Posted on 11/30/2007 9:07:21 AM PST by traviskicks
If you want to make yourself look like a desperate fool suffering from Ron Paul Derangement Syndrome by claiming that independent expenditure contributions are actually in-kind contributions and that the campaign is breaking financing laws, that’s certainly your prerogative.
Ok, well you got me because now I do not know what you are talking about.
I was talking about kind kind donations and you excoriated me over independent contributions.
I said you are a RP supporter and you say I have RP derangement syndrome.
You know what I may be a fool but at least not so foolish as to support RP.
First, the subject was people spending their own money and own time on supporting Ron Paul:
“Basically, nothing. He doesn’t need to spend money, except on traditional print and TV ads. All of his support is generated from the grassroots who spend their OWN money and their OWN time supporting Paul. Such support is worth millions, that other campaigns would die for.”
In other words, independent expenditure contributions. You then described these kinds of efforts as "in-kind:"
They spend their own money...in other words in kind donations - correct?
Which are still regulated by maximums. So are you saying RP is in violation of campaign finance laws?
An "in-kind donation" is if you give furniture, vehicles, office supplies, or the like to the campaign rather than money. You must report the value of these things, and they are still subject to the contribution limits.
On the other hand, independent expenditure contributions - people spending their own time and money in support of the candidate without direction from, consent of, or coordination with the campaign - are unlimited. Just as the amount of volunteer work that you can do directly or indirectly for the campaign is unlimited.
Just because I maxed out and donated $2,300 to the campaign doesn't mean that I am not allowed to paint a sign on some cardboard and stand on a street corner.
So in other words, NO, there is no violation of campaign finance laws.
‘What’s to be creative about? ‘
You inadvertently made my point. Thanks!
(chuckle)
Only a nutcase would compare Ron Paul, part time Republican, half time Libertarian, full time whacko, with Reagan.
Yeah, whatever... but what about the REST of my post? You wanna address THAT, please? Thanks in advance.
What part?
This part: “Either you respect the Constitution - AS WRITTEN - as the supreme law of the land and shrink FedGov to fit it or you don’t. No creativity needed, just determination...”
‘This part: “Either you respect the Constitution - AS WRITTEN - as the supreme law of the land and shrink FedGov to fit it or you don’t. No creativity needed, just determination...”’
I certainly do respect the Constitution.
Its the primary reason I’ve never asked for a shrimp subsidy.
I can’t find the word ‘shrimp’ nor the term ‘earmark’ anywhere in my copy of the Constitution.
Can you? Ron Paul apparently did, maybe he’s got ‘magic glasses’ eh?
(chuckle)
It was a joke. I was making fun of the freepers who hide behind their large-government fetish by playing the race card.
Oh
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.