Posted by e rowe on 01/27/10 5:00 PM Last updated 01/28/10 3:34 PM   [Newer: Hostettler Money Bomb - Feb. 22] [Older: Hostettler for Senate!]

Apparently our organization just spent $350,000 running ads that support a senate candidate in Colorado whose policy positions are not worthy of our support.

It is described in this article.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/ken-buck/

Here are Buck's positions:

http://www.buckforcolorado.com/issues102k9.php

Note especially this section:

On Iraq & Afghanistan

My son is a third year cadet at West Point. I'm very proud of my son's decision to serve his country. He understands the risks involved. He also understands there is a price for freedom in this country and he's willing to stand up and shoulder that burden. For so many of our brave men and women today, that means shouldering the burden in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We definitely need to continue a major effort in Afghanistan. We are told this effort will take at least 10 years. It will require both military and civilian personnel to help build up the country. The generals on the ground tell us we are likely to be in Afghanistan for the long term with a difficult and complicated mission.

As Colorado's Senator I will always look first to the advice of the generals, and I will strongly support the mission of our troops who are in harm's way.

Who in the Campaign for Liberty approved this? $350,000 is a lot of money. Is this the kind of thing all those Ron Paul Republicans donated money to this organization for?

[Edit: For those who buy the line that this money is not supporting Ken Buck as a candidate, I'm pasting a link to the ad below. It looks to me like a standard campaign ad that his campaign itself could just as easily have produced, except for the legally required bit in the last few seconds where it mentions the survey. Anyone who thinks that any other candidate who fills out that survey will get $350,000 worth of advertising paid for by CFL for them must be terribly naive, or else not have any idea how much money that is. CFL is not spending that kind of money running ads for Rand, Schiff, Hostettler, or Kokesh. For that matter, insiders in the Kokesh campaign said they haven't even gotten a survey from CFL. Naturally, they'd gladly fill one out just to prove their bona fides, and all the better if they get a campaign ad funded for it. But we all know that's not gonna happen.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87D8DCgJcA

Posted 01/27/10 5:52 PM rkoonce Noxon, MT

mine also

Posted 01/27/10 6:33 PM joe1985 San Antonio, TX

I am not sending anymore more money to Campaign for Liberty until this gets resolved.

Posted 01/27/10 8:59 PM johnrocks West Monroe, LA

I may unsubscribe if this is true and I've supported Ron Paul for 30 years!

Posted 01/27/10 10:32 PM jaustin168 Lenoir, NC

I'm numb!

Posted 01/27/10 11:18 PM Joseph Hart Cumberland, RI

Great job C4L, you just might lose support for this!

Posted 01/27/10 11:39 PM tynews2001 Newton, KS

You guys, read the article! It says they are promoting the positions. They said "they will do it for other candidates who take the survey." They were referring to a survey they sent out to candidates on their positions. They specifically said they are not endorsing the candidate, but his position on the health care bill.

Posted 01/28/10 1:22 PM CrystalEveritt melbourne, FL

This is not the way to get an explanation, if you feel you need one.

Posted 01/28/10 2:06 PM JohnKern Apopka, FL

I think this is exactly the way to get an explanation. Simply bring attention to it, and ask... I think trying to say "we're not endorsing him" is a pretty weak argument when the commercial is 30 seconds and 20 seconds of it show and talk about Ken Buck. Then at the very end they mention the survey. I too would like an explanation.

Posted 01/28/10 2:50 PM mmspierre Stanwood, WA

Top down leadership. Just like the GOP. Hmmm. How about giving the State Organizations back some of that money to spend on their organizing efforts, rather than promoting a pro-war candidate. $350,000 for filling out a survey. Said survey which apparently wasn't made available to our other real liberty candidates like Adam Kokesh.

Posted 01/28/10 4:44 PM Dan Tucker Treasure Island, FL

I would say you need to contact C4L National. I saw something similar occur in Florida to disparage a candidate and the FBI tracked it down to the GOP headquarters computer. The individual was fired and now the Chairmen of the party has resigned. I think it is a false Flag op, since C4L cannot give money to a candidate because they are a 503c4 organization. That is why there is a seperate group of C4L members who created their own organization called Liberty Candidates. See them on Face book. Dan

Posted 01/28/10 8:57 PM CauseAndEffect Folsom, CA

The RP blogs are buzzing about this and it needs to be addressed IMMEDIATELY. First there was RP supporting incumbents in Texas and now this. If the movement needs to move forward without Ron Paul at the helm then so be it. Is his compromising wishy washy son corrupting the once great Dr Paul?

Posted 01/28/10 9:01 PM Gutierros Corvallis, OR

Sick. Will bring this up with local members. C4L has a lot of explaining to do!

Posted 01/28/10 10:01 PM Isomies Mechanicsville, VA

Audit the money

Posted 01/28/10 10:56 PM RobertCMV Forest Hill, MD

I've had an uneasy feeling for a while that this movement may be getting off track. It seems my fears have not been pointless paranoia. I'm sure the Dr. has nothing to do with this but i have heard the loyalties of some of the leadership and high ups in C4L. Lets hope that this doesn't happen again and proves itself to be a one time lapse in judgement. I also feel like we are getting to caught up into politics and the whole right vs. left falsehood. I see this add as a symptom of that. We need to get back to the philosophy that has brought so many to wake up and that continues to win people over. But thats just my 2 cents on it.

Posted 01/29/10 12:55 AM Ron Paul Revere Kansas City, MO

I'd hate to have to Change my name, and drop my membership. EXPLAIN

Posted 01/29/10 01:17 AM Paul S. Brighton, MI

Kind of a Wobbly group. But it's a good question. I did find the ad with its personal attack on the President's health care plan (using his name) distasteful. Then the use of the C4L logo with a backgroud comment referring to some survey. The Visual C4L logo will be more powerful especially with Ad muted. Billions of dollars of government handouts are at stake. It is going to happen, real attacks hoping to bring fear, uncertainty and doubt to the people who endanger these welfare programs for businesses. The attacks will be both subtle and direct. I am also suspicious of those who are too ready to jump to conclusions acting as if their fear, uncertainty or doubt is justified on the slimmest of evidence. "I am not entirely not on anyones side because no on is entirely on my side." Treebeard LotR

Posted 01/29/10 03:59 AM qh4com Miami, FL

I agree with everone who is awaiting an explanation on the possible misuse of the $350,000. Campaign For Liberty has $350,000 to support a Colorado neocon warmongerer but they can't cough up $9 per year to renew the valuable ronpaul2008.com domain that was used for Ron Paul's presidential campaign back in 2008. This valuable domain had thousands of links pointing it and now it's in the hands of a domain broker. All those thousands of visitors clicking on these links or typing www.ronpaul2008.com into their browsers will not be redirected to the CFL site as they did previously. Instead of hearing about the liberty message these visitors will hear the message of a domain broker.

Posted 01/29/10 08:40 AM MichaelBarry Sebring, FL

"Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. "

Posted 01/29/10 10:01 AM scott Harrisburg, PA

http://www.parevolution.com/newswire/11457-cfl-ad-promoting-co-senate-race - PARevolution.com did some research into this.

Posted 01/29/10 1:14 PM CraigInAustin Austin, TX

This is troubling as this is the third candidate with positions aligned with the warfare lobby (Rand Paul, Lamar Smith, and now Ken Buck) all of whom appear to be loosely or indirectly supported by the Campaign For Liberty and/or Ron Paul. Let it be known, that I, Craig R. Hunt in Austin Texas no longer endorse or support the "National" Campaign For Liberty. Likewise, I will vote that the Texas Liberty Campaign (State Level) organization break all associations with the National C4L organization. Liberty is and always will be about principle and message and never the political entity or messenger.

Posted 01/29/10 1:21 PM HighBar Hollywood, CA

I want a full explanation from C4L, and an apology, or my money back. This guy supports unjust war in the name of freedom and NATION BUILDING. It goes against the liberty message and Ron Paul's platform. This is outrageous! I am a co-organizer of the LA based Hollywood Freedom Activists, an outgrowth of the Ron Paul Campaign. I spend so much of my resources, as do all of our members, struggling for liberty. This news is more than despicable, it is an outright insult to the work of the grassroots!!!

Posted 01/29/10 2:05 PM tom tinker Fairfax, VA

This needs to be explained.

Posted 01/29/10 2:10 PM BrendonDeMeo North Chelmsford, MA

You guys are morons who are ruining C4L. It's a DIFFERENT CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY. THIS IS OBVIOUS How can you be so ignorant? http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/index.php?q=campaign+for+liberty &searchButt.x=0&searchButt.y=0&searchButt=Submit&cx=010677907462 955562473%3Anlldkv0jvam&cof=FORID%3A11#906 The C4L that ran the ad is a neoconservative 527 group set up in Colorado in 2006. 2 years before this C4L even existed. Great job in getting people to cancel their memberships and defame C4L because some of you could not do basic research. It took me 5 minutes to get to the bottom of this while on lunch break at work.

Posted 01/29/10 2:13 PM BrendonDeMeo North Chelmsford, MA

In fact, its not even neoconservative. It's a lobbying group that takes money from the AFL CIO and Emily's List. I expect the author of this post to contact every commenter on this article and give them the correct information and to also run a new article clearing up the mistake. It's his duty as this article unfairly defames Ron Paul's group.

Posted 01/29/10 2:35 PM BrendonDeMeo North Chelmsford, MA

Ha, well, I made myself look like an arse. C4L did post this ad, the real C4L. I was pointed in the wrong direction by a fellow C4L member who was confused, so I have to apologize for my comments. I just don't want to see this organization fall apart. Here's why they did it btw: Statement Concerning C4L's Issue Discussion Program Posted by John Tate on 01/29/10 Last updated 01/29/10 Throughout 2010, Campaign for Liberty will be running an issue discussion program through our candidate surveys in every state to promote our issues and agenda and to lobby candidates for federal office and to get them on the record in support or opposition on our issues. Since our inception, we have had many requests from our members for such an effort to help in their work to educate those around them. As part of this program, mail, radio and TV ads, banner ads, and other forms of communication may be run to encourage candidates to go on record in support of our Liberty agenda, to highlight the responses of the candidates on our issues, and to hold those candidates who ignore our cause accountable. There have been some questions as to why certain candidates have received surveys while others haven't. This is simply a matter of putting in place a systematic approach based on candidate filing deadlines and clear survey response deadlines in order to send out surveys in an organized fashion. For example, Texas candidate surveys have been mailed, and Kentucky surveys will be mailed next week. Illinois survey results are already available on our web site. As we launch this new undertaking, I also want to take a moment to address your inquires about one of our first public survey ads in Colorado. First, I think it is important to state up front that, in keeping with our 501(c)4 status, none of our work is in endorsement, support, or opposition for any candidate. In our survey program, we seek only to report where candidates stand in regard to the specific questions to which they have responded. In retrospect, the ad we are running could have been messaged differently to help avoid any confusion on its intent and to better advertise our issue discussion program. Your invaluable feedback will help us correct this in the future and, as a result, strengthen the effectiveness of our program. This is C4L's first foray into launching this kind of national initiative, and we are convinced it has the potential to make a tremendous impact. The candidate featured in the Colorado ad answered 19 out of 20 questions correctly on our C4L candidate survey, and he has been publicly outspoken on Audit the Fed and an out of control federal government. He also answered the Foreign Policy questions and warrantless search question on our survey correctly. We treat these surveys as a personal promise from the candidate as to how they will vote upon entering Congress. And I can guarantee you we will hold them accountable for their actions and responsible for how they presented themselves to us. That being said, there is an even more important fact: The Colorado program was funded by a small number of Colorado activists. The funding for this program came ENTIRELY from this small group of new C4L donors. So for all our great grassroots who are wondering why we might not have used this money elsewhere, I can say two things: First, we WILL have similar programs in MANY other places soon, and second, we did NOT use any money raised generally by Campaign for Liberty to run these ads in Colorado. In order to both launch the Colorado effort and test our survey program, C4L did not use existing donor funds but built new support and donations, especially within Colorado, specifically for this project. This is the approach we hope to take as we seek funding for many other special projects this year in other states. I take our message of peace, freedom, and prosperity as well as the responsibility entrusted to me to run this organization very seriously. I hope you all know that, and can give us here at C4L the benefit of the doubt when a situation arises about which you might want more information, or with which you even might not agree. As a multi-issue organization with activists from all manner of backgrounds, we each certainly will have our share of disagreements and agreements. The critical question is whether or not we will let disagreements on occasional topics destroy the unity we share in our desire to be a free people. This movement has a unique window of opportunity to change politics in our country and restore our lost liberties. But to accomplish this, it will take our unified effort and focus. I see great things for us in 2010 and beyond if we can do that. I hope I'll have your support as we continue our campaign for liberty.

Posted 01/29/10 2:37 PM BrendonDeMeo North Chelmsford, MA

I was took quick too support C4L as my trust for the organization has grown immense over the last couple of years, so I instantly gave them the benefit of the doubt and took the first tidbit of info directing the blame from them and ran with it.

Posted 01/30/10 07:26 AM rusty75 mishawaka, IN

Smart move for the C4L. If we look for candidates who only agree 100% with what we want, then i think we will never be satisfied in the choices. I do not agree with the war, and that is my main issue right now, so this guy would not get my vote if i lived in that state. I still believe this was smart on C4L to support him giving he has the most issues in focus with ours, of the candidates running for that office, and this was pushed by the people of colorado who belong to C4L. The money also came from C4L members from that state.

Posted 01/30/10 09:25 AM e rowe South Bend, IN

Rusty, As I've learned what little information the CFL has been willing to release about this over the past day or two, I'm still pretty disappointed with them. Not so much because I can't sympathize with individual CFL members who support a candidate who is an interventionist but still apparently good on some other issues, but because of how lacking in openness and honesty their responses have been. They are still insisting that this ad is not an ad supporting Ken Buck, which is an insult to our intelligence. And they're still not explaining the facts of the case. The way it looks is that some wealthy friends of Ken Buck each contributed tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars to make a Ken Buck ad and just used the CFL as their front group to get around campaign finance laws. CFL leaders are being conspicuously silent when it comes to addressing that charge.

Posted 01/30/10 10:13 AM rusty75 mishawaka, IN

Eric, I understand what you are saying, but i think you might want to look at the big picture. Hypothetically if Mr. Hostettler is 95% in line with the C4L mission and the only thing i can find against him is the fact i havent heard him come out against the patriot act, is that a reason not to ask C4L to throw him support? I would think John Tate and the like would have to say that they are not supporting him for leagal reasons, emails and such could be used. I would not take it as a personal asault on your inteligence. As the Obama admin grows to push more government down our throats I think we have to make more strategic votes and less conscience ones, and i hate to think that way, but our backs are against the wall. If this is the pick the C4L has chosen in Colorado and its thier money, than by all means the C4L should get behind him any way legally possible. I however am fustrated they have not done more of this especially with Rand, Schiff, Hostettler, and others who are definately better choices, but than again maybe we have not done our part as a state in generating enough funds and support. I will look into that and see how much funds we have it should be public.

Posted 01/30/10 11:18 AM e rowe South Bend, IN

Rusty, to me it's not about CFL members supporting someone who's 95% with us, it's about the dishonesty of the CFL leadership. The reason they haven't done ads like this for those other candidates is because the people who funded the Ken Buck ad were only interested in funding a Ken Buck ad. They weren't interested in funding CFL in any way or helping candidates like those you listed. They merely used CFL as their front group to get around campaign finance laws so that they could donate tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars a piece to pay for a Ken Buck ad. The people behind it are not CFL members, nor do they care one bit about the CFL, except inasmuch as it provided a convenient tool for them to use. I expect that the fallout from this will not just be angry CFL members, but also problems with the FEC. As for Tate's claim that the ad is not an ad supporting Ken Buck, yes that is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who has seen the ad. Have you watched it? Can you honestly tell me that it looks like anything other than an ad supporting Ken Buck? The entire purpose of the ad from the moment of its conception has always been to support Ken Buck and nothing else. Those who are directly involved in the matter and say otherwise are lying. I have a problem with that. It makes me feel like this group I belong to that sends me all those mailings asking for money is a group that is chiefly characterized by duplicity and back room deals.

Posted 01/30/10 12:07 PM rusty75 mishawaka, IN

Yes it looks like an ad supporting Ken Buck. But why is that so important to you.Its Colorado's money are you saying they should not spend it how they want? This money did not come from the national fund. Since Colorado has there own chapter maybe the problem lies with them and maybe John is right in saying its not a support(from national C4L) for Ken Buck.Im not from the FEC so i dont know if lines have been crossed nor whos to blame. I would find out what the C4L chapter thinks from Colorado. If they were not behind this or were somehow pushed from national than i would say foul play. I would be the first to leave C4L if i thought foul play was involved from the top but I have invested money and time like others and do believe in Ron Paul and the ideas he has worked on his whole life. Maybe some foul play is involved. We should try and get to the bottom of this. Iam not sending my survey in until this is resolved.

Posted 01/30/10 4:39 PM e rowe South Bend, IN

Like I keep saying, what's important to me is the dishonesty. And that applies to both national CFL and CO CFL.

Posted 01/30/10 6:50 PM nwrcracing North Plains, OR

I am not really too suprised after seeing the "teaparties" being hijacked. I really thought that the CFL would have been stronger. Here is how I view this after reading many forums and blog entries about it: Even if national c4l funds were not used, I feel used. Using the survey as an excuse to place ads for candidates just to get them on record either in support or not is not the best use of the c4l logo. It misleads. It would have been better to just have a CFL commercial. I would be willing to bet that a small group of elephants in colorado thought it would be a great idea to USE this to their advantage and pose as CFL members just to use the CFL logo in a commercial. Truly a sad day. If I see any more commercials that appear to endorse a candidate I will remove my CFL yard sign and bumper stickers, throw out all support material and shirts I have purchased, and unsubscribe from CFL. The only candidates that should get our support should be those that line up with the constitution. PS. CFL would be better served just airing CFL commercials stating our views and put together with the grassroots.

Posted 01/31/10 04:34 AM rusty75 mishawaka, IN

The more I read about this guy the more angrier i get. This is obviously a mistake or subversion. In either case I hope C4L will do the right thing and fire the people involved. If not this will badly hurt what we've worked for. In looking in at Colorados chapter most of the C4L members who are still active are angry with the decision and cant figure out why they picked Ken Buck. It did not appear Colorado's chapter was any bigger than ours so i'am wondering how they were organized to have acomplished this add. This had to be organized by national. Im wondering who the contributors were? For us to continue as a group we need to know who the contributors were? And we need to see some heads roll.

Posted 01/31/10 09:28 AM e rowe South Bend, IN

Rusty, I'm pretty sure that it wasn't the CO CFL who were primarily responsible for the ad. It was a small group of outside donors, who don't care about anything CFL really stands for, and who wanted to fund the ad in a way that kept their own names separate from it, and they talked to some contact they had in CFL and worked out a deal where CFL would run the ad, those donors would pay for it, and it would have some kind of ad hoc way of making into an ad they could say was for the survey, when they all knew it was for the candidate. This idea has been floating around for a few days, including rather specific rumors about one of the supposed donors, and the responses that have been put out by CFL national and CO leaders very conspicuously avoid addressing that charge or giving any details that would verify or falsify it. To me the issue of how "pure" CFL, or individual state chapters, or individual members of CFL want to be when it comes to supporting candidates is a secondary question. I don't begrudge anybody the right to make those decisions for themselves. I don't go along with the idea that we shouldn't ever compromise. I know that Hostettler has some strikes against him, especially on the Patriot Act, and I still support him. And for all I know, if I lived in CO, maybe I would be supporting Ken Buck. But the primary problem I have is the way it looks like this all came about by some back room deal, and the way the people involved seem to be refusing to explain clearly what exactly happened.

Posted 02/02/10 1:32 PM rusty75 mishawaka, IN

After talking with Melissa and others we feel as though what happens in Colorado or were ever else is thier problem and that there are to many other things to worry about than the mistakes or Colorado and others make. Melissa was not even aware because she is busy getting delegates together and i thought maybe i should do the same. Here is a statement posted yesterday by Ronnie Paul. Dear C4L Member, Last week, Campaign for Liberty bought airtime in Colorado as part of our candidate survey program. Our purpose was to get candidates for office on the record about their position on issues like undeclared war, abolishing the IRS, supporting competing currencies and rescinding the Patriot Act. Our intentions were good, but we made mistakes. We had poor communication with you about the program and the messaging of the commercial did not fit with C4L's principles. Many of you have spoken out and offered constructive criticism. We have learned some important lessons, and will be stronger as a result. We will implement checks and balances to prevent anything like this from happening again. A small but vocal minority has decided to wage cruel and vicious personal attacks against our president, John Tate. This is unfortunate. John is a kind and decent family man who has worked unbelievably hard and has always tried to do the right thing. There should be no place for this in our movement and simply wastes the time and energy we should be using to fight for Liberty. Looking at the big picture, C4L has achieved tremendous success over the past year. We have been instrumental in passing Audit the Fed in the House. We have trained thousands of activists so they have the tools to win. We have set up independent state chapters across the country. And, our numbers have grown to over a quarter million strong, forming a grassroots army to take our freedoms back. Our successes greatly outweigh our mistakes, and we WILL stay the course. C4L is playing a leading role in the Liberty Movement. I am convinced that our efforts, along with those of many others, will continue the Ron Paul Revolution. C4L's successes are many, and as we progress into our second year, I see many more ahead. We deeply appreciate your support. In Liberty, Ronnie Paul Chairman of the Board

Posted 02/09/10 9:16 PM JohnKern Apopka, FL

Jesse Benton Addresses $350k C4L Colorado Commercial Campaign http://libertypulse.com/blog/2010/02/02/jesse-benton-addresses-350k- c4l-colorado-commerical-campaign/