Think [the box] ing discussion

6 views
Political Philosophy > Political Donations and Morality

Comments Showing 1-2 of 2 (2 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Tim (new)

Tim | 86 comments Mod
Should "morality" be a factor in receiving/returning money donated to a politician?

I tried to discuss this elsewhere but it didn't really go anywhere as people seemed to be focusing on condemnation without consideration, with their final verdict being that Ron Paul was a "fuckwit". I can certainly accept someone feels that way, however i could only respect that opinion if i could see valid reasoning behind it. I thought i would try it here.

To put my question in context here is what i found someone saying about their feeling on Senator Ron Paul:

"If he doesn't have the political savvy to know he should have denounced his storm front supporters then he doesn't deserve to win. He didn't offend them until he had already offended everyone else by taking their money."

I then said, "Im not sure i understand your comment about offending everyone by taking their money..?"

They replied, "You mean people shouldn't be offended he took David Duke's money?" and quoted:

"A LoneStarTimes.com investigation has conclusively established that a leading figure in the American neo-Nazi / White-Supremacist movement has provided financial support to Ron Paul’s 2008 Presidential campaign."

My reply was:

Ah thanks very much for that info and link , I had never heard of him (David Duke) before. I then found Ron Paul's campaign response:
----
Quote:
"Paul spokesman Jesse Benton told the Post the Texas congressman's camp does not monitor donors, nor does it return money to controversial characters.

"Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom.

"And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added.

Don Black said, "We know that he's not a white nationalist. He says he isn't and we believe him, but on the issues [of anti war etc], there's only one choice," Black said Wednesday."

---

Hmm.. I am open minded and i like to think.. Im not sure all would agree with me here, but i think this presents a very interesting question/dilemma.

On one hand i understand and can actually respect Paul for keeping the money. On the other hand i know he will be (and we see even in this thread) utterly slated for it.

1. Don Black has every right to donate to a cause he believes in.
2. Paul's people say they dont monitor donators (and why should they..?) That being the case, someone brought this up intentionally to smear Paul (no surprise there).
3. Paul will make better use of the money, for liberty for all, than potentially could be used by Don Black.
4. To reject the money would be to play it safe politically and clearly in response to media pressure for him to do so. $500 is pocketchange in terms of the $1 Billion and counting in the election thus far.
5. Paul would be smeared anyway even if he gave it back, simply by people citing that so and so endorsed him.
6. Where do you draw the line? Should every single person not then be "background checked"? Should someone reject any donation made by a pedophile? A murderer? Someone who works for a company that makes weapons which kill people? A thief? An adulterer? A lier? Think outside the box and imagine Ron Paul being replaced by your most worthy charity. Should that charity check every person donating money and refuse the chance to use that money to a great cause and instead give it back to be used for other less noble reasons?

I certainly dont claim to know the answer. It sure is tricky. I do however feel that simply labeling Paul a "fuckwit", or anything else, for this reason, is perhaps less than fair.


What do you think?


message 2: by [deleted user] (new)

well it's david duke

it should have rung a bell with someone in the campaign

racism is america's original sin

keeping klan money is like going to dinner with hitler at auschwitz


back to top