Skip to main content

Gary Johnson qualifies for Federal matching funds

The FEC officially announced that Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson has been approved for matching funds.

His campaign had to prove its ability to raise funds nationwide to qualify:
To be considered for federal matching funds a candidate must raise at least $100,000 “by collecting $5,000 in 20 different states in amounts no greater than $250 from any individual,” according to a release from the FEC.

I know that some Libertarians find fault with any candidate who would participate in, or benefit from, any government program.

Put me firmly in the camp that says, once they've got your money, use any legal means available to get any of it back.

Comments

tom said…
I agree completely.

We need to outlaw taxing people to fund election campaigns.

but until that happens our candidates need to use the money that was stolen from us rather than allowing their opponents use it against them.
anonone said…
Federal matching funds for presidential campaigns are donated voluntarily as a check-off on tax returns.

What we should be doing is funding elections only with public funds.
tom said…
yeah, just as "voluntary" as IRS propaganda would have you believe every aspect of our income tax system is.

because we all know that everyone "voluntarily" spends hours filling out the forms disclosing every detail of their finances,

and "voluntarily" sends in the payments,

and "voluntarily" invites IRS agents to audit them,

and "voluntarily" submits to the fines or even prison time that can be assessed for errors or omissions.

it would be voluntary if not checking the box meant that you get to keep the $3.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...