BreakTheMatrix seeks support for third party winner-take-all fundraiser

BreakTheMatrix, a social networking and media company spearheaded by moneybomb promoter Trevor Lyman, is attempting to organize a money bomb for a third party presidential candidate. Which of Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader that candidate will be shall be determined by grassroots donors themselves, with the candidate showing the most support also receiving the entire donation pool. The mass donation to one candidate, as well as a pledge of other forms of grassroots support from participants, seeks to allay concerns that Ron Paul supporters will divide their support four-ways in the general election and thus hurt their combined impact.

According to the project’s official website, the plan has some optimistic objectives:

All of the money collected will be spent in support of the winner’s campaign and we the grassroots would agree to get behind the winner in every way (meetups, sign waves, tell your friends, etc.) pushing as hard as we can for a real shot at the white house. If we do this, and can come together in support of one candidate, using the money bomb as the deciding factor of who will be the one candidate, we can enter into the game with funding for a real run and a chance at over 15% in the polls. That will mean we will be included in all the debates and we will have a real chance to win the election!

After Ron Paul’s speech the big question the main stream media wanted to know was who the grassroots will rally behind. Which third party candidate will challenge the status quo? So far, there is no clear answer. When we do this money bomb and we give them the answer, I believe the press will go wild. This will be the first real challenge to the two party system since Ross Perot.

BTM is seeking 10,000 pledges for the moneybomb to go forward. The official discussion thread on the project can be found here.

16 thoughts on “BreakTheMatrix seeks support for third party winner-take-all fundraiser

  1. G.E.

    I’m banned from further donations, but I like this idea.

    Will the donations be made after or before we know who they’re going to? After, I assume. Loads of people will back out in that case.

    It’s too bad it can’t be done the other way. If only we lived in a free country.

  2. Fred Church Ortiz Post author

    Doesn’t say. Liberty Straw Poll seemed to be the same idea, the plan was to use a PAC and give their winner the legal limit out of their pool and use the rest for uncoordinated advertising, somehow. I think their final count didn’t make it to $5K though, so they might have avoided the legal problem altogether.

  3. AnthonyD

    Maybe I am missing something here. Why would anyone donate money to a fund that might not get to their chosen candidate instead of just donating directly to their guy (or girl), who in that case has a 100% chance of getting the donation?

    Also, isn’t it somewhat disturbing that people would donate money that might end up supporting a campaign they are philosophically opposed to?

    To refer back to one of Barr’s points on “Snubgate,” lets not deny the obvious: We’re fighting over the same votes with radically different philosophies.

    This idea seems laughably vacuous.

  4. G.E.

    Why would anyone donate money to a fund that might not get to their chosen candidate instead of just donating directly to their guy (or girl), who in that case has a 100% chance of getting the donation?

    Because by participating, you might help your candidate get about 160% or more of what he would have gotten.

  5. AnthonyD


    Or, you might get a negative return on your investment, when your money is donated to a christian fascist like Baldwin or a marxist like McKinney.

    I am no expert in game theory, but my guess is that as soon as one of the candidates would take a lead, donations would stop, as everyone would be better off just donating directly to their chosen candidate.

    But perhaps that result depends on game players who actually see some difference between the third party candidates. If the donators see no difference, maybe they just keep donating because they like that carnival game where you pound the sledgehammer on the button to see how high you can make the weight go. But as I said, thats pretty vacuous.

  6. Ross Levin

    I guess the idea is either the money goes to you’re candidate and you’re pretty happy or the money goes to another third party candidate and you’re content that you’re helping a fellow third partisan, but maybe not ecstatic.

  7. G.E.

    Anthony – Oh, they’re keeping a public tally? Yeah, that’d be no good. Otherwise, then it’s a gamble. But if you think it’s good to unite behind one candidate, then this idea makes sense. I’d personally unite behind any of the candidates who actually stood on stage with Paul.

  8. Fred Church Ortiz Post author

    Yeah, nothing to suggest that’s the case. I’m not pledging, both because I don’t like the idea of my money going where I don’t want it to and also because they haven’t clarified how this’ll work, but this is more for third-party undecideds anyway.

  9. iamanamerican

    This should include some debates. I’d at least like to see a debate between Barr and Baldwin.

  10. AnthonyD

    “I dont think the tally of donations will be public.”

    I didn’t realize that. I guess making the running tally public would be dumb. This definitely makes the idea more interesting, as I do enjoy gambling. I do say I might actually drop a few bucks into that pot.

  11. richardwinger

    I thought the money is going to pay for putting on the debate. The Oxford, Mississippi debate event supposedly cost the organizers $5,000,000.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.