"Defense of Liberty" PAC - $2,800 to Candidates, $19,000 + in Expenses

Apollo,

Well my wife and I are going to be monthly members to the PAC and I encourage every liberty minded person here on AMG to join us.

I will double any donation that you give Apollo up to $100.00

Well, I don't like the tactics that they employ, but you have to respect someone who puts in a ton of their own money and time.

Thanks Jimmy!

The high dollar amount is because we are a start up, the overhead has come down significantly. Eric Brakey is now off the payroll so we have more money to spend on candidates. I will be making 2,000/month. Eric and I have poured A LOT of ourselves into this PAC and average ~60 hours a week. That means I get paid roughly $8.30/ hour, BEFORE taxes.

Sometimes I wish there was less bomb throwing going on here and other places. We are supporting REPUBLICAN candidates and working towards the majority in November.

Are we spending too much time tearing down the very groups that wish to support us as candidates? I for one say thank you to the candidates they support. I looke dat their financials listed and see significant effort to start up the PAC, and maybe more could go to candidates but as they get the word out and receive more money, that too will happen.

Liberty means action...support Liberty at every turn!

And what tactics would that be Apollo? Getting non-corrupt candidates that the people would really like to represent them elected? What a horror! Why don't you investigate the tactics of the GOP? That will keep you up at night.

I'm in Jimmy and I look forward to seeing what can be done.

I'm in Jimmy and I look forward to seeing what can be done.

I would like to see the proof that Paul is not corrupt just as I would like to see the proof Romney is corrupt. Personally neither one of them show me much, RP has been in DC to long not to be part of the problem, IMO and Romney is to much like Snowe, Brown, Collins IMO.

Islander, your method of decision making seems to be evidence-free. A priori judgements about candidates are without foundation. I'd start by looking at Paul's voting record - http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/296/

Apollo, are the tactics you don't like the ones that involve successfully identifying and promoting liberty candidates and issues? :)

No Three Pipe, it was the takeover and fiasco of the State Convention, publicly slamming Summers, endorsing Obama, labeling everyone who doesn't agree with them Establishment, daily attacks on Webster, etc.

Apollo, words have definitions.

Most of the "tactics" you don't like involve being effective (the "takeover") or endorsing alternatives to the candidates you like, or expressing disagreement. Those aren't really "tactics"... your criticism largely amounts to... they are in the other camp, which I disagree with.

And when did DOLPAC endorse Obama? Did I miss an email?

Regarding, "establishment".. again, words have definitions. You can complain to the dictionary people if you want. A lot of neo-liberals don't like being called communists, but it doesn't change the facts. Personally I wish the Ron Paul camp were better established, I certainly wouldn't be complaining about it, even though being in power comes with the need to defend one's record.

Your views, apparently, are based on antidisestablishmentarianism, and outside of changing them, there's nothing you can do about that.

Ok I looked at RP 's voting record and you consider this proof of no corruption? lol. I would consider some of his earmarks and support of corporate welfare corruption, would you?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2821103/posts. I man of principal who submits the earmark knowing it will pass even as he votes no, what a guy.
And proof of Romney's corruption?

Islander, you didn't even bother to look at Ron Paul's own statements about this. If you think you can just Google "Ron Paul corrupt" or whatever along those lines you chose, and score a victory, you are in for some rough waters. Would you really care to debate Paul's record on the issues, as demonstrated by his voting record, against Romney's, as demonstrated by his public comments and executive policy actions? You'll be pitting a person who has quite literally been on almost every side of every issue, sometimes on the same day, against someone with rock-solid principled consistency.

Here Paul explains what you don't know, that "earmarks" does not equate to "corruption," although it's somewhat hilarious that a corrupt system has established this weak meme in order to aggregate spending power to the Executive, and that you fell for it.

You also mention corporate welfare, but the term doesn't seem to appear in the link you provided.

As far the corruption of Romney's organization, it has been well-documented here on AMG. For instance, the part where it was documented that a staffer from Romney's home office committed fraud in between having conversations with Romney's top lawyer. But that is small stuff. You are probably not qualified to refute this (or rather the full 200-page report), unless you have a background in advanced statistics -- http://bit.ly/yUEPbE

However I challenge you to find someone qualified to do it. I would love to see someone refute it; it's so sad.

That you require proof of guilt versus innocence, depending on whom the candidate is, is a logical error.

Apollo: A PAC (Political Action Committee) is to influence, and though direct contributions to candidates and other PACs can be their primary means of doing so, it's not always the case. Sometimes their marketing expenses can be significant if they use it to educate and inform the public.

I don't know this particular organization but reading about them here and on mainecampaignfinance.com leads me to believe there is much more going on here than is shown in their financial statements. PACs I've been familiar with are trivial organizations, or a political offshoot of some larger establishment. This one looks like there are significant hours being put into running it.

Three Pipe Problem: I thought I'd never see the word "antidisestablishmentarianism" used in normal conversation!

Non hypergeometric behavior! Gives a whole new meaning to cheating, doesn't it?

Faskinatin', ThreePipe!