I've written here about a couple of previous "money bombs" organized by independent Ron Paul supporters-- one commemorating Guy Fawkes Night (and, oddly, the movie V for Vendetta) and another celebrating the Boston Tea Party.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
(Credit: Library of Congress. New York World-Telegram & Sun Collection. Via the Wikimedia Commons.)There's another one scheduled for today, but it has a purpose beyond mere money-raising. As Rep. Paul has been gaining ground in the polls and primaries, opponents have revived old charges of racism based on newsletters written in his name back in 1992. The statements in the newsletters were pretty bad, but Paul didn't write them and has apologized for them repeatedly.
More to the point, the statements are incompatible with Paul's political philosophy, which opposes all forms of collectivism: racism, nationalism, sexism, and so on. It's always been clear to me that Paul is no racist; it just wouldn't make sense. (If anything, he should be a little less inclusive, especially when it comes to accepting support from people who share his views on monetary policy but have unsavory opinions on other subjects.)
Unfortunately, Paul's repudiation hasn't succeeded in squashing these libelous claims. I've heard them from friends and coworkers myself. Although they're easily enough dealt with in a face-to-face discussion, the fact remains that the Ron Paul campaign hasn't managed to put them down yet.
Judging from the traffic on Ron Paul-related message boards I've been reading since Paul began his campaign, the vast majority of Paul's supporters on the Internet are socially progressive and vehemently opposed to this smear campaign. Today, they get to put their money where their mouths are.
The "Free at Last" money bomb was scheduled for Jan. 21 to coincide with Martin Luther King day, the Federal holiday celebrating the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. that was established in 1983 by another fiscally conservative Republican, President Ronald Reagan.
I don't think anyone can know in advance whether this money bomb will raise more money than the other two ($4.2 million and $6 million respectively), but there's cause for optimism among Paul's supporters. Rep. Paul took second place in the Nevada caucuses last week and now ranks ahead of Rudy Giuliani in total delegates committed to date. If Fred Thompson drops out of the race as some analysts predict, Paul will be in fourth place overall.
What was interesting to me about the two previous money bombs is that they demonstrated how independent supporters can raise money more effectively than an official campaign organization. It's just one more way that the Internet upsets traditional power structures. Today we may learn that the Internet is also more effective at communicating a candidate's political positions.
I see today's "money bomb" for the Ron Paul presidential campaign is doing even better than the Nov. 5 event. No doubt the publicity from last month is helping this time around.
According to this real-time data from RonPaulGraphs.com, contributions are coming in at a rate about 50% higher than the previous occasion. Around 3 P.M. Pacific time, the day's donations passed the total for Nov. 5.
Donations are currently on a pace to reach about $6.5 million for the day, which would set a new one-day record for actual donations. And all without the support of the official campaign organization. Amazing.
Back on November 5 I wrote about an independent fundraising effort on behalf of the Ron Paul campaign. The occasion was Guy Fawkes Night, the commemoration of the 1605 attempt to blow up the Palace of Westminster in England. As I said at the time, this was a strange occasion for fundraising in a US presidential campaign, but at least it gave the organizers a convenient tagline for the effort: they called it a "money bomb".
The Destruction of Tea at Boston Harbor, by Sarony & Major, 1846
(Credit: National Archives and Records Administration)The Internet is having strange effects on political campaigns. Four years ago, the Howard Dean campaign used the Internet to great effect, but in largely predictable ways-- to reduce the costs of reaching supporters, raising money, and coordinating campaign activities.
This time around, all the presidential candidates are using the Internet for these purposes, but one campaign-- Ron Paul's-- has benefited more than the others from independent activism that has been much less predictable, and not uniformly beneficial.
Ron Paul has received unexpected support from users of Meetup.com, YouTube, FaceBook, and other popular sites. He has also received support from anarchists, 911 Truthers, racists, and others whose positions he doesn't agree with.
In the old days, a few problematic supporters were an accepted part of political life; as Charles Dudley Warner wrote in 1850, "politics makes strange bedfellows." A candidate could accept money (and votes) from anyone with the general public being none the wiser. Without hard details, rumors are more easily dismissed.
Today, the Internet makes it easier for a candidate's opponents to dig up ill-considered statements and campaign appearances and make them appear more significant than they really are. (This has been a problem for all the campaigns this year, not just Ron Paul's.)
The November 5 "money bomb" was not promoted in advance by Dr. Paul's campaign, perhaps because it feared the whole thing would flop. In fact, the campaign basically ignored the event until it became apparent that it was bringing in millions of dollars-- eventually topping out at more than $4.2 million. The campaign never made a formal statement about the Guy Fawkes connection.
On November 20, the campaign-- possibly responding to rumors that another "money bomb" event was planned for December 16-- sent out its own fundraising letter encouraging supporters not to wait. It argued that it needed to raise and spend the funds sooner because of the timing of the primaries, saying "If you wait a month from now to donate, your money will only be spent after Iowa caucus-goers and New Hampshire primary voters have made up their minds."
As of this writing, the campaign has yet to mention the Tea Party money bomb, and my guess is that it won't-- unless the event raises some significant amount of money. Coincidentally, the event is likely to push the campaign well past its $12 million fundraising goal for the fourth quarter of the year, so some recognition by the campaign is probably inevitable.
Will the Ron Paul campaign turn down Sunday's donations simply because they aren't from an official fundraising drive? Of course not. Will it be able to spend the money effectively? I'm sure it will. Would it have been better for the campaign to have received these donations sooner? Absolutely. But Internet activists run on their own schedules for their own reasons, and political campaigns are going to have to get used to that.
- prev
- 1
- next
