Ron Paul's Money, Rudy's Crooked Friends

I have to say that I don't really understand Andrew's take on Ron Paul's contributions from white supremacists: "Here's an idea: when Giuliani disowns his abusing priest, his mafia-consigliere and his anti-Semitic nutcase, Ron Paul should send back the $500. Deal?" I don't really see the rationale for a quid-pro-quo here. If at the end of the day you want to decide that Paul would be a less pernicious president than Giuliani (my view as of yesterday morning) then fine, but the fact that Paul should return the contribution is totally independent of the fact that there are about a dozen things wrong with the Giuliani campaign.

Similarly, while it's interesting to note, as Glenn Greenwald's been doing, that there's a double-standard wherein Ron Paul's crazy views get him labeled "crazy" whereas Rudy Giuliani's crazy views get him labeled "tough" and Charles Krauthammer's crazy views get him a spot on The Washington Post op-ed page, it's still the case that these are all people with crazy views.

Comments

Is this so surprising? Anyone and any policy who or which departs from the hawk / liberal hawk consensus in U.S. foreign policy is considered extreme, fringe, crazy, irresponsible.

If you thought Ronald Reagan should overthrow the Nicaraguan government by particularly bloody and terrorist methods, you were fine. If you thought Ronald Reagan should overthrow the Nicaraguan government by less bloody and more Congress-friendly methods, you were fine. If you thought that Ronald Reagan should not have been overthrowing the Nicaraguan government, you were crazy, a dirty friggin' hippie, a pro-Soviet dupe, etc.

This seems to me another example of an ideological reaction to keep ideas and policies within the bounds of the pre-existing consensus, and absolutely zero to do with any objective view on how sane or crazy Giuliani, Paul, or Cheney for that matter may be.

Dennis Kucinich once thought he saw a UFO, maybe, so he's obviously way, way, way beyond the pale; however, people who think we ought to risk blowing up the world by talking about nuclear strikes in the Middle East are fine, upstanding policy advisers who should get national media exposure for their mad rants.

Posted by El Cid | November 14, 2007 8:16 AM

Matt, I think you're missing an important difference here (which Greenwald does point out) between "crazy" meaning "politically on-the-fringe" (Ron Paul) and "crazy" meaning "wilfully ignorant of reality" (Giuliani, Krauthammer.)

There is a huge difference between asserting that US global military hegemony is a bad thing, and proposing we should bomb Iran right now.

Posted by James Gary | November 14, 2007 8:19 AM

I've never understood the argument that a politician should immediately return money to unsavory types who donate to them. Why? As you've argued before, Matt, what matters at the end of the day is a politician's positions, and how they intend to govern if elected. A small donation from some fringe whacko is not going to have any effect on that. Giving the money back simply amounts to helping to fund the fringe whackos activities, since now he, rather than Ron Paul, has an extra $500.

It's true that it might make sense for a voter to take into account the fact that some racist (or whomever) is giving money to a particualr candidate, as a signal about the positions that candidate holds. But that signal is given by the attempt to donate the money, not by the politician actually accepting and keeping it.

Posted by Doug T | November 14, 2007 9:00 AM

This strikes me as something of an "I know you are, but what am I?" defense from Sullivan.

Posted by Pete | November 14, 2007 9:01 AM

Judging a political view as 'crazy' isn't really helpful. While ron Pauls policies suck, there are reasons why they suck. They are not, actually, the product of a delusional or imbalanced mind.

If Ron Paul were on stage warning us of impending invasion for the ewok race, and the rising empire of Endor, then he would be espousing 'crazy' views. Currently, he is just espousing primitive and poorly thought through ones.

Posted by soullite | November 14, 2007 9:19 AM

I agree with Doug T. Back when we had noticeably large soft-money donations, returning them made sense, since it's plausible that they would influence the candidate's governing activities. And it would likewise make sense to ask candidates to quash high-profile and identifiable campaigns to raise money from Nazis or terrorists or whatever. But to the extent that getting a small donation from a fascist wacko is a bad thing, as Doug says, the bad thing is the signal sent by said fascist wacko that he likes the candidate; this signal isn't changed if the $500 is given back. I liked the Paul campaign's original answer: "If people who disagree with our goals foolishly decide to give us money, that's their problem."

On the other hand, I agree with Matt that the quid pro quo makes no sense. I don't see why Paul should have to give back the money even if Rudy drops all his idiotic advisers or even drops out of the race completely. The two are totally unconnected.

Posted by Jadagul | November 14, 2007 9:25 AM

Doug T is spot on.

Oh, and just let's set the record straight on Kucinich... he didn't just say he saw a UFO, he said he felt it send him a message. Whether you feel that additional info takes him across the line to "crazy" is up to you, of course, but I think most people would at least think it moves him closer.

Posted by Glenn | November 14, 2007 9:38 AM

In defense of Sullivan, I think the argument is something like this:
A Guiliani supporter is making hay of a $500 check from someone alleged to be a neo-nazi to Ron Paul. I don't know the circumstances around the check, but I do know that Guiliani is associated with a priest with a serious charge of abusing children, a man he tried to make head of Homeland Security at a time he knew he has mob associations, and (I am actually not sure who the anti-semitic nutcase is supposed to be. Is Sullivan playing on the fact that arabs are semites and so referring to Guiliani's coterie of anti-muslim bigots?).

When the Guiliani suppporter takes seriously the problem of being associated with mobsters, pedophiles and anti-semites, I will take seriously his charge that Paul has taken some money from a neo-nazi.

Admittedly Sullivan makes the point facetiously. But I hate to see the internet play a role in forcing literalism on us because it is too hard to recognize facetious comments in print.

(Guiliani's comment about Obama having Assad and Ahmadinejad at his inaugaration is another example. There is plenty wrong with Guiliani, but the fact that he makes facetious remarks is not one of them.)

Posted by Lon | November 14, 2007 9:38 AM

I've never understood the argument that a politician should immediately return money to unsavory types who donate to them. Why?

For several reasons, actually, but a glaringly obvious one is that it makes you look bad to take money from a famous neo-nazi.

Is it worth the $500?

I guess some people think so, which is something that I don't understand.

So be it. As Matt rightly says, this has nothing to do with Giuliani's unsavory connections. But if anyone thinks he's not paying a price for his ties to Kerik, a pedophile priest and a Pat Robertson endorsement, it's certainly not because the media has failed to report these facts - they've been widely reported and discussed.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 14, 2007 9:49 AM

But that signal is given by the attempt to donate the money, not by the politician actually accepting and keeping it.

Doug T., I think that's wrong.

The choice to keep the money sends a pretty big signal. A decision to return the money would also send a huge - but very different - signal.

This is pretty obvious stuff.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 14, 2007 9:55 AM

I agree that there's a political reason to return the money, since accepting it gets people upset. I just don't see why people get upset about the politician accepting the money.

I think a politician getting money from someone indicates that the donater supports the politician, but I don't think it equally implies the politician supports the donater. Whereas the idea that accepting the money casts the politician in a bad light seems to imply the latter, rather than the former.

Posted by Doug T | November 14, 2007 9:58 AM

I think a politician getting money from someone indicates that the donater supports the politician, but I don't think it equally implies the politician supports the donater.

That's where a decision to not return the money comes in.

Obviously it doesn't mean that the politician agrees with everything that the donor does, says or thinks. That's the case with any donation. Most times, politicians can't even know what donors think. (Here, however, there's a clear cut case where everyone knows what Mr. Black thinks. If not, surf over to stormfront.org and have a look)

But accepting and not returning an unsavory donation generally signals (whether it actually means this or not is an entirely different story, but we're talking about politics here) that the politician does not find the particular donor's views - or a public connection to the donor - distasteful enough to dissociate himself with - in this case - a neo-nazi.

Returning the donation is not only the smart thing to do, it's super easy, and only costs $500 - and would bring him so much more benefit than keeping it - on a fairly monumental scale. The only people who would be upset that he returned the money are neo-nazis.

Until then, this will be the most expensive $500 Paul's ever touched - which is pretty stupid.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 14, 2007 10:07 AM

First, I want to announce that I will gladly accept whatever money that neo-Nazis, proto-communists, Kucinich-loving aliens, or SoCalJustice wish to send me.

Second, I just want to make sure that I understand the rules as SoCalJusice makes them. If I as a Congressman go to a defense corporation and ask for money while promising to support their latest weapon system, a system the Pentagon even may oppose buying, this is fine money ... no problem here. On the other hand, if I get money out of the blue from a crazy guy for which I did not ask nor campaign for in any way, and for which there is no suggestion I have or will alter my polices to get that money, that shows my moral failings, or that I secretly must agree with the crazy person, or something.

I suppose that I should not be surprised that some people have climbed over the mountain of actual corrupting and good policy destroying contributions out there to shriek at the one contribution that won't influence the person receiving it.

Posted by Counterfactual | November 14, 2007 10:29 AM

Counterfactual -- you don't get it, it's going to be the most expensive $500 ever, man!

Posted by Barbar | November 14, 2007 10:55 AM

Counterfactual,

Are you running for President?

Then "my rules" don't apply to you - take money from Hitler's maid's great grand children, for all I care.

It is really fun watching Paul supporters deny reality.

You're not doing him any favors.

And Barbar - you can joke about this not costing Congressman Paul all you want - but it already has, and will continue to do so.

Of course, you might be like James the other day who thinks that no matter what happens, Paul is going to win the New Hampshire primary on his way to the GOP nomination.

Ron Paul threads are awesome. I'm going to miss them when the election is over.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 14, 2007 11:05 AM

I know, man -- it's already been so cool, and it's only going to get groovier from here!

I haven't felt this alive in years!

Posted by Barbar | November 14, 2007 11:12 AM

I think a politician getting money from someone indicates that the donater supports the politician, but I don't think it equally implies the politician supports the donater.

I agree to some extent that the sort of rush politicians get into to return contributions from "unsavory" sources gets pretty sill. On a certain level it's an pointless PC symbolic exercise.

But I think the reason that people get worked up about these situations is that there's an assumption that politicians are, or can be influenced by the people who give them money. Sure, one guy writing a $500 check isn't going to have much influence. But what if he was a Bush-style Pioneer, raising a hundred thousand or more from his neo-Nazi buddies. Then you'd have a real concern that this guys neo-Nazi ideas would get a hearing from politician X. Since there's no reasonable place to draw the line as far as what size of contribution will be influential and what size won't, the best thing to do is to just always return the money.

Counterfactual actually makes a pretty good point. It matters a great deal to me when a politician gets a lot of donations from a defense contractor or any other corporation for that matter that has business with the government. In a prefect world, a politician receiving contributions like this would create the same level of firestorm as contributions from some lone neo-Nazi. In fact, as Conuterfactual makes clear, corporation contributions to politicians have a huge influence on public spending and public policy and are a huge problem.

Direct corporate contributions are already illegal, of course. But corporations get around this by pushing all of their top level managers to donate to candidate X and then bundling these contributions together so that its clear where the money came from.

This is why I'm in favor of a major overhaul of our campaign finance system. Public financing is probably the best solution, and there are lots of very good proposals out there. The public financing option I like the best is giving every voter access to an account that they can distribute how they please in any election. They could spend it all on local election or presidential elections or spread it out on every election imaginable.

There's also a non-public financing proposal that removes all caps on contributions but requires that all contributions pass through a government office and that when the contributions are received by the candidates the money is completely anonymous. The reason this second approach is good is that there can be no possibility of a quid pro quo. Of course this leave in the problem that candidates rich people like will get all the money.

Posted by Rob Mac | November 14, 2007 12:51 PM

As I said before, if a bunch of Neo-Nazis are sending Paul money, I'd say keep it AND say WHY (i.e., "they're morons and we don't support them but their money will be put to good use against them" - a la the Church of the SubGenius, "They may be pink but their money is green!)

But if it's only one lousy $500 check, send it back AND say why ("the guy's a Neo-Nazi and we don't support Neo-Nazis.")

It's the "say why" that matters not the money itself. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive, even if they sound that way.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 14, 2007 6:18 PM

Ah, but it's not just $500 from one guy that returning the money will cost Paul. One of the major lines of attack on Paul will be to paint him as associated with bigots; it was before the contribution and it will still be if he gives it back, so he doesn't gain much. Few people following the story close enough to notice don't already have strong opinions on him.

Being willing to play the game will ensure that his political opponents have a steady stream of gotchas, since it will be a minor story that allows them to reuse the newsletter talking points any time he gets a contribution from somebody flaky.

Picking a small, unsolicited donation from somebody who is ideologically dissimilar to him as the place to take a one-time hit on this issue is a good tactical move - any subsequent refusals to return money will be non-stories, since he will have already said he's not going to return even smaller donations from more controversial figures.

Trying to prove that you're not X to the satisfaction of people who are opposed to your candidacy anyway is a fool's errand. If you allow your opponents to control the terms of the argument, you will always lose. Instead, recast what your foes claim is a vice as a virtue ("If Paul gives the money back, he'd be giving $500 to a Nazi." ;) ); giving it back now would just validate what his critics have been saying. It doesn't even matter if they're right - admitting to being wrong is far more damaging than actually being wrong in electoral politics.

Posted by MattXIV | November 14, 2007 7:16 PM

In Sully's post, he makes it fairly clear that he is not attacking _the argument that Ron Paul should return the money_ per se, but specific Giuliani supporters who have argued that this incident is a reason not to vote for Ron Paul (and, presumably, to support Rudy). I think that's a sound attack; the principles that Giuliani supporters are adducing do not actually lead to the conclusion that one should support Giuliani over Paul.

Posted by sdaf | November 14, 2007 10:33 PM

Isn't going back to the gold standard just straight up crazy? I'm pretty sure that should be judged crazy by any standard.

Also, the (pretty clearly and blatantly) racist newsletter arguing for treating really scary 13-year-old African Americans like 23-year-olds is pretty crazy. I know Paul disavowed, but I do NOT find his MUCH LATER disavowal of having actually written something called the Ron Paul Newsletter or whatever to be credible.

Posted by bob | November 14, 2007 10:52 PM

Read all about it here:

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749

Posted by bob | November 14, 2007 10:55 PM

I wonder if Ron Paul shares my views on donations?

I figure, if people I disagree violently with want to send me money, better I have it than them.

You could find out if he thinks this quite easily by seeing if he has *ever* returned *any* legal campaign contribution. If he has returned any, he should return this one, obviously.

Posted by Nathanael Nerode | November 15, 2007 10:32 AM