If you want to know what they'll do WHEN in office, you might try caring who they take money from.
Or, you can look at their voting record and what they're saying, and realize that when they've been consistent for decades, you can probably safely assume they aren't going to be changing drastically any time soon.
Yes, of course you should consider their record. And then follow the money, too. BTW, I'm not suggesting that Ron Paul can be bribed or that he's a racist. I'm saying he should know better than to keep the money.
Why? As far as I'm concerned, the whole argument lies around the notion that it is a tacit approval/conflict of interest. With other candidates, I might agree. Taking money from corporations, for example, might be a conflict of interest. But I'd only believe that if the person has a record of being influenced by the source of their money. Since I'm particularly convinced Ron Paul can't be bribed and isn't racist, it seems like nothing but an attempt to smear him (unless the people who are turning this into a big issue do believe he can be bribed or is racist, and we can discuss that). The only reason such things are seen in a negative light (and the reason politicians tend to give this kind of money back), is because of what I stated earlier. It looks like a conflict of interest or an approval of that person. In many cases, it is, and that's why we perceive it as bad. But that is not always the case.
Yes, any group can donate to which candidate they choose and any candidate is free to say "Um....No Thanks." or take that money and donate to a cause that is at odds with the goals of the original group.
Who is the racist- the one that takes money from a racist and spends it to promote the message of liberty, or the one who GIVES MONEY TO A RACIST so he can spend it to promote the message of racism? Sounds like the second group of people are the real white supremacists to me.
Scout never said anything about giving money to racists. He said refuse it or give it to an anti-racist group. Or, Paul could just cut an equivalent check to a charity organization.
I know. Which is why I specifically addressed him after that by saying, "as far as you go, Scout..."
I believe on THR there was a thread about the Brady Campaign handing out free pamphlets, and someone suggested taking all of them to dispose of them. Are you going to argue that those people are really anti-gunners in disguise because they're taking Brady pamphlets?
If someone gave you an MP40 that was used to kill Jews in concentration camps during WWII, would it make sense if I called you an anti-semitic Nazi? After all, you are accepting that object that came from some very unfriendly people.
Those situations have nothing to do with campaign contributions. They don't compare at all.
Those situations are in principle, the same. So what if your money came from a white supremacist? So what if your gun came from a Nazi who used it for evil purposes? So what if you accepted a pamphlet or information from the Brady Campaign? Unless it's going influence you to do bad things, it's not a big deal.