Did RP and/or C4L sell their mailing list to Romney?

[cjm]

I did not donate to RP in 2008.
I did not donate to Rand in 2010.
I was a member of C4L from 2008-2010 with a unique error in my name.
I donated to RP in 2012.

I'm getting Romney mail to my donation address which is also my official mailing address on my voter record. Family members who donated to RP 2012 are also getting the mailers, but family members who voted for RP in the primary and did not donate are not getting the mailers.

My Romney mail does not use the unique C4L error, but a credit card offer from Bank of America shortly after I left C4L did. Considering the Federal Reserve issue, I found that particular mailer pretty offensive.

Assuming we're all talking about the same mailers, it's looks like they are coming from the RP2012 donation list.

 

[qh4dotcom]

I get Republican fundraising emails (including emails with Romney's name) sent to an email address I specifically created on my domain for Peter Schiff for Senate....and an address for Sharron Angle.

BJ Lawson didn't safeguard the email address I specifically created for his campaign as I am getting spam to that address.

 

[cjm]

I get Republican fundraising emails (including emails with Romney's name) sent to an email address I specifically created on my domain for Peter Schiff for Senate....and an address for Sharron Angle.

BJ Lawson didn't safeguard the email address I specifically created for his campaign as I am getting spam to that address.

I donated to Schiff2010 but have not received any email from Romney at all -- just the snail mail I described in the earlier post.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

I received fundraising letter from Mitt today.

Can't imagine anywhere else they would have gotten my name/address other than Ron Paul / Campaign for Liberty mailing/donor list...

Anyone else here?

who cares? It is their property.

 

[Dr.3D]

You can check to see who donated to Ron Paul here... but it doesn't give the address.
http://www.fec.gov/disclosurep/PDownload.do

 

[The Free Hornet]

who cares? It is their property.

What's whose property now?!

First, if an organization abuses - uses for an unintended purpose - our information, we ought to give them hell.

Second, a mail box ought to be your private property and not a conduit for people to payoff the government to abuse you. If UPS sends you a package you don't want and you didn't ask for, you can refuse delivery or make them pick it up. I've made delivery companies make a special trip to my townhouse just so they walk a package to the right door 30 feet away. How else will they learn?

With regards to the USPS, polticians not only abuse it, they often send shit out for free causing our postal rates to go higher. If it is mail, the property issue is the abuse of your own by TPTB. All that junkmail you didn't ask for is paid for or heavily subsidized with your tax and postal monies.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

What's whose property now?!

First, if an organization abuses - uses for an unintended purpose - our information, we ought to give them hell.

Second, a mail box ought to be your private property and not a conduit for people to payoff the government to abuse you. If UPS sends you a package you don't want and you didn't ask for, you can refuse delivery or make them pick it up. I've made delivery companies make a special trip to my townhouse just so they walk a package to the right door 30 feet away. How else will they learn?

With regards to the USPS, polticians not only abuse it, they often send shit out for free causing our postal rates to go higher. If it is mail, the property issue is the abuse of your own by TPTB. All that junkmail you didn't ask for is paid for or heavily subsidized with your tax and postal monies.

selling the list means Ron or Rand take in more money they can use for pro-liberty purposes.

 

[coffeewithgames]

selling the list means Ron or Rand take in more money they can use for pro-liberty purposes.

"Pro-liberty purposes" is one thing, simply placing phone calls asking for more donations is another. There needs to be a specified purpose, and specific examples of what the money is being used for other than staff salaries.

If they could say, "We sold it for xyz amount and all will be used to fund xyz candidates" that might help some. Did anybody confirm they did sell it, or is it mainly speculation? Is there a good way to confirm it, since we do know lists are leased/sold for money?

 

[Galileo Galilei]

"Pro-liberty purposes" is one thing, simply placing phone calls asking for more donations is another. There needs to be a specified purpose, and specific examples of what the money is being used for other than staff salaries.

If they could say, "We sold it for xyz amount and all will be used to fund xyz candidates" that might help some. Did anybody confirm they did sell it, or is it mainly speculation? Is there a good way to confirm it, since we do know lists are leased/sold for money?

I don't care if they sold it or not, but would be disappointed if it turned out they didn't.

 

[abruzz0]

And this is one of the myriad reasons as to why I said F you to the GOP and de-regged so I don't get bombarded with 8 by 11 glossy pix of McCain and Bush bro-hugging and Mittens Romney begging for cash. Too bad I still get their garbage in e-mails, which forced me to un-sub from various Ron Paul related sites that have clearly been sold to the highest neo-con bidder.

 

[cjm]

You can check to see who donated to Ron Paul here... but it doesn't give the address.
http://www.fec.gov/disclosurep/PDownload.do

Name and zip is probably enough to cross-reference with voter registration data.

 

[libertariantexas]

this again? The RNC is using its mailing list for Romney. Are you registered as a Republican?

I must have received about 40 by now.

I'd send all 40 back by stuffing them with the inserts that they came with.

That'll teach them not to send out so many annoying solicitations.

 

[erowe1]

To whom exactly?

It could have been to any of several groups or more than one. Who cares?

Sure, they could have gotten it the illegal way. But why assume that? Selling mailing lists is common.

 

[erowe1]

First, if an organization abuses - uses for an unintended purpose - our information, we ought to give them hell.

Selling your address to another campaign isn't an unintended purpose. It's something you knew and accepted might happen when you chose to go on Ron Paul's mailing list.

 

[opal]

I get mail from everybody.. rep..dem..inde... usually doesn't make it to the house (circular file by door)

 

[The Free Hornet]

Selling your address to another campaign isn't an unintended purpose. It's something you knew and accepted might happen when you chose to go on Ron Paul's mailing list.

I accept that I might get hit by a car when stepping outside. This doesn't mean I won't want to give the driver hell.

As for consequences, I can withold far more more dollars than they would get from selling thousands of names. Having seen so many here dismiss the abuse of information inclines me trust far fewer people. That's a good thing (for me), for the rest it means less money to moneybombs, chip-ins, novelty liberty items, et cetera.

Once the campaign burns enough bridges, they'll find their last real connections are to the neocon mainland.

 

[Badger Paul]

What good was Rand's endorsement knowing that most would ignore and not follow it?

He needed to offer something tangible to the Romney campaign in order to gain a speaker slot at the convention. The donor lists was the only thing of value he had to trade.

So expect to hear much more from Romney in the future.

 

[erowe1]

As for consequences, I can withold far more more dollars than they would get from selling thousands of names.

Sure you could. And if you were going to do that, then you wouldn't have donated in the first place, knowing that your info would get sold.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Sure you could. And if you were going to do that, then you wouldn't have donated in the first place, knowing that your info would get sold.

Do you have to be on the wrong side of every argument?

Poor privacy policies and practices make it less likely that I will donate. It is not binary.

Realize that posting who you donate to, how much, and when, may be sufficient to allow unique identification, "erowe1".

Like many here, giving politicians and their organizations money, voluntarily, is a new thing for me. The lessons learned carry forward in time, not backwards as you suggest.

 

[erowe1]

Do you have to be on the wrong side of every argument?

Poor privacy policies and practices make it less likely that I will donate. It is not binary.

So then don't donate. It's not like they don't know there are people like you.

But if that factor didn't prevent you from donating before, the campaign has little reason to think it will prevent you from donating in the future.

It's not like you didn't know. Or, if you didn't, it's not like you have anyone to blame but yourself.

I see a pattern here with you, where your idea of the wrong side of any given argument always happens to be the side Ron Paul takes.