Rumors About Ron Paul's Fundraising

It's been a little less than a month since the rumors started trickling out about Ron Paul's second quarter fundraising. Plugged-in ex-Rudy Giuliani web guy Patrick Ruffini speculates:

My surprise prediction on the Republican side: Ron Paul will raise at least $4 million.

That would be huge news. Only the top three GOP candidates are expected to announce multi-million dollar hauls. Romney and McCain are actually expected to report a little less than last quarter.

But there's no news from the Paul camp yet. A little while back a source in Paul's campaign told me that the very first debate, on May 3, kicked off a "four-fold increase in the number of donations." That accelerated after the Rudy clash. Still, their numbers won't come out 'til the July 15th reporting deadline. (Obama et al are announcing their totals early.)

Meanwhile, John McCain is shedding staffers and bracing for a dotcom circa 2000-style finance report.

Comments

CoveAxe | July 2, 2007, 1:39pm | #

Free Market News has a "source" that implies it's very possible he's over $5 million.

Pirate Jo | July 2, 2007, 2:12pm | #

I was disappointed that I couldn't attend his visit to Des Moines on Saturday - it came up too late and I already had other plans. But I hear he had over 1,000 people - a lot more than the other rallies, which had excluded him.

I contributed $25 to his campaign when I got the news they needed to move to bigger headquarters - the first time in my life I ever contributed to a political campaign, and I don't even agree with all of his views. (I don't think abortion rights should be left up to the states to decide, any more than slavery.) However, I put up with it because the other issues at stake are enormous, and he is the only one who seems to realize the importance of reining in an out-of-control government.

He is the only candidate who seems serious about adhering to the Constitution, limiting the size and bureaucracy of the federal government, and showing respect for freedom. I wonder if that's why he is being ignored by most of the major media. They simply CANNOT BELIEVE that a significant number of people just want the damn government to get out of their bedrooms/wallets and leave them the hell alone. Certainly we must want to be pandered to by SOMEBODY!

I will laugh myself silly if he brings in $5 million and they can't ignore him anymore.

rho | July 2, 2007, 2:18pm | #

I will laugh myself silly if he brings in $5 million and they can't ignore him anymore.

Ok, now THAT'S silly. Of course they can ignore him.

If anybody wants to help move that dollar amount up, better get it in quick. I'm not sure what their cut-off date will be, but I bet it'll be at least a couple of days before the 15th, maybe a week.

hmmm | July 2, 2007, 2:21pm | #

I thought the cut-off date was June 30th.

CoveAxe | July 2, 2007, 2:22pm | #

It was

John P Slevin | July 2, 2007, 2:24pm | #

the cut-off date was June 30th.

dr paul supporter | July 2, 2007, 2:25pm | #

One of Dr Paul's grandsons went off the reservation and leaked on (and later erased from) a blog about 3 weeks ago a number of $2.2 million. That could easily be 3 or 4 by the time the numbers come out in two weeks.

CoveAxe | July 2, 2007, 2:28pm | #

haha, god. I'm a moron. I notice JUST now that the first article linked went to one referring to the one I just linked

Anyway, I gave $100. Will probably give more later. It's also the first time I've ever given to a politician. I almost felt kind of dirty. I think he's the only candidate from both parties who knows/cares about the dire straights that the country is in financially.

Duckman | July 2, 2007, 2:35pm | #

Unfortunately the Free Market News article linked to in the first comment was denied by the Ron Paul campaign a few weeks ago. That being said, I think then final number may be in the range predicted by that article NOW, even though it wasn't there when that article came out (June 7).

Moneybags | July 2, 2007, 2:51pm | #

This is a frequent poster here, and I gave $500. It felt like a lot, especially for a guy who probably has no shot, but I figure I'd regret having failed to put my money where the mouth is a lot more than I'd regret being $500 poorer.

crimethink | July 2, 2007, 2:54pm | #

I will laugh myself silly if he brings in $5 million and they can't ignore him anymore.

There are worse possibilities for Dr Paul than being ignored. They could cover the whole racism thing from his newsletter, and his positions in 1988 as the Libertarian candidate (wanting your kids to use drugs*, going back to a gold standard, etc), and I'm sure that's just the start of the kooky stuff they can dig up.

* I know that wasn't his real position, but that's how it will be portrayed.

Reinmoose | July 2, 2007, 3:11pm | #

crimethink -
it seems to me that, regardless of these media vulnerabilities, he's our best shot of ever getting our message out there. Large support for a libertarian presidential candidate may help disconnected libertarians feel like they're not the fringe freaks their angry liberal friends make them feel like. It could generate "momentum," as they say in the political world.

Pirate Jo | July 2, 2007, 3:27pm | #

"Ok, now THAT'S silly. Of course they can ignore him."

Not without discrediting themselves in the process, but that's nothing new - it would be just another nail in the "old media" coffin.

robc | July 2, 2007, 3:31pm | #

Crimethink,

going back to a gold standard

How does that get listed with the kooky ideas? It may not be an issue I care enough about to base a vote on, but its still a good idea.

Warren | July 2, 2007, 3:33pm | #

Ron Paul reporting over a million dollars would be a watershed moment in the libertarian movement.

All my life we have suffered from invisibility. Ron Paul getting significant coverage by the MSM changes everything. How they portray him and whether he wins the nomination are irrelevant. This is not a Perot or Nader 'cult of personality' candidacy (and how). Ron Paul represents the culmination of generations of a growing libertarian movement.

horsewithnonick | July 2, 2007, 3:34pm | #

If the actual figures bear out these speculations, they might deliver another surprise - how about the chances of beating McCain in individual donors?

CoveAxe | July 2, 2007, 3:52pm | #

"How does that get listed with the kooky ideas?"

It will be portrayed as a dead idea, one long past it's time. I don't think many economists outside of the Austrian school advocate it anymore.

I'm guessing it won't be a big issue though. I doubt any candidates will want to debate him on it since he knows a lot more about economics than they do, and they know it.

matt | July 2, 2007, 3:53pm | #

All my life we have suffered from invisibility. Ron Paul getting significant coverage by the MSM changes everything. How they portray him and whether he wins the nomination are irrelevant. This is not a Perot or Nader 'cult of personality' candidacy (and how). Ron Paul represents the culmination of generations of a growing libertarian movement.

Even with John McCainesque q2 numbers, Ron Paul is VERY ignorable. I hate to say it, but the MSM can ignore pretty much anyone they want, no matter how much money they raise.

crimethink | July 2, 2007, 4:11pm | #

The MSM will just say that obviously Ron Paul's supporters hacked into a bunch of banks' servers, stole a couple of million dollars, and donated it into the Paul campaign coffers. With the virtual omnipotence ascribed to Paul supporters by the MSM in anything related to cell phones or computers, it shouldn't be a tough sell.

crimethink | July 2, 2007, 4:15pm | #

I doubt any candidates will want to debate him on it since he knows a lot more about economics than they do, and they know it.

I wish I could share your confidence, but recall the scuffle with Giuliani in the FoxNews debate. Dr Paul was basically repeating what the 9/11 commission and CIA had found about the motivation for 9/11, while Rudy was responding with ignorant bluster and the "I was there on 9/11" line. Guess who most people thought won that exchange.

robc | July 2, 2007, 4:20pm | #

Guess who most people thought won that exchange.

Ron Paul. Between people Ive talked to and the results of the fox news poll, I think its pretty clear who won it.

Dar | July 2, 2007, 4:30pm | #

If Ron Paul comes in at around $3 million and Richardson comes in around $7 million, the press will say that only Q2 contributions over $5 million is indicative of a credible candidate.

So what can we do? We can say things like this: Only the sum of the under $200 contributions is a good indicator of broad support. Only the available cash is a good indicator of campaign strength. Only the ratio of Q1 to Q2 is a good indicator of campaign growth.

Or we can point to other things. The recent Ron Paul rally beat out a recent McCain rally. That might be a good clue. We should try to be there whenever warm bodies are needed. We can point out that growing number of serious and technical papers and articles mentioning Ron Paul. (We need an army of apologists right now.) There are probably lots of other ways.

Reinmoose | July 2, 2007, 4:41pm | #

How are Bloomburg's fundraising numbers looking.... oh wait :)

Warren | July 2, 2007, 4:47pm | #

Even with John McCainesque q2 numbers, Ron Paul is VERY ignorable.

Oh I can't agree with that. I'm sympathetic to your position. I've seen libertarians (and Libertarians) perpetually ignored. For whatever reasons, the MSM would sooner give attention to white supremacists, or some other such insignificant disorganized movement, before they ever utter the word libertarian.

But ten million dollars? I don't think the establishment is big enough to ignore ten million dollars. That's a lot of people who are very interested in Ron Paul. Those people are viewers/readers. If nothing else, the libertarian position will be well represented in 2012 as candidates try to get their grubby mitts on all that filthy lucre.

neal | July 2, 2007, 5:02pm | #

I emailed Ron Paul's events coordinator Andrew Michel with the following proposal to offer him a free flight on a private jet to any campaign stop of his choice

Daktoa | July 2, 2007, 5:12pm | #

Worst case if Dr. Paul brings in around 3 or 4 mil the GOP has to take note.

That's "republican" money lost. That should make future GOP leaders and candidates look more seriously at libertarian issues, if they want that "lost" cash.

Dems should take note too. If there is a sizable portion of cash flowing to a GOP outsider for the GOP nomination one might consider the donors ripe for defection. Perhaps that could sway the party as a whole to more free market, anti-quagmire, positions.

matt | July 2, 2007, 5:22pm | #

Neal is a marketing superstar. I'm just sayin'.

granny miller | July 2, 2007, 5:22pm | #

I'm a blond for Ron and he got $50 from me last month.
It was part of my grocery money and money for some new summer sandals.
I'm happy to lose a little weight and go barefoot for Ron Paul.

He's getting another $100 next month if I can afford it. That's about the cost of a haircut & a foil job for me
I'll just let my roots grow out and tell everybody:
I got Roots for Ron :-)

Joe & Obama's Bathhouse Friend | July 2, 2007, 5:31pm | #

I saved up $50 to get an AIDS test this month, but I donated it to the Ru Paul campaign instead! It's about time we had a transvestite in the White House!

juris imprudent | July 2, 2007, 5:41pm | #

robc-

Kooky idea? Churchill moved Britain back to the gold standard in 1925 when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. That's one of the things typically credited with igniting the global depression.

The fallacy of the gold standard is that it is predicated upon the same perception as underlies any monetary system - it simply isn't unique like proponents insist it is.

tarran | July 2, 2007, 6:10pm | #

juris,

Churchill's mistake was that he tried to return the devalued British pound to the pre-war gold-standard.

Had he pegged it at something approaching the then market price of pounds in gold, there wouldn't be such a rush of people trying to convert their pound-notes to specie.

juris imprudent | July 2, 2007, 6:22pm | #

Had he pegged it at something approaching the then market price of pounds in gold, there wouldn't be such a rush of people trying to convert their pound-notes to specie.

Until the market price (of that particular moment) changed; same result on just a slightly delayed timeframe.

Of course the whole point of returning to the gold standard was to reinstill confidence in the devalued pound. Oops.

cls | July 2, 2007, 6:23pm | #

It was said that if Paul raised a million it would be a watershed for the libertarian movement. Not really. It's been done before.

And I thought only a few weeks ago they were floating the rumor that he had raised $5 million. I never saw a response when they were asked to confirm that.

crimethink | July 2, 2007, 7:26pm | #

Just to keep it in perspective, Chris Dodd raised $3.25 million, and he's about as much of a non-factor in this race as you can get.

So, if this is to be a watershed moment for Paul, it better be big.

John Reading | July 2, 2007, 7:54pm | #

"The fallacy of the gold standard is that it is predicated upon the same perception as underlies any monetary system - it simply isn't unique like proponents insist it is."

You mean there is no difference between counterfeiting and not counterfeiting and the great depression was ignited by someone who stopped counterfeiting even though there is no difference between counterfeiting and not counterfeiting? Wow.

Val | July 2, 2007, 8:10pm | #

I've given $900 to the campaign so far and will continue to donate until I reach the $2300.00 limit for individual doantions. I have never donated to a campaign before, but I felt compelled to support Ron Paul because as a USAF Veteran who understands the real cost of war, I can assure you our foreign policy must change as he's suggested otherwise we will be over there indefinately, countless americans soilders will lose their lives or be severly maimed, our country will go bankrupt, our borders will remain unsecure as we will not have the manpower & funds to protect it and will be less safe for having failed to take the proper steps to secure our country at home, not to mention you can look forward to a draft in the very near future and those who have never served will be the first to advocate for your sons and daughters to be forceable sent off to fight and die so that they can sit back and get rich or play politics. Very sad indeed! We must make the right choices now and so far Ron Paul is the only one who has the courage to speak truth to power, to follow and defend the Constitution and to lead us out of the mess that we are in.

tarran | July 2, 2007, 8:11pm | #

Had he pegged it at something approaching the then market price of pounds in gold, there wouldn't be such a rush of people trying to convert their pound-notes to specie.

Until the market price (of that particular moment) changed; same result on just a slightly delayed timeframe.

Of course the whole point of returning to the gold standard was to reinstill confidence in the devalued pound. Oops.

Not quite... Under a commodity standard, a bank-note is a receipt for payment in the commodity. If a bank prints more notes than it can cover with the quantity of commodity it has access to, the bank can find itself busted.

If a prudent bank has 100 tons of gold in its vaults and has issued 90 tons' worth of receipts, a fluctuation in the value of gold will not bust them.

Both the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve Bank or the United States in the 1920's printed far more notes than they were capable of redeeming. Savvy investors recognized this, and cashed in their notes in exchange for gold at the earliest opportunity. The flow of gold out of the vaults of banks trigerred a series of banking crises and a wave of bank failures. Each crises resulted in a reduced confidence in the solvency of banks in general, leading more people to decide to take their money out of the banks, leading to futher crises etc.

Propagandists for the central banks successfully planted the idea that this represented the failure of the "gold standard". It was not, any more than a farmer starving after he eats his seed corn rather than planting it represents a failure of agriculture, or a man dropping a brick on his foot represents a failure of gravity.

Don't get me wrong, I am opposed to any government decreeing what is money and what isn't, thus I see a gold-standard as being hopelessly statist. However a gold standard would be far superior to what we have now which seems to me to be a highly variable petroleum standard.

dbassam | July 2, 2007, 8:40pm | #

I've given $1500. I'm just a random person. I wonder how many others out there are out there like myself? Time will tell.

Mark Henderson | July 2, 2007, 9:11pm | #

Ron Paul could have 70% of the votes come election time, as still lose. Why? Because the individuals who have controlling stakes in the MSM will never report on it. And the voting will be fixed.

As individuals, we have no way of knowing who voted for which candidate. We rely on the very same establishment that is also corrupt, to give us the numbers. Perhaps what needs to be done is an objective tally online, so that people can vote online as well.

If the final results are too far off the online results, we will know the election was fixed.

John Howard | July 2, 2007, 9:28pm | #

"Don't get me wrong, I am opposed to any government decreeing what is money and what isn't, thus I see a gold-standard as being hopelessly statist."

Since a free monetary market will agree on gold as its standard, even in the absence of any state (especially so),the gold standard isn't statist.

Decreeing a gold standard is like decreeing gravity, which doesn't make gravity statist.

Rick Fisk | July 2, 2007, 10:38pm | #

Many people have mentioned that Paul gets his funds from individual donors, but I don't think anyone is really considering how very important this is.

Elections over the years have moved toward a relatively small number of donors - mostly big lobbying, corporate and powerful individuals. The first part of a "top tier" candidate's strategy is to line up the big donors, then line up the establishment endorsements - to further line up donors. But more importantly, they have interacted very little with the constituents and depend upon the MSM to drive their message. In essence the establishment media has acted as the defacto advertising arm *because* this coverage will net them millions in advertising to their national and local affiliate stations.

Where this becomes important is that their support in the real population is not nearly as strong as the media coverage would lead anyone to believe.

People vote for them not because they are that excited but because they think that they are voting with the majority. The "apathetic" 100 million or so who have stopped voting, simply do not care anymore because they see it for the farce that it is.

But Ron Paul is different. Not just because of his positions. But because he hasn't approached his campaign in the same way.

He didn't start out by hitting the big donors, he started out by developing a message that would appeal to a broad coalition of individuals. And it has, and has brought out the individual donors. There is something like 2000 dollars accounted for by the respondents on this thread if we are to assume everyone is being truthful.

The point I'm making here is that the "top tier" candidates do not have nearly the support that is imagined. It's shallow and based on name recognition only. It doesn't matter anymore what the MSM reports or doesn't report. It is already too late for them. Ron Paul is going to win. They can either jump on the bandwagon or forever alienate us (I don't count since I haven't had a television in my home for the past 10 years).

Y'all could just turn off the TV (if you haven't already), have lots more time to work the streets for Ron and help build the new MSM.

We *are* America, and we *are* the new MSM. Don't believe me? How can thousands upon thousands of internet surfers be wrong? Everyone has to be noticing the amazing increase in traffic to their sites since they started covering Ron Paul.

I've had my blog since 2004. If I ever got 20 page views in a day I was lucky. Now, I am beginning to get 300 page views a day merely because I started focusing on Ron Paul. Hell, I wrote about Ron in 2004 and 2005. But he wasn't running for President and nobody other than a group of loyal libertarians had ever heard of him.

That's all changed. We are the new media. The current MSM has already been rendered moot. Guess where all of these advertising dollars are going? Yahoo, DoubleClick, Google. The market is speaking. Listen to it.

juris imprudent | July 2, 2007, 10:40pm | #

You mean there is no difference between counterfeiting and not counterfeiting

No, it means that gold has no more instrinic value then paper money - both are based on the belief that they hold value.

The alchemists certainly believed in the ability to counterfeit gold - even though they never succeeded.

juris imprudent | July 2, 2007, 10:43pm | #

If a bank prints more notes than it can cover with the quantity of commodity it has access to, the bank can find itself busted.

That's a complaint about fractional reserves, not a lesson on the sanctity of a commodity. And, commodity prices are known to fluctuate - at times wildly. Not a good attribute for a monetary system, eh?

The whole point of a medium of exchange is that it is reliable; gold simply isn't except to those that have an irrational fetish for it.

juris imprudent | July 2, 2007, 10:45pm | #

Decreeing a gold standard is like decreeing gravity, which doesn't make gravity statist.

Ohhhh Preciouuussssssssss.

Rick Fisk | July 2, 2007, 10:48pm | #

That's a complaint about fractional reserves, not a lesson on the sanctity of a commodity. And, commodity prices are known to fluctuate - at times wildly. Not a good attribute for a monetary system, eh?

The value of gold as compared to goods other than fiat currency has remained very steady over the past 100 years.

juris imprudent | July 2, 2007, 10:54pm | #

The value of gold as compared to goods other than fiat currency has remained very steady over the past 100 years.

Really, measured in what? Other commodities? Dollars?

Fractional reserve banking works. Deal with it.

Rick Fisk | July 2, 2007, 11:05pm | #

Really, measured in what? Other commodities? Dollars?

Other commodities. An ounce of Gold today, will buy you the same things it would buy you 100 years ago. The fiat dollar on the other hand is worth about 4 cents as compared to its value in 1960. That's fluxuation. Gold hasn't fluxuated by comparison.

Randolph Carter | July 2, 2007, 11:26pm | #

Gold hasn't fluctuated relative to what? Oil? Pork bellies?

I'm down with the gold standard, but I agree that it's foolish to argue that gold is somehow uniquely stable as a commodity. The only limiting factor on it that it's an element, but what if we find a gold-laden planet? won't that cause some serious inflation?

Rick Fisk | July 2, 2007, 11:39pm | #

Oil, Steel, labor. Name it. Yes, there can be inflation. But not nearly as in a non-commodity-backed currency. And besides, as fast as we are creating humans, the likelyhood that the amount of gold in circulation per capita rises is next nil.

matt | July 2, 2007, 11:59pm | #

I'm down with the gold standard, but I agree that it's foolish to argue that gold is somehow uniquely stable as a commodity. The only limiting factor on it that it's an element, but what if we find a gold-laden planet? won't that cause some serious inflation?

At the risk of being pedantic, I have to add that gold on another planet would be so expensive to ship back to earth that it probably wouldn't effect the market price at all.

matt | July 3, 2007, 12:02am | #

Besides, if gold starts fluctuating too wildly, we can switch to a different commodity. Rick mentioned some good ones. The idea isn't so much Gold-backed money as commodity-backed money. Gold just happens to have the best track record and a most convenient density.

Randolph Carter | July 3, 2007, 12:04am | #

That makes more sense - a lot of my hesitation to get behind the gold standard in the past was because the choice of backing commodity seemed so arbitrary. But if you just use whatever's the most stable, it makes more sense.

Ray Harmon | July 3, 2007, 3:20am | #

@Randolph Carter

And keep in mind the actual historical precedence of gold as a monetary base; it's about as proven as you can get. The same amount of gold that would buy you a pair of shoes and a toga in Ancient Rome would buy you the modern equivalent in today's economy. That's how to look at it.

With all that in mind, debasing currency is an ancient practice as well. It used to be fairly unsophisticated: the rulers would shave off some gold from the edges of their minted coins. Eventually, it got more high tech: mixing in base metals. When the convenience of certificates of deposit came out, a new method doing this occurred...giving out more certificates than the actual amount of the on hand commodity. This is outright fraud if not agreed on before hand.

With the advent of paper money and a monetary system not based on a commodity, the top was blown off. What we have now is simply a more advanced system for debasing a currency (which can be done for various reasons)

dhex | July 3, 2007, 9:33am | #

money is magic but that's ok
i'll spend my greenbacks anyway
green or gold it's just fine
cause value exists only in the mind

tarran | July 3, 2007, 10:06am | #

MAtt said,

Besides, if gold starts fluctuating too wildly, we can switch to a different commodity. Rick mentioned some good ones. The idea isn't so much Gold-backed money as commodity-backed money. Gold just happens to have the best track record and a most convenient density.

Well said! This is precisely the reason why I am opposed to a government imposed "standard" such as what Ron Paul proposes. As unlikely as it is, if someone discovers a "gold mountain" a free market for money will allow people to switch to whatever other thing the judge to be a better store of value. Billions of transactions involving millions of people will bring to the fore a money that has the most desirable qualities under the new economic reality.

A government imposed gold standard would have all the rigidity of a paper standard - people are not allowed to ditch the increasingly worthless currency - and one gets all the problems of spiraling prices etc leading to an economic melt-down.

True, the doomsday scenario is far less likely under a government -imposed gold standard than in the current one. The safest system of all, though, would be to repeal legal tender laws in their entirety and allow individuals to do business with the money they prefer.

Incidentally, merely repealing the legal tender laws is insufficient; since people must pay their taxes in Federal Reserve Notes, people will still be forced to purchase FRN's.

John Reading | July 3, 2007, 10:30am | #

"No, it means that gold has no more instrinic value then paper money - both are based on the belief that they hold value."

This is word-gaming. All "value" is obviously belief, and not intrinsic to the item valued. That is a mundane and irrelevant point. But no one values a piece of paper promising gold as they do the gold itself. And the difference between gold and IOUs is clearly relevant here, unlike the nature of value, which is not being argued. The fundamental issue is that gold has real scarcity and paper does not. Dismissing that difference while making hay over the fact that value is personal preference misses the point. We could as well argue that there is no difference between any two things that are desired since they are both desired.

"The alchemists certainly believed in the ability to counterfeit gold - even though they never succeeded."

Wrong again. They thought they could make real gold. Counterfeiting refers to the making of a false promise. Word-gaming on stilts.

crimethink | July 3, 2007, 10:36am | #

Uh, I'm pretty sure the value of gold relative to labor and oil has changed during the past 100 years, given that the supply and demand for both labor and oil has fluctuated wildly in that time. The only way to see if gold has remained constant in value is to find something else that's remained constant in value and compare gold to that.

mean Gene | July 3, 2007, 11:50am | #

This Just In:
Ron Paul's numbers:
His total, counting what was on hand from before, $3 mil.

Shink | July 3, 2007, 2:44pm | #

mean Gene, could you provide a source? Or are you just trying to spread rumors?

Stephen V Funk | July 3, 2007, 3:48pm | #

maybe this is his "source" (though it seems far from official as of yet...)

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=45099

michael | July 3, 2007, 11:53pm | #

Ron Paul's campaign is being funded by Howard Dean and the democratic party. They need a nice leftist attack on Iraq coming from a "Republican" so they hired Ron Paul. He's admitted he will not support the eventual republican nominee and will endorse whoever wins the democratic primary. I'm sure Clinton/Hussein will give him a good spot at the Democratic convention.

jaco | July 4, 2007, 1:40am | #

Ron Paul has said that he would cut the fed's monopoly by making it legal to have a parallel commodity based money. Thereby allowing the good money to replace the bad.

The law is already there in the Constitution. We only need an executive who will enforce the law and stop charging sales tax and capital gains tax on the exchange of currencies.

I'll take the commodity and let you take the paper.

The best way to give real value to your Federal Reserve Accounting Unit Denominators (F.R.A.U.D.s) is to donate them to the Ron Paul campaign.

GO RON PAUL!

jaco | July 4, 2007, 3:16am | #

(Warning: If your are easily confused, no need to read this because it won't make sense. Neo-cons can skip it too.)

I just calculated the 1964 cost of a 3.00 gallon of gasoline. It comes up to 33¢ per gallon in pre-64 90% US silver coin. That coincidentally just happens to be what a gallon of gasoline cost in the mid 1960's.

Now todays 25,000.00 car costs $2,779.41 when converted to face value in US 90% silver coin. And guess what? Now fasten your seatbelt; that's what a basic car cost in 1964.

Does this possibly indicate anything about the stability of commodity based money? Has silver changed in value?
Or has the value of the paper Federal Reserve Note changed by approaching it's intrinsic value of close to 0?

It has taken me a while for this to sink in. Maybe, I'm wrong, but it seems to me that somebody has stolen 90% of the national wealth. If this has happened and it doesn't stop, won't they eventually end up with the other 10%. If it has taken 40 years to lose 90%, then wouldn't that leave about 4-5 years to finish the job? If that happens, where will that leave us economically?

The point is, give the money to the Ron Paul Campaign, because if things don't change, your money may very soon be very close to worthless.

Bookmark this, we may need to start using it.
http://silverandgoldaremoney.com/

Eric Dondero | July 4, 2007, 12:18pm | #

Funny how all the commentary here has stopped.

Guess y'all have heard the news and the proverbial cat has caught your tongues.

The 2nd Quarter fundraising figure for the Ron Paul for President Campaign is $1.5 million, $750,000 cash on hand.

That's not quite the "over $5 million" that many libertarian media sources and Ron Paul fanatics were bandering around.

It'd be one thing if Paul only raised $4 million, a million shy of the $5 million mark. It wouldn't even be that dissapointing if it was $3.5 million. With such a figure you could still blame it on overzealous supporters. And $3.5 million would have been that bad.

But the cold hard fact is $1.5 million. Sorry to bring you all bad news, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

I'll leave you all to your ponderings of how you intend to spin this as a positive for Paul.

James | July 4, 2007, 1:23pm | #

To Eric:

How much money have you raised for your run at Ron's seat in Congress?

You won't get my vote.

James
Victoria, TX

Mike | July 4, 2007, 1:45pm | #

Hey Eric,

Any source for your "cold hard facts"?

Eric Dondero | July 4, 2007, 6:40pm | #

Here's the source:


http://thecrossedpond.com/?p=999

There's also an article on LibertyPapers.com by Doug Mataconis. Surprising, cause Mataconis is a diehard Ron Paul partisan.

Eric Dondero | July 4, 2007, 6:43pm | #

Here's another source:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/2838

Hey, quick question? Why you guys so silent all of a sudden.

Cat got y'all's tongue?

Reality is hard | July 4, 2007, 11:35pm | #

Hmmm... I guess we should just start moving to New Hampshire and let the rest of the country turn into a statist, police state, since it looks like it'll be a match with Rudy "Authority" Giuliani and that commie Hillary Clinton. At least we can die fighting for the ideals the Founding Fathers fought for.

Sam Marsh | July 5, 2007, 1:56am | #

I don't trust any of the cited sources on the current fundraising totals. I'll wait for the actual report before I judge the cash situation. capitalhillblue is a Ron Paul hate site, btw.

Jason | July 5, 2007, 9:06pm | #

I also contributed to Ron's campaign. It's the first time I have ever contributed to a campaign. It's hard for me to explain what made me do it. I hate the politics of special interests and the lack of rational thought by most candidates on the major issues.

This man has taken on every issue with honor and integrity. It is most refreshing to see a man that is courageous enough to speak out for true liberty.

If he doesn't meet his campaign goals then I will contribute more money. This silencing of a modern day founding father is a disgrace to me.

Don | July 6, 2007, 11:30am | #

My wife and I sent Congressman Paul a $250 campaign contribution, our first ever. I've read many of his speeches and statements archived at the Ron Paul Congressional website. He is difficult to ignore, because he has been right on so many issues. He would make a much better president than Rudy McRomney or Hillary Clobama. If he can stay in the race for another 3 months, I'm going to send more to his presidential campaign. When the MSM tries to trash Ron Paul, we, his supporters are going to have to hit back hard with blogs, contributions, letters to newspaper editors, volunteer work etc.

raymond | July 6, 2007, 12:10pm | #

Hi. Everyone seems a little confused about Ron Pauls position on the gold standard. Ron Paul wouldnt go back to the gold standard, he would just allow banks to issue commodity backed monies. It wouldnt nescissarily be gold but could be any comodity. Maybe oil, maybe silver, or maybe a basket of comodities to act as a hedge against volatility.

Doug | July 6, 2007, 1:32pm | #

It's funny that people are now citing the FMN estimate of $1.5M to discredit the people who were citing the earlier FMN estimate of $4-5M. Neither source is credible, and the Ron Paul campaign hasn't leaked anything.

Ron Paul outraised Huckabee, T. Thompson, Hunter, and Gilmore in the first quarter, despite a later start, yet the media treated him as if he were in 10th place somehow. He was only slightly behind Tancredo and Brownback, and could pass them in the second quarter with a good showing.

Meanwhile, John McCain has raised $26M in two quarters, and blown through $24M without buying any ads. Ron Paul could end up with more cash on hand than the media's first annointed front-runner (before they annointed Rudy, and then Fred). That would be something.

I have donated $100 each quarter. So has my wife, who hadn't heard of Ron Paul before 2007. We both changed our voter registration to Republican this month, just to vote for him in the California primary. My 30-year old brother has registered to vote for the first time in his life, because he "finally found someone worth voting for."

And uncounted in the MSM fixation on fundraising is all the free volunteer effort put in by tens of thousands of Ron Paul supporters. Which is more effective advertising -- meeting an enthusiastic volunteer, or seeing another boring TV ad you can tune out or ignore?

Don | July 6, 2007, 2:21pm | #

This story just popped up on the ABC news website:

Ron Paul Tops McCain in Cash on Hand

July 06, 2007 1:14 PM
ABC News' George Stephanopoulos Reports: Though often regarded as a longshot candidate for president, Republican Ron Paul tells ABC News that he has an impressive $2.4 million in cash on hand after raising an equal amount during the second quarter, putting him ahead of one-time Republican frontrunner John McCain, who reported this week he has only $2 million in the bank.
In an exclusive interview taped Friday and airing Sunday on "This Week," Paul said his campaign is on a better trajectory than McCain's.
"I think some of the candidates are on the down-slope, and we're on the up-slope," said Paul.
Paul's cash on hand puts him in third place in the Republican field in that important metric, although he is well behind leader Rudy Giuliani, who has $18 million in the bank, and Mitt Romney, with $12 million.
Paul, who polls show with support in the low single digits, said his surprisingly strong fundraising is the best measure of his support.
"I think people have underestimated the number of people in this country who are interested in a freedom message," says the Republican congressman from Texas, who has strong libertarian leanings.
To watch Paul's full interview, tune in to "This Week" on Sunday (check local listings).

libertysilver | July 8, 2007, 7:29pm | #

This is great news.
This is all from the "little guy". And
the ones who are paying attention to what
the candidates actually stand for.
Many of these donations are from people
who are not normally proned to contribute
to a political campaign.
And Ron's message is hardly out there yet
in the mainstream.
This next quarter is going to shock some people.
I would bet on that.
Do whatever you can, just keep it flowing.

Tofu | July 11, 2007, 5:34am | #

$1575 as of now. I recently became unemployed too. No matter, since I've planned and saved, I have enough to last a little while and hopefully donate up to the max as soon as I find more work. Donate people!!!