Posted on 11/30/2007 9:07:21 AM PST by traviskicks
Ron Paul may not win his party’s primary, but he is on track to capture another big title: Top Republican fundraiser for the final quarter of the money-obsessed 2008 presidential primary.
In the first two months of the quarter that began Oct. 1, Paul already has raised more than $9.75 million, putting him easily within range to best the amount rival Mitt Romney received from donors during the entire third quarter.
The Texas congressman has set a goal of raising $12 million before the fourth quarter’s Dec. 31st deadline, a sum New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani couldn’t achieve in the third quarter when fundraising events still dominated his schedule.
Paul’s chief e-bundler, music promoter Trevor Lyman, hopes to raise $2.5 million by day’s end with the campaign’s second online money bomb.
Of course, Romney can still buy the fourth quarter title by making a multi-million dollar donation to himself, which is widely expected.
And it could be that Paul’s striking, eleventh-hour surge may have come too late to dramatically change the campaign dynamics.
Nevertheless, Paul’s staff is racing to put up more advertisements before the Christmas season shuts down campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, where Paul threatens to peel away libertarian-minded Independent voters sought by now less well-funded rival John McCain.
And Republicans find themselves asking an unexpected question: Could Ron Paul have a real impact on who the party nominates?
Paul’s last stand provides fresh evidence of how the Internet can transform a dark horse candidate and make him harder to knock off.
“It’s highly improbable that he will get into the first tier. But he’s colorful,” says David Gergen, a former White House adviser.
He’s certainly not the Republican Party’s first renegade. Indeed, there is a certain familiarity to the rebellious rank-and-file pushback inside the Paul insurgency.
Think Pat Buchanan circa 1992 and his launch of the “cultural wars” against gays and feminists; and Buchanan again circa 1996 when he upset Bob Dole in New Hampshire with the cry: “All the peasants are coming with pitchforks. We're going to take this over the top."
Think John McCain circa 2000 and his Straight Talk Express and upset victory in New Hampshire over Bush that prompted the first-recorded gusher of online giving.
Given the right candidate or call to action, populist Republicans have a colorful history of shaking off the party yoke and reveling in a wild-and-crazy moment.
That helps explain why a quirky Texas congressman who opposes the Iraq war got into the race in the first place.
Same goes for Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, who had hoped to use immigration as the launching pad for an insurgent campaign.
What makes the Paul phenomenon unique this cycle is that there is no clear front-runner who can simply ride out the rowdy rabble until the party’s top-down instincts silence them.
That is creating an intriguing choice for the 72-year-old doctor: plow ahead on what still seems a quixotic quest for the White House or play spoiler by using his millions to help take out one of the front-runners.
Thus far, Paul is playing it safe, still absorbing what seems to be his dumb luck.
His financial windfalls have come from spontaneous Internet giving or big, online donation days organized by supporters outside his campaign.
Earlier this month, those outsiders orchestrated a one-day $4 million donation dump, now nicknamed a “money bomb.”
Another is scheduled to take place today and a third later this month.
“It’s a tremendous burden put on us and a responsibility,” Paul told MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough recently.
“We have all this money now. We didn’t plan to have this much money. Our obligation is to figure out how to spend it. We are doing our best.”
Before the first infusion of cash, Paul had begun a modest $1.1 million television ad drive, mostly in New Hampshire.
Since then, the ad campaign has been expanded in Iowa. Pre-money-bomb, Paul was airing three radio ads; now he has more than ten running.
His television messages are mostly biographical, noting his career as a doctor, his record of never voting for a tax increase, and his opposition to the Iraq war.
The radio ads have a slightly tougher edge, accusing his opponents of supporting amnesty for illegal aliens (a shot at McCain) and flip-flopping on issues (a dart at Romney).
But some Paul supporters grumble that the advertisements lack punch and they are pressuring the campaign to take on an edgier tone.
His first television commercial showed supporters, some sitting around a diner table, talking up his candidacy. “Look, the man’s a doctor; he understand the health care mess,” says one woman.
“OMG! Common Guys! This is a terrible ad! My goodness. The Ron Paul revolution means a lot more than this,” bemoaned one supporter in a blog posting.
“I got nothin’ but love for Ron Paul, but this is pretty bad,” responded another.
As Paul climbed to fourth place in some New Hampshire polls, his rivals have sensed the new threat.
McCain has stepped up his attacks on his less-known rival and more incoming is sure to follow.
And, of course, there are inherent hazards in having money when you haven’t really planned for it.
Howard Dean raised $41 million in 2003 in the first campaign to fully employ the Internet.
By year’s end, his early advertising campaigns and rapidly expanding operation had eaten all but about $9 million of that cash.
Among his expenditures: Stacks of cell phones for Iowa volunteers that wound up stored in an office unused.
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.