Ron Paul's Money Bomb: Its Echoes Still Resound

Brian Doherty | September 14, 2009

The Washington Post notes the continuing liveliness of the Ron Paul money machine, as Paulites rise to the support of the Senate campaigns of Peter Schiff and Rand Paul, Ron's son:

Rand Paul, who is running for the Senate in Kentucky and is the son of the congressman, has already raised $827,000, even though nearly the entire Republican Party establishment in the Bluegrass State has lined up behind Secretary of State Trey Grayson.

Peter Schiff, an economic adviser to Paul's presidential campaign and a likely senatorial candidate in Connecticut, has raised more than $1 million, although he has yet to officially declare.

Both men have used the "money bomb" approach (encourage all donors to give on a certain day to post large 24-hour totals) to fundraising strategies that Paul pioneered.

Jesse Benton, a former Paul campaign spokesman, said he was not surprised by the amount of money that Rand Paul and Schiff have raised to date.

He called the Paul movement "legitimate" and "real," noting that the Campaign for Liberty -- an organization formed after the campaign and of which Paul serves as honorary chairman -- has raised $4 million since its founding in February.

My February 2008 Reason magazine cover story on the Ron Paul movement, in which I predicted the rise of a post-Paul wave of Paulite politicians and activists.

Comments

economist|9.14.09 @ 3:23PM|#

I wish Congressman Paul, Candidate Paul, and (possible)candidate Schiff the best of luck in their entry into the fray. But I fear it will be futile. The average American voter bends over, takes it, and thanks the perpetrator for not doing it harder.

|9.14.09 @ 3:40PM|#

Jesus Christ, Rand Paul. Seriously. Rand.

|9.14.09 @ 3:48PM|#

Why are they Paulites, not Paulines?

|9.14.09 @ 3:56PM|#

All that money... and not one dollar spent on campaigning.

WWJGD|9.14.09 @ 3:57PM|#

Jesus Christ, Rand Paul. Seriously. Rand.

Oddly enough, his name has little to do with Ayn Rand. There was an interview where he was asked about and it's really just a short way of saying Randy.

Poopy McPoopinpants|9.14.09 @ 4:00PM|#

>mantooth | September 14, 2009, 3:40pm | #
>
>Jesus Christ, Rand Paul. Seriously. Rand.

Jesus Christ, Oral Roberts. Seriously. Oral.

Brandon|9.14.09 @ 4:03PM|#

I admire Paul and the movement he's helped create, but libertarian-types for the most part should not be wasting money and energy on electoral politics. We're too far outnumbered and the rules of the game are rigged. Better to have a money bomb to fund the organizations out there that do a good job promoting liberty and educating people about it. Or even to fund a nationwide campaign for ballot access and electoral reform.

More libertarians + an electoral system that permits genuine competition = success.

robc|9.14.09 @ 4:36PM|#

WWJGD,

My understanding is that Randy shortened it (not legally, I think he is Randall) to Rand during the 1988 campaign. Partly as an homage to Ayn.

|9.14.09 @ 4:50PM|#

Aw, this sucks. I was having fun tearing up the begging letters from the C4L, stuffing them in the postage-paid-by-addressee return envelope, along with whatever other garbage around the house I could find to increase the weight (and thus the postage the Paul family slush fund Campaign has to pay) and dropping them in a mailbox with a smile. Looks like there's plenty of fools being parted with their money out there to offset my mischief.

Keep on sending your money to a guy whose most successful legislative activity has been getting earmarks for his district if you want. Me, I've got better uses for it.

|9.14.09 @ 4:56PM|#

I'll also note, before the Paulbots arrive to denounce me, that Bob Barr's vote for the Patriot Act -- which ensured there would be a sunset clause -- did more to protect liberty than Paul's vote against. Even a pristine voting record (which Paul's isn't) and a few friendly speeches to the C-SPAN overnight shift engineers aren't going to do squat for the cause of liberty. Apparently they do do a lot for your family's ability to stay gainfully employed during a recession, though.

|9.14.09 @ 5:37PM|#

is that the dude who wrote the racist newsletters? oh wait, no, that was matt welch?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/09/11/obama_snoop_dogg/index.html

Colonel_Angus|9.14.09 @ 5:40PM|#

Tulpa, how did you get on their mailing list in the first place? They usually do that if you have supported them before.

anarch|9.14.09 @ 6:28PM|#

fund the organizations out there that do a good job promoting liberty and educating people about it

I thought that's what RP, for example, was doing, rather than expecting to win the Presidency.

On the analogy of WF Buckley, running for NYC Mayor in 1965, who when asked what he would do if he actually won, replied "Demand a recount."

|9.14.09 @ 6:29PM|#

+5 Colonel Angus.

When I was young and foolish I donated a sizeable amount to his presidential campaign. It probably helped pay Rand's room service bill at the five star hotel in Manchester on the same night OLFD volunteers were freezing their asses off sleeping six to a room in a drafty vacation house.

Craig|9.14.09 @ 7:03PM|#

Even a pristine voting record and a few friendly speeches to the C-SPAN overnight shift engineers aren't going to do squat for the cause of liberty.

Maybe not, but explaining the case for smaller government and more liberty on dozens of national TV appearances and writing a few best sellers about the wisdom of fiscal sanity, peace, and freedom is helping a lot.

Craig|9.14.09 @ 7:05PM|#

Without the publicity generated by his presidential run and the millions donated by his supporters, Ron Paul wouldn't be the go-to guy he is now when TV producers look for a principled opponent to bailouts as usual.

The campaign contributions could surely have been spent more effectively, but they were far from wasted.

stone sober|9.14.09 @ 7:19PM|#

far from wasted

Like RP: Anti-WOD & anti-drug.

|9.14.09 @ 7:54PM|#

explaining the case for smaller government and more liberty on dozens of national TV appearances and writing a few best sellers about the wisdom of fiscal sanity, peace, and freedom is helping a lot.

No, it isn't helping at all. Guess who was watching those TV appearances and buying those best-sellers. The same deluded fucks who donated money!

The campaign contributions could surely have been spent more effectively, but they were far from wasted.

Uh, if they were spent in an ineffective way, that counts as waste as far as I know. In any case, a significant proportion weren't spent at all during the campaign, but used to start the C4L.

PicassoIII|9.14.09 @ 9:52PM|#

Well if C4L manages to get someone elected to Congress within 20years they'll actually achieve more than the LP has in that regard.

But feel free to bash the closest thing to an ally IN DC you got.

*shakes head*

Brandon|9.14.09 @ 10:31PM|#

I thought that's what RP, for example, was doing, rather than expecting to win the Presidency.

A presidential campaign is probably the one exception, and even then the money could arguably be spent more efficiently elsewhere.

MemphisTom|9.15.09 @ 2:29AM|#

Tulpa: The Campaign for Liberty preaching isn't as insular as you think in terms of spreading ideas.

Libertarian Party: 115,401 registered in 38 years.
Campaign for Liberty: 215,000 members in a year.

Shows Paul has advocated Libertarian principles on:
Situation Room: 607,000
Ed Show 500,000+
Beck: 2 million+
Morning Joe: 250,000+
Republican primary debate: 4.4 million.
Many others.

We do pretty well for deluded fucks.

Besides issuing video press releases and appearing on national news outlets and training members to participate in the political process, what other methods would you prefer to be used with PAC money? Or is pursuing liberty a hopeless endeavor, which makes every penny spent wasted?

|9.15.09 @ 6:17PM|#

I agree with MemphisTom. Anyone who doesn't see the huge impact Ron Paul's campaign had is blind. The huge swell of support and money Paul got attracted attention in D.C. and beyond, with libertarian principles gaining much more power and legitimacy. It helped give him (and us) more legislative power. It attracted new supporters, including myself, all across the country who had never been exposed to libertarian thought--not so involved in the real world and actual politics.

I can immediately think of at least ten people, of varying ages, who not only responded to Paul's message but actually spread the message out. Not all of them voted for him, but if spreading the message at an incredibly high and powerful level isn't success, what is? If you disdain all progress short of attaining the presidency, you are completely unaware of how to fight this battle.

The next battles are being fought across the country right now...instead of feeling sorry for missing perfection, why don't you get down and dirty for the cause? Would there be too much risk of getting your heart broke again? Toughen up and get involved. I never expected Paul to win, and I actually got far more then I was hoping for.

Sorry for the tough love, but I'm an Army guy. If you actually care about the causes being fought for feel free to criticize how things are/were done, but don't sabotage the fighting will. Get involved and help make them better, or (sorry) shut up and get out of the way for those carrying on the battle.