Thread: Paul Still Leads Military Donations

Military donations to anti-war candidates rise - Air Force News, news from Iraq - Air Force Times

Republicans receive the largest slice of presidential campaign contributions made by military members and their spouses, but leading anti-war candidates are getting a substantial cut, too, according to an independent analysis of political contributions.

From January 2007 through March of this year, service members or civilian employees of the military donated at least $766,000 to presidential candidates, according to data made available April 20 and provided by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit research group in Washington.

The analysis included donations of at least $200 made by individuals who listed their employer as one of the four branches of the military — Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps — or the Coast Guard, National Guard, Army Air Force Exchange Service, armed forces or military.

These donors gave the largest amounts to Rep. Ron Paul, the long-shot Republican candidate from Texas who has acknowledged defeat in the nomination process but continues to campaign, and Sen. Barack Obama, the Democrat from Illinois.

During the reporting period, Paul — a former Air Force surgeon who broke with his party to vote against the Iraq war — received the most military contributions, with $201,271.

That’s significantly more than the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain from Arizona, who received $132,133 from military donors, according to CRP.

“I think that our fighting men and women want to protect America, defend our Constitution and defend our borders,” said Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Rep. Paul’s campaign. “I think they’re sick and tired of being sent overseas on these police actions and getting caught in the middle of these civil wars, and want someone like Ron Paul speaking sense.

“They signed up to defend our country, not police the world,” Benton said, “and I think they’re hungry for leaders who do that.”

Obama, meanwhile, whose opposition to invading Iraq has been a centerpiece of his campaign, has received $178,456 in military contributions, compared to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s $85,000, the analysis shows.

“To see two anti-war candidates getting more money from the people fighting the war or providing support for the war effort was surprising to us,” said Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics.

However, the donations cannot be considered representative of military employees’ political preferences as a whole because the analysis does not include donations of less than $200, the point at which campaign finance law requires campaigns to disclose the name of a donor and contribution amount. Thus, individuals who give less than $200 aren’t counted.

“The picture could be completely different if you were able to look at smaller donors,” Ritsch said. “You’re looking at a tiny slice of the military who have enough disposable income to donate to a candidate.”

Overall, military donors still favor Republicans to Democrats, 62 percent to 38 percent, according to CRP. But Ritsch said at the beginning of the war, three-quarters of military donors favored GOP candidates.

Originally Posted by Defensor

Military donations to anti-war candidates rise - Air Force News, news from Iraq - Air Force Times

You missed this paragraph where it was noted that these stats are not accurate.

However, the donations cannot be considered representative of military employees’ political preferences as a whole because the analysis does not include donations of less than $200, the point at which campaign finance law requires campaigns to disclose the name of a donor and contribution amount. Thus, individuals who give less than $200 aren’t counted.

For all the good it's doing him. I do wonder why he isn't "on air" more. Maybe we'll see him more during the general.

Originally Posted by Think for myself

You missed this paragraph where it was noted that these stats are not accurate.

However, the donations cannot be considered representative of military employees’ political preferences as a whole because the analysis does not include donations of less than $200, the point at which campaign finance law requires campaigns to disclose the name of a donor and contribution amount. Thus, individuals who give less than $200 aren’t counted.

Ah, but hasn't Obama talked a lot about his donors & how the average is something like $90?

Originally Posted by Migi e!

Ah, but hasn't Obama talked a lot about his donors & how the average is something like $90?

No idea. I know I have never donated more than $50 to Obama at any one time.

Originally Posted by Think for myself

You missed this paragraph where it was noted that these stats are not accurate.

No, I didn't. It did not say that these stats are inaccurate. Nice try. :waving:

Originally Posted by Defensor

No, I didn't. It did not say that these stats are inaccurate. Nice try. :waving:

Dude, I seriously want some of what you are smoking. The paragraph that you omitted says this.

However, the donations cannot be considered representative of military employees’ political preferences as a whole because the analysis does not include donations of less than $200

Now, maybe my reading comprehension is not extraordinary, but that clearly is not the case. The omitted paragraph says you can't rely on the numbers. If you think it says something different, then that would not be correct.

I would expect that if Paul wins the VA will receive a shake up like it's never seen. That alone should be good enough reason to vote for him.

Originally Posted by Think for myself

Dude, I seriously want some of what you are smoking. The paragraph that you omitted says this.

However, the donations cannot be considered representative of military employees’ political preferences as a whole because the analysis does not include donations of less than $200

Now, maybe my reading comprehension is not extraordinary, but that clearly is not the case. The omitted paragraph says you can't rely on the numbers. If you think it says something different, then that would not be correct.

We know your biased against Ron Paul and all but the stats are accurate. What I got from that paragraph is that Ron Paul recieved the most military donations that exceeded $200. That is not representative of the whole military, but those who donatated over $200. How is this article or the stats not accurate?

Originally Posted by Moderates of America

We know your biased against Ron Paul and all but the stats are accurate.

Seriously, the article gives a caveat that says the stats do not reflect all donations from the military.

Originally Posted by Moderates of America

What I got from that paragraph is that Ron Paul recieved the most military donations that exceeded $200. That is not representative of the whole military, but those who donatated over $200. How is this article or the stats not accurate?

Um, look at the thread title.