Ron Paul: Corrupt

Ron Paul, hero of wackaloons everywhere, was just determined to be one of the most corrupt Congressmen according to a new report from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

The report says Paul “double-billed” his travel expenses a number of times over the last decade, meaning he may have been reimbursed for the same flights both under his official allowance as congressman, and by either non-profit groups under his control or his campaign committee.

The revelation would be ironic in part because Paul made fiscal responsibility a central tenet of his 2012 presidential campaign. The congressman celebrated a major victory in July when his bill to audit the Federal Reserve for greater transparency passed the House.

Apparently Roll Call has been on the Paul double-billing money-making scheme since last February, but apparently people have been noticing since 2004.  Paul and his team, unsurprisingly, have not responded.  Paul was getting money from both the official allowance given to him by Congress and by Liberty Committee, the libertarian group which is run by one of his relatives but parted ways with Paul in 2006.

Now, if cronyism and self-paychecks are his deal, that is what it is, but it seems rather absurd that he would then also make the American people give him money for no reason.

“It’s extremely disappointing,” Liberty Committee President David James told Whispers of the double-billing.

James and the Liberty committee apparently first noticed 8 years ago, when Paul didn’t provide copies of his travel tickets — at which point Paul stopped billing them, apparently realizing he was caught or going to be.  60% of his travel was double billed, the committee discovered when they did an audit.

“We have contacted Congressman Paul to look at the records and repay the amount,” James told Whispers. “But our last communication was not even responded to.”

Despite the money he owes them and the fact that they aren’t working together, Liberty Committee still supports Ron Paul as the bringer of the best message in politics — probably because they’ve had the Kool-Aid.


Ron Paul: Corrupt
The Orbit is still fighting a SLAPP suit! Help defend freedom of speech, click here to find out more and donate!

36 thoughts on “Ron Paul: Corrupt

    1. 1.1

      “This is how religions start. If he’s remembered in 200 years or so, it will just be for a libertarian message, and stories like this will be considered blasphemous.”

      The same can be said of President Obama, or any other politician for that matter.

      I don’t think Barack Obama will be remembered for the illegal drone strikes, the illegal intervention in Libya (2011), signing statements, violations of First Amendment protections, the National Defense Authorization Act, etc. but for his speeches and political posturing.

      Anyway, my personal belief, philosophical messages stand by their own, independently of those who preach them follow them or not.

      Unfortunately, hero worshiping tends to prevail.

  1. 2

    I knew Paul was dishonest years ago when he said he was unaware of the racist remarks in his newsletters. I can believe that he didn’t write the columns. I cannot believe he didn’t know about them nor did they not describe his personal beliefs. A politician wants to know what is going out to voters and potential contributors under his name.

  2. 3

    What did you expect? An honest man? A selfless servant of the public good? See the collected works of St. Ayn of the Rand, patron saint of libertarians.

    Kudos to Ashley Miller for putting this material out where the reality-based community can easily see it.

  3. kj

    Actually, Ron didn’t make the list he was ‘also mentioned’ for a single disgruntled source account who never turned the receipts in question over so they could be countered, early in the campaign. This was a hit piece, a year ago, and responded to. All they have is two charges for the same flight which could be accidental, but given the way Ron travels, that he never bills the taxpayer for what can be billed to one of his PAC groups, and that he travels with people who were of those PaCs and wouldn’t be billed to tax payers likely means there were two people traveling.

    However, as I said, this could not be confirmed in the specific instances because the person making the charges would not turn over the base information.

    Ron Paul gave back excess funds to the treasury every year from his office, more than $100,000 that year. Calling him corrupt is absurd.

      1. It’s easy to come to the defense of someone like Ron Paul when he’s got you convinced he’s a libertarian, when he’s actually an old-timey hood-wearing Tenther.

        1. It is also pretty easy to point out that the article which was quoted and the report it summarizes seem to be different. Ron Paul is in the ‘dishonorable mention’ section and is not in the ‘most corrupt’ list. There seems to be some question as to how many sources of this information exist (and who provided them). Ron Paul is not a perfect man, a perfect libertarian, or a perfect congressman and I do not see anyone here claiming he was but it would be nice to condemn him for actual failings rather than an overhyped article referencing a potentially dubious report.

  4. 6

    I’d always figured Paul for boring, run-of-the-mill corrupt as well as being the used car salesman of libertarianism. This is another level — just below Romney.

  5. 7

    One of the few people in congress who opposes the military industrial complex, the banksters, the prison industry, the Israel lobby and all the other horsemen of our current apocalypse yet he is the “most corrupt” because he might have overbilled on a flight or two? If this is the best his enemies can dredge up after the monumental efforts to discredit him, I’d say he’s doing pretty good.

    I have no use for Paul’s libertarian ideals but on issues of civil liberties, the growing police state and American militarism he is far to the left of any “liberal” in our government especially Gobomber.

    1. 7.1

      To name just a few of Paul’s abhorrent positions, he is anti-choice, wants to repeal the civil rights act, supports DOMA and wants to repeal laws against sexual harassment. What kind of alternate reality is this where one can claim that he is for civil liberties?

      PS. All of these claims are easily verifiable using just wikipedia.

      1. It is the crazy alternate universe in which people would like to be tried in a court before being bombed by a drone. It is the crazy alternate universe in which it would be nice if the government did not loan money to banks at 0% interest and then borrows it back from the banks with interest. He is not anti-choice in any meaningful way because he will not legislate his personal views. He is against the civil rights act and other meddling on ideological grounds related to mostly un-molested free trade (though even he is not a completely free market libertarian). I do not like his personal religious beliefs (a shock I am sure since this is an atheist blog) but so long as he is unwilling to enforce them I do not care that he has them.

        By all means, dislike his libertarian views. Neither he nor I are trying to ‘convert’ you. But let us not pretend he is holding those views for personal gain.

        1. He is not anti-choice in any meaningful way because he will not legislate his personal views.

          If this is true, why did he introduce the Sanctity of Life Act?

          Ron Paul anti-war position and his stance on the war on drugs are literally the only two good things about him. Some people argue say economic policy is good but but Paul Krugman says his policies are a lot of bullshit and I trust Krugman’s judgement more than I trust Ron Paul.

          The rest of Paul’s political positions are all just bigotry, short-sightedness and privilege denial.

        2. Yeah, the right of rich white people to keep the government from ‘meddling’ in the market is so much more important than making sure people can’t turn away qualified applicants because of their race. Where did all this property come from anyway? Obviously the origin of all property is seizure and occupation by force, so any ideology built on the view that property rights are absolute and in aeternum isn’t modeled on reality.

  6. 9

    Ron Paul isn’t a libertarian, and the Libertarian party isn’t either. Noam Chomsky is what one would call a libertarian, but not someone interested in private property (which always needs authority and a state) and concentration of wealth (which always needs force to perpetuate it.) Market rule is tyranny.

    1. 9.2

      There are libertarians other than the libertarian left. If you are certain that property requires a state then you have never read any AnCap writings (or you are being dishonest). Libertarianism is not monolithic, since you claim to be one you should know that.

        1. Without a state, isn’t it just you have property if you have the guns to claim it? Libertarianism always seemed like Feudalism to me.

          No. It relies on polycentric law and insurance companies (which are sometimes called DROs). I think you are misunderstanding the idea. It is not zero states, it is a number of states roughly equal to the number of people. If you want to live in a mutualist commune, no AnCap will stop you unless the commune tries to steal or coerce property or labor from non-members.

  7. 10

    RPs using his status as honest outsider to work as both celebrity promoter and investor in the business of selling highly marked up gold is another way he has lined his pockets. A neighbor ‘invested’ $1000 and then he was forced to sell. He was surprised to find that the coins he bought were only worth about $400 if sold by weight, as they are normally handled. He might get his money back out of that deal … if he waits about 50 years for the price to cover his mistake.

  8. 12

    Ron Paul:

    Promised to deregulate businesses, giving them more authority with less accountability, and breaking down the government – breaking safety nets left and right. The US would have drifted more towards a feudal state, disastrous.

    With the apocalyptic domestic policy, the foreign policy was worth it. Image all those hundreds of thousands dead and dying having some relief. The largest military empire the world has ever seen, brought back. A further ruined US is a small price for a prosperous globe.

    But, of course, if the oligarchs of the US had their way, with no government to act as a speed bump, we could probably see just as much US military industrialism and deployment.

    So, Paul was a bad choice no matter how you approach it.

  9. 13

    This video claims that Ron Paul always buys refundable coach tickets and upgrades to first class only with his frequent flier miles. Given that it comes from Lawrence O’Donnell from MSNBC, who is quite liberal and doesn’t seem to be any friend of Paul’s, I’m more hesitant to dismiss the rebuttal. Ron Paul has plenty of objectionable stances, but shouldn’t we make sure that the things to which we object are true first?

  10. 15


    I don’t think Paul’s noninterventionist foreign policy (not isolationist, there’s a huge difference) is at all wacky. Invading countries for no reason at all is wacky, but not keeping our hand off.

    I also don’t think Paul’s hardcore support of civil liberties is at all wacky either. Throwing people in jail for smoking a joint is certainly wacky though. And it’s certainly not wacky to require court oversight of search warrants, but it is wacky to allow the FBI to issue administrative subpoenas under the Patriot Act. And murdering U.S. citizens without due process, like Obama has done, is not only wacky, but dangerous to the very founding principles of our nation.

    However, Paul’s Austrian style, laissez-faire, domestic economy policies are super wacky, I’ll agree.

    So I’m totally with him on foreign policy and civil liberties, but I’m against his domestic economic policies.

    If that makes me 66 percent wackaloon, then I’m proud of it!

    If Paul would just move his domestic economic policies out of the 18th century, and into the 21st, then I’d be 100 percent wackaloon.

    Also, Paul simply received “Dishonorable Mention” in the report and was not grouped with the “Most Corrupt.” perhaps it’s because it’s uncertain if these were clerical errors, wayward campaign managers, of if Paul himself intentionally was double billing.

  11. 16

    He’s a horrid man, and I despise him. A “libertarian” who opposes women’s bodily autonomy and supports DOMA. A liar who pretended not to know the sort of racist crap being published in his newsletters. A pusher of paleo-libertarian and Objectivist nonsense.

    I doubt there’s much to this story, though. The objectivity of the reporter at Roll Call who is the main source of the story has been called into question (he has close ties to one of Paul’s political rivals.) Besides, Paul’s a millionaire, why would he fool around with penny ante stuff like this? These double-billings could well have been clerical errors.

  12. 17

    I would like to thank you for the efforts you’ve put in writing this website. I am hoping the same high-grade website post from you in the upcoming also. Actually your creative writing abilities has encouraged me to get my own website now. Really the blogging is spreading its wings rapidly. Your write up is a good example of it.

  13. 18

    Most of your arguments against Ron Paul’s are not even true arguments, he’s repeatedly and consistently voted and spoken against half the stuff you guys claim he advocates. Ron Paul has had a consistent and a honest political career and I can’t believe he’s achieved more. He’s been silenced for years and years and the powers at be push illegitimate sites like this atop search queries. By illegitimate, I mean there’s so many websites, yet the very few and weak dissenters make it to the top of search queries almost instantly if what they say pleases those against liberty, and in this case, Ron Paul. How is it that this site full of people out of the loop is so easily found in google? Honestly, do you people think your site is better than others out there, or do you think you’re getting bumped up because someone influential wants you to be? He was suppressed even on youtube. You guys are just wrong, and it’s painful.

    Even the accusations of double billing. It’s petty money. He’s a medical doctor! He’s a millionaire! He could make more in one week treating patients than the cost of all the supposed double-bills combined. It’s a non-argument being pushed to the top by people you should be standing against with Ron Paul.

    He’s the only politician who has consistently voted for and stuck to the constitution for decades. What he wants may seem radical to those who have grown accustomed to the false security of subsidies(Social Security), but like so many other things he fights, they too are unconstitutional. Our socialist pseudo-humanitarian systems only inflate prices and make us dependent. Ron Paul’s words most closely match those of Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and JFK, more than any other president. Our founding fathers would have championed him. I’ve done my research, have you folks done yours?

    How many people on this website are the same person? Is this just one person paid to create dissent for Ron Paul? If not, how many of you have even heard him speak? I voted for Obama, because I was afraid of Romney, and didn’t even know Paul existed due to his media blackout. One cannot casually walk into politics(like most Americans do) before an election and find someone like Ron Paul easily when all the money in the world is against him, literally. It’s not even that hard to find if you look, but YouTube puts titty videos next to his picture(why would that be relevant in a search about Ron Paul?), and like brainless fools we all click the distractions.

    If my post is not accepted and is suppressed like so many others, expect this website to face scrutiny. I’ll be checking this website frequently, and if you think you can censor me, you are very wrong. We Americans value free speech, and your unbacked rumors about a political saint need to at least be subjected to the canon of free-thought and of free American speech.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *