501(c)4 status, none of our work is in endorsement, support, or opposition for any candidate. In our survey program, we seek only to report where candidates stand in regard to the specific questions to which they have responded.
In retrospect, the ad we are running could have been messaged differently to help avoid any confusion on its intent and to better advertise our issue discussion program. Your invaluable feedback will help us correct this in the future and, as a result, strengthen the effectiveness of our program. This is C4L's first foray into launching this kind of national initiative, and we are convinced it has the potential to make a tremendous impact.
The candidate featured in the Colorado ad answered 19 out of 20 questions correctly on our C4L candidate survey, and he has been publicly outspoken on Audit the Fed and an out of control federal government. He also answered the Foreign Policy questions and warrantless search question on our survey correctly.
We treat these surveys as a personal promise from the candidate as to how they will vote upon entering Congress. And I can guarantee you we will hold them accountable for their actions and responsible for how they presented themselves to us.
That being said, there is an even more important fact: The Colorado program was funded by a small number of Colorado activists. The funding for this program came ENTIRELY from this small group of new C4L donors.
So for all our great grassroots who are wondering why we might not have used this money elsewhere, I can say two things: First, we WILL have similar programs in MANY other places soon, and second, we did NOT use any money raised generally by Campaign for Liberty to run these ads in Colorado.
In order to both launch the Colorado effort and test our survey program, C4L did not use existing donor funds but built new support and donations, especially within Colorado, specifically for this project. This is the approach we hope to take as we seek funding for many other special projects this year in other states.
I take our message of peace, freedom, and prosperity as well as the responsibility entrusted to me to run this organization very seriously. I hope you all know that, and can give us here at C4L the benefit of the doubt when a situation arises about which you might want more information, or with which you even might not agree. As a multi-issue organization with activists from all manner of backgrounds, we each certainly will have our share of disagreements and agreements. The critical question is whether or not we will let disagreements on occasional topics destroy the unity we share in our desire to be a free people.
This movement has a unique window of opportunity to change politics in our country and restore our lost liberties. But to accomplish this, it will take our unified effort and focus. I see great things for us in 2010 and beyond if we can do that. I hope I'll have your support as we continue our campaign for liberty.
Posted by John Tate on 01/29/10
Last updated 01/29/10
Throughout 2010, Campaign for Liberty will be running an issue discussion program through our candidate surveys in every state to promote our issues and agenda and to lobby candidates for federal office and to get them on the record in support or opposition on our issues.
Since our inception, we have had many requests from our members for such an effort to help in their work to educate those around them.
As part of this program, mail, radio and TV ads, banner ads, and other forms of communication may be run to encourage candidates to go on record in support of our Liberty agenda, to highlight the responses of the candidates on our issues, and to hold those candidates who ignore our cause accountable.
There have been some questions as to why certain candidates have received surveys while others haven't. This is simply a matter of putting in place a systematic approach based on candidate filing deadlines and clear survey response deadlines in order to send out surveys in an organized fashion.
For example, Texas candidate surveys have been mailed, and Kentucky surveys will be mailed next week. Illinois survey results are already available on our web site.
As we launch this new undertaking, I also want to take a moment to address your inquires about one of our first public survey ads in Colorado.
First, I think it is important to state up front that, in keeping with our 501(c)4 status, none of our work is in endorsement, support, or opposition for any candidate. In our survey program, we seek only to report where candidates stand in regard to the specific questions to which they have responded.
In retrospect, the ad we are running could have been messaged differently to help avoid any confusion on its intent and to better advertise our issue discussion program. Your invaluable feedback will help us correct this in the future and, as a result, strengthen the effectiveness of our program. This is C4L's first foray into launching this kind of national initiative, and we are convinced it has the potential to make a tremendous impact.
The candidate featured in the Colorado ad answered 19 out of 20 questions correctly on our C4L candidate survey, and he has been publicly outspoken on Audit the Fed and an out of control federal government. He also answered the Foreign Policy questions and warrantless search question on our survey correctly.
We treat these surveys as a personal promise from the candidate as to how they will vote upon entering Congress. And I can guarantee you we will hold them accountable for their actions and responsible for how they presented themselves to us.
That being said, there is an even more important fact: The Colorado program was funded by a small number of Colorado activists. The funding for this program came ENTIRELY from this small group of new C4L donors.
So for all our great grassroots who are wondering why we might not have used this money elsewhere, I can say two things: First, we WILL have similar programs in MANY other places soon, and second, we did NOT use any money raised generally by Campaign for Liberty to run these ads in Colorado.
In order to both launch the Colorado effort and test our survey program, C4L did not use existing donor funds but built new support and donations, especially within Colorado, specifically for this project. This is the approach we hope to take as we seek funding for many other special projects this year in other states.
I take our message of peace, freedom, and prosperity as well as the responsibility entrusted to me to run this organization very seriously. I hope you all know that, and can give us here at C4L the benefit of the doubt when a situation arises about which you might want more information, or with which you even might not agree. As a multi-issue organization with activists from all manner of backgrounds, we each certainly will have our share of disagreements and agreements. The critical question is whether or not we will let disagreements on occasional topics destroy the unity we share in our desire to be a free people.
This movement has a unique window of opportunity to change politics in our country and restore our lost liberties. But to accomplish this, it will take our unified effort and focus. I see great things for us in 2010 and beyond if we can do that. I hope I'll have your support as we continue our campaign for liberty.
I will refrain from becoming belligerent.
However, I deleted all my info on the CFL site and unsubscribed from their emails. Just not comfortable being a member of that organization anymore. If they ever decide to shed some sunlight on themselves, I may rethink joining.
However, I deleted all my info on the CFL site and unsubscribed from their emails. Just not comfortable being a member of that organization anymore. If they ever decide to shed some sunlight on themselves, I may rethink joining.
dean.engelhardt
Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2009
- Messages
- 1,668
Deleted my C4L Account
I am no longer a member of C4L. Deleted my account minutes ago. The political ad for Ken Buck was bad. Tate telling me I'm stupid is worse.
I use to love that site. I smell special interests now. I'm very disappointed.
I am no longer a member of C4L. Deleted my account minutes ago. The political ad for Ken Buck was bad. Tate telling me I'm stupid is worse.
I use to love that site. I smell special interests now. I'm very disappointed.
Last edited:
LittleLightShining
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 6,531
No no no... don't you see, we have to work with the GOP. Forget education. It's all about party politics and the GOP is the place for us
Seriously, though, I agree with you.
Thank God for National Strategic Experts
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Editorial-Page.htm?Info=0086331
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Editorial-Page.htm?Info=0086331
Questions to the Concered
We" don't need to know who the donors were because it's none of "we"'s business! I certainly would not want my name and donations release to whomever asked.
My first question to you are:
1) Are you from CO?
2) Are you a Local Coordinator?
3) Have you completed the online Local Coordinator bootcamp?
4) As a Local Coordinator who has completed the Local Coordinator online bootcamp, have you put the knowledge you've gained into action?
If you've answered "No" to any of the questions above, can you please explain why you are concerned about this issue?
Thanks.
We" don't need to know who the donors were because it's none of "we"'s business! I certainly would not want my name and donations release to whomever asked.
My first question to you are:
1) Are you from CO?
2) Are you a Local Coordinator?
3) Have you completed the online Local Coordinator bootcamp?
4) As a Local Coordinator who has completed the Local Coordinator online bootcamp, have you put the knowledge you've gained into action?
If you've answered "No" to any of the questions above, can you please explain why you are concerned about this issue?
Thanks.
specsaregood
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 39,143
Because they have succeeded in proving that the non-interventionism principle is not a make it or break it issue for the "Campaign for Liberty" NATIONALLY.
Last edited:
angelatc
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 50,703
Then maybe you don't belong in politics. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. This certainly wouldn't be the first time that an objectionable group tried to make an end run around FEC reporting requirements using a naive third party .
It's ironic that you want the C4L to divulge it's private donor lists, but you wont answer the 4 questions above.
smashysmashy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2010
- Messages
- 9
I am no longer a member of C4L. Deleted my account minutes ago. The political ad for Ken Buck was bad. Tate telling me I'm stupid is worse.
I use to love that site. I smell special interests now. I'm very disappointed.
Hey Dean! I am in the same boat as you. Used to love C4L... but I think this is a better place for me to mobilize my support for liberty.
This one particular issue isn't even my biggest quarrel but it is certainly the nail in the coffin. If C4L decides to be a leading model in transparency and liberty then I will gladly contribute, no grudges held... but over 48 hours for that explanation is very telling and extremely opaque.
manystrom
Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 31
John Tate's Statement on $350,000 Media Buy for Ken Buck Raises More Questions
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/123275
Submitted by Michael Nystrom on Fri, 01/29/2010 - 16:57
in * Daily Paul Liberty Forum
John Tate's statement can be read on the C4L's site via this link.
The numerous comments on the linked article, as well as comment threads on Ron Paul Forums and the Daily Paul indicate overwhelming dissatisfaction with the vaguely worded explanation, and call for more answers.
Questions that come to my mind when reading the statement include:
Tate: The candidate featured in the Colorado ad answered 19 out of 20 questions correctly on our C4L candidate survey
We have seen the questions. Where are Buck's answers?
Regardless of how he answered, it is clear from his own website that he is a pro-war, pro-interventionist candidate:
We definitely need to continue a major effort in Afghanistan. We are told this effort will take at least 10 years. It will require both military and civilian personnel to help build up the country. The generals on the ground tell us we are likely to be in Afghanistan for the long term with a difficult and complicated mission.
Anyone with even the slightest familiarity with grassroots supporters knows that, while we are a diverse bunch, there are a few issues upon which we are in total agreement. One of these uniting issues is the principle of NON-INTERVENTIONISM. The fact that Buck answered 19 questions "correctly" is irrelevant.
THIS IS AN ISSUE ON WHICH WE NEVER COMPROMISE.
Tate: We treat these surveys as a personal promise from the candidate as to how they will vote upon entering Congress. And I can guarantee you we will hold them accountable for their actions and responsible for how they presented themselves to us.
How sweet. If these are "personal promises," how exactly do you intend to hold these candidates responsible once they become elected officials, and view themselves as above the law? Do you intend to bring lawsuits against the individuals should they break them? What is the plan here? I'm curious, since breaking campaign promises is a routine event in American politics.
If you are making a "guarantee," how will those of us who trusted your judgement be compensated for being duped?
Tate: The Colorado program was funded by a small number of Colorado activists. The funding for this program came ENTIRELY from this small group of new C4L donors.
This sounds like a side pool of money. Who is this "small number of Colorado activists?" Does the group have a name, or formal organization? Is the group's mission consistent with that of C4L? What other type of influence, if any, have they purchased within the C4L with this money?
Furthermore, what is the criteria for other groups who wish to channel side pools through the C4L? Did any of the money go to the C4L, or was it all used to fund the ad? Did any members of the C4L personally benefit from this transaction?
Tate: So for all our great grassroots who are wondering why we might not have used this money elsewhere, I can say two things: First, we WILL have similar programs in MANY other places soon
Really? When? Because 2010 primaries are coming up very, very quick. We've got a slew of REAL liberty candidates who have emerged from the grassroots movement started by Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign. So far there has been no action on the part of the C4L to support these candidates. Candidates like: Rand Paul, RJ Harris Jake Towne, John Dennis, Adam Kokesh, and Debra Medina. As far as I understand, none of these candidates have heard a peep for C4L.
If your answer is: I think it is important to state up front that, in keeping with our 501(c)4 status, none of our work is in endorsement, support, or opposition for any candidate,
I'm afraid that just answer doesn't cut it - not after the Buck ad. While the ad may be consistent with the letter of the law, it is not consistent with its spirit.
Among the local grassroots, asking for help from the C4L has become a running joke. Such a suggestion is met with the roll of eyes and a sarcastic scoff: "Right, like that is ever going to happen."
In the end, this event has been very disappointing to everyone in the community who has steadfastly supported Ron Paul. My understanding of the C4L is that it was to work with the grassroots community toward common goals. That hasn't happened.
This response did very little to satisfy the growing dissatisfaction within C4L membership and grassroots Ron Paul supporters. We got no new information - nothing we hadn't already figured out on our own via the Forums.
We do not appreciate being treated like ignorant jackasses.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/123275
Submitted by Michael Nystrom on Fri, 01/29/2010 - 16:57
in * Daily Paul Liberty Forum
John Tate's statement can be read on the C4L's site via this link.
The numerous comments on the linked article, as well as comment threads on Ron Paul Forums and the Daily Paul indicate overwhelming dissatisfaction with the vaguely worded explanation, and call for more answers.
Questions that come to my mind when reading the statement include:
Tate: The candidate featured in the Colorado ad answered 19 out of 20 questions correctly on our C4L candidate survey
We have seen the questions. Where are Buck's answers?
Regardless of how he answered, it is clear from his own website that he is a pro-war, pro-interventionist candidate:
We definitely need to continue a major effort in Afghanistan. We are told this effort will take at least 10 years. It will require both military and civilian personnel to help build up the country. The generals on the ground tell us we are likely to be in Afghanistan for the long term with a difficult and complicated mission.
Anyone with even the slightest familiarity with grassroots supporters knows that, while we are a diverse bunch, there are a few issues upon which we are in total agreement. One of these uniting issues is the principle of NON-INTERVENTIONISM. The fact that Buck answered 19 questions "correctly" is irrelevant.
THIS IS AN ISSUE ON WHICH WE NEVER COMPROMISE.
Tate: We treat these surveys as a personal promise from the candidate as to how they will vote upon entering Congress. And I can guarantee you we will hold them accountable for their actions and responsible for how they presented themselves to us.
How sweet. If these are "personal promises," how exactly do you intend to hold these candidates responsible once they become elected officials, and view themselves as above the law? Do you intend to bring lawsuits against the individuals should they break them? What is the plan here? I'm curious, since breaking campaign promises is a routine event in American politics.
If you are making a "guarantee," how will those of us who trusted your judgement be compensated for being duped?
Tate: The Colorado program was funded by a small number of Colorado activists. The funding for this program came ENTIRELY from this small group of new C4L donors.
This sounds like a side pool of money. Who is this "small number of Colorado activists?" Does the group have a name, or formal organization? Is the group's mission consistent with that of C4L? What other type of influence, if any, have they purchased within the C4L with this money?
Furthermore, what is the criteria for other groups who wish to channel side pools through the C4L? Did any of the money go to the C4L, or was it all used to fund the ad? Did any members of the C4L personally benefit from this transaction?
Tate: So for all our great grassroots who are wondering why we might not have used this money elsewhere, I can say two things: First, we WILL have similar programs in MANY other places soon
Really? When? Because 2010 primaries are coming up very, very quick. We've got a slew of REAL liberty candidates who have emerged from the grassroots movement started by Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign. So far there has been no action on the part of the C4L to support these candidates. Candidates like: Rand Paul, RJ Harris Jake Towne, John Dennis, Adam Kokesh, and Debra Medina. As far as I understand, none of these candidates have heard a peep for C4L.
If your answer is: I think it is important to state up front that, in keeping with our 501(c)4 status, none of our work is in endorsement, support, or opposition for any candidate,
I'm afraid that just answer doesn't cut it - not after the Buck ad. While the ad may be consistent with the letter of the law, it is not consistent with its spirit.
Among the local grassroots, asking for help from the C4L has become a running joke. Such a suggestion is met with the roll of eyes and a sarcastic scoff: "Right, like that is ever going to happen."
In the end, this event has been very disappointing to everyone in the community who has steadfastly supported Ron Paul. My understanding of the C4L is that it was to work with the grassroots community toward common goals. That hasn't happened.
This response did very little to satisfy the growing dissatisfaction within C4L membership and grassroots Ron Paul supporters. We got no new information - nothing we hadn't already figured out on our own via the Forums.
We do not appreciate being treated like ignorant jackasses.
Why are you so worried about the splinter in your neighbors eye? Is your answer to the 4 questions above "No"?
LittleLightShining
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 6,531
1) No
2) No, but I was until a couple hours ago
3) Yes
4) Yes
Before I answer your question, who are you and what's your motive?
brandon
SINO
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 15,414
No I'm not from Colorado, but I am a local coordinator.
Regardless, there are many reasons for one to be concerned that don't have anything to do with your questions. A lot of us have spent time and money growing this organization, and it is now working against one of our primary goals.
angelatc
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 50,703
At the risk of a derail, (though possibly related)
There was a vibrant bunch of folks in Michigan at the Mackinac Conference. Paul Garfield was the state coordinator when they were trying to exclude Dr Paul. We flooded Saul Anuzis, we got Ron to Mackinac and had a lot of folks there. (the media ignored that)
Suddenly and without any explanation Garfield was out,
Adam DeAngelis and Debbie Hooper were in, and shit went downhill.
Go figure.
They didn't ignore the ferry ride.
Chicago can tell a similiar story. We had a guy who put together a huge coalition. He works for a mainstream conservative / libertarian organization there. Remember the PBS piece on The Revolution? He orchestrated that.
When it came time to hire a state coordinator, we got a guy from the city that nobody had heard of. He was flipping useless.
- Status
Similar threads
