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 — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...