To all those who are done with CFL...

[RCA]

While there are many who are trying to vilify you for your criticisms, take my advice and move on. Stop wasting your energy defending yourself. Most of you have made good points and brought up worthy questions. Now it's time to stop falling into the traps and use your time more effectively on something else besides rebuttal.

 

[MsDoodahs]

 

[dannno]

I agree that we need to be vigilant against corruption within the organization and I'm glad people made a big deal about the incident to bring it to the attention of the organization.. but I can see why with the lack of communication between national and CO there needed to be some time for a statement to be put together. Ultimately they had a good explanation, they admitted their mistakes, they are altering their program, and I think the program they are running is really important. We need to get all candidates on record so they can be tracked. This will do a LOT to help us decide which candidates are both honest AND committed to liberty in the future.

 

[senatorpjt]

I gave up on C4L a long time ago, when they started soliciting donations to fight the healthcare bill. At the time, I did think that there was little reason to defend a multibillion dollar insurance industry with my own limited money. I probably should have anticipated that they would just turn the bill into a handout to themselves as usual, but still, there were so many voices on this issue that I didn't think it was necessary. Once the insurance companies turned it into a handout, it was a done deal anyway. When that much money is involved, politicians care less about principle and more about what they can personally get out of it.

In any case, it doesn't really matter. The people who were involved with C4L before and have lost faith in the organization aren't just going to disappear, they will just direct their efforts in ways they think will be more effective. The only problem would be if people quit C4L and just stopped paying attention entirely.

This is always going to be a problem with an organization like C4L. You can't be all things to all people. If you think C4L is doing what you would like them to do at least most of the time and they will be effective, then there's no reason to quit. Any organization with such broad goals and activities is always going to do something you don't agree with.

The effectiveness issue is key. There is an economy of scale involved in politics, and having a large, central organization has many advantages over small, single-issue groups. If you broke down C4L's issues and formed a single-issue group over each one, none of those groups would likely be able to gain as much ground.

Also, you don't have to "quit forever." Everyone of course knows about the idea of "voting with your wallet." If the organization as it is operating today is doing a good job, then donate. There's no reason to hold a grudge about something they did in the past if they have changed it. Likewise, if they're doing a terrible job now, then it doesn't matter how much good they have done in the past.

I'm not "done" with C4L but I'm not putting my money and effort into it at the moment. I did in the past, and may do so in the future. Especially at the moment, I personally believe it's more important to help out with the campaigns.

 

[TCE]

For the most part, donating money to individual candidates is better than donating it to any group and allowing them to allocate money. You know where you want your money to go better than anyone else.

 

[dr. hfn]

You guys should help YAL!

 

[dean.engelhardt]

For the most part, donating money to individual candidates is better than donating it to any group and allowing them to allocate money. You know where you want your money to go better than anyone else.

Worth repeating

 

[libertybrewcity]

You guys should help YAL!

most def. i wish there was one at my previous campus. i would have joined for sure. i tried starting one but students just wanna get drunk these days........

 

[erowe1]

For the most part, donating money to individual candidates is better than donating it to any group and allowing them to allocate money. You know where you want your money to go better than anyone else.

What does that have to do with CFL? CFL doesn't allocate any of its money to candidates. It's an educational organization.

 

[senatorpjt]

What does that have to do with CFL? CFL doesn't allocate any of its money to candidates. It's an educational organization.

This is the core of it. My hope for C4L was always that it would give a voice to issues that had no voice in Washington. Merely voicing an opinion on "hot topics" like healthcare, I feel is unproductive.

The value of Ron Paul's campaign is it brought issues to light which were previously ignored by the mainstream, such as monetary policy and state sovereignty. It seems more valuable to merely raise awareness of these issues and the facts surrounding them. Some truths are self-evident, but only when people take the time to consider the issues. The lasting value of his campaign was not to convince anyone of the right or wrong answer to any of these questions, but merely to put the questions into the minds of the public. I believe this is the most effective strategy.

 

[TCE]

What does that have to do with CFL? CFL doesn't allocate any of its money to candidates. It's an educational organization.

They spend money on activities and resources they believe are educational and collect money so they have it to spend. More likely, if someone were planning on donating to CFL, you would want to donate to a project you thought was educational or on a candidate you liked.

EX: CFL collects donations to handout pocket Constitutions at CPAC. Instead of donating to them, you get your own Constitutions and hand them out. Or, spend your money on something you believe would better serve educational purposes.

Typically, in large organizations, there is a certain percentage of waste. By cutting out the middle man, waste is minimized or eliminated.

 

[AuH2O]

The effectiveness issue is key. There is an economy of scale involved in politics, and having a large, central organization has many advantages over small, single-issue groups. If you broke down C4L's issues and formed a single-issue group over each one, none of those groups would likely be able to gain as much ground.

Actually, the opposite is true. The more issues you try to tie together, the more you are likely to alienate bases of support. There are plenty of lefties who would join an anti-war group or civil liberties group or a Fed transparency group but would never join C4L because of their position on guns or taxes or whatever, and vice versa for mainstream conservatives. The number of people who are not turned off by at least one of the large swatch of issues is (although growing) much smaller than the sum of its parts.

 

[Deborah K]

Can someone please tell me why FreedomWorks can get away with endorsing candidates and C4L can't? Is it the 501 thingy or what? They seem to be pretty similar in the way that they work.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

Can someone please tell me why FreedomWorks can get away with endorsing candidates and C4L can't? Is it the 501 thingy or what? They seem to be pretty similar in the way that they work.

They may be set up like Move-On with multiple aligned orgs. A quick look at WIKI confirms this as I see their legal staus as:

501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), 527

Meaning they have a 527 that can support candidates and both a 501 c 3&4 which cannot...


I have long advocated that we set all of these type entities up as well...

 

[LittleLightShining]

Actually, the opposite is true. The more issues you try to tie together, the more you are likely to alienate bases of support. There are plenty of lefties who would join an anti-war group or civil liberties group or a Fed transparency group but would never join C4L because of their position on guns or taxes or whatever, and vice versa for mainstream conservatives. The number of people who are not turned off by at least one of the large swatch of issues is (although growing) much smaller than the sum of its parts.

I totally agree. The other advantage to having small groups is that you can have an overlap in membership that makes the sum of the parts look much larger than it is.

 

[TCE]

Why isn't CFL a 527 again? Is there a tax they would have to pay or something?