Robert Sarvis

Robert Sarvis: Libertarian for the U.S. Senate from Virginia

The surprisingly wavemaking L.P. gubernatorial candidate strives to be a surprisingly wavemaking Senate candidate


Robert Sarvis
Carissa Divant

Robert Sarvis made the biggest splash for the Libertarian Party in many years with his surprising 6.6 percent—nearly 145,000 votestotal in 2013's Virginia gubernatorial race. The former tech entrepreneur and lawyer did this even while making Republicans angry that he was allegedly stealing votes from their man Ken Cuccinelli, dodging bogus accusations of being a secret Democratic Party plant, and annoying some of the Libertarian hardcore by answering questions about health care by taking about policies that stymied competition rather than just repeating "repeal Medicare!"

Sarvis is trying politics again, running for U.S. Senate in Virginia, in a race likely to include incumbent Democrat Mark Warner, vying for his second Senate term, and Republican Ed Gillespie, a former Republican National Committee (RNC) chair and consummate insider. (Gillespie does not yet have the nomination, which doesn't come officially until a state Republican convention in June, but seems to have it locked.)

Sarvis, who tells me he won't be working any other jobs for the duration of the campaign, is a calm, rational guy, not given to the emotionally charged side of the small government message. This served him well in the statewide race; we'll see how it plays in a Senate race that might get more national attention. It is telling that he treats "rational" and "freedom-centric" as synonymous. True, but does it play at the voting booth? We'll find out in November. Reason Senior Editor Brian Doherty interviewed Sarvis by phone last week.

Reason: Running for office again—why are you putting yourself through this?

Robert Sarvis: The same thing that motivated me last year. I see policy being pretty abysmal and see both Republicans and Democrats not at all moving toward more rational policies, more freedom-centric policies. The front runner in the Republican race and the Democratic incumbent are not going to change their offerings, so I just felt the opportunity was here to build on the momentum from last year and reach more people with a message of freedom in economic and personal lives.

Reason: What's the story with your major party opponents?

Sarvis: Mark Warner, he's a former governor and completing his first term. He's pretty much been a big government guy, going along with all Obama's major spending programs and new programs. As governor he was responsible for a very large tax increase in 2004 and as senator he's been behind all expansions of government.

The Republican likely is Ed Gillespie. He is basically a big government lifelong Washington GOP insider, a former RNC chair, a former lobbyist on behalf of large companies. He was a subordinate in the George W. Bush administration, was big on Romney's campaign. He's the status quo in the GOP.

Reason: You've been trying to use your profile to grow the Libertarian Party as a whole. Talk about what you're trying to do in Virginia.

Sarvis: I've been trying to recruit a whole slate of candidates. It helps the L.P. and the libertarian message to have more candidates around the state; the idea being to maximize our effect this year and make sure that every voter in every part of the state has a Senate and House candidate to vote for. We have off-year state elections in 2015, all state legislative seats go up, so it will be nice to set the L.P. up for a large contingent of state and local candidates [for 2015].

So I've been looking through who was enthusiastic about my campaign last year and trying to find people even remotely interested in running, letting them know it is doable to run for Congress.

I will help them, campaign with them, we're gonna work like a team. That helps people get over how difficult it is to get your name out [as a third party candidate]. Each opportunity I get to campaign, if there's media coverage I'll make sure the media is noting the fact we also have House candidates out there, trying to use whatever name recognition I have to help them to build [the party at large].

Reason: Have you begun campaigning in earnest yet?

Sarvis: We are going to be doing as much fulltime campaigning as we can, and right now are trying to build a team and build an organization that's more structured than last year, a bigger team that's more professionalized and more effective.

I'm getting significantly more [media] mentions this time [at a comparative point in the campaign]. I started working in total obscurity last year and this year reporters clearly [already know I exist]. They are still focusing mostly on the other two but [usually are] at least mentioning my presence; there has been some reaching out for comment on certain things [which I expect will] increase through the course of the campaign. Once we're past the primaries and ballot access [and the focus is on] policy, we'll have a real chance to distinguish ourselves as more responsible, more rational, more in line with what voters want.

June 10 is the signature gathering deadline. Each congressional candidate needs 1,000 valid signatures from registered voters in their district and I have to get 10,000 [statewide]. It's always a close call at the end. Ballot access is time consuming, resource intensive, and the [state L.P.] has 10, 11 candidates to worry about in addition to me. I think we'll make the ballot, I'll make it, and a vast majority [of the lower-ticket candidates will make it]. We've got no national help [from the L.P.] though some of the local affiliates are helping with signature gathering.

Reason: I saw Ed Gillespie talking about how the GOP needed to appeal more to the under-30 voter in this election.

Sarvis: Exit polls [from my governor's run last year] said 15 percent of the 18-29 crowd [went for me]. I think Republicans have a really hard sell [to the young]. They are kind of obsolete. Young people are really turned off by the GOP approach to civil issues. Both Republicans nor Democrats are awful for the situation of young people, with large debt transfers of wealth from young to old, so all the libertarian policies are very attractive [to young voters].

Reason: What are the main issues you want to run on in this Senate race?

Sarvis: I think the economy is the biggest. The great recession, and unemployment levels, in many ways is caused by government policies and when it comes to longer-term economic growth, we have structural issues hampering the economy, with regulatory things that kill job creation and business activity.  Increasing costs of hiring, an incredible uncertainty about the future of policy.

At the federal level, this is a much different race for me than last year, issues like foreign interventionism and immigration are really important. Democrats are only able to get away with calling themselves pro-immigrant in contrast to Republicans. I look at [the Democrats] as having a hugely protectionist constituency in labor and Libertarians have the responsibility to take the issue and run with it. Immigration is important for economic growth and improving living conditions of people around the world, allowing people to live to their maximum potential, allowing them to come to a free society. Northern Virginia is very diverse, and I'll have a good time reaching out to those voters.

And defense spending: In Virginia a huge portion of the economy depends on federal expenditures and the defense industry, so I want to talk about how to reduce defense spending and I have to be up front about why I believe it and not try to pander to people reliant on the defense industry.

There is a role for the Defense Department and the Norfolk area has a wonderful resource in the bay there, so it's a natural place for the Navy to be. It's not like it's just going to pack up and move entirely. With defense spending, we need to recognize that incredible spending can't just continue on and on, so the question is do you want Republicans and Democrats deciding [how to ramp back on defense on old-fashioned political grounds] or someone taking a more rational approach?

Reason: How will you deal with liberty-minded Republicans worrying that your presence or vote totals might harm the Republicans' chances of regaining a Senate majority?

Sarvis: I think last year's results are fairly clear: I probably brought to the polls a lot more people that if I hadn't been there would have voted for the Democrat than the Republican. This whole "stealing votes" issue gives me an opportunity to bring up things like instant runoff voting and range voting.

I think that liberty-leaning Republicans have no reason to invest in another big government Republican. Similarly on the Democratic side, people in favor of getting rid of corporate welfare and cronyism, if they want real drug policy reform, immigration liberalization, they should vote for me.

If the Senate is up for grabs, looks close to 50-50, that increases the importance of looking outside the two-party system. I'm just gonna make the argument that we are one out of 100 senators and what difference would it make sending another Republican or another Democrat? The way to make the biggest difference is to send a Libertarian. That immediately changes the game.

Reason: What are your fundraising expectations? [Gillespie and Warner are already each collecting over $2 million a quarter]

Sarvis: I have no idea about uncoordinated stuff. As far as direct donations, we started sending out letters and emails but it's a little early to tell [about the response]. My assumption is I'll have a much harder time raising money compared to last year, since there are so many other races to compete with. For the governor's run, I took in a little over $200,000.

I have no minimum in mind I think I have to raise. We'd like to raise a lot of money, but I take the approach of doing the best with whatever we get.

I may be getting a full time staff member very soon, that's being hammered out now. It's still all volunteers of varying degrees of time. It's hard to say the number of total active volunteers. We sent out a request for help with ballot petitioning, and a lot of people start helping without letting us know beforehand. By July I'll have a better sense how it's going in building a network.

Reason: If you get funded enough for an ad campaign, what do you expect it to say?

Sarvis: We've brainstormed, and if there's only money for one it would be more generalized, asking people to take a chance on us because doing the same thing we've done for the past 50 years is not working and making the argument that we've made over and over again, which is in this race certainly the two parties have become the same, these two big government [parties], and it's doing no good to send one back to the Senate.

Social media has to be huge part of our strategy. We do plan to do more with YouTube, continue what we've done with Facebook and Twitter and explore other avenues to reach people.

Reason: The Richmond Times Dispatch did a fact check thing on a controversial tweet from you: "Did you know U.S. population growth is at its lowest since the Great Depression? RT if you support liberalizing our immigration laws." Why is that an important issue to you?

Sarvis: It's not population growth per se, though I am a libertarian who believes more people is a fine thing, as is freedom of movement.  But I wrote that for a couple of reasons. One is that we could certainly stand to have more population growth, part of the reason it's down is because of the bad economy and families already here choosing not to have more kids. We have less immigration in part because of a bad economy.

It also points to the idea that population growth is something we can have more of in regard to the generational impact of entitlement spending. If we want to transition from an intergenerational transfer model to one more about investing in your own self, your own retirement model, it's a huge transition cost and so one of the ways to soften that blow is [increasing population through immigration]. There are a lot of benefits to doing that.

Reason: You've got a couple of big national issues as a Senate candidate that were maybe less important for your state governor's race: health care and foreign policy. How will you approach them?

Sarvis: I generally like to stick to basic principles. A big part of the problem in health care on both federal and state levels are regulations that totally mess up the marketplace, so we have to have a unified approach in my view. I don't want to propose a specific model of a system that would imply that that system and no other is what's acceptable. I'd certainly argue we need lots of deregulation of the health care sector, that can get us enormous benefits and I'll try to bring up telecom deregulation and expanding the ability to reach poor people with low-cost services. Not just technical innovation but business model innovation, there's way too little of that. A lot of that is because it's so highly regulated, there's less competition, the number of doctors is fairly stagnant, we license nurses to keep them from doing expanded scope of practice. There are so many ways to expand competition and innovation.

As for foreign policy, my general message is that we try to do too much by force and we think we know too much about other countries and cultures and we try to influence their behavior too much. A better approach would be to lead by example, have a free society at home, free trade with all nations, try not to be a world policeman, not to give countries a false sense of security. One reason we have countries left in the lurch with bully neighbors [is the U.S.'s] implicit promise to do something when in fact it makes no sense for us to be involved, certainly not militarily. [If countries] assume we will come to their rescue they are not investing in their own defense, not investing in creating common protective umbrellas in their own region that creates weakness that bullies can thrive upon.

I am fairly non-interventionist though I keep an open mind. Though there is an inordinate amount of money on defense spending and I think the direct foreign aid we give is malinvestment, I'd much rather foreign aid be the organic "foreign aid" of remittances from families [working in the U.S. sent] back home. That's a much better model for helping actual people rather than governments.

About Iran, I can't say our current approach is working, I don't know what one would even judge to be "working" but I just think my sense is that the Iranian people are very young, 80 percent under 35, and they are exposed to a fair amount of Western culture and commerce, they are individuals and the animus against the U.S. [government] as opposed to the American people is an important aspect. So more engagement, more commerce, is a better approach rather than isolation and constant demonization—in both directions, we are [condemned as the] Great Satan but how much of that is a product of meddling for 50 years? So I'm kind of against, not really a fan of, throwing U.S. weight around [the globe].

Reason: Any lessons you think will carry over from your last run to make this one work better for you?

Sarvis: Certainly, I learned the need for a more organized volunteer network, so I'd like to try and build that more effectively this year.

I also learned there is an enormous thirst for something different. People want to hear someone credible, who cares about issues, and is willing to tell you where they stand. Obviously the two party system is very strong. It's going to be uphill to get people past that, at the very least to get people behind us because of issues and policies and lead us to increase [the L.P.'s] share or compel the other parties to think deeply about [changing their] policies.

NEXT: Rep. Conyers Won't Make Primary Ballot, Manning May Be Transferred, Greenwald's Book May Get Film Adaptation: P.M. Links

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. That evil Sarvis is just handing to the Demorcats a seat that rightly belongs to the Republicans!

    1. You know, Tulpa isn’t around any more. There’s no need to imitate him.

      1. If Tulpa didn’t exist, we’d have to invent him.

        1. It is much easier for a civilized man to impersonate a barbarian than for a barbarian to impersonate a civilized man.

          1. My god you’re pathetic. I love it.

            1. What a child.

              1. Someday when I grow up I’ll learn to insult people in response to rational arguments like you guys.

                1. Rational arguments?

    2. Oh, and a vote for Savis is a vote for Al Gore!

  2. OT: Legalized marijuana inevitably collides with anti-smoking legislation.

    Now that the weather is nicer, there is a lot of pot smoke on Alki. I don’t really want to bring my young kids down there. Do you know if police plan to enforce public smoking laws and fine people?…..olen-bike/

  3. If Sarvis doesn’t like Ed Gillespie (a dislike I could not have more sympathy for) why doesn’t he run in the GOP primary against him?

    I like how, of the three criticisms of Sarvis that Doherty mentions, the only one he doesn’t link to is the Medicaid one. Why? Probably because doing so would make it easier for readers to see that Doherty is being extremely charitable with his summary of Sarvis’ position there. Sarvis is willing to expand Medicade, wants to raise the sales tax, and wants to add a miles-driven tax on vehicles in Virginia.

    Looks like libertarians are willing to shill for their pet candidates just as much as liberal journolists.

    1. Let the TEAM RED butthurt commence! This is really the best part.

      1. “Sure, he wants to forcibly extract more money from taxpayers, but at least he won’t get in the way of Sodom Spouses getting their congratulatory pieces of paper from the state.”

        1. “Sodom Spouses”?

          Truly, you are one execrable piece of human waste, nothing more than a walking skin bag oozing with pus, blood and shit.

          1. Speaking of butthurt.

            1. Oh Tulpy-Poo, you’re so unbelievably pathetic.

            2. Speaking of ignorant yokels who find everything related to the anus hysterically funny, like the inbred mongoloids they are…ladies and gentlemen, I give you Hydra. A man who, in a rare episode of lucid self-awareness, saw it fit to name himself after a sessile, brainless organism.

              1. I give you Hydra.

                I think he got the name from the TV show Agents of Shield.

                Tulpa began using the handle at about the same time Hydra made its first appearance on the show.

                And yes Joss Whedon is the show’s head.

              2. Mobility is for monocephalous losers.

              3. It must be a coincidence that Tulpa is always talking about buttsex. There’s no way a rational straight shooter like him would desperately want to suck and fuck strangers’ dicks in a truck stop bathroom or anything.

                1. For such a tolerant person, Warty sure does like to use accusations of homosexuality as an insult. Makes you think. Well, it doesn’t make Warty think, but then again nothing short of 200 amps to the prostate could do that (and the only thought that would produce is “I want more”).

              4. Well, courageous halfbreed, I was going to congratulate you on having a great vocabulary but now I see you lifted “sessile” from the caption of that image at the Wikipedia article. You get zero points.

                1. Sodom Spouses

                  So Tulpa is Hydra the homophobic aspect of you that needs a voice or is that just standard Tulpa?

      2. Whether Hydra’s a Tulpa sock or not, it’s not without a hint of irony that this guy is proposing shit that would have the commentariat apoplectic if it were proposed by a Democrat or Republican in the same campaign.

    2. Agreed, I have yet to see much about these very non-libertarian ideas. There are some things libertarians disagree on, but these “problem issues” for Sarvis are not small ones.

      1. meant to say “I have yet to see much about these very non-libertarian ideas when Sarvis is discussed in Reason”.

        1. I thought we mostly discussed the observation that he married up. Way up.

      2. Having experienced the various last minute “gotcha” claims made against the Sarvis campaign in 2013, my assumption is that all the GOPster attacks on his deviations from free markets are actually false. But since they always seem to be about some picayune issue that he is not actually campaigning on, that they only discover by taking 7 seconds out of context in a youtube from an answer to a lame MSM question, I don’t feel the need to research it. The peeps making the charges should present their case, and do a better job of it than they did last time.

        1. Willful ignorance for the sake of the TEAM is no vice, right Bruce?

          1. As I said, when I looked into the last minute got has claims in 2013 they were all lies or mendacious interpretations. So you really need to do a better job to be taken seriously. Also, using a real name not derived from a comic book might help.

            1. haha. Branding uncomfortable arguments “not serious” is another tool of the unthinking left you’d do well to eschew.

              1. You have a reading comprehension problem Special K. I was identifying YOU as not a serious person as you are unable to grasp a simple distinction like that between which issues someone is campaigning on and which ones they are not. And you are unable to produce evidence for loose charges against someone against whom previous loose charges have been exposed as lies. And because you think you are interesting enough to read, and not simply a chore of sanitation.

                1. So because BO didn’t campaign on gun control in 2012, anyone at that time bringing up his positions on the issue was “unserious”.

                  1. The Democratic Party nationally has been campaigning for gun control for years, so on that and every other level your attempt at analogy fails. Libertarian candidates campaign to grow their party and usually not to be elected. So an accusation that they lie about things to get into office, and then will behave differently is moot. They don’t think they are getting into office in the current election cycle. Learning to think before you post would make you less like litter.

            2. And my name is derived from the insuperable monster from Greek mythology, not a comic book.

              1. Ah, so it’s narcissism then. Poor thing.

              2. Oh, I get it now, Hydra, like every time we cut off one of Tulpa’s sockpuppet(y) heads, a new one grows back.

        2. But since they always seem to be about some picayune issue that he is not actually campaigning on

          Does he hold these beliefs or not? I will not vote for anyone who wants to add new and exciting ways for the government to steal. That’s a deal breaker for me.

          Libertarians are very willing to apply a strict scrutiny to both Republicans and Democrats, but they cheered hard for Sarvis without really taking a close look at him, IMO. I did, and decided not to vote in the governor’s election.

          Sarvis was better than Cooch, and the Cooch was a hell of a lot better than Scumbag Terry, but in the end, I didn’t vote for any of them.

          1. We’ll, he doesn’t hold them because some posters at who can use a real name charge that he does. What else have you got?

            1. How do I know that’s your real name?

              1. Does your mother know you aren’t doing your homework like you are supposed to be?

      3. That may be because these aren’t issues he is campaigning on and they seem to be the invention of conservative bloggers.

    3. Looks like libertarians can at least spell “medicaid” consistently.

    4. Tulpa just use your regular handle. You are not fooling anyone with your sockpuppet accounts.

    5. why doesn’t he run in the GOP primary against him?

      Because he’s not a Republican?

      1. Actually he was until 2011. One could be forgiven for thinking that his foray into LP politics was inspired by a lack of success in the GOP (a la Gary Johnson).

        1. Is the GOP successful in Virginia? Didn’t electing a governor whose wife had donors buy her shopping sprees hurt their campaigns? Along with their somewhat incompetent PR in dealing with Democrat spin that they hate gays and women. Would you run as a Republican if you wanted to succeed, especially long term? Maybe if you were really redefining your brand or trying to. Is there a Virginia GOPster doing that?

          1. You mean succeed electorally? Sarvis has no chance of doing that running LP.

            He can assemble a cheering squad of desperate big-L’s like Gary Johnson did, though, and if he leverages that into campaign donations every 2-4 years that would provide a measure of success.

            1. Actually Sarvis spent less than $2 per vote, while Kooch spent over $15 and McAullife over $21. So dollars per vote Sarvis was the most successful. He also built new party organizations and recruited new candidates. The other two parties are actually shrinking as people abandon them to be non voters or independents.

              1. I don’t think that’s what he means. It’s really interesting how vociferous you are about this. While I certainly think Sarvis was the best of the three, the idea that he should somehow be above criticism is interesting.

                1. Honest , thoughtful criticism of Sarvis? I think I may be the only person who has ever generated that, and I shared it privately. He needs to be less introverted and a little more of a flame thrower. So if he could be like a poster, just one who isn’t brainless and who uses his real name, it would be an improvement. Lying about him and claiming he wants tax increases or cap and trade etc isn’t criticism. Sarvis has three coauthored papers at on fiscal policy for the whole world to read.

                  1. I think I may be the only person who has ever generated that, and I shared it privately.

                    lol, don’t sprain your shoulder patting yourself on the back there kid.

                    Lying about him and claiming he wants tax increases or cap and trade etc isn’t criticism.

                    He fucking endorsed a mileage tax. Holy shit you are a dishonest fuckhead. Nice to see that there are libertarians who can be just as blindly partisan as any partisan fuck.

              2. By that standard the person who wrote himself in for free was the most successful.

                The LP peaked in 1980. I wish it were a force in US politics but the apparatus decided long ago not to take that route. As for Sarvis, if you’re going to vote for someone who compromises libertarian principles, at least make it someone with a chance to win.

                1. The LP peaked in 1980. I wish it were a force in US politics

                  Sockpuppet concern troll is concerned.

                2. Your post reveals a deep ignorance of the Libertarian Party, which I’ve been involved with since 1975, and which I think you can’t get an account of even from the Doherty book, which is not exhaustive. There is no “apparatus” that has made decisions about the LP. The constellation of decision makers undergoes radical change and upheaval from time to time. The 1980 crew left in the mid-80s to work on other libertarian causes like CATO. They also took their fundraising connections with them. But you do make my point since 1980 was one of the rare cases of a Libertarian campaign with any funding at all, much like Sarvis. It’s much more important for them to recruit candidates who can raise money or self-finance, as well as propose libertarian solutions to current problems, than it is to spend anytime whatsoever satisfying trolls on blogs or libertarian carps and nags who think they are activists.

        2. a lack of success in the GOP (a la Gary Johnson).

          Lol, uhhhhh, those two terms as a Republican governor notwithstanding…

    6. He is trying to build the L party in Virginia. He has more candidates running for US house of rep than either of the Republicans or Democrats right now. Given that he took D voters in the last election, there is a good chance he could draw more away from both parties this year.

      I’m not HIGHLY optimistic, but I wish him the best of luck at it, and will probably throw a few bucks his way.

    7. Then why don’t you run against Gillespe, you shit for brains motherfucker? Now, I need more coffee…!!!

  4. Regardless of what you think about the candidate, these questions are meaningless softballs. I learned nothing from this I couldn’t learn from the candidate’s website.

  5. Whatever one likes or dislikes about Libertarian views, I am glad to see someone running for public office on a Libertarian Ticket. The United States of America needs a lot more views of how to run (or not run) the country, other than what the DemoCRAZIES and the RePOOPlicans do decade after decade after decade.

    Ideally I would like to see a Unicameral Congress with three or four parties, including participation in the Presidential Debates. I also believe we should do away with the Electoral College. Finally, the President should serve a six year term.

  6. Out here in Silicon Valley, we have a candidate running as a libertarian Republican for our Congressional district. Not sure he has a great chance, but he will be getting my vote. My wife has worked with him, and finds him to be a really decent guy.

  7. Sarvis, writes Brian Doherty, is a rational guy, not given to the emotionally charged side of the small-government message. Will it play at the voting booth?

    Absolutely not.

    Too bad.

    1. It did surprisingly well last time. You can use advertising and social media that appeal to emotion more skillfully than the candidate himself does,

  8. All I heard from this guy is “Republicans and Democrats are both bad.” That’s the meat of the interview. I can get that from any TP or Green Party candidate, and the former can actually win an office.

    The guy will need crossover vote to have ANY chance, and he hasn’t mentioned any strategy on how to get it. Yes, young people theoretically have reason to hate both parties, for social and economic reasons. They’ll pay lip service to anarchists like Snowden or Ron Paul. But come election day most of them will vote for a brand name Democrat that worships all things government.

    You have “no idea” how much money you’re raising, and you’re only now thinking about hiring staff. You plan to fight on social media. So you’re already several steps behind in a race that you probably can’t win.

    This isn’t an inspiring political film featuring James Stuart, you can’t win on principles alone. “I hate both parties” is preaching to the choir that’s like 1% of the voting population. You gotta have some sort of a plan. The voters who agree with your views are likely to vote GOP, and the voters who agree with your social view detest fiscal conservatism. WHAT is your plan?

    1. 1. Young people like pot
      2. Libertarians
      3. ????
      4. PROFIT

      Seems to be the libertarian underpants gnome theorem of electoral politics.

    2. You ignore the fact that Sarvis did better than expected last time and this time he starts out with the donors and activists he already recruited a year and a half ago.

      1. You ignore the fact that Sarvis lost last time and this time he starts out with the donors and activists he lost with a year and a half ago.


        Here’s a tip–there’s no real ‘did better’. It’s won or lost. ‘Did better’ still loses.

  9. If VA doesn’t want you come on up to RI!

  10. its awesome. Start working at home with Google. It’s a great work at home opportunity. Just work for few hours. I earn up to $500 a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.