Whoa! You Helped Reason Blast Through Our $400,000 Webathon Goal!
Find out why people have donated a half-million dollars so far, and then please consider joining them before time runs out!

Wow. Thanks to a booming $20,000 contribution at around 7:30 p.m. Monday night, you beautiful people matched a second $100,000 webathon challenge grant from an anonymous donor, thus kicking our overall fundraising haul north of…half a million freaking dollars! For the third year in a row! This renders our not-unambitious initial goal of $400,000 as out of date as a Zardoz reference, or a woodchipper joke, or even a picture of a handsome gal kissing a lobster.
As the clock ticks down to our final gong on midnight Tuesday, we are now resetting the parameters of that ubiquitous orange box to an admittedly ridiculous yet tantalizingly achievable $600,000, goosed in part by a late-breaking $25,000 match that will double your immediate giving pleasure, until we get to $550,000…
Six large would mark our second-largest webathon total in both nominal and inflation-adjusted terms over the 15 years that we've been rattling this cup. In a moment, I'm going to share with you last-minute fence-sitters some of the reasons why your fellow Reason consumers have parted ways with their tax-deductible donations. But first…
WON'T YOU PRETTY PLEASE WITH NONTARIFFED PURE CANE SUGAR ON TOP DONATE TO REASON RIGHT THE HELL NOW?
As in years past, the feedback provided on the donations form has been at turns hilarious, poignant, pointed, and constructive. Above all, it's the variety of favored entry points into the Reason content universe that impresses, along with the wit and wisdom of the donors themselves. Here is a representative sample:
The Reason Roundtable podcast is the thing that has kept me sane over the last few years. When I was connected to Reason by a friend a few years ago I felt completely alone in my political views (especially as a millennial). Reason showed me I was not alone and re-ignited a spark that I had lost. Reason gives me the tools to refine my views and speak about them confidently which is so empowering. Thank you, Reason, and keep it going!
*
I love the Reason TV videos. Watching Remy, Andrew, and Austin makes for a great day. The puppets create great videos combining the silliness of puppets and the reality of government laws.
*
As per usual, I would like the editors to refer to Nick as "Dr. Gillespie" during the live webathon.
*
All of you are great. I really appreciate you all. Watch/Listen to all the podcasts. But without Lenore Skenazy, I would not know how screwed up CPS is around the country. I've been watching Robbie on Rising, and his injection of the occasional Reason contributor clearly illustrates how uninformed non-Reason readers are. Thank you for giving Lenore a platform—it's important.
*
Thanks for respecting us nicotine vapers/former smokers.
*
I always take time out of my day to read the Reason Roundup. At a minimum, it provides me with some other content or stories to consume such as the adopted Ukrainian girl who actually turned out to be a murderous adult-midget (just like the movie Orphan). I also enjoy the cultural consumption part of the Reason Roundtable. Its recommendations regularly make my list of stuff to consume. Thanks for the great content.
*
More accurate and less politics than my science magazines I believe.
*
Go easier on Tom Cotton. If he's your least favorite gasbag then I worry about your priorities.
*
I'm a carpenter and veteran that can't give much, but I appreciate you guys fighting the good fight!
*
Love the Roundtable, love the magazine…even like nick Gillespie, somehow.
*
All your podcasts are great. I would like to see more of them.
*
You guys really are the best. You have contributed to shaping much of my philosophy. And in all seriousness, it helps to know even if I am a political outcast, there are likeminded folk out there. Thank you for all you do.
We read, learn from, and thoroughly enjoy each and every one of these pieces of feedback. Do they describe a sentiment with which you agree? And/or, do you wish to write something that we'll just have to read? Or maybe you just like fat, round numbers like $600,000? Either way, the conclusion's the same:
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Be honest, how much did Sam Bankman-Fried donate?
Do you really think that they'd cheat on Charles? (probably)
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK. 🙂
HERE====)> http://WWW.WORKSFUL.COM
I’ve earned $17,910 this month by working online from home. I work only six hours a day despite being a full-time college student. Everyone is capable of carrying out this work from their homes and learning it in spare time on a continuous basis.
To learn more, see this article———>>> http://Www.Salaryapp1.com
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
I saw a headline that all of the major news organizations spent an average of 7 seconds talking about the Twitter Files re:Biden laptop story.
I was kind of pleased. That was more time than they spent talking about the laptop story itself. So baby steps.
"You" meaning George Soros in this case.
A good 50k was from a fauci thank you to Robbie.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks ghf-85 online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
Ever wonder if the lions share of contributions come from a couple guys, one with the initials CK and his newfound pal GS? Just thinking out loud here.
I’ve made $1250 so far this week working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’AM made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Here’s what I do for more information simply.
Open this link thank you…………..>>> onlinecareer1
POST THE NAMES OF THE OFFENDERS!!!
Charles Koch, George Soros, Sam Bankman-Fried... *sotto voce* (me, but only a tiny bit).
I'm not sure if $400,000 even covers Nick's expense account.
High quality leather jacket oil harvested from the musk glands of Siberian pine martens isn't cheap.
I would have guessed whale oil.
CATO hit the half-mill mark at the same hour of the very same day! Such wonderful anonymous donors!
What a coinkydink.
Huh, Kirstie Alley died.
Well that's sad.
long live Rebecca Howe.
I guess rich people who donate all this money have better things than to comment here.
But it is very odd, because as a reader of this site for ages, there doesn't actually seem to be any actual fans.
You have libertarians bitching that Reason isn't libertarian and then you have leftist trolls. I don't think I have ever seen someone genuinely support the argument of a Reason article, except maybe when it's something everyone agrees on, like cops needing to be reined in.
"Everyone agrees"? There are plenty of Americans who think the cops should be unleashed like the Flying Monkeys.
I started coming here somewhere around 2008. I was a libertarian leaning conservative who was tilting further away from conservativism due to religious platitudes and the weakness of the GOP on policy and principles I cared about. At the time, Reason was generally more centrist libertarian. I still thought there were more writers here leaning left than right, but the majority of articles felt as though they were based on libertarian principles rather than left-right partisanship. They were generally gentle in their Obama and democrat criticism, but overall good about getting into the weeds and showing the problems. The criticism kept getting weaker throughout his presidency and I wasn't happy with the tone of most of their TEA party coverage. The biggest turning point here was during the 2016 election. Emotive editorializing became more frequent and they really went out of their way to attack every republican candidate while passing on most Clinton news. TDS defined all their coverage during the Trump years and they started leaking progressive and postmodernist ideologies into their writing. At this point they are indistinguishable from progressives on all but a few subjects. 2020 is when the articles started becoming unreadable and my habit of jumping straight to the comments started. I can't remember the last time any writer here mentioned the NAP or used other core libertarian principles or terms.
My question is who drove this editorial shift. KMW is in charge of staffing decisions, but I don't know if her tenure aligns with the shift in tone. She is certainly responsible for the young trash new hires who can't even fake a libertarian argument. I also wonder how much this shift aligns with the death of David Koch and investment by Soros.
No matter the cause, Reason has completely lost its way and either ignores or gives awful takes on the stories that arw most important to libertarians.
Why don't you give a concrete example of your criticism.
He pretty much did. And why ask him for this when you refuse to do so yourself? Still waiting for an example of conspiracy mongering from the last website you criticized.
Still waiting for the day you ask an honest question. Not holding my breath, that's for sure.
Accusers don't need examples or evidence. The burden of proof is on the accused.
https://reason.com/2022/12/06/after-12-years-of-false-starts-d-c-metro-once-again-plots-return-of-automated-trains/
The shift I saw was in the comments, not the articles. After most of the commentariat left for the Glibs, Trumpian trolls took over. Any criticism of the man's policies were met with shouts of "Leftist! TDS!" Don't like protectionism? You're a leftist. Don't like trade wars? You're a leftist. Not a xenophobe? You're a leftist.
The only TDS I see are deranged followers shouting "Leftist!" at anyone who disagrees with them. Especially if the person is libertarian.
Thief your timeline and experience mirrors mine. I credit 2008 Reason with helping me understand what libertarianism is and how it is not just being fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Concepts like the NAP were discussed in the articles and in the comments. I don't think I would get that same education by reading Reason in 2022.
You have libertarians bitching that Reason isn’t libertarian and then you have leftist trolls.
Ha ha, no. You have a couple leftists, a few libertarians, and a bunch of Trumpian conservatives who shout "Leftist!" at anyone who disagrees with them.
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do…..
For more detail visit the given link……….>>> http://Www.Salaryapp1.com
Looks like it continues to be large donations from a few wealthy donors keeping you afloat, not us "beautiful people".
Don't pretend that anonymous donors giving lots of cash is any kind of endorsement from the little people. It's really an endorsement of big money buying influence over editorial decisions and content.