Skip to main content

Gary Johnson fundraising beginning to take off: YOU can make it explode

The Supreme Court says money equates to political speech.

On one level I've always disagreed with that, but being on the fringes of the inside of a presidential campaign I begin to see the argument from the candidate's point of view.  No money, no visibility.  No visibility, no coverage.  No coverage, no votes.

There are a lot of creative grassroots, populist tactics you can employ to offset some of the difficulties, but the reality is that if you don't have millions at your disposal you aren't going to be a serious candidate for president, just like if you don't have $30k you're going to be hard-pressed to win a seat in the Delaware General Assembly in a hotly contested race.

So I am pleased to note that the Gary Johnson 2012 money bomb to get him into the presidential debates is going well (over $22,600 in first three days), and that a supportive Libertarian PAC has just received a $1,000,000 donation to help out.

With Federal matching funds for the direct campaign donations, here's the math:  if one only considered the 500,000 folks who voted Libertarian in the last election, and if each of those people contributed $25 apiece, then the campaign would receive $12.5 million, which the FEC would double to $25 million.

Compared to the staggering totals that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are raising, that doesn't sound like a lot, but it would be enough to make Gary Johnson competitive in terms of getting into the debates.  It would buy media and pay for more trips.  It would be a game changer.

So if you are serious about wanting to see a third option for President, one who might actually change the conversation in America, then dig into your pocket for $25.  That's it, that's what change would cost:  $25.

If you agreed to $25 a month for the next three  months, you could even give him a chance to be elected.

Do it today:  Gary Johnson 2012.

Comments

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 ...