Ron Paul\'s Campaign Ethics Questioned...
 

Report: http://www.citizensforethics.org/familyaffair

[ QUOTE ]

A new study by Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington (CREW), a non-partisan activist group, found that 72 members of Congress diverted some $5.1 million in campaign funds to their relatives, or companies owned by their relatives, over the past six years.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Paul arranged for more than $175,000 of his campaign funds to be siphoned off to relatives -- $163,890 for his daughter alone - in a fundraising Ponzi scheme that sure beats having to pay the kids an allowance out of his own pocket.


[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/2733

Re: Ron Paul\'s Campaign Ethics Questioned...
 

That second article seems to be little more than a shameless bit of libel. I just skimmed over the report section dealing with Ron Paul, but the allegation seems to be that his daughter worked for his campaign and got paid a salary of ~50k per election cycle. The key line is here:

[ QUOTE ]
CREW found only that many members of Congress have used campaign funds to pay family members. CREW was unable to discover the qualifications of those family members, whether the payments were for bona fide campaign services or whether the payments were fair market value.

[/ QUOTE ]

EDIT: lol, a Ponzi scheme. WTF is he talking about?

Re: Ron Paul\'s Campaign Ethics Questioned...
 

[ QUOTE ]
That second article seems to be little more than a shameless bit of libel. I just skimmed over the report section dealing with Ron Paul, but the allegation seems to be that his daughter worked for his campaign and got paid a salary of ~50k per election cycle. The key line is here:

[ QUOTE ]
CREW found only that many members of Congress have used campaign funds to pay family members. CREW was unable to discover the qualifications of those family members, whether the payments were for bona fide campaign services or whether the payments were fair market value.

[/ QUOTE ]

EDIT: lol, a Ponzi scheme. WTF is he talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree the article sucks big time. Just the only one currently available, unfortunately.

Re: Ron Paul\'s Campaign Ethics Questioned...
 

He says it himself in the article... "it is no big deal because campaign funds are not public money."

Campaign funds are generally given without consideration as to their use, with the exception that they be used in support of a campaign. Campaigns require staff, and a lot of people like to hire their own kin for reasons that go beyond keeping the money in the family. If people do not approve of the way their campaign contributions are used, then they are free to withhold them.

The John Birch Society seems a bit weird, but it appears they hate communists and prefer a strict interpretation of the U.S. constitution particularly as it relates to limiting the power of the federal government.

Overall, the Capitol Hill Blue piece reads like it was written by a Democrat afraid that Paul is a Republican talking sense about small government instead of the much more easily defeated warmonger candidates.

Re: Ron Paul\'s Campaign Ethics Questioned...
 

I think Harry Browne went down in his campaign do to some technicality.

(Harry Browne is a famous Libertarian as well)

Re: Ron Paul\'s Campaign Ethics Questioned...
 

[ QUOTE ]

A new study by Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington (CREW), a non-partisan activist group, found that 72 members of Congress diverted some $5.1 million in campaign funds to their relatives, or companies owned by their relatives, over the past six years.


[/ QUOTE ]


Wiki: According to The Washington Post, CREW is funded in part through the efforts of "Democracy Alliance," a loose group of approximately one hundred progressive-oriented political donors who saw CREW as a possible counterweight to the conservative-leaning Judicial Watch.


Non-partisan my ass. Believe nothing from a press release until independently verified, including uses of the words "and" and "the".

Re: Ron Paul\'s Campaign Ethics Questioned...
 

Considering the report targeted both democrats and republicans, seems pretty non-partisan to me.

I think the problem is that it also exposes that Paul is no different than many of the two major party members.

Yes, Paul was a major target in the story, however, Paul is also a major basher of the two parties and the things they do.

When you put a bullseye on one, that same bullseye is on you as well......

The bottom line is NO ONE should be using funds donated to him / her for personal use or to benifit his / her family, Paul included.

There will be more on these actions exposed during the presidential campaigns as well, Rudy for example (I saw on Fox, a GOP SUPPORTER) is paying his wife 10K per MONTH to help write his speeches, lol.

obg


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A new study by Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington (CREW), a non-partisan activist group, found that 72 members of Congress diverted some $5.1 million in campaign funds to their relatives, or companies owned by their relatives, over the past six years.


[/ QUOTE ]


Wiki: According to The Washington Post, CREW is funded in part through the efforts of "Democracy Alliance," a loose group of approximately one hundred progressive-oriented political donors who saw CREW as a possible counterweight to the conservative-leaning Judicial Watch.


Non-partisan my ass. Believe nothing from a press release until independently verified, including uses of the words "and" and "the".

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Ron Paul\'s Campaign Ethics Questioned...
 

[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line is NO ONE should be using funds donated to him / her for personal use or to benifit his / her family, Paul included.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not?

Re: Ron Paul\'s Campaign Ethics Questioned...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line is NO ONE should be using funds donated to him / her for personal use or to benifit his / her family, Paul included.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because their incentives are questioned. Why doesnt Ron Paul take money from special interests or foreign nationals?

Re: Ron Paul\'s Campaign Ethics Questioned...
 

[ QUOTE ]


The bottom line is NO ONE should be using funds donated to him / her for personal use or to benifit his / her family, Paul included.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, by your logic, the campaigner can't draw a salary from the campaign? This seems preposterous. These guys are busting thier asses, and it's not unreasonable for them to draw some compensation from the campaign funds. And if his family members are working for the campaign, shouldn't they be compensated as well?

If I made a donation to a political campaign, I would certainly expect a small portion of the donation to go towards compensating the candidate for his time.

Re: Ron Paul\'s Campaign Ethics Questioned...
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, by your logic, the campaigner can't draw a salary from the campaign? This seems preposterous.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the law, at least for Federal Campaigns. In my state, at least until recently a state politician was allowed to take his campaign fund for personal use after he retired.

And people keep saying that people get into politics for money.

Re: Ron Paul\'s Campaign Ethics Questioned...
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I made a donation to a political campaign, I would certainly expect a small portion of the donation to go towards compensating the candidate for his time.


[/ QUOTE ]

OBV !!


but the reason you dont understand why this is a problem is because you dont live in bizaroworld where

profit=bad collectivism=good intervention=productive

take out your brain an stomp on it a few times. then you can truly understand the left.

Re: Ron Paul\'s Campaign Ethics Questioned...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I made a donation to a political campaign, I would certainly expect a small portion of the donation to go towards compensating the candidate for his time.


[/ QUOTE ]

OBV !!


but the reason you dont understand why this is a problem is because you dont live in bizaroworld where

profit=bad collectivism=good intervention=productive

take out your brain an stomp on it a few times. then you can truly understand the left.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why doesnt Ron Paul take money from corporations and boasts about it?

Re: Ron Paul\'s Campaign Ethics Questioned...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why doesnt Ron Paul take money from corporations and boasts about it?


[/ QUOTE ]

To avoid the appearance of impropriety LDO.

Paying someone for doing a job is not an impropriety.

And hiring someone who knows you and your views better than anyone, someone who believes in you and is totally trustworthy is smart not nefarious.

Re: Ron Paul\'s Campaign Ethics Questioned...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, by your logic, the campaigner can't draw a salary from the campaign? This seems preposterous.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the law, at least for Federal Campaigns. In my state, at least until recently a state politician was allowed to take his campaign fund for personal use after he retired.

And people keep saying that people get into politics for money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I thought they could pay themselves a salary. Link?

Re: Ron Paul\'s Campaign Ethics Questioned...
 

huh? A campaigner (one running for office) be PAID to run for office.....

No, you get 'paid' if you win.

Trouble is, for all you Paul supporters, HE was doing this.

Were it ONLY the 'others' you would be all over them.

Me, I am all over ALL for it.

Running for office is NOT a job. Running for office is asking to be hired by the public FOR a job.

But then again in this welfare society seems everyone thinks everyone else 'owes' you for something reguardless of if you are actually 'due' anything.

obg

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The bottom line is NO ONE should be using funds donated to him / her for personal use or to benifit his / her family, Paul included.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, by your logic, the campaigner can't draw a salary from the campaign? This seems preposterous. These guys are busting thier asses, and it's not unreasonable for them to draw some compensation from the campaign funds. And if his family members are working for the campaign, shouldn't they be compensated as well?

If I made a donation to a political campaign, I would certainly expect a small portion of the donation to go towards compensating the candidate for his time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Ron Paul\'s Campaign Ethics Questioned...
 

[ QUOTE ]

Running for office is NOT a job. Running for office is asking to be hired by the public FOR a job.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, except the interview is 1.5 years long. So under your scheme (and I guess the present arrangement) only the independently wealthy who can afford to not work for 2 years and those presently holding office who have a flexible schedule can run for office.

Re: Ron Paul\'s Campaign Ethics Questioned...
 

[ QUOTE ]
huh? A campaigner (one running for office) be PAID to run for office.....

No, you get 'paid' if you win.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I want to pay someone to run for office, that's my business.

[ QUOTE ]
Trouble is, for all you Paul supporters, HE was doing this.

Were it ONLY the 'others' you would be all over them.

Me, I am all over ALL for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a Ron Paul supporter.

[ QUOTE ]
Running for office is NOT a job. Running for office is asking to be hired by the public FOR a job.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the public isn't who is "paying" the "salary." The donators are. If the donators don't care if the guy uses some of the donated money to feed himself or pay a mortgage, what difference does it make?

[ QUOTE ]
But then again in this welfare society seems everyone thinks everyone else 'owes' you for something reguardless of if you are actually 'due' anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strawman. The donations are voluntarily given.

Re: Ron Paul\'s Campaign Ethics Questioned...
 

Meanwhile, the husband of a presidential candidate receives speaking fees of $10 million a year, many from groups with business before Congress. No, no funny business there.

Re: Ron Paul\'s Campaign Ethics Questioned...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Running for office is NOT a job. Running for office is asking to be hired by the public FOR a job.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, except the interview is 1.5 years long. So under your scheme (and I guess the present arrangement) only the independently wealthy who can afford to not work for 2 years and those presently holding office who have a flexible schedule can run for office.

[/ QUOTE ]
1. Most campaigns require far less time than a Presidential run. Most Congressional and Senate runs are part time deals. Even among the Presidential candidates, I bet the fringe candidates are only working on their campaigns part time, mostly because they don't have the money to criss-cross the country.

2. I think your campaign fund is allowed to pick up most of your essential expenses like food, shelter (hotels) and transportation. If you really were flat broke and wanted to run for president, you could survive if you can raise money.

Re: Ron Paul\'s Campaign Ethics Questioned...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A new study by Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington (CREW), a non-partisan activist group, found that 72 members of Congress diverted some $5.1 million in campaign funds to their relatives, or companies owned by their relatives, over the past six years.


[/ QUOTE ]


Wiki: According to The Washington Post, CREW is funded in part through the efforts of "Democracy Alliance," a loose group of approximately one hundred progressive-oriented political donors who saw CREW as a possible counterweight to the conservative-leaning Judicial Watch.


Non-partisan my ass. Believe nothing from a press release until independently verified, including uses of the words "and" and "the".

[/ QUOTE ]

Non-partisan means they're not biased between big goverment Republicans and big government Democrats. They can be biased against anyone else all they want. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Ron Paul\'s Campaign Ethics Questioned...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile, the husband of a presidential candidate receives speaking fees of $10 million a year, many from groups with business before Congress. No, no funny business there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet another strike against coercive power concentrations. Pefect illustration, actually.