Internal Ron Paul Debate Over Matching Funds?

[ghemminger]

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=49940&fb=1

Internal Ron Paul Debate Over Matching Funds?
Monday, October 08, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com


Sources say that tension over whether or not GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Tex) will take matching funds continues at campaign headquarters.

The campaign has apparently floated trial balloons about whether or not to take matching funds in the Internet alternative press. A recent article on LewRockwell.com urged Ron Paul should take the funds.

But sources also say that Ron Paul previously did not take matching funds when he ran for president as a Libertarian. These sources believe that explaining matching funds now versus then may be a difficult task.

"There are a whole bunch of issues in the equation," explains one source. "Ron Paul is trying to go after bigger donors now, and they may wish to see him accept the funds to show he is realistic about his the presidential effort and is doing all he can to succeed. On the other hand, others could be turned off by him taking the funds. It may be a difficult issue to decide."

 

[Primbs]

The campaign needs to bring on more professional fundraisers to bolster the staff and hopefully we won't need matching funds. Taking matching funds limits your spending in the early key states.

 

[Slugg]

Taking matching funds limits your spending in the early key states.

Those states are only key states if one doesn't have enough money to see the entire election through. I know there's been some controversy over this, but taking the funds would show how serious he is. You want people to really take notice? Then watch what happens when/if he takes the funds. He then campaigns the next states.....it very much can be won that way. And I've always wondered why other small campaigns didn't let the first states slide and move right into the middle states where it's opened up and they can get some electorate votes. That seems like the right way to do it.

p.s. I don't like FMN much, they use alot of unnamed sources and they are wrong most of the time.

 

[Tim724]

Does anyone know off hand which of the other candidates accept matching funds?

If most all the other candidates are accepting the money, I would say he could get away with it.

If he accepted the money, but was one of few candidates accepting the money, it would look pretty bad alongside his political beliefs.

 

[steph3n]

Tim724,

only the losers accept money, sad but true.

You won't see a winner accept public funds.

 

[Corydoras]

I don't like FMN much, they use alot of unnamed sources

I think they're divas and I wish they would pipe down and stop sensationalizing things to pander to our interest in Ron Paul.

 

[steph3n]

I think they're divas and I wish they would pipe down and stop sensationalizing things to pander to our interest in Ron Paul.

I don't know that divas is the right term, but they do seem to be tabloidish in covering Ron Paul.

 

[Rich333]

Ron Paul has my support because he doesn't compromise his principles. To do so now after establishing such a long and consistent record of upholding them would be beyond stupid. If he does accept matching funds, I'll vote for the absolute worst most fascist candidate instead, in the hope that it'll precipitate a revolution. My faith in the political process is already close to nil. If even Ron Paul can't stick to his principles, then I think it's time to provide the Tree of Liberty with its natural manure once again.

 

[DaronWestbrooke]

I will be very disappointed if he takes matching funds. Not only is this continuing the cycle of taxation going towards campaign, but it is also feeding the myth that money is everything.

However, I know Paul won't take the funds. It is against everything he stands for.

 

[Triton]

Israel plundered the Egyptians, and Ron Paul should too.

 

[theseus51]

It's the free market news network. They frequently give misleading information, even if it is pro-Ron Paul. Always take news from them with a grain of salt.

 

[Pete]

Matching funds are chump change compared with the kind of money that we can expect to see with a little more momentum. Remember, we are just STARTING to see decent press.

$12 million in Q4, while all the others are bound to be down except maybe Huck, is going to light some fires, especially among the press.

Some members of the press must certainly have repressed memories of being, or wanting to be, journalists. They got into it because of an interest in activism, of wanting to make positive change.

Bush's 2004 contributions were over $320 million, IIRC. The matching funds cap ($74 million?) is chicken feed.

Plus, RP's economical and independently financed campaign is a stick right in the eye of conventional thinking.

 

[RonPaulVideoGuy]

I would say don't take the matching funds*. Let the word continue to spread and let the fund raising continue to build. It would be much more impressive to say we did it on our own than to have assistance from the federal government.

* - Now, on the other hand, if it comes right down to the wire and we have let the campaign down and not raised enough funds, if I had a choice between accepting Frudy McRomney or taking government funds, I would choose government funds, kind of like the lesser of two evils that we always have had to choose from until Ron Paul came along. Until that time, let's boost our giving to the campaign!

 

[Spirit of '76]

Free Market News Network screws us again...

 

[Bradley in DC]

The question is more complicated than the simplistic discussion we usually get.

One, some states require three times the effort on ballot petitioning requirement regarding the number of signatures which is designed to keep off the ballot those not meeting matching funds requirements of gizilions of money so you don't need them.

Two, thanks to McCain-Feingold, there is no comparison with the rules then and the rules now.

Three, the current rules tie one of the campaign's arms (and one of its legs) behind its back so that one can't raise money so running without matching funds is extremely difficult.

Four, the better question, "Which candidate would get rid of this stupid system by getting rid of such restrictions and welfare for politicians?"

 

[stevedasbach]

Matching funds are chump change compared with the kind of money that we can expect to see with a little more momentum. Remember, we are just STARTING to see decent press.

Hear Hear! Matching funds are for losers.

 

[kylejack]

Those states are only key states if one doesn't have enough money to see the entire election through. I know there's been some controversy over this, but taking the funds would show how serious he is. You want people to really take notice? Then watch what happens when/if he takes the funds. He then campaigns the next states.....it very much can be won that way. And I've always wondered why other small campaigns didn't let the first states slide and move right into the middle states where it's opened up and they can get some electorate votes. That seems like the right way to do it.

p.s. I don't like FMN much, they use alot of unnamed sources and they are wrong most of the time.

A lot more than 200K needs to be spent in NH.

 

[ghemminger]

Four, the better question, "Which candidate would get rid of this stupid system by getting rid of such restrictions and welfare for politicians?"

The big business and union lobby groups $$ would need to be addressed....

 

[NoxTwilight]

I trust Ron and any decision he makes regarding this or any other issue. I don't pretend to understand all the details and ramifications but I trust that he does.

He has proven his integrity to me 100%.

 

[Primbs]

Those states are only key states if one doesn't have enough money to see the entire election through. I know there's been some controversy over this, but taking the funds would show how serious he is. You want people to really take notice? Then watch what happens when/if he takes the funds. He then campaigns the next states.....it very much can be won that way. And I've always wondered why other small campaigns didn't let the first states slide and move right into the middle states where it's opened up and they can get some electorate votes. That seems like the right way to do it.

p.s. I don't like FMN much, they use alot of unnamed sources and they are wrong most of the time.

If we are in the top three in Iowa and New Hampshire, the internet fundraising may raise a million a day, If Ron Paul is on the cover of Time, Newsweek etc. But we first have to do well in those states.

We are up against candidates who will threaten to overwhelm Ron Paul in Iowa and New Hampshire with millions of dollars.



We have to preserve the ability to add millions at the last minute to fight Rudy and Romney. They will probably not take matching funds because they want flexibility to strategic dump large amounts of money where ever they might be able to win.