Paul Raises Over $5 Million in Last Quarter

The Ron Paul campaign has announced fundraising total for the third quarter of $5.08 million, a signifcant increase over the previous quarter. The campaign has now set a $12 million fundraising goal for the fourth quarter.

The official press release…

The Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign raised $5,080,000 during the third quarter of 2007. That is an impressive 114 percent increase from the second quarter.

Cash on hand for the Paul campaign is $5,300,000.

“Dr. Paul’s message is freedom, peace and prosperity,” said Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “As these fundraising numbers show, more Americans each day are embracing Dr. Paul’s message.”

Ron Paul’s 114 percent increase is in stark contrast to the decrease suffered by Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain. Romney’s fundraising was down 29 percent. Giuliani was down 40 percent. McCain was down 55 percent.

44 Responses to “Paul Raises Over $5 Million in Last Quarter”

  1. Robert Milnes Says:

    No more support for Ron Paul/GOP. Support the Real Libertarian candidates.

  2. carlivar Says:

    Ron Paul is a real libertarian. He’s just successful, which I know is confusing to us LP members. I’ll take pragmatism any day.

  3. SovereignMN Says:

    Those are very impressive numbers. I thought it would be around 3.5 MM tops.

  4. G.E. Smith Says:

    No support for newscaster stalkers. Support the real psychos. Vote Randy Crowe.

  5. Robert Milnes Says:

    G.E. Smith, you graciously apologized for using that inflammatory word about me. Did you forget?

  6. Robert Milnes Says:

    Carlivar, No, a Real Libertarian runs on the Libertarian ballot. Not on opposition party gop ballot. What you call pragmatism is actually counter-productive.

  7. Robert Milnes Says:

    SoverignMN, yes very impressive. It could be Progressive Alliance numbers except Ron Paul got there first.

  8. Trent Hill Says:


    If you keep BEING a creepy stalker—-GE doesnt have to stop using the term.

    Oh, and are candidates defined by the party label beside their name?
    If George Bush runs for congress as a Libertarian, IS HE ONE!?

  9. Robert Milnes Says:

    Trent Hill, you tell me. George Bush wouldn’t be stupid enough to run as a libertarian. It would be immediately obvious he wasn’t one. What is Ron Paul’s excuse? Stalker? Now you are using that word inappropriately. What evidence do you have that I have stalked or am stalking anybody?

  10. Kyle B Says:

    well in response to the press release it is easier to post an increase when you had lower numbers to start with.

  11. Trent Hill Says:


    So are you saying Paul is stupid for running as a Republican? Or that libertarians are stupid for supporting him? Either way, my Bush analogy sticks.
    The letter beside his name doesnt matter AT ALL. The Libertarian party is inconsequential when it stands in the way of Freedom, like you WANT it to do.

  12. G.E. Smith Says:

    I don’t agree that the letter next to the name is inconsequential. The two-party system is a creation of the two dominant parties. It is the founders’ worst nightmare come true. It is what has given us bigger and bigger government. Opposing the two-party system is important.

    But Ron Paul, as a Republican, acknowledges this. As president, I’m confident he would veto any law passed by Congress intended to strengthen the bi-partisan monopoly of big-government parties. That said, if there were a Libertarian candidate who was a better choice than Ron Paul, I would support that candidate. There isn’t. And Mr. Milnes is certainly not that candidate.

  13. G.E. Smith Says:

    Libertarianism is a school of political philosophy, not just a party. As far as I know, Mr. Milnes isn’t even a member of the party, but regardless of whether or not he is, he is certainly not an adherent to the philosophy, even in the most loosely applied sense.

  14. Gene Berkman Says:

    Ron Paul has shown his commitment to ending the two party dominance with his sponsorship of ballot access bills, and his many talks at conventions of the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party.

    Mr Milnes has a right to post, but he will get more of an audience if he stops with the character assassination, and dealt with issues.

  15. Uncle Duck Says:

    What’s up with you BOZOs - do any of you have a brain - face facts - Ron Paul is our only hope at the moment to at least nudge the government towards ‘libertarian’, conservative, constitutional or what ever else you want to call THE RIGHT DIRECTION

    So STFU and start supporting Ron Paul with your $$$ ASAFP

  16. G.E. Smith Says:

    Uncle Duck: Only Milnes disagrees with you. He is not plural bozos.

  17. Chris Says:

    You should read the following, were our good friend Mr. Milnes supports his position that government should pay to cryogenically freeze all who wish for it, among many more GIANT government programs:

    I also highly encourage everyone to visit Mr. Milnes’s campaign site:

    You will probably be most interested in his proposals to ship black people back to Africa and control the mating habits of Native Americans.

  18. Robert Milnes Says:

    Chris, you have a responsibility to post accurate descriptions of what is on the other side of a link, not twist & shout whatever you want. Because some people might just take what you say as accurate & not bother to click & read. G.E. Smith, I’m not the only one who is starting to realize the damage to the LP being done by Ron Paul. Trent Hill, Both. “The libertarian party…stands in the way of Freedom,”? Ha, Ha! Even George Bush isn’t stupid enough to believe that. G.E. Smith, I am a member. I scored left libertarian on the Quiz, as did David Cobb. That’s right(pun intended) Leftists score close to libs on the quiz. Debunk the Quiz, then question my libertarianism. & maybe if that $5mil went to the Real Libertarian candidates you would see more & better things from them, instead of most of them having to wait till Ron Paul loses in March, to start getting-hopefully-their fair support from you Bozos.

  19. [email protected] Says:


    You’re incorrect. Mr. Milnes is not the only one who disagrees with Uncle Duck.

    Best regards,
    Tom Knapp

  20. Chris Says:

    Chris, you have a responsibility to post accurate descriptions of what is on the other side of a link, not twist & shout whatever you want.

    What was not accurate about my description? If it will make you happier, then I will quote you directly. From the first link I posted concerning BIG government programs you say:

    I don’t trust nongovernment entities to take care of everything needed. For one thing they are usually broke after profit/beaurocracy skim off. & they don’t have access to super large lump sums of liquid cash and/or diverse resources the government does.

    ... what do you propose we do about endangered/recently extinct species? I propose cryogenic preservation. Then, if we are going to do that, why not offer that for human material?-on a voluntary basis.

    ... we are talking about a qualitatively different progressive government [the one Milnes will administer]. “The only proper function of government is to protect the natural rights of its citizens, …” No, there are several other legitimate functions. Many things citizens can’t or won’t do for themselves. & that is the problem isn’t it? Government wouldn’t exist at all if people were reliably self reliant.

    Some stem cell research is non government funded. But not enough. I would concentrate on alternatives to embryonic stem cells in order to avoid the ethical/moral issues though.

    For the other link, I said that you proposed sending black people back to Africa. The following are direct quotes from your campaign site:

    A tentative, realistic figure I came up with would be about $50,000 with $25,000 at first, $5000/yr. for 5 years. For example, if 25 million black Americans emigrated with subsidy, that represents 1.25 trillion gross in capital.

    exchange of African Americans the situation of being an alienated, largely impoverished minority in America to a subsidized significant force as it were, could be quite enough. But what if this force were organized, concentrated? e.g. 5 million to Liberia, bolstering the economy, 10 to Nigeria, helping the economy & the civil war and the AIDS effort. 5 million to Haiti. etc. Possibly this could represent a significant step in the overall advancement of blacks in the world.

    I also stated that you propose a eugenics program for Native Americans on your site. Here is the direct quote:

    Separation [of native americans from americans] being seen as necessary to preserve both sides-culturally, genetically (gene pool theory) and as we learned, for possible health reasons.

    And a population expansion program consisting of positive eugenics and surrogate motherhood.

    Besides the eugenics program, you specifically call for legislation concerning the mating habits of Native Americans when you state the following:

    Also, correspondingly, an immediate cessation of virtually all immigration; and emigration subsidy. I would estimate a goal of population parity of 50 million each side in 25 years. OR, maybe 100 million in 50 years. Since the present population of the UNITED STATES is roughly 300 million, that would mean the emigration of about 250 Americans and rise of NA population of about 50 million in 25 years.

    Now that I have directly quoted you from those links, please explain how I misrepresented the links.

  21. Robert Milnes Says:

    Chris, well, for one thing my proposed emmigration subsidy would be across the board i.e. equally applicable to all citizens & races(excluding Native Americans, who are by statute American citizens[Indian Citizen Act 1924] but should not be), so as to, among other things, reduce the population of the contiguous 48. Until parity achieved with them. Another thing, a positive eugenics program does not force anyone to do anything, certainly not determine who one might mate with.

  22. G.E. Smith Says:

    Knapp - You hadn’t posted yet. Now there are two bozos.

  23. G.E. Smith Says:

    Milnes = Psychotic fascist

  24. Jackcjackson Says:

    I don’t understand why people argue over the donations as if they “’belong” to the “real” Libertarians.

    The fact it, Paul is receiving support and coverage because he is NOT running on the LP ticket.

    Even if HE were the LP candidate ( which would make him the “best” LP POTUS candidate, easily) he would get a fraction of the money, no coverage, NO Debates- and 0.5% of the vote. That will be the likely (max)result for ANY LP candidate. Unless the LP finds a Billionaire Celebrity Senator/Governor- and such a candidate does not exist.

    Paul is far from perfect, but as it is now liberty is best served by a Ron Paul Republican candidacy. He has raised more money and been in more debates, had more media in the last few months than the previous 4-5 LP POTUS nominees combined.

    Ron Paul isn’t taking money from LP candidates. He is creating campaign funds that simply wouldn’t exist for the LP.

  25. Robert Milnes Says:

    G.E. Smith=Capitalist pig.

  26. Jay Matthews Says:

    Robert, is Smith a real capitalist pig?

  27. Chris Says:

    G.E. Smith=Capitalist pig.

    A REAL libertarian would not be offened by that remark. I am also a capitalist pig.

    Another thing, a positive eugenics program does not force anyone to do anything, certainly not determine who one might mate with.

    First, you state that all immigration to this country would stop. To do that you MUST force people to stop coming to the US. Second, you propose an increase in the Native American population of over 50 million in 25 years. Specifically, you believe Native Americans should be “separated” from what you call real Americans in order to “preserve both sides-culturally, genetically (gene pool theory) and as we learned, for possible health reasons.” How do you propose to do that without force? What happens if Native Americans want to breed with “real” Americans? And why should the government promote one mate vs. another?

    What is eugenics? It is defined as follows:

    Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.

    Positive eugenics is defined as follows:

    Positive eugenics is aimed to encourage reproduction among the genetically advantaged. Possible approaches include financial and political stimuli, targeted demographic analyses, in vitro fertilization, egg transplants, and cloning.

    I would assume you would encourage such reproduction via some sort of legislation. Therefore, my statement stands: you specifically call for legislation concerning the mating habits of Native Americans.

    I’m still confused as to how I am misrepresenting your views.

  28. Robert Milnes Says:

    Jay Matthews, am I a psychotic fascist.

  29. Robert Milnes Says:

    Chris, I never said “real Americans. You see, it is subtle things like that that betray your bias to discredit me. What is your motivation to do that? & is it equally distributed towards the other candidates? Except Ron Paul of course. Let’s not criticize him.

  30. Robert Milnes Says:

    Chris, Eugenics/positive eugenics has nothing to do with mating habits. If one subsidizes a certain population, it is only consistent to try to use the best reproductive material wherever possible. This has very little to do with relationships and intimacy.

  31. Chris Says:

    I never said “real Americans. You see, it is subtle things like that that betray your bias to discredit me.

    You specifically said that Native Americans should not be American citizens, implying that they should not be considered “Americans”. Quote:

    excluding Native Americans, who are by statute American citizens but should not be

    What is your motivation to do that? & is it equally distributed towards the other candidates?

    You are running the for LP nomination for President. Did you just expect everyone to hand you the nomination without questioning your policy proposals? Concerning my critisism of other candidates, I have strongly criticized Phillies (and Paul, for that matter) over his immigration policy. However, with that one exception, Phillies is a strong libertarian and would be a fine candidate. I have no disagreement with Kubby on issues. You are not a libertarian at all. I have yet to see you propose ONE policy that doesn’t dramatically expand the size and scope of the government.

    You should be thanking me. I am the only one paying any attention to you at all. I am getting your ideas out to those that decide the nominee better than you are. Why does it anger you that I QUOTE your campaign site?

    Chris, Eugenics/positive eugenics has nothing to do with mating habits.

    What?! Once again:

    Positive eugenics is aimed to encourage reproduction among the genetically advantaged.

    Unless you plan to ban sex, then reproduction will continue to occur largely via mating.

    Do you honestly not see how all of this completely flys in the face of Libertarianism?

  32. G.E. Smith Says:

    I prefer to think of myself as a capitalist dove, i.e. someone who is completely against the initiation of force inherent in the “programs” you advocate. You are an authoritarian thug; a would-be despot, and a fucking psycho to boot. I’m sorry I ever apologized to you.

  33. matt Says:

    Anyone who can utter the phrase “use the best reproductive material” with a straight face needs to be kept as far from the gears of power as physically possible.

    Things have a way of working out.

  34. Chris Says:

    You see, it is subtle things like that that betray your bias to discredit me.

    Oh, and I’m not being subtle. I am biased. I am trying to discredit you. However, I am using you own words and policy positions to do so.

  35. Robert Milnes Says:

    Chris, I meant Native Americans should not be American citizens in the sense that, conquered, they were then forced by aforementioned statute to be American citizens and “integrate” or “assimilate”. i.e. be culturally & genetically destroyed i.e. dejure genocide. They should have their own citizenship/soveriegnty. Think if that happened to you. How would you feel-a law is passed forcing you to be a citizen of country that conquered yours.

  36. Robert Milnes Says:

    Chris, haven’t you heard of a test tube baby? Women-volunteers-get IVF. With Native American genetic material-prescreened. The woman would not necessarily have to be Native American. You just don’t understand what I’m talking about. Where did you get your physics degree?

  37. Robert Milnes Says:

    Chris, G.E. Smith, you know this non initiation of force concept, if followed to its logical conclusion, would make a president impotent. How could a commander-in-chief order (force) a soldier to force another (enemy soldier) to comply or die? Or a National Guardsman to force a citizen to comply or die? I’ll not be put into an absurd position in order to comply with your ideal which is impossible. To preserve & protect the Constitution means use force if need be. Agreed?

  38. Trent Hill Says:


    Wrong. Soldiers sign up and give the government permission to initiate force on them.

  39. Ryan Brennan ( Says:

    Here are a few pages with information concerning the dates of state primaries and the deadlines by which you have to change your voter registration to Republican in order to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries:

    ATTENTION NEW HAMPSHIRE & NEW YORK VOTERS: You only have until October 12, 2007 to change your registration

  40. Jay Matthews Says:

    Robert, you cannot be a psychotic fascist as you don’t belong to the psychotic fascist party.

  41. G.E. Smith Says:

    Milnes: Why do I, a libertarian of little more than a year, have to lecture a presidential hopeful on the basics of the philosophy of liberty?

    Capitalism is the peaceful, voluntary exchange of goods and services, often accompanied by a contract. Government exists, if it exists at all, to protect the life, liberty, and property of citizens (i.e. protect them from the initiation of force by others) and to enforce contracts.

    Soldiers sell their services to the government. There is a valid contract. Thus, “using them”—i.e. expecting and ultimately forcing them to uphold their contractual duties, is not the “initiation of force,” any more than a boxer striking his opponent is.

    Legitimate government has a monopoly on the initiation of force, which it is to use only to prevent the private initiation of force. Unlike a soldier, I have not contracted myself to the government, and the government thus has no right to compel me to do ANYTHING by threatening force.


  42. Robert Milnes Says:

    G.E. Smith, you lecture everybody.

  43. Robert Milnes Says:


  44. Trent Hill Says: that your retort Milnes? GE sketches a picture of contractual, governmental, obligationary, libertarianism—and you say “You lecture everybody. Smartass.”

    And you want to run the country? Is this how you would conduct yourself in a debate? I’d love to see you submit a response to this—as you would most likely make MORE of an ass out of yourself.

Leave a Reply