Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Ron Paul Supporters Form Super PAC

A group of supporters of presidential candidate Ron Paul have formed Revolution PAC, a political action group dedicated to Congressman Paul’s candidacy and ideas.

I'm on the Advisory Board. Ron Paul is about the only politician I would do this for. If Tom Woods ever decided to run for office (hint,hint) he would be another.

As a Super PAC, Revolution PAC is not subject to the $2500 maximum that applies to presidential campaigns, so it provides a further outlet for those who have already donated the maximum to a campaign.

“Ron Paul is known for having exceptionally creative and energetic grassroots support. Revolution PAC will help make some of their best ideas a reality,” said Advisory Board Chairman Dr. Thomas Woods. Woods, whose 2009 bestseller Meltdown features a foreword by Dr. Paul and who has spoken at many of the congressman’s events, says Revolution PAC will pursue a variety of strategies to promote the candidate’s ideas.

“We’ve got great ideas for television and radio ads – and other things, too – that will highlight the congressman’s unmatched record and differentiate him from the other candidates,” Woods said.

The full advisory board includes:

  • Tom Woods is Revolution PAC chairman.
  • Jack Hunter, the author and radio personality who collaborated with Senator Rand Paul on the latter’s book, The Tea Party Goes to Washington.
  • Joe Becker, chief legal counsel to Ron Paul 2008
  • Mike Church, host, The Mike Church Show, Sirius/XM satellite radio
  • Kevin Gutzman, Ph.D., professor of history and New York Times bestselling author
  • Penny Langford Freeman, political consultant and Rep. Ron Paul’s political director, 1998-2007
  • Murray Sabrin, Ph.D., professor of finance at Ramapo College
  • Brion McClanahan, Ph.D., professor of history and author of the forthcoming Founding Fathers’ Guide to the Constitution (Regnery, January 2012)
  • Robert Wenzel, editor and publisher,
  • Chris Rye, director/producer, “For Liberty,” a Ron Paul grassroots feature documentary
  • Corey Kealiher, director/producer, “For Liberty,” a Ron Paul grassroots feature documentary
  • Mary E. Putnam, Daughter of the American Revolution, Revolution PAC Fundraising and Media Coordinator
  • Lawrence W. Lepard, Managing Partner of Equity Management Associates
  • Gary S. Franchi Jr., president of Revolution PAC, national director of Restore the Republic, and host of the Reality Report
For more information or to make a contribution to Revolution PAC, visit


  1. Go Wenzel, Go Woods.

  2. This is very encouraging news. Keep up the excellent work.

  3. Viral video idea to illustrate Ron Paul Foreign Policy: man swatting at fly with sledgehammer, never hitting fly but destorying his house in the process.

  4. @anon 12:40
    I'm not sure what the take away from that illustration would be. That sounds more like the Bush/Obama policy with the fly representing the terrorist threat, the sledge to describe the current implementation of US military force, and the house destroyed would be the republic and our civil society.

    A true Paul video would never go viral because it would only show a bug zapper going off once in the yard with the occupant not even noticing.

    Side note: anyone else get the Obama 2012 banner ad? I wonder how many click throughs that banner is going to get from readers of this article? Maybe we should all click to put more money into EPJ/RW's pocket and less in the Obama 2012 PAC.

  5. @anon 2:03
    That's the point. It shows the failure of Bush/Obama policy and the contrast with a Paulian policy. You'd tie it all together with images of destruction (physically and monetarilly) and words that say something like "America's foreign policy... still make sense?"

  6. I guess I don't understand the justification for this PAC. Are there that many folks out there who have / will give the cap to the campaign? Is there really a need for an overflow basin for those donations that would otherwise have gone directly to the campaign?

    In any event, it cannot hurt. At the very least the PAC can do some heavy hitting while the Doc keeps his hands clean.

  7. Just imagine if all the money being raised for the political ambitions of Ron Paul instead was raised for the educational efforts of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. I mean, we all know the private sector spends more wisely than the public and all. Ron Paul will get a few TV ads per million bones dropped. The LvMI could instruct thousands, build and publish entire libraries, host speaking tours all around the country.

    Can't complain too much, though, at least these contributions are voluntary (though of course they'd never be made in the first place if there wasn't a gun being held to someone's head somewhere in the picture...)

  8. @Conant

    I too think the political process is a huge waste of money, but if it's going to be, might as well use it....

    The best libertarian candidate is the one who isn't.

  9. Lila Rajiva,

    Okay, fair enough. I, too, think the US military should be abolished, but if you've got it... might as well use it.

    I am not being sarcastic. Can you explain why to me why what I just said is different in principle from what you just said? This is something I legitimately have never understood. Why is the political process a dirty, violent cesspool full of liars and thieves when the socialists use it for their schemes, but when libertarians want to use it it is suddenly an opportunity to educate the masses and move us all toward freedom?

  10. @Taylor, fair question.

    Unfair analogy.

    Running to become president is a process that doesn't involve any immoral action in and of itself and could do some positive good.

    If Ron Paul DIDN'T run, all the attention would be on pro-war, pro-police state candidates.

    So his running, while not a perfectly consistent position, would effect some good in the practical world.

    Next, the military. I don't see the military as inconsistent with libertarianism, as long it's used to defend against aggression.

    So, yes, if it were used solely for that, I certainly could say "use it, since you have it."

    Next, running for the presidency is not the same thing, logically, as employing the military.

    Governing or running the executive office would be a fairer comparison.

    Paul could run for the presidency, draw a lot of media attention, and then use that constructively. He would never need to have actually governed.

    As I said, actually governing would be the logical equivalent of employing the military.

    If one were to use the military for a purely benign purpose that actually undercut the military and drew money away from war, that would be the fair analogy for what Paul is doing. While it is not perfectly consistent, it too would do some real good in the world.

    Wenzel, with his equally Jesuitical mind, could no doubt supplement my casuistry with his own..

  11. Lila Rajiva,

    Well maybe I am assuming something into the equation that fairly should be left out of this thought experiment but Paul DOES govern right now, so I assume the point of the exercise is not simply to draw attention to his views but to actually get him into power at which point he can start pulling those levers.

    Considered with that assumption, does it change the equation at all?

  12. @Conant

    I don't know what Dr. Paul's motivations or goals are....and it's not my place to speculate on them.

    I don't advocate participating in politics myself.

    Even all this "handicapping of the horse-race" that we're doing now is a siphoning off of precious energy, in my view.

    I'm with you there.

    But obviously it makes sense to many libertarians of much longer and purer pedigree than a mutt like me.

    And since I am only a tiny and irrelevant portion of the official libertarian world (I don't even know if I qualify as a libertarian)
    I watch and comment as best I can, and believe that they know better than I do what needs to be done in their native country.

  13. Lila Rajiva,

    Fair enough, but I am not sure why one person's reason should be superior to another's based upon where they are born versus where the problem they are surveying is geographically located.

  14. @Conant

    "I don't know why...."

    Why? Because logic is only one tool of persuasive speech. Others are rhetoric..manners...civility.

    Logically, I can of course say anything I want, as an immigrant.

    Manners and civility would tell me that it's my place to say certain things.


    Because, from a practical point of view, my words wouldn't carry weight and all kinds of motives could more easily be ascribed to me than to a native (jihadi, terrorist, subversive, third-worlder etc)

    And also because civility would require me to show deference to the opinions of those who are native to the country.

    The natives might grant me perfect equality of expression, but it would not be entirely civil of me to demand it...

    (Not that I don't sometimes demand it too, but that is a failure in civility on my part..)

  15. Speaking as someone who probably would have never heard of the Mises Institute if it weren't for Ron Paul, I think money given to him is a boon to those kind of sites. Ron Paul is a lighting rode for lrc,, epj, etc. If Ron Paul brings more people to these groups than the groups can attract on their own we would be mistaken to pass up that opportunity. I have an automatic monthly donation set up at lrc and that is because of Ron Paul opening my eyes.

  16. Billionaire Banker: Andy Beal is a Libertarian

    "The Ron Paul campaign definitely needs to recruit this guy as an advisor or use his network as a mechanism to raise funds. He is a shrewd businessman, he has contributed lots of money to the Libertarian Party (upwards of $100,000.00), and he has good contacts I'm sure."

  17. Ugh never mind that last post, I just saw Beal donated to Pawlenty. How can someone call themself a libertarian and donate to Pawlenty?