So you think he should return the money — what was it, $500? — so that the hate group can put it to use in their hate projects? Like Paul told Cavuto, “I’ll do a lot better things with that money than they would have done.” It’s good that they’re the poorer for it.
Using that “logic”, a politician could justify taking money from any interest group, no matter how sleazy.
“I’ll do great things with that money, therefore it’s magically become clean and acceptable”.
Instead of holding onto the dough, Paul could have donated it to the United Negro College Fund (or similar cause).*
*one time a chapter of the K.K.K. donated money to a state’s Adopt-A-Highway program so they could get placards with their name put up along the road. As I recall, the state changed the name of the road to something like the Martin Luther King Highway. 
I’m not sure campaign finance funds can be donated to charity. Someone with more knowledge of this, please cime in.
There seems to be a precedent. (in case this is a subscription-only link, it is to a N.Y. Times article detailing how the Clinton campaign was giving a donation by a fundraiser named Hsu to charity, after it came to light that a warrant had been issued for Hsu’s arrest for alleged malsleazance.
I do have to admire Ron Paul’s nerve in justifying keeping money from a Stormfront biggie. It could carry over to other cases where people have taken dirty money. Say, for instance, a cop who accepted a $50,000 bribe from a drug dealer.
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client did a public service by accepting money from this man, who otherwise would have spent it on AK-47s and loose women - whereas my client bought his Cadillac from a reputable dealer, returning the money to the local economy and creating jobs!” :dubious:
No, it couldn’t. $50,000 bribes are illegal; $500 campaign donations are not. By contrast, Hsu had been in the inner circle of fund raisers for Clinton, deeply involved for quite some time in regular meetings with her top 20 contributors and gave tens of thousands of dollars. (From your link.) Paul gets the bulk of his funds from anonymous Internet contributors via an icon that anyone can put on a webpage.
ETA:
Apparently, the OP has abandoned his own thread, so I’m inclined to think even he doesn’t believe it. Ah, here’s the new BG thread. We’re moving on to the evil Muslims now.
Who cares where his money comes from? Can anyone find a single instance of Paul’s vote being iinfluenced by outside sources?
I am reminded of the late, great Jesse Unruh: “If you can’t take their money, drink their liquor, f*** their women, and then come in here the next day and vote against them, you don’t belong [in politics].”
How would you tell?
A change in stance that is correlated with the timing of donations from a source that benefits from the new stance.
IMHO if you get donations from groups that like your stance, you are clean.
If you CHANGE your stance and it syncs up with donations, you are probably being bought.
I guess it is a question of Bought vs. Supported.
That assumes that we can tell that a change in stance has or hasn’t occurred, and when.
Or even that a change of stance wouldn’t have occurred.
Money could potentially strengthen a politician’s stance, or keep it from changing, just as readily as it could change their stance.
ETA: To use a personal, non-political example: I got a certain measure of relative fame by writing a certain type of poetry. It is very very hard to walk away from those accolades even when I want to, so they form a type of currency that keeps me in line.
By reviewing the entire record and determining whether at some point the voting trend changed. For example, if he had changed his position on government spending, one should be able to find where he stopped voting against it and began voting in favor of it.
Sorry, but there are no clear-cut ways to tell when a politician’s actions may be influenced by campaign donations. What are we supposed to think, for example, if a Senator has been critical of FBI sting operations, starts getting donations from people linked to organized crime, and then votes to cut FBI funding? He’s just being consistent?
And Liberal overlooks the point of my previous post. It’s not that I equate a $500 campaign contribution with a $50K bribe to a cop in terms of legality. What’s at issue is whether someone can justify taking money from a sleazy source by claiming that they’ll put it to better use. That’s a specious argument, and by using it, Ron Paul insults our intelligence.
Then by that logic, you’re insulting my intelligence because I think your argument is specious. Your analogy certainly was. Al Sharpton is a racist, in my opinion, but that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have some common interests with one or more candidates. If a white nationalist supports Paul, it is likely because he would like to have the freedom to segregate himself from blacks, just as a black integrationist might support him for the same freedom to associate with his white friends. Lots of different kinds of people value liberty.
edit: crap!
This is excellent advice for most discussions involving you; I’ll take it!
Daniel
See post #6.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. Wikipedia
See post #2. Does that photo suggest that Al Gore is a homophobe?
Influence is one thing, and it’s worth considering; it’s a good thing if there are no such instances, of course.
There’s another issue, though. Do disproportionate donations from hate groups indicate what the results of his election would entail? I figure that the hate groups know their shit and are, within their irrational nasty philosophy, making rational choices to further their interests. It may well be that Ron Paul is not a racist, but that his election would allow racists to further their interests in a way that I don’t like. The fact that a lot of racists support him makes me think that’s a legitimate danger.
In the same way, if the Revolutionary Communist Youth Party (or whatever those fuckers are called) was sincerely and actively supporting John Edwards, it’d cause me to think hard about what they’re seeing in his policies that I’m not seeing.
The friend of my enemy is not necessarily my enemy, but I’m going to examine them closely.
Daniel
For those who don’t want to check out Stormfront’s site to see why denizens there are enthusiastic about Ron Paul (I did briefly, and my home computer is now soaking in bleach), here’s one Stormfront forum contributor summarizing why Paul appeals to white supremacists:
*On issues particularly important to White Nationalists or the Pro-White in general, of all the mainstream candidates:
-
Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of “Hate Crime” Laws.
-
Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of Amnesty and “open border” movements.
-
Ron Paul wants to end birth-right citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.
-
Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of welfare programs that among other things, would redistribute the income of hard-working White families into the hands of lazy non-Whites.
-
Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of Globalism and all attempts to create a North American Union.
-
Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of military support and foreign aid to countries like Israel.
-
Ron Paul is the least likely to support government crackdowns on Pro-White organizations, and the most likely to veto any legislation to that effect.*
That last reason may be the most compelling - if hate groups commit murders or other crimes, they may be able to duck local prosecution, but there’s the specter of the F.B.I. and prosecutions under federal civil rights laws. Ron Paul would be expected to try to gut Federal enforcement and civil rights protections, something Stormfront et al view with glee.
The link the above quote comes from can be found by googling “Stormfront Ron Paul”.
By not speaking out forcefully against these supporters and by keeping the above-mentioned campaign donation, Paul is tacitly encouraging such allies.
Paul’s campaign is like a “Republican Big Tent” with freak-show performers and misshapen circus animals running rampant. You wonder when the rest of the Paul crowd will wise up.