You Got Yr. Moneybomb

|

Jonathan Allen reports on the blossoming of the Ron Paul fundraising network. The candidate isn't hoarding his list of donors…

Murray Sabrin, a New Jersey Senate candidate who has been endorsed by Paul, is expecting a "moneybomb" from his own backers and Paul's this Friday. Sabrin has raised $194,260 since launching his campaign last month, according to a calculator on his Web site.

"We're working hard to cultivate his previous donors and Murray's previous donors and donors across the country," said Sabrin consultant Adam Alonso.

Republican Rep. Walter B. Jones, a fellow Iraq war critic who faces a tough primary challenge in North Carolina coastal 3rd District, has rented access to Paul's list of donors in the state.

But Paul's imprimatur was not limited to the list itself: He sent out an e-mail soliciting help for Jones last week.

Jones said he already has raised about $5,000 from Paul supporters, which is not an insubstantial figure in a relatively inexpensive market. Jones had raised $192,185 through the end of December, and his rival for the GOP nomination, Joe McLaughlin, had collected $78,278.

Paul says lending a hand to his friends is old hat but acknowledges it's a bigger hat these days.

"I've been helping people for a long time. Nothing new about it," he said during a brief interview in the Capitol on Tuesday. "The degree might be different but the principle's the same."

The anti-war right was clearly spooked by the Gilchrest defeat this month, but Paul's belatedly crafting something that hasn't ever existed: an organic fundraising community for likeminded pols. I'd be shocked if one of them attracted the personality cult that Paul has, and plenty of the Paul moneybombers are waving off politics now that they know lightning won't strike and make him the GOP nominee. But how many of them are sticking around to tweak the GOP? We're finding out now.

Advertisement

NEXT: The Unmaking of a Mayor

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. reason sucks

  2. Spanky Hernandez,

    Don’t you evah!

  3. Man, are so many otherwise libertarians (e.g. Murray Sabrin) seemingly so afraid of foreigners? Open the borders! More people = better country.

  4. Because he’d rather be senator than right?

  5. I’m glad RP is doing this.

    If Paul endorses someone and they endorse him
    I’m willing to donate.

    That mutual back scratching gives Paul a lot
    of influence in D.C.
    And hey, he could run for Pres at 76 years old.

  6. You people who want open borders should set up a fund. You can pay directly for the medical, dental, welfare, schools, colleges, crime, courts, and restitution to families that lose loved ones to illegal immigrants. You can also pay for an interpreter for non-english speaking.

    It’s not the tax payers responsibility to support the entire world.

    If you want it…..PAY for it or shut up!

  7. The 2008 election cycle is the first one that the internet is having an impact now. Grassroots supporters, from the comfort of their own homes, can create and share media that espouses their own views, or those of the candidate they support. It is so easy to reach a large amount of people in such a short amount of time – never has the average Joe had the power to influence an election so strongly.

    Please visit murraysabrin.com and support this Ron Paul endorsed Republican! When elected as a U.S. Senator he will be going toe-to-toe with the likes of McCain, Obama, Clinton, Kennedy, and Lieberman!

    murraysabrin.com

  8. > You people who want open borders should set up a fund…

    What about all the economic and cultural benefits immigrants bring…should all those things go into a single fund? Plus, isn’t it just a bit selfish to, having been lucky enough to be born in a nice, wealthy, peaceful country, exclude those people who didn’t have the same birthluck?

  9. Relax, highnumber. I’m sure Spanky Hernandez is just some nuclear dick with a dialect drawl.

  10. Some of the good coming out of the revolution:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pMYlyxI_44&eurl=http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/

    It’s just starting, baby!

  11. Plus, isn’t it just a bit selfish to, having been lucky enough to be born in a nice, wealthy, peaceful country, exclude those people who didn’t have the same birthluck?

    You’re damn right it’s selfish.

    “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

    It’s not my responsibilty to financial support anyone based on their unfortunate “birthluck”.

  12. Is this the point where one is supposed to agree with MikeP?

  13. What about Murray Sabrin’s close association with racist nutjobs? Has he repudiated the racist criminals from his previous campaigns?

  14. Plus, isn’t it just a bit selfish to, having been lucky enough to be born in a nice, wealthy, peaceful country, exclude those people who didn’t have the same birthluck?

    Of course, the identical argument can be made for any country that doesn’t completely the level the income and assets of its citizens. What is it but “birthluck” that separates those of us not born into the Kennedy or Buffet clans from those who were?

  15. What about Murray Sabrin’s close association with racist nutjobs? Has he repudiated the racist criminals from his previous campaigns?

    Murray’s parents were holocaust survivors who fought in the resistance in Poland. So, yeah, his father had some “close association”s with nazi racist nutjobs. He repudiated their existence with his rifle, I believe.

  16. R C Dean,
    Of course, then you would be making an argument for the use of force to redistribute wealth, as opposed to making an argument against the use of force to restrain the freedom of both the immigrants and their prospective employers.

  17. You people who want open borders should set up a fund. You can pay directly for the medical, dental, welfare, schools, colleges, crime, courts, and restitution to families that lose loved ones to illegal immigrants. You can also pay for an interpreter for non-english speaking.

    Hey, you’re the one who apparently wants to attach all that other stuff to the immigration package. You pay for it.

  18. Of course, then you would be making an argument for the use of force to redistribute wealth, as opposed to making an argument against the use of force to restrain the freedom of both the immigrants and their prospective employers.

    When public services come into the picture how can we obstain from restraining the illegal immigrants(uninvited, unsanctioned = trespassers?) and their employers without using force to redistribute wealth (from legal citizens and residents to illegal residents)? If your neighbor broke into your house because it’s nicer and wealthier than yours is that justification to forcing you to provide him with free health care and free education at your expense?

  19. I’m always suckered in by Spoon references.

  20. If your neighbor broke into your house because it’s nicer and wealthier than yours is that justification to forcing you to provide him with free health care and free education at your expense?

    That analogy would work really well if it were at all analogous.

    First, it’s not my house; I don’t own the United States. I only own my stuff. So he’s not breaking into my house; he’s just renting the place down the block, let’s say.

    Second, I’m being forced to pay for everyone’s health care and education, regardless of who it is that’s living down the block. Seems like my real beef is with the folks doing the forcing, not the poor shmoe who just moved into the neighborhood.

    Seriously, if that’s your rationale for the government restricting immigration, do you also support government restrictions on reproduction for citizens? If no, why the hell not?

  21. First, it’s not my house; I don’t own the United States. I only own my stuff. So he’s not breaking into my house; he’s just renting the place down the block, let’s say.

    I guess that’s debatable at least, i would argue that in a representative democracy that I pay for, it is my house. I’m involved in the decision making process as a citizen, in it’s upkeep as a taxpayer, and in it’s quality of life as a resident. Do those not constitue partial ownership in the United States of America?


    Second, I’m being forced to pay for everyone’s health care and education, regardless of who it is that’s living down the block. Seems like my real beef is with the folks doing the forcing, not the poor shmoe who just moved into the neighborhood.
    The blame can’t be shared? going back to my analogy the man breaking into my home might not be the one forcing me to care for him, but does he not still bear responsibilty for the act of breaking in and for staying without my blessing?


    Seriously, if that’s your rationale for the government restricting immigration, do you also support government restrictions on reproduction for citizens? If no, why the hell not?

    Please expand on the connection between the two. As far as I know entering my home without my permission is tresspasing, but that doesn’t entitle me to abuse those who reside in my home, i have sovereignty over my property but not immunity in regard to violating the rights of those who reside there, especially when, as they are also partial owners of that property.

  22. CORRECTION:

    especially when, as in you example of reproduction of citizens they are also partial owners of that property.

  23. I want back all my tax money that’s gone toward Shane’s public education.

  24. I want back all my tax money that’s gone toward Shane’s public education.

    Shane didn’t go to government schools, so that would be $0.00, the check is in the mail.

  25. Apparently your parents got ripped off.

  26. Sorry, Shane. I couldn’t resist. You walked right into that one.

  27. My parents are saints, they left my education in my hands, i think i’ve done fairly well. Is there a specific point of contention where you think my knowledge is lacking?

  28. Of course, then you would be making an argument for the use of force to redistribute wealth, as opposed to making an argument against the use of force to restrain the freedom of both the immigrants and their prospective employers.

    Of course. I just don’t think that class envy is a very sound basis for policy, or, once unleashed, has ever been constrained to enhancing rights rather than violating them.

  29. First, it’s not my house; I don’t own the United States. I only own my stuff. So he’s not breaking into my house; he’s just renting the place down the block, let’s say.

    I guess that’s debatable at least, i would argue that in a representative democracy that I pay for, it is my house.

    I recently purchased a fine, historic home in a lovely neighborhood. You can argue that it’s also your house, because you’re paying for a representative democracy or some such nonsense, but I assure you if you tried to enter it uninvited, you’d soon find that it’s not actually your house at all.

    And that’s just one tiny bit of America that doesn’t belong to you. There’s a whole continent’s worth out there, and very, very few of them belong to you in any way whatsoever.

    Seriously, if that’s your rationale for the government restricting immigration, do you also support government restrictions on reproduction for citizens? If no, why the hell not?

    Please expand on the connection between the two.

    1) There were X people in various ways benefiting from money the government took from you, and someone walks across the border, and now there are X+1.

    2) There were X people in various ways benefiting from money the government took from you, and someone has a kid in Des Moines, and now there are X+1.

    Why, in your philosophy, is 1 offensive, but not 2?

    (Also please abandon the silly “they broke into my house!” metaphor. It’s a false analogy.)

  30. Seems to me that the citizens of a country, through fair and transparent decision making processes, should have the discretion of deciding who should be allowed access to their respective country, state, county, city, township, and homes. It also appears to me that their elected government, as dispute arbiter and enforcer of the decided laws rules and regulations, is charged with enforcing what those citizens decide in regard to who is granted access and who is not. We have private trespassing laws, if someone violates those laws by trespassing onto my property it is the governments role to enforce those laws and protect my property rights from someone violating those rights, same goes to city and state, why not national boundaries as well? If the citizens and residents of the U.S.A. want to know who is entering their nation, so as to discern whether those indivduals should be granted access or not, i don’t see it as an undue burden upon the government to enforce it, and i don’t see it as an undue burden upon the traveler to have to identify themselves and to be answerable to those whose land they wish to tread upon. the indivdual decides who is allowed into their home, the townsfolk decide who is allowed into their town and the citizens of the country get to decide who is allowed into their country.

    That’s just my opinion of course, but i have not heard or read an arguement yet that has convinced me that the people do not have a right to dicriminate who has access to their property, that the alien should be granted unrestricted and unwelcome access to anyone’s land but his own, or that the state is not the current arbiter of such disputes. So the feds, or the states, should enforce the border and know who is crossing it.

    i could be wrong, but few seem interested in convincing me of such outside of guilt trips about the wealth of our country and the poverty of theirs, which i find to be irrelevant.

  31. I hearby give illegal immigrants the right to cross the tiny bit of boundary between the U.S. and Mexico that I, as a U.S. citizen own. (I think it’s somewhere just east of San Diego. And I think they’ll have to cross sidewise.)

  32. Jake Boone we are either having two different conversations or you are purposely misunderstanding me.

    The opinion you have expressed in regard to uninvited trespassers into your personal home is an opinion i share and extend to uninvited trespassers into our country, why is your view valid and mine is not?

  33. I hearby give

    Access to your home, you can give to whomever you wish, access to your neighbors home you should work out the details with your neighbor, access to your country you can negotiate upon in a democratic fashion. right?

  34. Then how do they get access to my home — or my rental property or the job I’m trying to fill? (Not that I own rental property or a business – just sayin’.)
    I dispute the notion that a gang of voters should have the ability to deny me the right to offer up those things to anyone, even a Mexican.

  35. The opinion you have expressed in regard to uninvited trespassers into your personal home is an opinion i share and extend to uninvited trespassers into our country, why is your view valid and mine is not?

    Because you’re trying to equate your right to exclude people from your property with a right to dictate the exclusion of people from everyone else’s property. You do not have that right.

  36. First, it’s not a false analogy simply because you deem it so.

    1) There were X people in various ways benefiting from money the government took from you, and someone walks across the border, and now there are X+1.

    2) There were X people in various ways benefiting from money the government took from you, and someone has a kid in Des Moines, and now there are X+1.

    Why, in your philosophy, is 1 offensive, but not 2?

    i find them both offense, but adressing #1 does not violate anyone’s rights, no one has a right to access to another’s property, the geographic area that constitutes the U.S.A. is our property (u.s. citizens) granted to us by birthright or naturalization, the state has a responsibility to keep our property rights from being violated, restricting the access of non-citizens is not vioplating their rights it is protecting ours. While #2 also offends me, restricting or regulating reproduction would violate our rights, we all have a share in the country, but not with each others bodies.

  37. Because you’re trying to equate your right to exclude people from your property with a right to dictate the exclusion of people from everyone else’s property. You do not have that right.

    No i’m equating my right to exclude individuals from my property to our right as a representative democracy to exclude anyone and everyone who isn’t a citizen/owner from our collective property, the collective property that exists in reality and law, our nation. And we’ve already made that desicion, now we just need for the state to enforce our property rights by dispelling and expelling uninvited trespassers..

  38. The “collective property” argument is ridiculous as a defense of closed borders. If all of the libertarian principles were followed and in place in our government, as our founding fathers had intended, then we could have open borders. But to advocate open borders with our current system would only drive us more in the hole. Ron Paul recognizes this fact. The problem is that our government is dramatically anti-libertarian in its current practices and to advocate open borders in this current state would be even more damaging and counter productive to ultimately having a free and prosperous country with open borders.

  39. The problem, Matt, is that I don’t seen any substantive, moral difference between some random illegal immigrant from Mexico and my neighbor up the street(except the illegal immigrant is less likely to be on welfare).
    We shouldn’t justify one injustice – closed borders – because of another – non-libertarian economic policies.

  40. our right as a representative democracy

    There are no collective rights. You don’t have any rights in a mob that you don’t have as individuals.

    enforce our property rights by dispelling and expelling uninvited trespassers..

    But they are invited. If your roommate invites me into your shared apartment, you don’t have the right to shoot me as a trespasser. Likewise, then, if you got 100% of the landowners in the US to agree to exclude outsiders from US public lands, well, that’d be okay, I suppose. But somebody hires these people. Somebody provides them with housing. They’re clearly not universally unwelcome. At least some of your three hundred million roommates want these people here. They’re invited.

    But as far as privately-owned land goes, if you’re not the owner, you don’t have the right to dictate exclusion. Period.

  41. Oh no! Dondero, Michael Young, Chapman…how can we get our dream world of mandantory $1000 ignition lock devices on cars and nuclear bombs raining down on islamic folks if we allow these racist libertarians to gain traction in the freedom loving republican party?!? where will our modern day Buckley come from? we must purge these racist who want to stop giving 30 billion dollar weapons aid packages to the House of Saud! the patriot act = spreading freedom aroudn the world….everyone knows that removing aid to radicalizing regimes in the mid-east is just another anti-semitic trick!

  42. Citizen you have to understand that sometimes even us overlords make mistakes. When we ginned up this whole war on terror thing we thought it would be good to get martial law in place and create trillions in military industrial complex pork. However we never anticipated that on ligcal inconsistency in our actions could cause so many problems.

    It seems that some reptilian logic still exist in the redneck human’s brains and he cannot be brainwashed enough to believe both

    A:
    there are millions of radical islamic jihadist who hate our freedoms, just as much as the sniper hated the cans surrounding steve martin in the jerk

    and

    B: there is no inherent danger in having a open border where practically ANYONE in the world can walk straight into the country and have absolutely no record of being in the country.

    it seems that because our war on terror propaganda has been so effective that people actually believe 5 million random folks entering the country undocumented might present a terror risk. You and I know that the terror risk from jihadist coming across the mexican border is zero…but we have to think of a better way to shut these people up. Don’t argue with them about it, just call them racist-isolationist.

    Once we purge these people from serious intellectual circles we can play up our sinophobic fantasies to get the idiot masses to fund more military funding….AAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH….you people are doomed!

  43. I could be wrong, but I believe that you’ll find more anti-illegal sentiment on the pro-Iraq war side than the anti-war side. I know I’m certainly a pro-immigration (including open borders) and anti-Iraq war person.

    I don’t know whether that makes me a cosmotarian, overlordly or otherwise. Then again, I suspect that the term cosmotarian is nearing obsolescence, even among the .03% of internet nerds who know what it (roughly) meant in the first place.

  44. But as far as privately-owned land goes, if you’re not the owner, you don’t have the right to dictate exclusion. Period.

    And if the guy you are hiring trespassed on my land to get to your factory? Stole my ssn/credit history, so that he could be employed by you? stole my money to get a flu shot and a math book? You don’t have any sense of national identity? As long it’s it’s not your rights then it doesn’t matter?

  45. But they are invited. If your roommate invites me into your shared apartment, you don’t have the right to shoot me as a trespasser.
    i don’t know about shooting, but i do have a right to bar him entry and i do have a right to contact the police and have him forcibly removed if he doesn’t leave voluntarily, because though it might be my roomates property, it’s mine as well. Not allowing him to enter or stay is not a violation of his or my roomates rights, but allowing him to stay against my wishes is a violation of mine.

    If i’m wrong let me know.

  46. by him of course i mean the person who is on my property against my wishes but at the co-owners invitation.

  47. question:

    If my wife and i co-own a house, we’re standing in the doorway, she invites someone in, i tell that someone they are not allowed to, he enters the premises. Is he trespassing?

  48. And if the guy you are hiring trespassed on my land to get to your factory? Stole my ssn/credit history, so that he could be employed by you? stole my money to get a flu shot and a math book?

    Then your rights have been violated. And if he doesn’t do those things, then your rights haven’t been violated.

    If i’m wrong let me know.

    See below.

    If my wife and i co-own a house, we’re standing in the doorway, she invites someone in, i tell that someone they are not allowed to, he enters the premises. Is he trespassing?

    No. If he has a valid invitation from someone who has legal possession of the property (your wife, your roommate, whatever), he can’t be considered a trespasser. You don’t get to unilaterally infringe on your wife’s right to use her “share” of the property.

    Which is why it’s not a good idea to co-own property with people with whom you don’t see eye-to-eye.

  49. No. If he has a valid invitation from someone who has legal possession of the property (your wife, your roommate, whatever), he can’t be considered a trespasser. You don’t get to unilaterally infringe on your wife’s right to use her “share” of the property.

    Yeah, i just read that on another site.

    damn, that kind of shoots my arguement down doesn’t it…

  50. i still think we should be able to say yay or nay, before california becomes the new Kosovo.

  51. You will not back up an inch ever.
    That’s why you will not survive.

  52. Shane, you got a mouse in your pocket?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.