Ron Paul Supporter Foots Bill For Full Page Ad in ‘USA Today’

Is this LEGAL?

See ad at: http://mysite.verizon.net/nathanielyao/USA_Today_Ad.html

Didja see that "Paid for By Lawrence Lepard, a Concerned American?" at the bottom.

He should be 'concerned'--he's supporting a fucking FLAKE!!!

This guy paid $85,000 -- how can that be legal? He's an individual not a 527 org.

any guidance, involvement by the campaign, or input from them either. The dough went from him to the paper.

Those are HIS views. Not the campaign's. He is telling you why HE likes the idiot.

You could do it too. Pick your favorite candidate, jinn up an ad, and pay some paper a shitload of money. Depending on how closely you articulate the candidate's views without coordinating with their campaign, you will be either a hero or a goat.

If you wanted to pay for an ad telling America why you think strawberry ice cream is the best flavor, you could do that as well.

For instance, say I support Ron Paul and am an industrialist billionaire. I could simultaneously cut a check to Paul for 2300, but to get around the law, I can indirectly spend 200,000 on advertisements that promote Ron Paul. All I have to do is simply say that I'm a concerned private citizen instead of an entity of the Paul campaign.

imho . . . it really goes against fairness in campaign finance

Hillary or whatever

How is it different to donate $85K to a campaign so that they can buy TV ads or buy the TV ad time directly?

One is not allowed (due to $2.3K limit) and the other is allowed.

if the so wish.

It should state that all federal election campaigns be financed by taxpayer dollars and that only the campaigns themselves should be free to advertise on their own behalf. If you're not affiliated with the campaign, then you shouldn't be allowed to advertise on behalf or against anybody. It's not just an issue of freedom of speech. It's also the issue of people having a right to fair elections.

clinton and guiliani have rolling ads running 27/7 on the msm... fuck that.

working folks of America through sheer buying power.

Please.. if this was about Clinton or Obama most comments here would be simply "K&R"

this has nothing to do with fair elections and more to do with sour grapes.

I insist it isn't an issue of sour grapes but an issue of the freedom from having elections skewed by wealthy interests.

Where do you draw the line? Buying a newspaper ad is forbidden, but you can go door to door stumping for a candidate? That has SOME economic value, too! It's worth something - should that be considered a donation?

Political speech is the most protected speech.

"Buying a newspaper ad is forbidden, but you can go door to door stumping for a candidate?"

If you're not officially apart of the campaign of the candidate you support, no. If you're apart of the campaign, yes, you can stump for the guy all day long because you are an entity of that campaign. The hardest thing in any society is balancing individual rights with the rights of the many. If you like a candidate, such a hypothetical amendment wouldn't stop you from becoming a volunteer for that candidate. This has the added effect of also protecting everybody else's freedom from elections dominated by money.

presumably I couldn't stand on a soapbox in the town square and advocate for a candidate I support?

No thanks - I like the first amendment.

Because you're not using a constitutionally protected medium such as newspapers, television, or radio, there is no problem. Speaking on a street corner can only influence those around you, but speaking through the New York Times or through CNN, we're talking about tens of millions of people here.

That makes no sense.

I can't go door-to-door stumping, but I can stand on a soapbox?

How is a newspaper any more or less constitutionally protected than my soapbox?

Can I hire a sky-writer?

Or going out on your own initiative?

with no official connection to a campaign.

The restriction comes in when you pass out official literature but aren't an official member of the campaign. That's a big no. Individuals should be free to talk to friends, family, and co-workers assuming the employer is OK with that, but the dispute arises when you enter a constitutionally protected medium such as newspapers or publicly regulated airwaves. When I'm saying "protected," I'm not saying that my right to free speech on a street corner is not protected because it is. What I am saying is that the news industry, specifically mentioned in the 1st Amendment, should be considered a special arena for advancing the debate.

In those arenas, I'm saying that the medium should be left open as a stage for the campaigns to speak on their own behalf, but I don't feel that can happen if it's a matter of spending money. If that be the case, the wealthy interests have a competitive advantage against everybody else who is poorer almost every time because then other people who are uninvolved with any of the official campaigns are "filibustering the floor" and drowning out candidates who do not have the fortune of having such wealthy friends. With the way the rules are written, it seems the poorest folks have a habit of being stepped on the most because they don't have the money to buy the minutes to speak on the floor.

I just can't see any reasonable way to enforce the restrictions you want.

Can I make my OWN literature to pass out? That's OK with you, as long as I don't use "official" literature? Well the problem then is defining "official".

The fact is, I am free to to stand on a street corner and discuss a candidate. I can write a letter to the editor. I can call in to a local radio program. I can call into C-SPAN. I can go door-to-door. And I can post on the internet.

And.... I can take out an advertisement. I can buy a billboard. I can hang a big sign from my roof.

Political speech is the most-protected speech we have, and I'd be very wary of any attempt to limit my rights to engage in it.

I understand your concern about money, but all the things I mentioned above have some monetary value. Canvassers cost money. If I choose to do it on my own, the campaign is getting something of value from me. But since I'm not officially with the campaign, it's not considered a donation.

Because I look at the US and I see a government that's basically serving special interests instead of people despite the fact that you can do all those things you mentioned in your post. How do you deal with somebody outspending you ten to one simply because he has more money?

the answer to the problem of speech you don't like is more speech, not less.

Any laws that can limit their speech can be used to limit our speech.

I'm now more interested in how you'd deal with it.

and I don't have an answer. I don't see how you can force candidates to use public money, nor how you can prohibit citizens from having their say, and that includes buying advertisement.

However, I don't think the problem is as dire as most others here. It's cyclical - this year, the Dems are raising far more money than the Republicans.

I think limits on individual donations, full disclosure of donations, a ban on corporate donations - all of which are in place now - have worked reasonably well.

Ultimately, it will be changing the public perspective on this, not the laws. We need to make it a real negative with the voters for a candidate to refuse public financing.

Back then, they said that if these laws pass, pretty soon few candidates would opt out of the public finance system for fear of being shamed. I've seen little of that.

Back then, the laws were passed with supporters of those laws saying that it would bring about a change in the way campaigns were run. Over 30 years later, those supporters have yet to make progress. Even if public financing gave an individual candidate matching funds against a better-financed candidate, the FEC does not also release funds if you're also being attacked by well-financed 527s that aren't officially affiliated with the opposition candidate. The result is you still effectively get outspent, and the statistics show that well-funded candidates tend to beat poorer candidates, regardless of the merits of their ideas.

Ultimately, I believe it has had long-term and very negative consequences for the United States. The gap between the poor and the rich has continued to widen. The US is now the only nation in the industrialized world without any universal health care program, and the US now enjoys one of the lowest voter participation rates in the industrialized world with one of the lowest unionization rates in the industrialized world except Japan. On top of that, the White House now openly, brazenly favors its own cronies and special interests above that of the country with no-bid contracts and going to bat to protect telecoms from being sued for helping to spy on Americans.

I don't know if any reform is possible, and I'm starting to get too old to care anymore.

I realize it's a complicated free speech issue, but I sure would like to see what they did become illegal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22957-2004Aug22.html

So it is a bit different, and THAT is already illegal. They got away with it of course.

Shameful.

and even if you don't like his politics, he's a hell of a decent man and to call him names just degrades our side.

Attacking an obviously decent man like Dr. Paul will backfire. I hope the Dem candidate will not go this route in the event that Paul gets the nomination.

But at least he stands by his bigoted asshole-y nature.

Here's what this "honorable" man has said:

"Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable."

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740

The idiot is polling an average of 4.7% right now in the Republican primary. He has a small but assertive group of supporters.


http://www.attackcartoons.com/index.php?topic=LibertarianMan

he has almost zero chance

we cut off all funding for medicare, medicaid, and welfare.

:eyes:

It says "will end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens"


Uh no he won't a president does not have the power to do that. The constitution clearly states that anyone born in the USA is a citizen, and not an "illegal alien." The only way to change that is to amend the constitution, which a president has no say in. My opinion of Ron Paul keeps lowering as I learn more about him. First I learned he was a racist now I learn he is lieing in his ads. Why would the USA Today allow them to print that obvious lie?

It's not his ad, it's written by and paid for by a supporter.

Here it is on Ron Paul's website. "End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong. "

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/


On his website, he is saying he will do something as president that he doesn't have the constitutional ability to do. I know it was technically not paid for by Ron Paul,but I'm sure as hell he communicated with Ron Paul to make that ad, as it reads just like official propaganda of his.

Therefore, technically there's nothing wrong with the advertisement, although it contains factual errors.

Too bad we don't have a frontrunner with ideals like that.No matter what you may think of him,he is likely to command a serious number of votes,by disgruntled Repugs and probably more than a few Dems who are tired of the same old bullshi*.It may even be in retaliation for a do nothing Congress,or because they see a lack of contenders with high ideals.

There are many many people who are sick and doggone tired of all the shuck and jive from their party,and there are probably more than a few members here who won't be led down the garden path again by a party that has been corrupted.

How could a collective (that's ALL of us) maintain it's infrastructure without voluntary taxation?
The current system sucks big time, but there needs to be an honest central collection/disbursal system.

LOL

not one dime of the collected income taxes goes to anything we expect from government. None of it goes to infrastructure. It all goes to pay interest on the money borrowed to finance war. The Fed! By the way, did you know the Fed is not really federal?

I think it's wonderful. I'm not at all worried about Ron Paul winning the primary, but every dollar taken out of Republican hands and placed in this man's campaign is great! He's got no fucking chance, it's all wasted money.

And on top of that, at least Dr. Paul is interested in standing up for the US Constitution, albeit his slightly warped bigot version of it. He still believes in most aspects of personal liberty (except reproductive rights), warrants, checks, balances, and getting us out of Iraq and around the world.

Revolution is occurring and we'll have our chance to shape this nation as it unfolds. Even if this is merely a revolution in our hearts, it's valuable and will change the future of America.

How is it different to donate $85K to a campaign so that they can buy TV ads or buy the TV ad time directly?

the campaign didn't write the ad, didn't compose it, didn't have anything to do with it. That would be illegal.

but individuals have the right to buy ads in newspapers - that old 1st Amendment thing.

You keep making ridiculous statements, people here are trying to offer you facts.

He simply is NOT

.

Money well spent. a*hole!