Delaware :: Ron Paul

Supporting Freedom Through Grassroots Action

The Corruption is Positively Disgusting

I’ve been paying a LOT of attention recently to the Federal Election Commission’s Report of Receipts and Disbursements for the current candidates for President of the United States. What has become apparent to me as I sift through the data is that they reveal a high degree of corruption. I would like to compare the candidates using some mathematical analysis based on employer contributions. I hope to derive a “corruption quotient” (CQ) by revealing the percentage of each candidates contributions that are in some way illicit.

To do this is a simple matter. I will take the number of campaign dollars received by each candidate for which no employer was reported. If this was a simple matter of some private donors failing to fill out a form properly or choosing to omit their employer, the rate should be at least approximately the same for each candidate. But as we will see, this is not how it turns out at all.

To derive a final “corruption quotient,” I will divide the number of “no employer was supplied” dollars and divide it by that candidate’s total received funds for the quarter. This will tell us what portion of each candidate’s funds require such secrecy that the donor must remain anonymous. The breakdown is as follows:

CLINTON <– (These are hyperlinks to the FEC website campaign profiles)
$2,125,251.11 / $27,021,358.06 = 7.8%

OBAMA
$11,645,363.26 / $33,120,439.80 = 35.1%

EDWARDS
$3,347,317.66 / $9,097,494.93 = 36.8%

GIULIANI
$2,667,131.75 / $17,599,291.85 = 15.2%

MCCAIN
$2,207,402.39 / $11,591,043.81 = 23.6%

ROMNEY
$2,740,696.85 / $20,997,715.31 = 13.1%

An astounding level of corruption from all of the front-runners. Even Clinton’s 7.8% leaves me feeling slightly queasy. But there’s no such thing as an honest politician, and this is to be expected, right? I mean, who could possibly set a better example than Hillary Clinton? Your answer is right here:

RON PAUL
$1100.00 / $2,369,452.95 = 0.00046%

Not one percent. Not one tenth of one percent. Not one hundredth of one percent. An astounding four and a half THOUSANDTHS of a percent. How often do you get to use the word thousandth? Thank you, Dr. Paul, for giving me the opportunity to use one of the only two words in the English language containing the string “dth.”

But as I compiled these data I thought to myself, perhaps there’s a scale bias occurring? Maybe these kind of tremendous numbers only occur when you start talking about total contributions of a scale that only the front-runners show? To test this theory, I calculated the “corruption quotient” of the Senator from my home state, Senator Joe Biden, who happens also to be a Presidential candidate. Here’s what I found:

BIDEN
$138,476.67 / $2,451,179.70 = 0.06%

Okay, sure, it’s not measured in the THOUSANDTHS of a percent, but at least he’s under one percent, right? He may be 130.5 times more corrupt than Ron Paul, but at least he’s well below Billary Clinton. Perhaps it is just a matter of scale, to some degree, since Biden ranks so far below the front-runners as well in CQ.

But no, wait! Behold:

BROWNBACK
$654,337.15 / $1,425,766.58 = 45.9%

Brownback! How COULD you? Nearly half of your campaign contributions don’t list an employer? So much for the theory that proportion doesn’t hold in this calculation.

Ron Paul is a staunch defender of American liberty, a bulwark against the corruption that plagues Washington, and perhaps our last chance to save our government from the poisonous involvement of special interests and political action committees.

Please, for our liberty and for our country, donate anything you can to the Ron Paul campaign and volunteer your talents for the cause!

Advertisements

July 17, 2007 - Posted by | News Stories, Ramblings

11 Comments »

  1. Very good blog, very rich and nice pictures and articles, congratulations !!!

    Comment by valentin10 | July 17, 2007 | Reply

  2. You *seriously need “digg this” links on your articles.

    Comment by Matt C | July 17, 2007 | Reply

  3. Fascinating.

    Comment by Michael | July 18, 2007 | Reply

  4. What?? Why is “no employer” corrupt??

    Comment by Tex MacRae | July 24, 2007 | Reply

  5. […] Corruption is Positively Disgusting 1pssts NeilProtagonist shared this 0 seconds ago https://ronpauldelaware.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/the-corru… An interesting bit of investigation…. PSST! Pass it on… Did you like this […]

    Pingback by PSST! it / The Corruption is Positively Disgusting | July 25, 2007 | Reply

  6. I appreciate your analysis of campaign contributions, and like yourself, I am a strong supporter of Dr. Paul.

    However, I don’t think that failing to indicate employer equates to corruption. I personally really like Dr. paul’s approach to campaign finance reform- take away the power that government unconstitutionally exercises, and you take away the corruption- simple as that. If politicians don’t have the ability to manipulate, favor, discriminate and bully, then they could take all the money from all the people they wanted in a campaign, and it really wouldn’t matter.

    I recently noticed that the powerball jackpot was at 330 million. I’ve never baought a lottery ticket in my life, because I know that winning just means a whole new set of problems. But i thought that if I could win that, and just give the whole amount to the Ron Paul campaign, wouldn’t that be great? Under current laws, i wouldn’t be able to.

    Comment by Chesley | September 3, 2007 | Reply

  7. […] read more | digg story […]

    Pingback by The Corruption is Positively Disgusting « Us Elections | October 15, 2007 | Reply

  8. […] off to Delaware Ron Paul for already doing the legwork. For those afraid to click, this article has an interesting take on […]

    Pingback by Interesting, Unknown Fact About Biden Supporters « kavips | October 25, 2007 | Reply

  9. As someone who has worked hard for Libertarian candidates in the past and has also run for political office, I always make sure I comply with the requirement to list employer simply because I don’t want the candidate to have to spend even one penny of my money or one second of time more than they have to with assinine government regulations and paperwork. If I don’t comply then they need to hunt me down and find out my employer.

    While I don’t doubt any “corruption” index that puts these clowns where it does, I can’t help but wonder if most Paul donors also want to do everything possible to make his life and campaign easier.

    Comment by MrLiberty | October 26, 2007 | Reply

  10. !
    I’ve got an account here.
    . .
    Today I received a web site from someone via my gmail.
    http://www.thedailysoapbox.co.uk/diabetes-it-doesnt-signify-your-love-life-has-got-to-alter/
    . is it some kind of spam or something?

    Comment by Quoninvoice | October 4, 2010 | Reply

  11. sgarealestates provide you a comprehensive range of good quality real estate projects by all the reputed builders be it residential, commercial and retail . Besides we also serve you in leasing,selling, reselling of your properties and enjoying the returns there on. We offers you best deal of property in chandigarh, property in panchkula, property in zirakpur and property in mohali on reasonable rates.
    property in chandigarh

    Comment by marwin2409 | February 26, 2011 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: