Rand Paul's Randy Supporters: "Adult website operator among Rand Paul donors"


Among Rand Paul's supporters is Cyan Banister, who kicked $4,800 toward the Kentucky pol and founded Zivity.com with her husband Scott (full disclosure: The Banisters have supported Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this website).

Cyan Banister said in an e-mail [to the AP] that she was drawn to Paul's libertarian views, a philosophy shared by his father, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, whom Banister also supported financially during his unsuccessful presidential run as a Republican in 2008.

"My point of view is that our country is in danger of losing some of its most valued freedoms," she said in the e-mail. "The Pauls have strong values that resonate with mine. I believe they support limited government, tax reform, are against nationalized health care."

Zivity describes itself on its blog as "full of hot awesome," and says it has 64,000 subscribers.

Cyan Banister said the website's photos range from fashion to "art nude."

"It is a celebration of the human body, specifically female," she said.

Paul's response?

Paul's campaign issued a statement saying the Republican candidate—a father of three boys and husband of a church deacon—condemns pornography and considers it degrading to women. The campaign said it "cannot be expected to run background checks on all 25,000 donors who share his stances on issues like balanced budgets, reduced federal spending, opposition to 'Obamacare' and the reckless behavior in Washington."

That strikes me as a disappointing response. If he in fact finds porn an issue (and thinks Zivity qualifies) then he should return the money. After all, the background check has done for him in this case. Or he might point out that he is not in any way bound by the occupations of his donors or he might not like porn but considers a fully legal activity so leave it alone already. I want the Aqua Buddha Paul back, not the distancing-from-libertarian version! Kentucky voters grok freedom just like the rest of us! Read the whole story here.

Anyhoo, decide for yourself whether Zivity is indeed FOHA.

NEXT: Cleveland: The Most Miserable City in America Has a World-Class Orchestra And Top-Notch Garbage Cans!

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. When did Rand Paul start looking like a hot, exotic chick?


  2. That strikes me as a disappointing response. If he in fact finds porn an issue (and thinks Zivity qualifies) then he should return the money


    1. Also, where was the aformentioned porn? Thank god Paul is running for office and not trying to be a pornographer.

      1. Isn’t “art nude” just a euphemism for “good luck wanking to this unless you’re Francois-fucking-Truffaut”?

      2. Man, that ain’t porn. That doesn’t even qualify as racy for a 2 year old. For me, I’d be looking at that when I’m a fetus…not even a fetus, like when I’m a sperm, and I’d be saying, “mildly arousing” like in a Victoria Secret catalog kind of way.

        1. It’s kind of funny, isn’t it? You have to realize how times have changed. If teenage boys could get today’s Victoria’s Secret catalogs back in the 1950s or 1960s, they’d be in perma-wank mode. Now they probably hardly bat an eye.

          1. Nah, a teenager doesn’t get jaded. Their hormones enable them to spank it to anything remotely boob shaped. It is only later that internet porn makes it so that anything less than Russian lesbian midget femdom electro-porn is meh…

    2. Oh, he’s gonna return the money. One month at a time…

  3. Fuck Rand Paul. The guy obviously has no qualms about selling out his supposed principles to get ahead. He should fit in great in Washington.

    1. Seriously, what the shit happened to this dude? Really disappointing.

      1. He found out he could win if he wasn’t too honest.

        1. Bull. One of the best pols for that was Jesse Ventura when he was our gov here in MN.

          He said all sorts of stupid shit, but never apologized and everyone respected him for that.

          He said church was for the weak minded. When confronted, the closest he came to retracting was when he said his wife was a regular church goer, so you know how his home life had been.

          Also when he said he wanted to come back as a 40DD bra.

          Establishment pols couldn’t believe that he said that crap and got away with it. Why doesn’t this jackass take a page out Jesse’s playbook and be true to his roots?

          1. PJ is right.

            As I recall, the fuckin’ retard Libertarian Party of Minnesota rejected Jesse as a candidate so he had to run with the Reform Party.

            A huge opportunity by Libertarians wasted….

      2. he is trying to get elected, which means that he has never had oral sex, and if he did he wouldn’t swallow.

    2. Seriously man. The cunt is on my shit list now. Not that means anything but still.

      1. I mean, what’s next? Finding out he’s a dry?

        1. Does that matter?

          1. Absolutely.

            Never trust em.

            1. I don’t get it. I’m a Christian – I think drug use and alcohol consumption is foolish if not sinful (and is a sin, if not in moderation), and I believe pornography is abhorrent and sinful. But I’m also a libertarian, because I don’t think I have a right to coercively stop you from drinking, toking up, or watching hardcore porn.

              But to suggest that Rand Paul, I, or anyone else is abandoning our ‘supposed principles’ by offering non-coercive lifestyle advice is pretty much the frozen limit, in my view. What’s more, this wasn’t some unsolicited lecture – the press was asking what Rand’s view on porn was, and he told them. What’s the issue here?

              1. The issue is that he’s a fucking hypocrite who will reap the benefits of pornography while talking out the other side of his mouth and say it’s bad. Would you take a few thousand bucks from a porn star who thought your opinions were cool?

                1. Certainly, if I could put it to good use.

                  I really don’t get your main point. There’s nothing hypocritical about even an anti-porn campaign accepting donations from pornographers – though why they’d want to donate, I can’t imagine. A donation indicates an endorsement of the beneficiary by the donor, not vice-versa. So the anti-porn campaign could immediately use such a donation to directly undermine the pornographer’s business without any hypocrisy at all.

                  1. Bullshit, they’re benefitting directly from the heinous thing they are criticizing. That is hypocrisy; it’s something you Christians have difficulty identifying.

                    1. By your standards, zoltan, Obama should have returned all of that Hamas money that got funnelled into his campaign. Since he is against their actions, it would be wrong for him to have accepted the money.

                      OK, maybe that’s the wrong example.

                2. If I were seriously running for office with a possibility of winning, my purpose would be to represent the Public Interest, and my only question would be “will this contribution serve the public?”

                  If the donor was so disliked that accepting the donation would hurt my electability I would return the money; otherwise I’d keep it in order to improve my chances of being elected and being able to serve the public interest. The fact that pornographers desire and benefit from good governance just like everyone else is a non-issue.

  4. Paul’s campaign issued a statement saying the Republican candidate – a father of three boys and husband of a church deacon – condemns pornography and considers it degrading to women.

    What kind of gay-ass liberal church lets women be deacons? Is he Unitarian? or Les-piscopalian?

    1. Moonies!

    2. What kind of gay-ass liberal church lets women be deacons?

      The one at Cenchrea?

    3. Presbyterian.

      Didnt care to check if its a PCA or PCUSA church.

      1. Must be PCUSA. PCA won’t let women have any roles in the church where they’ll have authority over men.

    4. Uh, maybe he’s married to a man.. then the church wouldn’t be so gay-ass.

      1. Wouldn’t that be the textboox definition of a “gay-ass church?”

  5. Did he actually says Zivity qualifies as porn?

    He’s probably got no idea what’s on the site, really. He’s making an off the cuff response to a “gotcha” that he probably doesn’t know the background on.

    He also didn’t exactly say he favor making porn illegal.

    1. Yeah, responding ignorantly to offthecuff gotchas is always a good plan. Sorry you wasted your money, Paul Donors.

      1. Well, you can hardly expect him to research every bullshit piece of trivial that some blogger digs up.

        SOme guys throws a faux-outrage tizzy over the fact that a semi-erotic websitedonated to his campaign, and he’s supposed to be ON TOP OF THAT SHIP DOING COUNTER-OPS! ???

        1. Uh, he could ignore it, instead of whipping up some faux moral condemnation of something he knows nothing about.

          1. Possibly, but he is running for election in Kentucky, where pro-forma denunciations of porn are expected.

            Again, he didn’t say it should be illegal, and he didn’t return the money.

            You really think in a Kentucky election he’s going to come out and start a debate about the morality and definition of porn?

            1. You really think in a Kentucky election he’s going to come out and start a debate about the morality and definition of porn?

              That is not the only alternative to publicly “condemning” pornography. He could simply leave the subject well enough alone, and say that a donor’s legally sanctioned profession is not a factor for his campaign.

              1. But what is anti-libertarian about “condemning” pronography?

                1. Saying that it “degrades women” — women who voluntarily perform a service for income — certainly verges on anti-libertarian. Besides, anti-libertarianism is not necessary component of douchebaggery.

                  1. And if he’s a bible-con in personal beliefs then there’s a good chance he’s un-libertarian. Especially if he’s said that he isn’t a libertarian.

                    1. Wow, complete bullshit. Just FYI.

                      But, yeah, libertarians, throw away the support of Christians! That’ll help you get a majority vote.

      2. Up 9 pts, up 10 including leaners (49-40 or 51-41).

  6. Goddammit, Randy. Porn is awesome, and you know it. If you’re so desperate to get the votes of these bible-fucking hillbillies that you pretend to be one of them, then you deserve to become what you pretend to be.

  7. rand paul is a pussy

  8. Frankly, I’m glad he’s distancing himself from libertarianism.

  9. 1) bible-fucking hillbillies


    condemns pornography and considers it degrading to women

    In properly “thick” “left-libertarian” fashion, yo.

    B) Cyan Banister

    …is probably Thomas Pynchon.

    1. There are plenty of thick left libertarians who not only don’t condemn porn, but think it’s an important part of the sexual discourse.

      1. “an important part of the sexual discourse”

        I have difficulty believing you typed that with a straight face.

  10. “What kind of a deal?”

    “A deal deal; maybe the guys a Republican”

    1. Thank you Crapgame.

  11. He considers porn degrading to women?

    So do I. That’s what makes it so hot.

    1. I bet you like that 9/11 porn.

      Fucking faggot-ass freak.

  12. “Adult website operator among Rand Paul donors”

    I’m in. Running not walking to 7-11 for an untraceable money order.

    1. If you are true to the cause you only send gold.

  13. Okay, so he’s not out there defending pornography or making a philosophical argument about it’s definition while running for election in Kentucky.

    In other words, he’s not a fucking idiot.

    Come on, does anyone seriously think he was going to have another 15 minute interview with Rachel Maddow discussing the rights of pornographers?

    1. For people who understand politics: Rand Paul moneybomb today http://www.RandPaul2010.com

      1. Insult, followed by solicitation. I think you have a future in politics.

      2. Dropping gold like a bomb could create a tort.

      3. Tell your boss “moneybombs” lose their effectiveness when you peddle them every other god damn day.

      4. I’m not affiliated with the campaign. Just an annoying Paul Supporter

      5. I probably shouldn’t send any money, I’m pretty sure Paul “condemns” like half the shit I like to do.

        1. It always comes back to gold with those people.

  14. So who’s that model, anyway? I’m interested in maybe stalking her a little.

    “She got a job at the fair. I can probably stalk her there.”

    1. Must be Rand’s wife (or mistress). That’s the only reason I can see to respond to something like this.

      1. Friggin’ tats.

        That is all.

    2. Warty, are you the Nightman or the Dayman?

      1. Warty paid the troll toll to get into that boy’s hole.

  15. “This strikes me as a disappointing response.”

    That strikes me as a disappointing response.

  16. The more Rand Paul talks, the less I like him.

    1. Unfortunately I’m with you. And I get to vote in his election.

      1. Fortunately (for Paul) his opponent is the slimiest specimen of homo electus I have ever seen.

        1. So you’ve got a choice between a used douchebag and a sandwich with expired meat/mayonaise(Paul)? Could be worse…

      2. Me too. Every time he opens his mouth something GOPish comes out in direct contrast to the message during the primaries.

        Either he was never as Libertarian as he wanted people to believe, or he’s pandering to conservative kentuckians.

        Either way, he’s single handedly working his way toward an abstention vote in the senate race from me.

        1. I think maybe you work for Jack Conway. Call it a hunch.

          1. What the fuck?

            My record on Paul is clear. I have nothing to hide about where I may go in the election. Right now it’s either Paul or abstention. If Paul continues to open his yap and say dumb shit, he can fuck himself, but I’m still not voting for a fucking democrat.


      3. Im willing to criticize Paul when he ACTUALLY CALLS FOR AN UNLIBERTARIAN LAW. But in this case, and whatever the most recent one was, he hasnt, so WTF?

        Prudes can be libertarians too. It isnt about what you like or dislike or call a sin, its what laws you want to put in place that matter.

        1. Every time I allow my knee to jerk, robc sets me straight. I think you are spot-on here.

          1. Like a psychopath, I dont have the part of my brain that allows me to kneejerk.

          2. It’s not a knee jerk when it becomes commonplace. Lok at his record of reversals between the primary and now, or his views on topics not really discussed in the primaries and you will clearly see that he’s working himself closer and closer towards your average so-conism.

            About the only thing libertarian left in Paul is his opposition to bailout cash and Iraq.

            Virtually very other position he holds is no different from your average conservative fucktard.

        2. You don’t think an important part of the libertarian mindset is a refusal to play Mr. Moralizer in matters of private lifestyle and career choice? It doesn’t bother you that he considers a donor’s profession worthy of public condemnation?

          1. That’s the problem: you think there’s a libertarian mindset.

            1. Ah, okay thanks for letting me in on the “problem”. I’ll just have to stop actually caring about the moral case for lifestyle freedom and consider my entire philosophy relevant only in matters of written public policy.

          2. It’s unlibertarian to claim that an action should be prohibited just because you believe it is morally wrong, but it is not therefore unlibertarian to merely believe that any particulatr action is morally wrong.

          3. No, and no. Libertarian /= Libertine.

  17. Agreed.

    Where is the Rand Paul that distanced himself from the so-con motherfuckers of the GOP during the primary?

    He has reversed his positions on various issues.

    My only question is which is the real Paul? The one which challenged and beat the republitard establishment by denigrating them and their many conservatardtastic positions? Or the one that’s falling in line with their every position now that he’s already won the primary?

    1. Guess we’ll find out because he’s nearly a lock to win, but it’s becoming mor and more apparent that this apple fell very far from the tree.

    2. You haven’t been following the race. He won because he wasn’t a career politicians and was serious about reigning in government spending. He hasn’t flipped anywhere. He’s a states rights/constitutional conservative. He didn’t win by focusing on libertarian positions.

      1. Ahem.

        Surely there are others which I’m too lazy to use my google-Fu on.

        Perhaps my statement of multiple issues was somewhat hyperbolic. But that doesn’t change that he is a very different candidate now than he was in the primaries. A worse one if liberty is something you value.

        1. For what it’s worth, his camp is backing away from the idea that they “oppose” medical marijuana. They claim the AP reporter mis-characterized his stance, and that he’s a neutral federalist on that issue. Which, sadly, means he’s more reform-friendly than the vast majority of senators.

          1. He’s simply changed his rhetoric from “opposing” med marijuana to “not supporting” it.

            It’s a distinction without a difference.

            1. I’m not so sure — if more people on the federal level considered it unworthy of federal prohibition, we’d be in a better place. Look around this thread, you’ll see I’m no Rand Paul fanboy — but a federalist approach to marijuana would be worlds better than the goddamn Controlled Substances Act scheduling.

      2. Since when is reining in gov’t spending not a libertarian position?

        1. It depends on what you mean by rein in spending.

          He wants to rein in demotard agenda spending, like Obamacare et al, and replacing it with conservatardtastic spending like underground electric fences along the entire fucking border.

          He doesn’t seem interested in cutting spending, merely the shit government spends money on.

    3. You’d think it’d be the other way around. Appeal to the party base for the primaries and then move to the center for the election.

      1. Well, where do you think the center lies? What makes you think he’s not moving in that direction?

  18. I searched every bit of the website in question’s free content and was disappointed that there was no actual porn on there. Guess I’ll put my piece away now.

  19. Paul’s campaign issued a statement saying the Republican candidate – a father of three boys and husband of a church deacon – condemns pornography and considers it degrading to women. The campaign said it “cannot be expected to run background checks on all 25,000 donors who share his stances on issues like balanced budgets, reduced federal spending, opposition to ‘Obamacare’ and the reckless behavior in Washington.”

    Which means he condemns pornography. Is the website pornographic?

  20. I don’t see why he couldn’t say some big tent, “fighting big government is the most important thing right now” response without looking like he “supports porn.”

    Also what percentage of Ky. men have watched porn before 70, 80, 90%? I mean is it still controversial?

    1. Yeah that was the point I was trying to make earlier. Condemnation is not the only alternative to advocacy.

      And I have to assume the percentage of men anywhere in this country who have watched porn is effectively 100. But fake-ass public posturing is another matter.

    2. Sure, in private. But inpublic they have to answer to their Kentucky wives and deacons.

      1. The Kentucky I live in has rednecks rushing home after church to drink beer and get fucked up on oxy and fuck anyone other than their spouse.

        1. Yes, but they still easily stand on piety and claim an anti-pornography stance.

          When a good chunk of your social life revolves around the local baptist or pentecostal church, you can put on a cloak of purity–and believe in it pretty adeptly.

  21. Rand Paul is about as much of a libertarian as Glenn Beck. From defending Gitmo, to hyping the supposed threat from Iran, to condemning the so-called “ground zero mosque,” Rand Paul has consistently been very disappointing.

    By the time this guy is elected, he will probably be almost indistinguishable from Mitch McConnell.

    I am not going to say that I want him to lose since I am sure his opponent is even worse, but I certainly won’t care very much if he does lose.

    1. Cody,

      What makes you think a Libertarian can’t recognize the Iranian threat, or condemn the GZ mosque. I am not sure what you mean by defending Gitmo, I assume RP says keep it open, if that is the case then I agree with him.

      I consider myself a libertarian.

      1. But no healthcare for the poor. Welfare for Halliburton is the good kind.

      2. You are a pretty crappy libertarian

    2. Niether condemning the mosque nor condemning pornography is anti-libertarian, as long as you dont bring the law into play.

      1. At least in the case of the mosque, “condemning” it shows a really selective regard for the first amendment.

        1. Tony, I don’t think you understand 1A, no surprise there, just saying.

          1. The first amendment protects criticizing Islam, Rand Paul’s right to never be asked a hard question about his beliefs, and the right of Dr. Laura to say “nigger.” Is that about right?

            1. yes.

              1. And also the right of someone to call Dr. Laura an ignorant cunt whose problem is not that she’s racist but that she doesn’t understand the most rudimentary form of manners?

        2. Tony, why is it liberals only defend Islam, while bitching about Christians and Joos out of the other sides of their mouths?

          Sounds pretty selective.

  22. I am inclined to cut RP some slack at this point. He is trying to get elected so, naturally he must camouflage his true intentions until he becomes part of the senate clubhouse, then he can rape, loot and steal.

  23. Son, I am disappoint.

  24. The seed of Islam is passed through the father!

    Oh, sorry. Wrong thread.

  25. Why don’t we either ban political contributions from anyone even remotely connected to pornography or stop acting like babies over this sort of thing?

    1. I vote for the latter.

  26. The hot chick looks like a slimmer, dom version of a woman i dated.

    1. Pics or it didn’t happen. (Naked pics. And not that artsy-fartsy crap they have at Zivity… real hot-chick getting nasty naked pics.)

  27. If he in fact finds porn an issue (and thinks Zivity qualifies) then he should return the money.

    I don’t see how that follows. If he has “an issue” with porn, what does that have to do with money from porn business people? Is the money pornographic?

    1. Seems a bit hypocritical to accept funds generated by something one “condemns”, no? The point, of course, isn’t that he should send the money back. It’s that he shouldn’t be going around publicly condemning his own donors because of their choice of career.

      1. What’s hypocritic about it? Like they should have the money rather than you?

        I’ll admit, however, that dissing your own donors doesn’t appear to be a smart thing to encourage more donations.

        1. Of course it’s hypocritical. “I condemn what you do but of course I will reap the benefits of your sinful transactions.”

  28. Thread needs porn

    “Mostly SFW!”

  29. Anyone who is antiporn is at heart a bullshitter in denial of human nature, and I have nothing to do with bullshitters. Sayonara, Rand Paul.

    1. Give the man a break. Have you seen his wife? When you look like Rand Paul and your wife looks like Kelly Paul, it’s easy to think that the average schlubs like us don’t need porn.

      1. Er, what? When did having an attractive fuck-partner mean you don’t watch porn anymore?

      2. I only give breaks to hot chicks when I’m in a jury pool. ‘Hey, it’s her first murder. We really can’t be sure she is a danger to society unless she kills again, and since we can’t be sure, does that not constitute reasonable doubt?’

  30. What is equally offensive is the discourteous way he treated someone who only wanted to support him. Maybe you should look up how your Jesus treated prostitutes in your Bible Paul given good grace and manners have escaped you.

  31. Well, I’m a consumer of porn so I guess he doesn’t want my money. The hell with American politics, I’d be better served finding a place where the money stretches further.

    1. “I’d be better served finding a place where the money stretches further.”


      Cue fisting website, credit card at the ready

  32. I want the Aqua Buddha Paul back

    One little problem with that Nick, is that it never happened. Why the FUCK are you helping the smear campaign against Rand Paul? Are you looking for a job at the WaPo or NYT?


    1. JCR – so speaking your mind must be stifled because he is allegedly “one of us”? Screw that noise.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.