Press release from the Federal Election Commission:
WASHINGTON – The Federal Election Commission has declared Gary Earl Johnson eligible to receive federal matching funds. Johnson sought and won the Libertarian nomination for president for 2012.
To become eligible for matching funds, candidates must raise a threshold amount of $100,000 by collecting $5,000 in 20 different states in amounts no greater than $250 from any individual. Other requirements to be declared eligible include agreeing to an overall spending limit, abiding by spending limits in each state, using public funds only for legitimate campaign-related expenses, keeping financial records and permitting an extensive campaign audit.
Based on documents filed by Gary Johnson 2012, Inc. on April 27, 2012, contributions from the following states were verified for threshold purposes: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington. All of the materials included with this submission may be viewed here. Based on Johnson’s initial threshold submission, the Commission requested on May 25 that the United States Treasury make an initial payment of $100,000 to Johnson’s campaign.
Once declared eligible, campaigns may submit additional contributions for matching funds on the first business day of every month. The maximum amount a primary candidate could receive is currently estimated to be about $22.8 million.
The presidential public funding program is financed through the $3 check-off that appears on individual income tax returns. The program has three elements: grants to parties to help fund their nominating conventions, grants available to nominees to pay for the general election campaign and matching payments to participating candidates during the primary campaign.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent regulatory agency that administers and enforces federal campaign finance laws. The FEC has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Established in 1975, the FEC is composed of six Commissioners who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
Follow Us on Twitter – http://twitter.com/FECupdates
# # #
“FEC is composed of six Commissioners who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate”.
so that means President hires/fires Committee Members [salary $125K] – if they VOTE to allow Gary Johnson – President can tell them take vote again for a NO VOTE – if they don’t they can be fired. [Pres Clinton did it when FEC voted to allow 3rd party – vote was taken again & they all voted NO to 3rd party in DEBATES].
so what do you think will happen?!
I dare say you are correct.
Paulie at 96: Yup, I dared to say matching funds was more confusing than political issues like wondering when Johnson/Gray were going to issue that statement on Israel/Palestine Johnson mentioned in last Town Hall and threw in my 2 cents, well grounded in libertarian theory as later links, including from a certain Mr Knapp, showed. The collectivist statist reaction with wild accusations is the responsibility of those who responded in that manner.
LG
Meta
And operates about half of them 😛
Carol did it.
Dunno. Come up with a good troll character or two to send this thing on a different tangent, maybe?
Non-Euclidian, I presume?
Jill, et al, fyi:
Shady Companies With Ties to Israel Wiretap the U.S. for the NSA, By James Bamford, April 3, 2012 |
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/04/shady-companies-nsa/all/1
http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2010/01/03/33-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-what-every-person-should-know/
@88 I think you meant “descend.”
In the interest of learning and making us all better at what we do:
dissent (n)(v) – disagreement, objection, protest, to withhold assent
descent (n) – movement from higher to lower
descend (v) – to move from higher to lower
BTW, I’m not implying above that I frequently complain about Israel. I just think that the word mentioned on Facebook triggers monitoring, which I don’t like just based on general principle.
DW @ 89: “Oh, and just as a general word of warning: The Mossad monitors all anti-Israeli blog and forum postings, and they’ve had years to infiltrate the computers of their vocal opponents.”
I don’t doubt this at all. I’ve also noticed strange activity on Facebook if I mention Israel, often enough that I try to never type the word or I stick an * in instead of the ‘e’ . I’ve also heard that Mossad monitors most of the 9/11 Truth sites as well.
Political issues are always more fun than trying to figure out tacky bureaucratic rules that are a part of a conspiracy to suppress third parties… Oh, that’s right, there’s no conspiracy, it’s just the government doing it’s best to facilitate… something or other… 🙂
Sadly, not even the lame Zionist conspiracy posts have been enough to save this thread. Is that the best people can do?
Oh, and just as a general word of warning: The Mossad monitors all anti-Israeli blog and forum postings, and they’ve had years to infiltrate the computers of their vocal opponents. So clicking on any of Carol Moore’s links will cause a variant of the Stuxnet/Flame worm to be downloaded onto your computer, which will then transmit your personal and financial data to the Mossad and allow them to modify your files if they decide they need to neutralize you. They haven’t shut Carol Moore down because she unknowingly serves as their stalking horse. Of course I could be wrong about this, but you do the math.
Well that was fun guys , I got excited when I read the bottom post wondering just how in the world did a GJ funds story dissent into the ole Israel-Palestine , whose land is it?
I have no comment ….
Just having some fun on a Sunday afternoon…
continued from 85
Palestinians actually have right to invent their peoplehood
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2011/12/when-hes-right-hes-right.html
Zionist state repulsive and illegitimate
http://c4ss.org/content/2736
Now if you want to read some real conspiracy, anti-Israel rants, check these out (described as your average libertarian Zionist would do):
AIPAC Conspiracy rant
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2005/08/privily-to-spy-out-our-liberty.html
Israel’s self-defense reasons for invading Lebanon bogus
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2006/08/they-saw-light.html
Israelis bloodsucking the US
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2009/01/gaza-in-brief.html
two more below….
Now if you want to read some real conspiracy, anti-Israel rants, check these out (described as your average libertarian Zionist would do):
AIPAC Conspiracy rant
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2005/08/privily-to-spy-out-our-liberty.html
Israel’s self-defense reasons for invading Lebanon bogus
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2006/08/they-saw-light.html
Israelis bloodsucking the US
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2009/01/gaza-in-brief.html
Palestinians actually have right to invent their peoplehood
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2011/12/when-hes-right-hes-right.html
Zionist state repulsive and illegitimate
http://c4ss.org/content/2736
Continue 82…
I. Dean Ahmad, Ph.D. – “The Real Reason to Oppose Aid to Israel” : “The most interesting issue to libertarians is the issue of private property rights.Even the most pro-Zionist libertarian will fault Israel for its staunch socialism.The collectivism of Israel, however, is not just a flaw in Zionism, it is the core of the ideology. To appreciate this one should note that at the time of Israel’s founding, Jews, Zionist and non-Zionist alike, owned less than 7% of the land. This included land recently acquired from absentee landlords.” http://www.minaret.org/israeliaid.htm
In contrast see the fulsome and hateful stuff written by those who would intimidate libertarians into silence on the issue of war vs. Iran and attendant political issues:
http://www.facebook.com/GovJohnson2012/posts/408494275839543
@80 Of course all the patriarchal religions are ancient or at least old time religious mythology. If we are talking about what *Libertarians* support I am saying that while allegedly libertarians will support Israeli collectivist ideology like “they owned it 3000 or 2000 years ago so they should own it now” while I don’t see any *libertarians* supporting anything more than what is in LP platform individual human and property rights and the right to self-determination to choose ones own form of governance.
Examples for those who haven’t read the right stuff:
Murray Rothbard, Ph.D. – “War Guilt in the Middle East”: details Israel’s “aggression against Middle East Arabs,” confiscatory policies and its “refusal to let these refugees return and reclaim the property taken from them.” http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_3/3_3_4.pdf
Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D., J.D. – “The Alienation of a Homeland: How Palestine Became Israel”: “Palestinian Arabs have the rights to return to their homes and estates taken over by Israelis, to receive just compensation for loss of life and property, and to exercise national self-determination.” http://mises.org/journals/jls/5_4/5_4_2.pdf
Richard Ebeling, Ph.D. – “Property Rights and the ‘Right of Return’”: “If a settlement is reached between the Israelis and the Palestinians, justice would suggest that all legitimate property should be returned to its rightful owners and that residence by those owners on their property should be once again permitted.” http://www.fff.org/comment/com0305o.asp
2 more hopefully to follow…
@80 Of course all the patriarchal religions are ancient or at least old time religious mythology. If we are talking about what *Libertarians* support I am saying that while allegedly libertarians will support Israeli collectivist ideology like “they owned it 3000 or 2000 years ago so they should own it now” while I don’t see any *libertarians* supporting anything more than what is in LP platform individual human and property rights and the right to self-determination to choose ones own form of governance.
Examples for those who haven’t read the right stuff:
Murray Rothbard, Ph.D. – “War Guilt in the Middle East”: details Israel’s “aggression against Middle East Arabs,” confiscatory policies and its “refusal to let these refugees return and reclaim the property taken from them.” http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_3/3_3_4.pdf
Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D., J.D. – “The Alienation of a Homeland: How Palestine Became Israel”: “Palestinian Arabs have the rights to return to their homes and estates taken over by Israelis, to receive just compensation for loss of life and property, and to exercise national self-determination.” http://mises.org/journals/jls/5_4/5_4_2.pdf
Richard Ebeling, Ph.D. – “Property Rights and the ‘Right of Return'”: “If a settlement is reached between the Israelis and the Palestinians, justice would suggest that all legitimate property should be returned to its rightful owners and that residence by those owners on their property should be once again permitted.” http://www.fff.org/comment/com0305o.asp
I. Dean Ahmad, Ph.D. – “The Real Reason to Oppose Aid to Israel” : “The most interesting issue to libertarians is the issue of private property rights.Even the most pro-Zionist libertarian will fault Israel for its staunch socialism.The collectivism of Israel, however, is not just a flaw in Zionism, it is the core of the ideology. To appreciate this one should note that at the time of Israel’s founding, Jews, Zionist and non-Zionist alike, owned less than 7% of the land. This included land recently acquired from absentee landlords.” http://www.minaret.org/israeliaid.htm
In contrast see the fulsome and hateful stuff written by those who would intimidate libertarians into silence on the issue of war vs. Iran and attendant political issues:
http://www.facebook.com/GovJohnson2012/posts/408494275839543
Talking about the human and land rights of Arabs who call themselves Palestinians is always a way of separating the collectivists who think ancient religious mythology rules from the libertarians who pay attention to the legitimate grievances of individuals with provable current claims.
Is Ms. Moore’s contention that no statists support the Palestinian cause? And do Islam and Christianity qualify as ancient religious mythology in this taxonomy, or just Judaism?
CM@76,
Prosecution rests.
Moore: “But I guess you have to get your head out of the sands and get of denial on all of that, eh 71???”
On all of what? Was there a response to Ad Hoc’s comment buried in whatever you said? It’s too convoluted for me to tell.
I think accusing people of being anti-female & talking about who’s bisexual & who isn’t is more your speed Carol. Leave the policy conversations to the adults.
Or maybe it was when I read a short blurb on this article http://takimag.com/article/how_bill_kristol_purged_the_arabists_patrick_buchanan/print#axzz1wgp6Cwt8
William Kristol boasting about how anyone who didn’t support Israel 100% was purged from the Republican Party. What part of my pre-convention web page was about http://carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/bootroot
But I guess you have to get your head out of the sands and get of denial on all of that, eh 71???
@42 thanks for clarification.
@71. That’s what happens when you listen to discussions of US following Israel into war against Iran cause Iran is too supportive of Palestinian rights at the same time you are reading IPR. Talking about the human and land rights of Arabs who call themselves Palestinians is always a way of separating the collectivists who think ancient religious mythology rules from the libertarians who pay attention to the legitimate grievances of individuals with provable current claims. And of course those libertarians opposed to the U.S. jumping on board wars of aggression of those with lobbies.
@75 You’ve proved you are part of the Male Elite by smashing the female dissenter. Feel more secure now??
JT@71,
“Don’t take Carol seriously. She prefers not to think before she speaks.”
Or during or after.
Article we are commenting on
“….Based on Johnson’s initial threshold submission, the Commission requested on May 25 that the United States Treasury make an initial payment of $100,000 to Johnson’s campaign.”
@72
Perhaps some of the donations were not eligible for matching funds? By the way, where are you finding this information?
Just having fun.
BTW, anyone know why the first FEC check is for 100k and not the total amount raised to date?
Ad Hoc: “So Carol, let me understand you here. A country that did not exist before 1948 (except for a time long before the US existed) has been screwing with the US political system since before 1948, including inside the LP which did not exit before 1971?”
Haha!
Don’t take Carol seriously. She prefers not to think before she speaks.
Dan: “Ah, a sharp turn left into Zionist conspiracy theory! Now maybe I’ll get some return on my popcorn investment…”
Also a good one!
Not according to http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:ISR&dl=en&hl=en&q=israel+gdp#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=aid_flows_at_current_us&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:ISR&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false
US military Aid to Isreal is over 3 Billion per year.
@65-6
Am I reading those numbers right? So US aid to Israel is now down to about 400 m/year, or roughly about 1/100th of 1% (one ten-thousandth) of the US federal budget for the year, and only about one fifth of 1% of Israel’s annual GDP?
If so – how can Israel’s lobbyists and advocates even still claim with a straight face that it “needs” that money, and why do Americans (on either side of the issue) think it’s a big deal either way? How many other things does Uncle Samoleans spend more than 400 m/yr on?
@67
Wouldn’t it be nice if everything was funded that way?
Matching funds comes from a voluntary pool of money. Wouldn’t it be nice if schools were funded the same way?
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:ISR&dl=en&hl=en&q=israel+gdp#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=aid_flows_at_current_us&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:ISR&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:ISR&dl=en&hl=en&q=israel+gdp
Worth discussing why and with whom? Was it paid as a loan or as aid?
Can you give someone aid – not a loan – and then demand that it be paid back, retroactively?
@61 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_aid_to_Israel.gif and it is 5 years old and it is not inflation corrected. So in reality the US Tax payers have put out over 140 Billion since 1948. Paying us back with interest might be worth discussing.
@60
No idea where you got the notion that I was advancing any claims. I asked a question for clarification based on your statement, that was all.
To be fair, you did say dead for *a while* and I did not pay enough attention to that last part, so I’ll amend the question.
How many years, centuries or generations does it take before the Jews or the Palestinians or (whoever) forsake any legitimacy to their claim in your estimation?
Also, how and from where did the “dea that the United States should conquer Palestine and revive the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem” enter the realm of possibilities being discussed?
@59
How much have Israelis spent on their own country? Over the same period of time you claim 101 billion, and BTW, where does that number come from?
@58 I believe the people who were around 3000 years ago, for most of whom we have not even a trace of a hint as to their names, have been dead a bit longer than one human life time.
Are you proposing that when all of the people who lived in Israel at the time of the Diaspora, and were expelled by the Roman God-Emperor, died, that the issue should have died.
I would be surprised to learn that you are advancing this claim.
I am also not impressed with the idea that the United States should conquer Palestine and revive the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem.
@58…. the US Tax Payer has dumped over 101 billion dollars into “Isreal” that works out to be a bit over $19,000 per acre. From my perspective. We own the area and we ought to toss everybody out and turn it into a wild life refuge.
And, more important, haven’t all these people in ancient history been dead for a while?
Are you suggesting that when people who were alive in 1948 all die the Palestinians won’t keep claiming all of Israel?
MHW @ 51: Friend my husband, Alan, on Facebook, and he can tell you all you’d like to know about the Cherokee Nation.
I’d like my popcorn White Chocolate Covered! With pecans.
Aha! Still racist, but maybe not as much 😛
Do you know of any country in the world that has not been conquered at some point in history?
And, more important, haven’t all these people in ancient history been dead for a while?
@43 Aren’t there all these descriptions of conquering Palestine in the old testament, so other people were there first?
First I’ve heard.
I understand the Cherokee’s want North Carolina back. What’s the story on that?
Not racist?
🙂
I’d like my popcorn White Chocolate Covered! With pecans. Not sure what that makes me other than fat.
Racist! 😛
per wikipedia:
Islam started in the 7th century AD, so about 2,500 years after Judaism, give or take.
White Cheddar! 🙂
Ah, a sharp turn left into Zionist conspiracy theory! Now maybe I’ll get some return on my popcorn investment…
since 1948 and screwing with our political system since before then, including inside the LP ad nauseum…
So Carol, let me understand you here. A country that did not exist before 1948 (except for a time long before the US existed) has been screwing with the US political system since before 1948, including inside the LP which did not exit before 1971?
Carol, didn’t the land belong to Israel in the first place? I’ve read that the tribes of Israel have lived there for 3,300 years, 1300 years before Islam.
he most flaming seems to be regarding how much money Johnson owes who and what NONS and OAI or whatever those letters were have to do with it.
The first one is Ron Nielson’s firm, which is running the Johnson campaign. They have an agreement to get a lot of money from Johnson for their services, but they are not demanding it right now. However, it is noted on FEC reports as a debt by the campaign.
OAI is Our America Initiative, a group Johnson heads up, separate from the campaign.
OAI and the campaign both owe fundraiser Bydlak some money. Bydlak and Johnson’s camp (OAI and campaign) disagree as to how much they owe him, hence the lawsuit.
Actually I don’t see flaming there as much as confusion, in part because its so annoying to have to read FEC rules, and one’s mind can wander and before you know it you are MIS-reading it… sigh… the most flaming seems to be regarding how much money Johnson owes who and what NONS and OAI or whatever those letters were have to do with it.
Well, I’m still waiting to see if that platform gets any more hardcore and what that statement Johnson and Gray are going to announce about that country with 400 secret nukes that’s been stealing land from Arabs every day of the year since 1948 and screwing with our political system since before then, including inside the LP ad nauseum… don’t get me started… we all have our little bug a boos, don’t we…
A lot of the flaming seems to have moved over to the LP Radicals facebook group. I’ve been trying to get people there to post over here too.
It’s been slower – maybe because people have other things to catch up on after spending way too much time here during and after the convention. I know I do.
#14, there is no legal requirement about when the money gets spent. Lenora Fulani got primary season matching funds early in 1988 and she used it to pay circulators to get her on the ballot in all 50 states, but most of that work wasn’t done until the spring and summer of 1988.
I had a very large bowl of buttered popcorn last night. It was good popcorn, and I don’t regret eating it, but the comments so far haven’t lived up to my expectations. Is IPR all flamed out?
Not bad, but I would have expected The Hill to notice it. I meant places that would be less expected.
@34
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/230353-libertarian-presidential-hopeful-johnson-second-eligible-candidate-for-federal-matching-funds
Anything significant?
Not at this stage. Maybe if he fulfills his fantasies of 15% polling in September and debate inclusion.
A bonus, GJ is getting some media about this.
I don’t think having it go to other candidates is a better thing, either.
Does Johnson qualify to have the SS agents with earbuds and Foster Grants protecting him from evil-doers?
From ad hoc above:
The money doesn’t go back to the taxpayers if he didn’t take it, it would go to other candidates/parties. And if it didn’t (that is if the checkoff was done away with) it would go to the government’s general fund.
Steve @26: Given that this money would have otherwise gone to the general fund and paid for war, interest on the debt, or unsustainable entitlements I’d say that paying off Governor Johnson’s obligations is the most effective use of tax money we’ve seen all year.
Me: The FEC’s Presidential campaign support fund never gets mixed in with the general funds of the government. Those funds would stay with the FEC until a candidate for president claimed them.
So do I, but I like silver linings. The civil liberties emphasis and being able to provide a pretty impressive resume, plus having already been on Colbert even pre-nom among many other places, are significant silver linings for me.
Given that this money would have otherwise gone to the general fund and paid for war, interest on the debt, or unsustainable entitlements I’d say that paying off Governor Johnson’s obligations is the most effective use of tax money we’ve seen all year.
Don’t get me wrong. Johnson is not without his good qualities. I just long for the days when we ran candidates like Harry Browne, who wanted to do more than just “rein in” or “scale back” the state.
I like the strong civil liberties focus and his media reach.
…Johnson doesn’t have any plans to disassemble the government.
True, which is why it’s so hard to get excited about his campaign.
make that “anyone”, not “everyone”….
16 tk: …a welfare queen…
me: Lovely. On any given day, pretty much everyone can be a tax consumer.
I’d note that GJ is not personally getting the funds, a corporation is.
Select comment from Ballot Access News:
Demo Rep Says:
How many $$$ TRILLIONS will Johnson get from the Donkeys to have such Donkeys DIVIDE AND CONQUER ??? — see 1860 and 1992
TrueFoe Says:
Who’s matching funds these days? The US Treasury or the Koch brothers?
Peter Gemma Says:
anyone see the irony here? A Libertarian gets money from a Gov’t handout program designed to boost establishment parties. I’m delighted on the one hand he’s getting financial funding, but I’d love to hear why he’s taking money from the gov’t he wishes to disassemble. Kind of like a candidate who’s a farmer getting federal subsidies while railing against Big Gov’t … or one who opposes green cards for illegal aliens but has one cutting his grass
Ad Hoc Says:
Peter, what irony?
The money doesn’t go back to the taxpayers if he didn’t take it, it would go to other candidates/parties. And if it didn’t (that is if the checkoff was done away with) it would go to the government’s general fund.
Also, Johnson doesn’t have any plans to disassemble the government.
He’d like to rein in spending growth and balance the books, bring a bunch of the troops from around some of their least sane foreign commitments, stop bailouts of megacorporations, audit the fed, allow sick and dying people to use medical marijuana, advance marriage equality, repeal a few of the crazier excesses of the war of terror, and a few other things.
Overall, spending would be scaled back all the way to the crazy Bush years (but still a good bit more than when that crazy anarchist Bill Clinton was president), civil liberties might go back to before 9/11 changed everything, and some federal jobs may go unfilled after the bureaucrats in question die of natural causes.
Sounds really wild-eyed and anarchistic to me.
True Foe may be surprised to find out that the Koch brothers have had nothing to do with the Libertarian Party since 1983, when they left in a huff because the delegates didn’t toe their line.
These days the Kochs fund only the Republican Party, and perhaps some Democrats. Not a penny to the LP.
As for DemoRep’s question of what Johnson will get from the jackasses, the answer may have been revealed when he spoke to the ACLU and was questioned by the audience after his speech if he would cost President Obama the election by taking away too many Democratic votes. After all Johnson was the best of the candidates surveyed by the ACLU on civil liberties and has made them the pre-eminent focus of his campaign, which is perhaps why opinion surveys show Johnson doing better with people who describe themselves as very liberal than with those who describe themselves as somewhat liberal, somewhat conservative or very conservative.
Incidentally, DemoRep, what is it that we should see in 1992? Perot “took” exactly the same number of votes from Clinton and Bush, and got a bunch of people to vote who wouldn’t have otherwise. As a result we got a balanced budget for a few years, although debt has continued to climb due to interest and deficits resumed a few years later, now worse than ever.
Wouldn’t it be horrible if Johnson had an effect like that?
Knapp @16: They nominated a welfare queen who’s now getting a check from Uncle Sugar to pay off his Republican campaign debts.
Me: No, sometimes you have to play by the rules that are in place before you can be in a position to change the rules. If GJ is president, he would make sure the Matching Fund program goes away.
Take the money. When the checkoff was first instituted ($1 in those days) you could actually designate the party you wanted it to go to. Hundreds, if not thousands, wrote in “Libertarian” but the party never got the money. As I recall, there was some “threshold b.s. excuse.”
sure Thomas you put that spin on it… or you could say some of us payed that much in Federal taxes and are glad to see it being used to our advantage. Think of it as a very large legal donation.
If nothing else, Johnson has been very up-front and honest about this matter from the beginning.
Libertarians who supported his nomination should be up-front and honest about it too: They nominated a welfare queen who’s now getting a check from Uncle Sugar to pay off his Republican campaign debts.
He was man enough to admit it in advance. So please stop embarrassing yourselves with all the lame excuses. You knew exactly what you were doing when you did it.
GJ is a package deal. He came into the convention with certain organizational momentum and accounts payables. The momentum continues and the A/P’s largely gone. He’s way ahead of the 08 effort. Hopefully, now they can shift into a higher gear….
I thought the money he gets through this has to be spent before the convention happened. If he is just now getting this money, how can he spend it before the convention happened? That is one of the rules of the FEC program.
His latest money bomb is at $43,672 and counting.
It’s a shame he’s so far in debt already–that infusion of cash could’ve been quite good for ballot access effort and minor advertising.
I am 100% in favor of Johnson 2012 using matching funds from the feds… I am 200% in favor of using these funds to get on the ballot in as many states as possible… but I suspect that most of it goes to paying off dept.
There are decent arguments against taking matching funds, but it was clear pre-nomination that Gary Johnson would seek to qualify for and take matching funds. The delegates nominated him with eyes wide open, so I have little sympathy for anyone who would complain at this point.
Stolen tax money: then it’s fair game to get it back by any means necessary.
Chuck @ 3 — I agree. Next question is, what about getting more funds after that? I tend to support that as well along the lines of:
“What other candidate,if elected, would actually work to end this insane system?”
If I want to end the insane system, sometimes it seems to make sense to use its own strength against itself.
Or maybe that’s just something I learned from a deranged Tai Chi master once.
🙂
Joe
I have no problem with it either. However, the matching funds ARE stolen tax money. The check-off box simply allows people to signify that they want $3 of their stolen money to be used for this purpose. Unfortunately, there is no option for tax payers to keep the $3. But hey, the GJ campaign is about as good as way to use stolen money as I can think of.
Okay, I’ll stick my neck out: I think this is okay.
I do NOT have problems with Mr. Johnson accepting government funds, since I’m certain he’s paid “into the system” for years. If we’re gonna compete with the big kids–we need to compete like big kids.
Before everyone starts bitching like they have on Facebook about Libertarians taking money from the federal government for their campaign understand how FEC contributions work. They are not confiscated tax dollars, they are funds voluntarily checked off by individuals on their tax returns. Here is the link: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml
Great to hear!
The government money should be used to fight ballot access impediments put up by the government.
@ 1 — Thanks for the laugh! Wonder if this one will break 1,000 . . . gonna need more than popcorn!
Joe
Wait, don’t comment yet. I need to get some popcorn…