Ron Paul's Campaign Contributors

I think it just highlights the fact that the message of freedom appeals to a broad spectrum.

 

I think it's stupidity to have marijuana/hemp illegal. I'm not in favor of legalizing heroin, or cocaine, but the fact that companies have to import hemp hurts America.

On this, I'm with Dr. Paul.

 

Doesn't bother me in the least.

I wouldn't even care if Planned Parenthood, the KKK, or La Raza gave to his campaign. The thing is, once that money leaves their hands, they have no say so in how it's spent. If CAIR or the NWO want to give him money, thgen by all means they should do so.

As long as Dr. Paul keeps standing on his principles and voting in favor of the Constitution and freedom for all Americans, it doesn't matter a hill of beans who is helping him to get elected.

We used to have a Pastor who was dead set against any kind of gambling (of course, he did "play" the stock market). My mother asked him what he would do if my dad won the lottery and wanted to donate a bucnh of money to the church. He stated that, if a trashbag full of money showed up on the door of the church, he wouldn't ask where it came from. That seems very hypocritical to me. If money can be put to a good use, for a change, it doesn't matter to me where it came from.

If a homosexual activist group donated $10,000 to our church, we would put the money to good use, and we would still preach against homosexuality.

Frankly, I just don't get the big issue with this.

 

Wow. Do you really believe this? People don't give money to campaings because they get no say, especially when we are talking about corporate, PAC money. That's probably the ONLY reason they give it is so that they will have influence in some way.

 

Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) took George Soros' money, but has not voted in a way that would make the moonbats at move on dot org very happy.

 

Well even the blind squirrels find a nut every now and then, right? And I wonder if those same folks will be providing money the next time. And it could be that money was provided to help them win, because obviously if a majority of democrats win they get to make all the decisions as far as committees and such go.

There's a number of reasons why money is given to campaigns, but generally people want influence.

 

I have no problem whatsoever with these folks contributing to Ron Paul. I have no problem with people drinking alcoholic beverages nor using their drug of choice.

The "War on Drugs" is a failure. The government should declare victory and end it.

 

Legalize all the dope they want. Just dont use my tax money to house and rehabilitate people strung out on the drug of their choice.

 

I imagine the Log Cabin Republicans will be backing Rudy, seeing as he likes to wear lady clothes.

 

Not evading, I'm not sure if I should have a problem with it. I don't know much about campaign finance laws. I would assume that if organizations like the Log Cabin Republicans give money to a candidate, it is done lawfully. If that is the case, I don't really see how I can have a problem with it.

 

I don't support using taxpayer money for such actions as that now when so many drugs are illegal to use. Therefore, I won't support using taxpayer money for such actions if any of the currently illegal drugs are made legal(or in the case of many of them made legal again).

 

I think that restrictive campaign finance laws should be repealed. Let everyone give as much money as they want to any candidate that they please as long as it is fully disclosed. From whom a candidate raises funds simply becomes part of the overall mix as to how I view a candidate. I may not approve of the political agenda of the Log Cabin Republicans but a candidate who received money from them may also receive money from organizations that I have an affinity for. I am really more interested in a candidate's overall position on the proper role of government in our republic than I am in his source of funds.

 

I don't want to hijack this thread, so if you would like to continue this discussion in private or in another thread, I would suggest we do such after this post.

I have played the stock market. I have played slot machines. I can tell you I've had much more success playing slot machines than I ever have had in the stock market.

Just ask all those people in 1929 if the stock market is a gamble or not. If you take your money and put it into any kind of venture that has a chance of failure, you are gambling with your money.

Uh, huh. And if God decides to take money away from a homosexual group, through whatever impression He might give them, and we are allowed to use it for the cause of Christ, rather than for the cause of some "other" agenda, such as the homosexual group would have used it for, who are we to turn it away? If nothing else, even if the church didn't want to use it for ourselves, I would take it and donate it to a homeless shelter or something. My dad used to say, money doesn't make the world go round, but it greases to wheels. In our society, for better or worse, that is absolutely true. I have no love for money, but it is very hard to accomplish anything substantial and helpful for people without money. Of course, that is aside from preaching the gospel and giving praise to God. We like to have facilities to use for that purpose, and that takes money. We like to have heat in the winter and cool air in the summer, and that takes money. We like to help our ministers with their finances when they come preach for us, and that takes money.

A lot of evil has been done with money, but a lot of good can be done with money as well. I am not going to go out and seek ungodly groups to give money to our church, but if God wills a sinful group to give us their money and put it to a good use for a change, I don't see how we could deny it.

How sinful does a group or individual have to be for us to refuse their donation? Should the church refuse the donation of a person who is living in open defiance to Christ by not following his example and joining the church through baptism? Should the church refuse the donation of a person who has been married and divorced several times and, yet, is coming to church faithfully? Should the church refuse anonymous donations because they could possibly be from sinful people? Or, should the church accept donations from anybody and put that money to work in a good way, keeping in mind that it could have been used on something sinful, rather than being given to the church for the use of God's people and for His sake?

I'll go with the latter. I just like to remember that, whenever anyone or any group gives money or other donations to the church, it is God giving it to us, and we should give Him the praise. We should not praise men, good or bad, for what God has given them the impression to do.

With that said, now we can get back to topic.:thumbs:

 

Well, I've donated to several campaigns without expecting any say so. I donate because the person I'm donating to has already demonstrated that he is working toward goals and principles in government that I agree with.

We are not supposed to have influence through our donations.

In any event, legally speaking, the individuals donating money have no say so in how it's spent once it has been given.

The same goes for church. Once the money is given to the church, the person who donated has no say so in how it's spent, unless of course he is legally allowed a vote on it within the church. Our church, as a whole, votes on how to spend the money we are donated. A person who donates from outside our congregation does not have that voice that we do. Political contributions are supposed to work that way, but I am not naive enough to believe that money does not influence at least some politicians. (I won't say all because I do believe there are some honest politicians out there who are not working for their largest contributors for that reason.)

I am speaking strictly from a legal and actual standpoint that the only person who gets to vote on legislation is the one who is in office. A politician could be given $1 million, under the table, in order to buy his vote and he could still vote contrary to the will of that "contributor". That's all I'm saying.

 

Not in the least. I do wish they'd give it to Dr. Paul though so it could be used to bring his message to more people.

 

August Busch IV, President of Anheuser-Busch, has made political contributions to George W. Bush, George Bush Sr., John McCain, Dennis Hastert and several other Republicans.

The same people who make a big to-do about Ron Paul taking "beer money", are usually the same ones who give a wink and a nod to neocon Repubs like George W. Bush taking it. Can you say "hypocrisy"?! :laugh: