Bitcoin100: 2.012 BTC for Ron Paul 2012

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Please Take Note: Although I believe most readers of this post may lean toward a Libertarian viewpoint, don't accept my evaluation as gospel. Some, possible many, readers of this post may not want a damn thing to do with Ron Paul. That said, this thread is then not intended for you.

This thread was solely created to solicit donations toward the Ron Paul for President campaign, of which those over at Bitcoin100 will oversee.

The goal is to have supporters of Ron Paul, each donating only, and exactly, 2.012 BTC toward his campaign fund, and held in a wallet, overseen by Rassah, with the vanity address:

1RP2o12zajgJxnvzu72p33ga7RNg53Ysz

To view what current rests in the wallet, go here: http://blockexplorer.com/address/1RP2o12zajgJxnvzu72p33ga7RNg53Ysz

If you desire to donate more, do so in multiples of 2.012 BTC and, hopefully, as separate donations. This way it would make the blockexplorer page that much more impressive. There will not be any account tracking with this drive, therefore you can donate anonymously with, or without, declaring that you've done so.

I've already made the first donation, and I'm pretty sure Jeremy West, with Spend Bitcoins is not to far behind me.

We're well aware that a Bitcoin donation option probably will not be embedded onto Ron Paul's official website, yet Bitcoin may enjoy mainstream media exposure once the donations are converted to fiat, then handed over to the Ron Paul campaign in the form of a money order, check, etc., but not PayPal, credit card, etc.

I suggest we hand over the lump sum directly after the Iowa Caucus. Afterwards, immediately orchestrate a media blitzkrieg, spreading the fact that this is the very first major political candidate to accept Bitcoin as a contribution option albeit, once again, that option may not be available on Ron Paul's official campaign website. But, it won't take away the fact that the singular donation was amassed by supporters donating Bitcoin outside the auspices of Ron Paul's campaign funding structure, yet contributed to the same.

The only roll that Bitcoin100 will have in regards to this undertaking is the overseeing of the project. Consider this an adjunct project for Bitcoin100 in playing a vital roll in spreading the word about Bitcoin.

No donated funds, already contributed to Bitcoin100, will be transferred to this newly created Ron Paul wallet having the vanity addresses shown above.

~.~~~~~~~~

This endeavor was inspired by this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=52543.msg652944#msg652944

Looks like I'm a little late to the party, but...

I'm in.

It's never too late, Jeremy. Besides, 'the party' is just beginning. I took the liberty of putting you down for (1+) which translates into you pledging at least 1 BTC and will honor it when you see fit. Thank you kindly for your contribution.

BTW, I ordered that book from Amazon thanks to you. Did you see the thread where I outlined how the whole process progressed? Also, nice interview, the other day.

~Bruno~

Sent 2.012 for Ron Paul 2012

~Bruno~

[1715503832]

1715503832

[1715503832]

1715503832

[1715503832]

1715503832

[1715503832]

1715503832

[1715503832]

1715503832

[1715503832]

1715503832

[ineededausername]

Does Ron Paul receive this money in Bitcoins or in USD?

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Does Ron Paul receive this money in Bitcoins or in USD?

My initial thinking is USD, but this is now open for discussion. How having him accept the donation in BTC would need to be addressed.

[jake262144]

Not really my cup of tea. Campaign donations just ain't what I signed up for.
Sorry, Bruno, I think I'll pass this one.

[Rassah]

I would just like to stress, again, that I have nothing to do with Bruno. He recruited me for managing accounts, and has been working my ass off ever since. All I'm doing is holding the money and freaking out about risks of losing it, since I worry about losing other peoples' money way more than my own.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Not really my cup of tea. Campaign donations just ain't what I signed up for.
Sorry, Bruno, I think I'll pass this one.

Remember, this is not directly related to what Bitcoin100 has in stored. By no means do we want to alienate supporters of Bitcoin100 because of this endeavor, although a roll may be played, or credit taken, when it has reached fruition.

[jake262144]

Alienate Bitcoin100 supporters? Not happening man.
That's why I said "I'll pass this one" instead of "Get me outta here"  ^^

Rassah, I read the other thread and you seem to be doing one hell of a job. Big thumbs up.

[gnar1ta$]

I think this would be much more effective, in terms of Bitocin publicity, if the funds were given in bitcoins only - preferable to an address published by his campaign.  Especially since he publically pushes alternate currencies and has sponsored competing currencies legislation.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

I would just like to stress, again, that I have nothing to do with Bruno. He recruited me for managing accounts, and has been working my ass off ever since. All I'm doing is holding the money and freaking out about risks of losing it, since I worry about losing other peoples' money way more than my own.

Damn! I meant to thank Rassah for hashing the vanity address. Thank you, Rassah, for all the hard work you'll put into creating and maintaining the wallets. No need to freak out so much about losing any money, for it's only money. I'll replace any funds that turn up missing, provided they weren't used to purchase another coffee table. As far as this current wallet is concerned, we can have Jeremy West have control of it, if there's no objections. The only reason I won't is because I want to have that layer of trust, so to speak, built in with this project, as I do with Bitcoin100. It may have proved more difficult to get off the ground if the same person who created that noble endeavor, also collected the money, especially if it's in Bitcoin.

~Bruno~

[Gabi]

I think politicians are rich enough

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Alienate Bitcoin100 supporters? Not happening man.
That's why I said "I'll pass this one" instead of "Get me outta here"  ^^

Rassah, I read the other thread and you seem to be doing one hell of a job. Big thumbs up.

I did read into that, between the lines, but I wanted to make doubly sure. Thank you, Jake.

I think this would be much more effective, in terms of Bitocin publicity, if the funds were given in bitcoins only - preferable to an address published by his campaign.  Especially since he publically pushes alternate currencies and has sponsored competing currencies legislation.

I totally agree, but fully knowing that second best may be the result, I was hoping that a semantic spin after the fact would work just as well. A little contrivance could go a long way.

[epetroel]

I'm not a rabid Ron Paul fan, but I do like him better than most.  Sent my 2.012

[Phinnaeus Gage]

I'm not a rabid Ron Paul fan, but I do like him better than most.  Sent my 2.012

Great, epetroel! The train is beginning to roll on the track I provided.

[CoinLab]

I don't think the "Bitcoin100" name should be associated with this, if you want it to be taken seriously as a charitable giver.  Making Bitcoin100 political will hurt it's ability to approach charities.

By all means, organize a BTC for Ron Paul drive but I think you are mixing two distinct things together which shouldn't be mixed. 

[Rassah]

I don't think the "Bitcoin100" name should be associated with this, if you want it to be taken seriously as a charitable giver.  Making Bitcoin100 political will hurt it's ability to approach charities.

By all means, organize a BTC for Ron Paul drive but I think you are mixing two distinct things together which shouldn't be mixed. 

+1

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

I don't think the "Bitcoin100" name should be associated with this, if you want it to be taken seriously as a charitable giver.  Making Bitcoin100 political will hurt it's ability to approach charities.

By all means, organize a BTC for Ron Paul drive but I think you are mixing two distinct things together which shouldn't be mixed.  

+1

+1

The only other thing I worry about are the campaign finance laws which say a candidate has to report all donations and who they came from. Though obviously I love the idea.

[ineededausername]

I don't think the "Bitcoin100" name should be associated with this, if you want it to be taken seriously as a charitable giver.  Making Bitcoin100 political will hurt it's ability to approach charities.

By all means, organize a BTC for Ron Paul drive but I think you are mixing two distinct things together which shouldn't be mixed.  

+1

+1

The only other thing I worry about are the campaign finance laws which say a candidate has to report all donations and who they came from. Though obviously I love the idea.

+1 for the comment about Bitcoin100

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

I don't think the "Bitcoin100" name should be associated with this, if you want it to be taken seriously as a charitable giver.  Making Bitcoin100 political will hurt it's ability to approach charities.

By all means, organize a BTC for Ron Paul drive but I think you are mixing two distinct things together which shouldn't be mixed.  

+1

+1

The only other thing I worry about are the campaign finance laws which say a candidate has to report all donations and who they came from. Though obviously I love the idea.

I think we can make this work, albeit not with quite as much media impact as you want, Bruno.

Firstly, I agree, remove the association with the Bitcoin100. Secondly, to make this legal, instead of donating directly to the Ron Paul campaign we'd have to donate to a PAC, such as his Campaign for Liberty PAC. What do you think, Bruno?

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

Grrr.... Just looking at the PAC donation pages it appears even there you have to report who you are:

The Federal Election Commission requires that all of these statements are true for anyone contributing to the campaign:
- I am a US Citizen or Permanent Resident
- I am donating my own money
- I am not under contract to the Federal Government
- I am not making this contribution in the name of another person
- I am 18 years of age or older

I'm not sure this can be done as a publicity stunt, unfortunately. Anyone else have any ideas to make this work?

[Rassah]

I seriously doubt the total collected amount will be more than $2000, so it can just be donated from a single person who is willing to identify themselves

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

I seriously doubt the total collected amount will be more than $2000, so it can just be donated from a single person who is willing to identify themselves

Yes, but as whoever makes the donation has to state that they are not making the donation ok anyone else's behalf this kills the publicity stunt Bruno is going for.

[Bitcoin 100]

I seriously doubt the total collected amount will be more than $2000, so it can just be donated from a single person who is willing to identify themselves

Yes, but as whoever makes the donation has to state that they are not making the donation ok anyone else's behalf this kills the publicity stunt Bruno is going for.

All valid points. I'm all for proceeding with this without having Bitcoin100 involved. What's important here is doing it properly, where at the end of the day Bitcoin is clearly recognized as the contributor.

I quoted your post, Jeremy, but after reading it a couple times, I continue to trip over what you're trying to express. Please except my apology for asking you to restate it. I feel your making an important point, but I'm having trouble pulling it out. Thank you, bud.

~Bruno~

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

The Federal Election Commission requires that all of these statements are true for anyone contributing to the campaign:
- I am a US Citizen or Permanent Resident
- I am donating my own money
- I am not under contract to the Federal Government
- I am not making this contribution in the name of another person
- I am 18 years of age or older

Hi Bruno.

I'm referring to the above, specifically where it says 'I'm donating my own money' and 'I am not making this contribution in the name of another person'.

To be honest, I don't give a damn about words politicians put on paper (commonly referred to as 'laws'. The only 'law' I care about is natural law - "Do not harm other people"), but we will not be able to proclaim this donation as a bitcoin donation from several people because according to the above 'law' a donor must declare that he/she is donating his/her own money and not making the donation in the name of another person.

I hope this makes sense.

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

I seriously doubt the total collected amount will be more than $2000, so it can just be donated from a single person who is willing to identify themselves

Yes, but as whoever makes the donation has to state that they are not making the donation ok anyone else's behalf this kills the publicity stunt Bruno is going for.

All valid points. I'm all for proceeding with this without having Bitcoin100 involved. What's important here is doing it properly, where at the end of the day Bitcoin is clearly recognized as the contributor.

I quoted your post, Jeremy, but after reading it a couple times, I continue to trip over what you're trying to express. Please except my apology for asking you to restate it. I feel your making an important point, but I'm having trouble pulling it out. Thank you, bud.

~Bruno~

I see the misunderstanding here. Should read "not making the donation ON anyone else's behalf. I swyped it on my android phone and didn't proofread before posting. Sorry!

[Bitcoin 100]

I seriously doubt the total collected amount will be more than $2000, so it can just be donated from a single person who is willing to identify themselves

Yes, but as whoever makes the donation has to state that they are not making the donation ok anyone else's behalf this kills the publicity stunt Bruno is going for.

All valid points. I'm all for proceeding with this without having Bitcoin100 involved. What's important here is doing it properly, where at the end of the day Bitcoin is clearly recognized as the contributor.

I quoted your post, Jeremy, but after reading it a couple times, I continue to trip over what you're trying to express. Please except my apology for asking you to restate it. I feel your making an important point, but I'm having trouble pulling it out. Thank you, bud.

~Bruno~

I see the misunderstanding here. Should read "not making the donation ON anyone else's behalf. I swyped it on my android phone and didn't proofread before posting. Sorry!

WOW! Glad I asked for clarification. I just Googled my ass off trying to find a loophole, and believe now that there isn't one. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, don't add funds to the wallet unless this important issue is resolved.

Feedback from users who are well versed on political contributions is deeply needed here

Thank you.

~Bruno~

[Bitcoin 100]

I'm not a rabid Ron Paul fan, but I do like him better than most.  Sent my 2.012

I need to know if this is a dead issue so that this thread can be locked and epetroel shall have his 2.012 BTC returned from my account. The 4.024 BTC that currently rests in the wallet, mine and epetroel's donations, will then be donated to Bitcoin100 of which will never attach themselves to any nonprofit agency that favors a political stance. If you ask me, that was a relative cheap learning curve, one major take away from this brief episode.

~Bruno~

[epetroel]

I thought the latest ruling on campaign donations said that this kind of thing was OK (unlimited donations from groups and not having to reveal the members).  Or maybe that was just for PACs?  If it turns out to be impossible though, just throw my 2.012 into the Bitcoin 100 pool

[Bitcoin 100]

I thought the latest ruling on campaign donations said that this kind of thing was OK (unlimited donations from groups and not having to reveal the members).  Or maybe that was just for PACs?  If it turns out to be impossible though, just throw my 2.012 into the Bitcoin 100 pool

I just sent you a PM. I am highly interested in reading about that ruling. Anybody have a link?

~Bruno~

[epetroel]

The ruling I'm thinking of is Citizens United:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

[Bitcoin 100]

The ruling I'm thinking of is Citizens United:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

Thanks. I read it all. It wasn't till the very bottom that I found what I was looking for, which then led me down a proper path. The keyphrase I eventual found was Super Pac. It now looks like there's a way around this issue. Creating a semantic spin now becomes the hard part, whereas before I thought it wouldn't be that difficult. The following links to websites and videos should help everybody get up to speed if they weren't aware of this prior, as I wasn't.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/17/7399074-super-pacs-independent-in-name-only

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-MHJD4NmFY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef61cWDbuP8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3xnbpt12eo

http://www.revolutionpac.com/

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

The ruling I'm thinking of is Citizens United:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

Thanks. I read it all. It wasn't till the very bottom that I found what I was looking for, which then led me down a proper path. The keyphrase I eventual found was Super Pac. It now looks like there's a way around this issue. Creating a semantic spin now becomes the hard part, whereas before I thought it wouldn't be that difficult. The following links to websites and videos should help everybody get up to speed if they weren't aware of this prior, as I wasn't.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/17/7399074-super-pacs-independent-in-name-only

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-MHJD4NmFY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef61cWDbuP8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3xnbpt12eo

http://www.revolutionpac.com/

Without much time to look over it, my first impression is that I like Revolution PAC. Only thing is, that's where I copied and pasted the disclaimer from that I quoted above. http://www.revolutionpac.com/donate/

[Bitcoin 100]

The ruling I'm thinking of is Citizens United:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

Thanks. I read it all. It wasn't till the very bottom that I found what I was looking for, which then led me down a proper path. The keyphrase I eventual found was Super Pac. It now looks like there's a way around this issue. Creating a semantic spin now becomes the hard part, whereas before I thought it wouldn't be that difficult. The following links to websites and videos should help everybody get up to speed if they weren't aware of this prior, as I wasn't.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/17/7399074-super-pacs-independent-in-name-only

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-MHJD4NmFY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef61cWDbuP8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3xnbpt12eo

http://www.revolutionpac.com/

Without much time to look over it, my first impression is that I like Revolution PAC. Only thing is, that's where I copied and pasted the disclaimer from that I quoted above. http://www.revolutionpac.com/donate/

Boy, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this. A Super Pac can collect millions from different sources to influences a candidate, but that same Pac can't accept money from a group of people. But if we were a Bitcoin Pac for John Doe running for office, we can collect millions from other Bitcoiners, but couldn't accept money from Uncle Bob because the lump sum he wants to donate came from Aunt Jean and his 5 cousins. How close am I?

[deepceleron]

Unfortunately, PayPal contributes in increments of $1000.

[Bitcoin 100]

I just found this:

"It would be perfectly legal for Mitt Romney to show up at a Restore Our Future fundraiser and have the director of the super PAC take the stage, introduce Romney and then solicit money from the crowd for unlimited donations [before Romney took the stage]," Ryan said.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/10/super-pac-independence-stephen-colbert-karl-rove-fec_n_1086273.html

And this:

But it marks one more step removing the illusion of "independence" surrounding super PACs, which are proliferating this year because of their ability to collect unlimited amounts of money from corporations and wealthy donors….

Source: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/17/7399074-super-pacs-independent-in-name-only

[Rassah]

I'm guessing you guys don't watch Colbert Report. He went through the entire process of getting a PAC and Super PAC on his show. Requires filing forms with government and waiting for approval. Might need a lawyer to draw up the documents too.

[RaggedMonk]

I'm guessing you guys don't watch Colbert Report. He went through the entire process of getting a PAC and Super PAC on his show. Requires filing forms with government and waiting for approval. Might need a lawyer to draw up the documents too.

... and be approved by the federal elections commission.   This is a large, expensive ordeal.  You will need lawyers and tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars.

IMO, donating to an existing Super PAC is more in line with the scope of this project.  If you can get revolution PAC to accept bitcoin, I'll send a few their way (and fill out any personal information they are legally required to collect).

[sadpandatech]

+1 for encouraging Revolution Pac to accept Bitcoins.

[Bitcoin 100]

I'm guessing you guys don't watch Colbert Report. He went through the entire process of getting a PAC and Super PAC on his show. Requires filing forms with government and waiting for approval. Might need a lawyer to draw up the documents too.

I did watch that video last night while doing my research. In fact, it was that video that got me heading in the right direction. Amazing the nuggets one can find hidden within humorous commentary.

I'm guessing you guys don't watch Colbert Report. He went through the entire process of getting a PAC and Super PAC on his show. Requires filing forms with government and waiting for approval. Might need a lawyer to draw up the documents too.

... and be approved by the federal elections commission.   This is a large, expensive ordeal.  You will need lawyers and tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars.

IMO, donating to an existing Super PAC is more in line with the scope of this project.  If you can get revolution PAC to accept bitcoin, I'll send a few their way (and fill out any personal information they are legally required to collect).

+1 for encouraging Revolution Pac to accept Bitcoins.

Now where getting somewhere. See! There's always a solution.

~Bruno~

[fornit]

i just read up on the guy. he thinks every man should be as free as possible, especially in regard to how much firepower he can hoard. women however are free to give birth and stfu. its really a pity i cant vote for him 

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Is anybody interested in taking over this idea? I can easily have the wallet transferred over to whoever wants to run with this. I desire to spend all my extra energy on Bitcoin100. I, personally, will support whoever takes this over with what ever I can provide.

~Bruno~

[Rassah]

I can return the money already in the wallet. Just give me an address to send to

[Bitcoin 100]

I can return the money already in the wallet. Just give me an address to send to

If nobody wants to take this over to support Ron Paul, the two donations within will be moved to Bitcoin100, already having the blessing of those two contributors.

One last request: Anybody want to take over this noble project?

~Bruno~

[Elwar]

We tried to hash out how to get Ron Paul to accept Bitcoins a while back and came to the conclusion that the possibility of some foreigner donating a buttload to a US campaign is just too simple with Bitcoin since you have no idea of who the donor is.

Even donating directly to RevPAC would require some proof that you are not a foreigner.

[Bitcoin 100]

We tried to hash out how to get Ron Paul to accept Bitcoins a while back and came to the conclusion that the possibility of some foreigner donating a buttload to a US campaign is just too simple with Bitcoin since you have no idea of who the donor is.

Even donating directly to RevPAC would require some proof that you are not a foreigner.

WOW! I didn't know that! Not a single politician, in the entire history of the US, has ever received donations by a foreign influence.

[hashman]

We tried to hash out how to get Ron Paul to accept Bitcoins a while back and came to the conclusion that the possibility of some foreigner donating a buttload to a US campaign is just too simple with Bitcoin since you have no idea of who the donor is.

Even donating directly to RevPAC would require some proof that you are not a foreigner.

WOW! I didn't know that! Not a single politician, in the entire history of the US, has ever received donations by a foreign influence.

Not quite, there were plenty of contributions from extremely wealthy donors.  The usual problem; bitcoin would allow this power in the hands of the many.