Representative Mark Warden (endorsed RP) Utilizing Bitcoin for Campaign Donations

muzzled dogg

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
7,721
New Hampshire representative Mark Warden (endorsed Ron Paul) is the first politician I've ever known to accept Bitcoin for campaign contributions: http://www.markwarden.com/page/contribute-campaign

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Representative Mark Warden Utilizing Bitcoin for Campaign Donations
Goffstown, New Hampshire - August 11, 2012 - State Representative Mark Warden recently added a Bitcoin donation system to his campaign website (www.markwarden.com), the first state representative in New Hampshire to utilize this emerging technology. According to Warden, Bitcoin will allow online transactions without the need for any third-party approval.
“This is a cutting-edge technology that is market based, voluntary, and extremely innovative. I have constituents and vendors who prefer this medium of exchange, so it’s natural to want to respond to the marketplace,” said Warden.
Bitcoin allows users to make transactions with an alternative, decentralized form of currency that is not subject to the inflationary whims of the Federal Reserve or other central banks. Mark Warden is a Republican State Representative running for re-election in Hillsborough County’s District 39, encompassing the towns of Goffstown, Weare, and Deering.
 
Bitcoins are having a good year.

oTmHC.jpg
 
This is in the news today.

Are Bitcoins The Future Of Anonymous Campaign Donations?
Even as its security is increasingly called into question, the Bitcoin may yet prove to serve some game-changing functions.
By Frederick Reese | November 11, 2013
http://www.mintpressnews.com/bitcoins-campaign-contributions/172343/

Bitcoins as a campaign financing tool

The positive growth and attractiveness of the Bitcoin has even forced the federal government to draft policies surrounding the currency’s use. In September, attorneys for the Conservative Action Fund PAC asked the Federal Election Commission for a ruling on if and how political candidates and outside groups could use the currency to contribute to campaigns. Due to the inherently anonymous nature of Bitcoins, the currency can be donated to campaigns without a money trail being immediately obvious.

“Bitcoins are a new form of money. Based on the concept that money can be ‘any object, or any sort of record, accepted as payment for goods and services,’ an anonymous creator designed this purely digital currency,” wrote Dan Backer in his request to the FEC. “Bitcoins, designed as ‘electronic cash,’ allow users to make online, peer-to-peer transfers of assets without utilizing a bank or other third party financial institution.

“As increasing numbers of individuals trade in Bitcoin, political parties and candidates also wish to accept and spend this new currency. The Libertarian Party now accepts Bitcoin contributions. Mark Warden, a recently re-elected New Hampshire State Representative, accepted Bitcoins in his recent campaign.’ Two former candidates also set up systems to accept Bitcoin contributions online: Eric Olson, a Libertarian candidate in North Dakota, and Jeremy Hansen, an independent state Senate candidate in Vermont. CAF, a political action committee, wishes to do the same—while complying with all relevant campaign finance regulations.”

“We see a real future for this, especially among libertarian-minded supporters,” Backer concluded.

In a Nov. 7 draft, the FEC ruled that political campaigns can, indeed, receive Bitcoins as campaign contributions, but cannot spend them in that form for campaign activities. Recognizing Bitcoins as an “in-kind” contribution, such as a stock or bond — reflecting a recent Federal Reserve ruling that stated that Bitcoins are not currency subjected to money control rules, as it is applied to end-users — the FEC recognized that the receipt of Bitcoins does not in itself breach any campaign finance limits.

“Because Bitcoins are neither the currency of any country nor negotiable instruments, Bitcoins are not ‘money’ under commission regulations,” the committee concluded. “Therefore, a political committee that receives Bitcoin contributions may not treat them as monetary contributions.”

While the draft still needs the vote of the full commision for it to become official, the possibility of Bitcoins being used as a legal anonymous filter for campaign financing has gave Bitcoins a seemingly undeniable and unexpected ally for its continued use. The value of the Bitcoins must be disclosed when the Bitcoins are exchanged for real capital, but as they would be pooled and randomly distributed by that point, it would be nearly impossible to say where any one Bitcoin came from, and when.
 
He probably has enough to run for executive council if he's held on all this time

1 of the big bitcoin companies converted it to money for him for free during his campaign because when he accepted bitcoins it was a big boost to the currency's reputation worldwide.
 
Did the federal government recently rule that candidates cannot accept bitcoins in future elections?
 
This Ron Paul Republican is the gift that keeps giving! Here is a recent article by him in the statewide paper for New Hampshire.

November 26. 2013 7:09PM
Rep. Mark Warden: NH does not want or need expanded Medicaid
BY REP. MARK WARDEN
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20131127/OPINION02/131129406/-1/news

The hard-working taxpayers of New Hampshire dodged a bullet last week when the state Senate killed a House bill to expand Medicaid in the Granite State. The expansion would have cost tens of millions of dollars in future budget cycles, invariably leading to renewed calls for an income tax or state sales tax to pay for large spending increases.

Do you want to take a cut in pay? Do you want less money in your bank account each month? In effect, that is what you will get from a broad-based tax. Any new tax will lead to less disposable income for you to spend on the things you need.

People in most towns already feel over-burdened by high property taxes. Yet politicians in Washington and Concord continue to concoct ever more government programs and giveaways that increase the tax burden of every citizen. This latest attempt, an offshoot of Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA), was rammed down the throats of citizens and legislators by House Democrats and the governor.

The public isn't clamoring for more government programs, yet big-government elected officials continue to try to buy more votes by promising more goodies for more people — without regard to future expenditures. Your children and grandchildren will be forced to pay the cost of this profligate spending. Is that the kind of financial burden you want to leave to the next generation?

New Hampshire has a proud heritage of fiscal conservatism. In keeping with our heritage, the state should be encouraging self-reliance, not promoting dependency through additional state programs. Inviting expanded Medicaid and implementation of a state-run health care exchange is precisely the wrong way to go. We should be encouraging free markets to spur innovation and competition, which is the only path to superior services, lower prices and more choices for everyone.

Imagine a marketplace with a wide variety of choices in policies and premiums tailored to the needs and financial capabilities of individuals and businesses — not to some bureaucrat's idea of what constitutes a "quality" health insurance plan.

We can thank Republicans in this state for pushing back against the reckless Obamacare juggernaut. Let's show Washington, D.C., that we don't want its "free" expanded programs. No program is free, after all; there are always strings attached, and exploding federal debt must be paid by the next generation. It is the worst kind of irresponsible governance to borrow from our children to pay for today's public excesses.

The latest polling numbers show that a majority of Americans are unhappy with Obamacare and want to see it changed or repealed. The rollout of the healthcare.gov website has been an abysmal failure. So why are Gov. Hassan and the state's Democrats rushing to jump on that socialized medicine bandwagon?

The fact is that New Hampshire doesn't want or need Obamacare. Granite State residents are already well covered through private insurance, Medicare, and the Healthy Kids program for children. A one-size-fits-all program is not going to make anyone better off and will leave most people worse off than they are now. Employers are already feeling the sting of new federal mandates, and it's going to get worse. Many will convert full-time employees to part-time. Some businesses will throttle back on growth or expansion because if they hit 50 employees they face expensive new regulations.

Medicaid expansion, part of the ACA boondoggle, would have put more people, including able-bodied workers, on the dole. People who are fully capable of taking care of themselves would be added to the rolls for subsidized medical care. That is certainly not fair to those who toil daily to provide for themselves and their families. People here should be proud of our strong work ethic, tradition of self-reliance, and generous private charity networks.

Nearly half of the states, including ours, have voted not to participate in parts of the mandate (state exchanges). New Hampshire Republicans will continue to do the right thing and promote independence and fiscal prudence for all who live here.

Mark Warden is a Republican state representative from Manchester.
Note: Rep. Warden is actually from Goffstown. It's a nicer, but still working class town that borders Manchester, NH's largest city. BTW, Goffstown recently rejected Agenda 21 ;)
 
Back
Top