Ron Paul's reasoning makes perfect sense to me. He's made it clear that the money will not buy influence and I, for one, believe him. I don't have as much faith in the other candidates.

I for one am pro-choice, but he took my money anyway.

Sent by Daniel H. | 1:03 PM ET | 12-20-2007

As much as it would be nice, and make people feel good if he donated the money to something like the UNCF, I find his reasoning compelling and in line with the values he seems to represent.

Sent by Phil G | 1:50 PM ET | 12-20-2007

Focusing on this and not on the wholesale buying of influence on Capitol Hill is shameful.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/report.aspx?aid=405

A Democrat in Virginia for Ron Paul!

When will people realize that a Hillary or Obama represents a different face on the same sick head.

Sent by David | 2:00 PM ET | 12-20-2007

If the linked article is acurate Ron Paul handles lobbyists the same way:
http://www.pardoncheney.com/?p=135

"AB SMITH: (laugh) Look, Ron Paul is a problem for a bunch of us. It???s not that he doesn???t take the money, his campaign pretty stated that he will take money from everyone, but he doesn???t care why you donate??? he takes the money and pretty much stated ???if you are too stupid to know what I stand for, then you deserve to have your money taken from your pocket???"

Sent by Commenter | 2:16 PM ET | 12-20-2007

Even though I agree with a lot of what Ron Paul stands for this is the same man that disagrees with giving help to the victims of Katrina. So I have to conclude that this man would have people dying in the streets. What kind of leader anywhere in the world would allow the citizens of his or her nation to be left on their own after a natural disaster the way Bush has. I also believe that it's stupid pride not to accept nearly a billion dollars in aid from nations from around the world. The U.S. still thinks that it's the richest nation on earth apparently a 9 trillion dollar deficit left for the children of America means nothing at all to those in power. In nearly every country there is a percentage of people who for whatever reason fall through the cracks. Most caring,sensitive and sensible people believe the government is there to help these people so that they can pick themselves up and get a fresh start. Many of us fall on hard times and I do not believe that there are that many born losers in the world, except for those who are white supremacist from birth to death. Of course whether or not he accepts the money is totally up to him, but a man who has supposedly such high principles this surprises and disappoints me.

Sent by ray shoulders | 5:59 PM ET | 12-20-2007

So, $500. donated by some white supremacist crud - amounting to .0025% of Ron Paul's quarterly donations - makes the news? And donations from the lobbies (pharmaceutical, insurance, trial lawyers, etc.) big business and super-wealthy individuals to the venal, "leading" candidates - significant percentages of their campaign finances - barely gets mentioned?

How pathetically petty and messed up is that?

Ron Paul's spontaneous and nearly effortlessly received contributions is about the most democratic thing I can imagine at this point in our country's history.

Sent by Eric | 6:58 PM ET | 12-20-2007

I don't see any other candidates being put under the microscope for such donations! Maybe it is because no other candidate has the kind of grass roots support he enjoys! Ron Paul has stated what he stands for, won't change his stance and has stood behind his convictions with his vote time and time again. His appeal braces the biggest tent and broadest diversity of thinking citizens this country has seen in a VERY long time. To attack him in this way is a crying shame!

Sent by Randy from Texas | 7:18 PM ET | 12-20-2007

I am so disappointed in NPR's coverage of Ron Paul that I am officially withdrawing any personal future funding to support their so-called "reporting". It's sad, because I thought there was still one large media outlet that would report truth at least some of the time.

P.S. - this is another Va. Democrat voting for Ron Paul!

Sent by CS | 9:01 PM ET | 12-20-2007

In response to the criticism that Ron Paul would have people "dying on the streets". I don't think that would happen.

But people DO need to take care of themselves. To freely give handouts only encourages more of the same with eventual abuse of the system and unnecessarily large financial drain from those that do produce.

These people have many avenues of help available. There are family, friends, charities, churches as well programs to help in most local and state governments. This is where the help should come from and is the only way to keep control of the costs. Collect and administer the aid as close to the people best able to help those who need it.

I also believe over time a system like this will revitalize the bond that people have with family, friends, community and, for some, even churches.

I for one wouldn't let someone outside my door starve.

In the case of a major emergency that a state can't handle the President could find ways to help by asking for help from citizens, charities, and other states. This is how a president leads instead of commanding.

Sent by Rob from VA | 12:29 AM ET | 12-21-2007

Ron Paul is a man of principle and it is clear money given to him is to help him with his cause - not the donor's cause.

Some people believe he would leave people dying on the streets. I don't think that would happen and believe people underestimate our capacity to voluntarily help. I for one wouldn't let someone outside my door starve.

But people DO need to take care of themselves. To give handouts encourages more of the same with eventual abuse of the system and growing drain from those that do produce.

These people have many avenues of help available. There are family, friends, charities, churches as well programs to help in most local and state governments. This is where the help should come from and is the best way to keep control of the costs. Collect and administer the aid as close to the people best able to help those who need it.

Over time a system like this will revitalize the bond that people have with family, friends, community and, for some, even churches.

In the case of a major emergency that a state can't handle President Paul could find ways to help by asking for help from citizens, charities, and other states. A President should lead instead of command.

Sent by Rob from VA | 12:01 PM ET | 12-21-2007

This Libelous post by NPR is despicable. Ever heard of being 'politically correct'?
You are proving that you're a political organization, and inherently biased. Very sad, I thought perhaps you could at least try to be fair, but to allow some of your prejiduced writers to publish such libel is both dangerous and unfair.
Perhaps it's time to 'pull the plug'.
Thank you Doctor Ron Paul for being a breath of fresh air, and fresh ideas, in the morass of public beauracracy that gives government a bad name.

Sent by Joe Ferry | 2:44 PM ET | 12-21-2007

I agreed Ron Paul's decision not to returned the contribution. Here is why I agree. I received a call from a Maryland state delegate requesting a campaign contribution. When I informed him that he was a Democarat and I a Republican, he stated your money is green too. What is really importmant are issues not really where the money comes from unless it is illegally acquired.

Sent by Andre Branch | 3:05 PM ET | 12-21-2007

Joe and CS: If you go back and read the post, you'll see that the Associated Press -- not NPR -- covered the Ron Paul story. We merely brought it up for conversation. Thanks for your comments.

Sent by Geoffrey Bennett | 4:35 PM ET | 12-21-2007

Geoffrey,
I realize that NPR only "brought up" the story. That's about the extent of their coverage, which is the problem. Do a search from the main page, and you'll see what I mean. Compare that search to any major candidate and prepare to be astounded! I understand the dismissive attitude of some of the mainstream media outlets, but I've always considered NPR a product of its donating listeners, a group which until recently included myself.

I realize that my post gave the impression I was blindly responding to this specific blog entry, so hopefully this has clarified my position.

An unscientific "poll" of about 10 of my NPR-listening friends finds they're also very interested in him. On this issue, NPR is no better than the MSM in a very big way. To ignore and minimize a candidate who is absolutely against the Iraq war and offers viable peaceful solutions is unconscionable. And given the enormous groundswell of grassroots support he's receiving, to continue ignoring him verges on the treacherous.

Sent by CS | 5:18 PM ET | 12-21-2007