Ron Paul’s campaign paid conspiracy nut Alex Jones $1,300?
posted at 1:30 pm on October 27, 2007 by Allahpundit
You can thank Beth of MVRWC for digging this up. So it seems now we’ve got money moving in both directions between America’s Greatest Patriot and this bottom-feeding Truther jackass: a $2,300 donation from Jones to Paul and a $1,300 payment this quarter from Paul’s campaign to “Jones, Alex.” Assuming it’s the same Alex Jones, which seems a safe bet, pray tell what might that payment have been for? The likeliest explanation is that it’s some sort of service fee, either Jones doing something on behalf of the campaign or allowing the campaign to do something using his property. Either way, I’m mighty curious to know what special service might have been provided such that Paul’s people couldn’t have gone elsewhere and gotten the same deal from someone who isn’t a degenerate conspiracy theorist. There’s another question for the media to ask him during one of his myriad cable news appearances. Annnny day now.
Beth points out another curious payment, much less sinister than the one to Jones but also less explicable: a hefty $42,325.99 to Babyshere Inc. Paul is an OB/GYN by trade and passionately pro-life so I’m guessing they did some work together in that vein, but I can’t find anything on Google about it.
Update: People are commenting that this is much more of a smoking gun re: Paul’s coziness with Jones than the donation Jones sent to Paul. I completely disagree. I’m willing to give Paul a pass on the donation he apparently received from Stormfront founder Don Black (assuming he returns the money, of course) since it’s reasonable to believe Paul doesn’t know who Black is. He and his people certainly know who Jones is, though, so why not return the donation immediately? Answer: Because Paul has no problem associating with Jones, as we already know from his many appearances on Jones’s show. In that sense, this whole gotcha game with the money is idiotic. Paul’s willing guest shots on nutjob radio are enough to fatally taint his candidacy, not this penny-ante donation/payment business.
Update: The $1,300 payment is in fact a partial donation of Jones’s campaign contribution. More here.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Am I really supposed to care what a two-bit, halfa$$ed rerun of Ross Perot does with his campaign time and money?
He’s not going to get the nom…tho he may just be vain enough to run as third party… But what the hell else do we expect a loon to do, aside from act like a loon and spend time and money with other loons??
It’s news, I understand, Allah…so no offense. But I still can’t figure out what the big deal about this jacka$$ is.
tickleddragon on October 27, 2007 at 1:37 PM
The big deal is that the media is giving him a pass on the sundry creepy douchebags who populate his base. And the reason they’re giving him a pass is because he has the “right” opinion about the war. It’s textbook media whitewash.
Allahpundit on October 27, 2007 at 1:39 PM
Oh no…I understand that. But they give all of them a pass – why are we surprised?
My frustration was not aimed at you, Allah. It was at the whole Ron Paul phenom…
tickleddragon on October 27, 2007 at 1:43 PM
You are doing your usual fantastic job… Thanks.
tickleddragon on October 27, 2007 at 1:43 PM
tickleddragon–
Because some otherwise sane small government types, including one regular commenter here that I know of, are lulled by the siren song of Paul’s nonsense and projecting into him exactly what they want to hear. And they justify that because they say, well, sure, Doctor Paul is popular among the moonbats, but he can’t really help that; he didn’t seek them out–and after all, it’s those moonbats who are the deluded ones who are reading into Paul exactly what they want to hear.
But Paul’s frequent associations with Alex Jones proves otherwise. Now he’s giving Jones money? What, so he can hire protection from the Bilderbergers?
see-dubya on October 27, 2007 at 1:46 PM
From the link:
Tee hee hee!
It’s one thing to get donations from Jones, quite another to write him a check. Is there a way to verify if it is the same guy or not?
lorien1973 on October 27, 2007 at 1:47 PM
This one is kinda interesting:
Andrews, Anita 10,441.36
googling “anita andrews” tells me that this person trains the grassroots to go out and support Paul. I thought it was all independent of the campaign?
lorien1973 on October 27, 2007 at 1:54 PM
An equal or greater reason could be that he has a “conflicting” opinion about the war, and the media needs to sell a story. Huck has also been getting a bit of a pass from the MM since they need to have an Iowa upstart.
Also, campaign finance stories don’t seem to interest the audience as much as Iraq, abortion or other hot button issues.
dedalus on October 27, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Thanks see-dub…color me informed and on the same page.
(Without giving it much thought, I just see Perot again.)
tickleddragon on October 27, 2007 at 2:09 PM
One would think that Paul’s paying just over one grand to a douche bag would pale in comparison to Giuliani’s employing his pedophile-abettor buddy, Monsignor Alan Placa–
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jun22/0,4670,GiulianiChurchAbuse,00.html
or the Romney campaign’s complete inability not to hire criminally-involved persons, among them:
everyone’s favorite “wide-stancer,” Larry Craig, who was Romney’s co-Senate liason; a (now former) co-chair of Romney’s finance committee, Alan B. Fabian, who was indicted by a Maryland grand jury on 23 counts of mail fraud, money laundering, bankruptcy fraud, perjury, and obstruction of justice;–
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/12/romney_fund_raiser_quits_after_indictment/
and Robert Lichfield, co-chairman of Romney’s Utah finance committee, who is now facing several lawsuits for child abuse.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/lawsuits-hit-a-romney-money-man-2007-06-20.html
But, clearly, this is worse.
tad on October 27, 2007 at 2:12 PM
With all the shady dealings that can be scraped together by looking at the top tier candidates in both parties, why does anyone care about 3 grand exchanging hands between a conspiracy nut, that I have never heard of, and a Congressman who is polling single digits. The amount of time and effort lambasting Paul and his supporters can really be better spent.
sweeper on October 27, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Crazy is as crazy does…Ron Paul and Alex Jones have no sense of or grip on reality whatsoever!
Very fitting the moonbats are howling ever louder, after all Halloween is next week!
Liberty or Death on October 27, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Okie Dokie, Baby’s Here, Inc is registered in VA, which has it’s HQ in Arlinton VA according to it’s website (Announceable, 1408 N Fillmore St., Suite 16, Arlington, VA 22201)
But Baby’s Here, Inc registration record’s address is 3461 Washington Blvd, Suite 200, Arlington VA, 22201. That is the same address AND Suite number as Ron Paul’s Presidential Campaign Committee’s address. Is he just renting? Is it a just a mail drop? I haven’t found much else on such as President of BH, Inc or Board of Directors, etc, yet.
Directions to the page. Go here. Type 1 in Corporate Inquiry Menu and hit ENTER button at left. Type in 1 in Data Summary and Babyshere, Inc in Corp Name and ENTER at left.
Make sure babyshere is again place in search name, put 1 in box next to the same name below and hit ENTER at left.
I’m not sure the RA name is important but a somewhat prominent one shows up in Google search. It may not be the same but there are alot at Newsmeat.
Dusty on October 27, 2007 at 2:29 PM
Whoops, I left out site link. It’s here.
Dusty on October 27, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Why does caring about one preclude caring about the other. How many posts about Hillary Clinton’s dirty donations have we written? 25? I write two posts about Paul and suddenly the Paulnuts are miffed.
And it’s not “just” Alex Jones. Jones is emblematic of a swath of Ron Paul’s supporters. Find a Truther and odds are you’re looking at a Ron Paul fan.
Allahpundit on October 27, 2007 at 2:33 PM
I’m at a loss to see how this is significant. Is there a violtion in paying for space? I ask in all seriousness because I would love to see this effort put in on all money in and out of other campaigns.
sweeper on October 27, 2007 at 2:33 PM
I’m not a Paulnut and will not be voting for him. However, the Hsu money is huge amount and has very large implications. And may I say that this is one of the few places that follows that money. But seriously, it seems that any Paul news becomes instead fodder, as if it were bait or something….
sweeper on October 27, 2007 at 2:37 PM
Sweeper, the question that was asked was “What was the connection?” That’s the connection — now you know what services Baby’s Here, Inc. might have provided. I didn’t say there was a violation, did I? I only noted what I hadn’t looked at and what also be relevant. You read too much into my comment.
Dusty on October 27, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Dusty, you are absolutely right, I did read too much into it and for that I apologize.
sweeper on October 27, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Yes, that’s true. But in Paul you’re looking at someone who could pose a serious third-party problem for the GOP; whose flirtations with nutjobs are serially ignored by the media; and whose own base appears to contain an unusually high concentration of kooks. He also raised five times the amount Mike Huckabee — who’s allegedly a first-tier candidate now — did last quarter. This isn’t remotely as big as the Hsu scandal but it’s not the mystifying nitpicking of a fringe candidate you’re trying to make it out to be either.
Allahpundit on October 27, 2007 at 2:43 PM
True, but as a third party candidate he would take the nutroots from both parties which includes all those mighty Dennis K votes. As for the Liberterian vote, hitting him on his association with conspiracy theorist won’t hurt his position. If elected officials were selected by whom they choose to associate with, Paul would probably look like the cleaniest since few have any economic reasons to see him elected.
sweeper on October 27, 2007 at 2:51 PM
[sweeper on October 27, 2007 at 2:42 PM]
np … it’s easy to do especailly when one comments in a truncated manner, as I did.
Dusty on October 27, 2007 at 2:52 PM
If so, that says a lot about libertarians. But assuming it’s true, libertarians aren’t the worry here; independents disgruntled by both parties and looking for a protest vote are. If they want to vote for Alex Jones’s pal, fine, but let’s make sure that decision is optimally informed.
Allahpundit on October 27, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Point conceded.
However, that makes in incumbent on the party’s nominee to stand for something tangible and not just against the Dem’s likely nominee.
sweeper on October 27, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Where, exactly, is this occurring?
What a splendid point. And about 24 or, if I’m being charitable, 23 of these were fairly redundant and, therefore, just a tad annoying.
Would not a discussion of the reasons why McCain-Feingold– the existence of which is absolutely the genesis of the dirty fund-raising deeds committed by Clinton 2.0 and others–is an absolutely ridiculous law be more productive?
It is, though, certainly not worth even mentioning, as no discussion of Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act could be even tangentially relevant to 2008 presidential election and, by extension, the funding of its candidates.
I mean, it’s not like both the bill’s co-author, McCain, and one of its strongest proponent’s, District Attorney Arthur Branch, er, Fred Thomson, are running for the nomination of one of this country’s two main political parties.
tad on October 27, 2007 at 2:58 PM
If it ends up Rudy v Hillary v Paul, does Dobson back one of them, select a 4th candidate or just stay home? I’d bet on “stay home”, but it would likely be a function of the concessions (probably substantial) that he could extract from Rudy.
dedalus on October 27, 2007 at 3:02 PM
Please excuse the lack of two articles in the second to last paragraph of my last post.
“The” is, it would seem, anathema to me.
tad on October 27, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Not only that, Paul is getting national airtime during Republican debates to spew his lunacy as if he was actually a legitimate Republican candidate–instead of a Libertarian, which is where he belongs. That kind of national podium lends him a credibility that he doesn’t deserve, and makes him the problem of anybody that doesn’t want to be associated with Truthers, white supremacists, and the rest of the assorted loons that make up his base.
ReubenJCogburn on October 27, 2007 at 3:18 PM
The GOP, including us conservatives, will have to assume a contingency if Ron Paul branches off into a third party after the GOP nomination. No doubt Paul has enough supporters to remain a nuisance in the campaign to the end.
Paul probably has enough of a wacko base that they will cause a dent in the popular vote on election day, but will not carry any electoral votes. This also means all of the nutjobs who support RP are going to think they are gaining legitimacy. Just friggin great.
I really wonder if Paul will pull more votes from Republicans (Libertarians) or the Democrats (Liberals) on election day? I’m guessing the latter because they seem to be more afflicted with BDS, and are therefore more motivated to cast their vote with Paul as a protest against their Democratic nominee (Clinton?) who will not get us out of Iraq like they want.
We are living in strange times and I don’t think Ron Paul’s connection to Truthers and other wacko groups going to diminish but will get worse, much worse.
Weebork on October 27, 2007 at 4:08 PM
The ONLY reason you aren’t seeing them here raising h3ll in the comments is that registration is required to comment. If they could go nuts in the comments here, they would.
Another thing the disaffected undecided voters need to think about before going all in for Ron Paul is, who would he pick to serve in his cabinet? (Obviously, this is theoretical because it isn’t gonna happen.) Troofers like Alex Jones because he owes them for their support? Anti-Semitic thugs like Pat Buchanan (his ideological allies) or Lew Rockwell? John Birch Society conspiracy theorists/anti-Semites (also ideological allies)? David Duke (another notorious Ron Paul supporter)?
People like Ron Paul and his supporters aren’t so irrelevant in society, although they may be irrelevant in the election. They need to be shunned. Just by Ron Paul having what support he does have, he’s emboldened troofers, white supremacists, and all sorts of unsavory characters. He’s lended them a trace of credibility and legitimacy.
EXACTLY.
bamapachyderm on October 27, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Why would he have to pay any nut. Doesn’t he have enough nutty-assed volunteers?
TheSitRep on October 27, 2007 at 7:09 PM
Talk about nutty. Shunned? Every thing he says should be discarded or just the stuff that doesn’t make it into the party platform? Is there no place in the party for a small government mindset who feels that foreign policy should strictly be for the benefit of this country? You can throw all the David Dukes and Alex Jones at the man you want, but when you talk of shunning constitutionalists you become the one who wants to split the party.
And before you start throwing all the “Paulnuts” BS at me, I am a Rudy supporter who believes in supporting Isreal because it is in the best interest of the US.
sweeper on October 27, 2007 at 9:46 PM
Allah: $1300 of Alex Jones’ $2300 donation was refunded, per the FEC disclosure. (See the update to my post.)
But why only a partial refund? I’m guessing RP sees a need to distance himself from troofer scum, but not COMPLETELY disavow them. If he did, his support base would all but disappear.
Sweeper, I don’t think any conservative is against Ron Paul’s small government agenda in general, although most disagree with the degree to which he takes it (we aren’t Libertarians for a reason, you know). You are making a mistake if you think I said we need to “shun constitutionalists.” He attracts the very worst kinds of supporters, and it’s no accident.
SitRep:
Yes, but he’s also got a lot of salaried employees astroturfing for him.
bamapachyderm on October 28, 2007 at 6:10 PM