U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | ballot |
ballot
Campaign Finance Reform
23 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 64:10
How does this come about? It just happens that Republicans and Democrats tend to control every legislative body in the country, every State legislative body. And, therefore, they write rules and regulations and have high fees for people getting on ballots, and you do not have any competition. And there is lack of interest, and there is a lot of frustration.
ballot
Campaign Finance Reform
23 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 64:11
Take, for instance, some of the groups that have tried in the past to get on and become known but are frustrated by all these rules. There are Independents, Socialists, Greens, Taxpayers Party, Populists, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Reform Party, Natural Party, American Party, Liberal Party, Conservative Party, Right to Life, Citizens Party, New Alliance Party, Prohibition Party, States Rights Party. All these people have been totally frustrated because they have so many obstacles put in their way by the requirement of huge numbers of signatures on ballots.
ballot
Campaign Finance Reform
23 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 64:12
I would like to quote from Richard Winger, who writes a letter called the Ballot Access News. He cites one of the worst examples. He says Florida now requires 242,000 valid signatures to get a minor party or Independent candidate on the ballot of any State-wide office other than President. Only one signature is permitted on each petition sheet. He goes on. And the payment that is required is $8,250.
ballot
Ballot Access — Part 1
30 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 86:7
It simply lowers and standardizes the signature requirements and the time required to get signatures to get a Federal candidate on the ballot. There are very many unfair rules and regulations by the States that make it virtually impossible for many candidates to get on the ballot.
ballot
Ballot Access — Part 1
30 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 86:9
The second point I would like to make is an issue of fairness. Because of the excess petition requirements put on by so many States and the short period of time required, many individuals are excluded from the ballot, and for this reason, this should be corrected. There are some States, take, for instance, Georgia, wrote a law in 1943. There has not been one minor party candidate on the ballot since 1943, because it cannot meet the requirements. This is unfair. This amendment would correct this.
ballot
Ballot Access — Part 1
30 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 86:10
Number 3, the third point. In contrast to some who would criticize an amendment like this by saying that there would be overcrowding on the ballot, there have been statistical studies made of States where the number of requirements, of signature requirements are very low, and the time very generous. Instead of overcrowding, they have an average of 3.3 candidates per ballot.
ballot
Ballot Access — Part 1
30 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 86:12
The fourth point that I would like to make is that the setup and the situation we have now is so unfair, many are concerned about how money is influencing the elections. But in this case, rules and regulations are affecting minor candidates by pushing up the cost of the election, where they cannot afford the money to even get on the ballot, so it is very unfair in a negative sense that the major parties penalize any challengers. And the correction would come here by equalizing this, making it more fair, and I would expect, I think, just everybody to agree that this is an amendment of fairness and equity and should be accepted.
ballot
Ballot Access — Part 2
30 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 87:2
My amendment, once again, lowers and standardizes the required signatures to get Federal candidates on the ballot. There is a great deal of inequity among the States, and it works against the minor candidates and prevents many from even participating in the process.
ballot
Ballot Access — Part 2
30 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 87:3
For this reason, many individuals have lost interest in politics. They are disinterested, and every year it seems that the turnout goes down. This year is no exception. Forty-two percent of the American people do not align themselves with a political party. Twenty-nine percent, approximately, align themselves with Republicans and Democrats. Yet, the rules and the laws are written by the major party for the sole purpose of making it very expensive and very difficult, and sometimes impossible, to get on the ballot.
ballot
Ballot Access — Part 2
30 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 87:4
If we had more competition and more openness, we would get more people out to vote. It would not clutter the ballot, it would not have overcrowding, but it would allow discourse, and it would be beneficial to the process.
ballot
Ballot Access — Part 3
30 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 88:3
Dealing with the President, for instance, the minor candidates, on average, to get on the ballot, are required to get 701,000 signatures. A major candidate gets less than 50,000. To get on an average Senate seat ballot, 196,000 signatures are required for the Senate, 15,000 for the major candidates. In the House, on the average for the minor candidate, it is more than 13,000, where it is 2,000 for a major candidate.
ballot
Ballot Access — Part 1
30 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 90:2
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. The major candidates receive a lot, a million dollars, to run their campaigns. Then they have national debates, and then they can purposely exclude other candidates. I am not talking about 10 or 20 or 30 very minor candidates, I am talking about candidates who spend weeks, months, years, hundreds of thousands of dollars, just to get on the ballot. Some will not even take the money, but some qualify to be on 40 and 50 ballots, and they are purposely excluded.
ballot
Ballot Access — Part 1
30 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 90:3
This amendment does not dictate to those who hold debates, but it would require that those major party candidates who take the taxpayers’ money, they take it with the agreement that anybody else who qualifies for taxpayers’ funding, campaign funds, or gets on 40 ballots, would be allowed in the debate.
ballot
Ballot Access — Part 2
30 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 91:6
Forty-two percent of the people have been essentially disenfranchised, and they are important. Hopefully they are important enough to go to the polls and let us know about it. But they have been disenfranchised because they have lost interest. They have been pushed around, either with ballot access rules and regulations, or not being allowed to appear.
ballot
STATEMENT FOR WE THE PEOPLE PRESS CONFERENCE
July 17, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 54:4
Mr. Schulz and thousands of other Americans have very strong feelings about our tax system, and it needs to be fixed. Their voices should not be ignored. Mr. Schulz and his supporters can make their voices heard at the ballot box, by electing candidates who sincerely believe in changing the tax system.
ballot
Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN
July 18, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 56:5
I think this is an appropriate time to discuss the reasonableness for our support for the United Nations. The government of the United States has continued to grow as our state sovereignty has gotten much smaller, but now we are losing a lot of sovereignty to an international government which is the United Nations. Just recently, the United States was humiliated by being voted off by secret ballot from the U.N. Human Rights Commission and Sudan was appointed in our place. How could anything be more humiliating. So democracy ruled, our vote counted as one, the same value as the vote of Red China or Sudan. But the whole notion that we would be put off the Human Rights Commission and Sudan, where there is a practice of slavery, is put on the Human Rights Commission should be an insult to all of us.
ballot
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:45
By design and effect, such measures perpetuate the current regulations governing the selection of presidential and vice presidential electors who are, according to the Constitution, state officers, and not federal ones. ( In re Green, 134 U.S. 377, 1890) (“Although the electors are appointed and act under and pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, they are no more officers or agents of the United States than are... the people of the States when acting as electors of representatives in Congress.”); Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214, 224-25 (1952) (“The presidential electors exercise a federal function in balloting for President and Vice-President but they are not federal officers or agents any more than the state elector who votes for congressmen.”) Thus, all current campaign-finance reform bills violate the principles of separation of powers and federalism protecting the independence of the federal executive branch.
ballot
Voter Protection Act
1 May 2003 2003 Ron Paul 55:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Voter Protection Act. Unlike most so-called “campaign reform” proposals, the Voter Protection Act enhances fundamental liberties and expands the exchange of political ideas. The Voter Fairness Act accomplishes this goal by lowering and standardizing the requirements for, and the time required to get, signatures to qualify a Federal candidate for the ballot. Many states have unfair rules and regulations that make it virtually impossible for minor party and independent candidates to get on the ballot.
ballot
Voter Protection Act
1 May 2003 2003 Ron Paul 55:3
The second point I would like to make is an issue of fairness. Because so many states require independent candidates to collect an excessive amount of signatures in a short period of time, many individuals are excluded from the ballot. For instance, there has not been one minor party candidate on the Georgia ballot since 1943, because of Georgia’s overly strict ballot access requirements. This is unfair. The Voter Protection Act corrects this.
ballot
Voter Protection Act
1 May 2003 2003 Ron Paul 55:4
My third point addresses those who worry about overcrowding on the ballot. In fact, there have been statistical studies made of states that have minimal signature requirements and generous grants of time to collect the signatures. Instead of overcrowding, these states have an average of 3.3 candidates per ballot.
ballot
Voter Protection Act
1 May 2003 2003 Ron Paul 55:5
The fourth point that I would like to make is that complying with ballot access rules drains resources from even those minor party candidates able to comply with these onerous rules. This obviously limits the ability of minor party candidates to communicate their message and ideas to the general public. Perhaps the ballot access laws are one reason why voter turnout has been declining over the past few decades. After all, almost 42 percent of eligible voters have either not registered to vote or registered as something other than Democrat or Republican.
ballot
End the Two-Party Monopoly!
July 15, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 63:1
Mr. Speaker, political operatives across the country are using state ballot access laws to deny voters the opportunity to support independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader. For example, one New York election lawyer publicly stated that partisan election lawyers should take advantage of New York’s complex and costly ballot access procedures to keep Mr. Nader off the New York ballot. Meanwhile, a state party chairman in Arizona has hired a team of lawyers for the sole purpose of keeping Mr. Nader off the Arizona ballot.
ballot
End the Two-Party Monopoly!
July 15, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 63:2
The effort to keep Mr. Nader off the ballot shows how ballot access laws preserve the two-party monopoly over the political system by effectively disenfranchising supporters of third parties and independent candidates. While the campaign against Mr. Nader is an extreme case, supporters of the two-party monopoly regularly use ballot access laws to keep third party and independent candidates off ballots. Even candidates able to comply with onerous ballot access rules must devote so many resources to simply getting on the ballot that their ability to communicate ideas to the general public is severely limited. Perhaps the ballot access laws are one reason why voter turnout has been declining over the past few decades. After all, almost 42% of eligible voters have either not registered to vote or have registered as something other than Democrat or Republican.
ballot
End the Two-Party Monopoly!
July 15, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 63:3
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of federal elections. Thus, ballot access is one of the few areas where Congress has explicit constitutional authority to establish national standards. In order to open up the political process, I have introduced the Voter Freedom Act (HR 1941). HR 1941 established uniform standards for ballot access so third party and independent candidates can at last compete on a level playing field.
ballot
End the Two-Party Monopoly!
July 15, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 63:4
The blatant attempt by a major party to keep Ralph Nader off state ballots demonstrates how restrictive ballot access laws are used to preserve a political monopoly, limit voter choices, and deny the rights of millions of Americans who support third parties and independent candidates an opportunity to effectively participate in the political process. I call upon my colleagues to remedy this situation by supporting my Voter Freedom Act.
ballot
Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 2
16 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 31:3
It has been said about our administration that we hope the Lebanese people will be able to express their view at the ballot box through free elections without interference and outside intimidation. That sounds like a pretty good suggestion, with the conclusion by the administration that when there is outside interference the elections are unreliable.
ballot
Bilingual Ballots
13 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 56:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, it is shameful that Americans were once routinely denied the ability to vote on account of their skin color. All Americans should celebrate the Voting Rights Act’s role in vindicating the constitutional rights of all citizens to vote free of racial discrimination. Therefore, I was hoping I could support reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. However, I cannot support H.R. 9 because it extends the unfunded bilingual ballots mandate.
ballot
Bilingual Ballots
13 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 56:2
I had joined with my colleague from Iowa, Mr. KING, in supporting an amendment to strike the bilingual ballot mandate, which was unfortunately rejected by this House. Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that a person must demonstrate a basic command of the English language before becoming a citizen, Congress is continuing to force States to provide ballots in languages other than English. If a knowledge of English is important enough to be a precondition of citizenship, then why should we force States to facilitate voting in languages other than English?
ballot
Bilingual Ballots
13 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 56:3
Of course, Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to deny any American citizens the ability to vote. Contrary to the claims of its opponents, Mr. KING’s amendment does not deny any American the ability to vote. Under Mr. KING’s amendment, Americans will still have a legal right to bring translators to the polls to assist them in voting, and States could still choose to print bilingual ballots if the King amendment passes. All the King amendment did is repeal a costly Federal mandate.
ballot
Bilingual Ballots
13 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 56:4
In conclusion, while I recognize the continuing need for protection of voting rights, I cannot support this bill before us since it extends the costly and divisive bilingual ballot mandate.
ballot
Introduction Of The Voter Protection Act
19 september 2007 2007 Ron Paul 90:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Voter Protection Act. Unlike most so-called “campaign reform” proposals, the Voter Protection Act enhances fundamental liberties and expands the exchange of political ideas. The Voter Protection Act accomplishes this goal by lowering and standardizing the requirements for, and the time required to get, signatures to qualify a Federal candidate for the ballot. Many states have unfair rules and regulations that make it virtually impossible for minor party and independent candidates to get on the ballot.
ballot
Introduction Of The Voter Protection Act
19 september 2007 2007 Ron Paul 90:3
The second point I would like to make is an issue of fairness. Because so many states require independent candidates to collect an excessive amount of signatures in a short period of time, many individuals are excluded from the ballot. For instance, there has not been one minor party candidate in a regularly scheduled election for the U.S. House of Representatives on the Georgia ballot since 1943, because of Georgia’s overly strict ballot access requirements. This is unfair. The Voter Protection Act corrects this.
ballot
Introduction Of The Voter Protection Act
19 september 2007 2007 Ron Paul 90:4
My third point addresses those who worry about overcrowding on the ballot. In fact, there have been statistical studies made of states that have minimal signature requirements and generous grants of time to collect the signatures. Instead of overcrowding, these states have an average of 3.3 candidates per ballot.
ballot
Introduction Of The Voter Protection Act
19 september 2007 2007 Ron Paul 90:5
The fourth point that I would like to make is that complying with ballot access rules drains resources from even those minor party candidates able to comply with these onerous rules. This obviously limits the ability of minor party candidates to communicate their message and ideas to the general public. Perhaps the ballot access laws are one reason why voter turnout has been declining over the past few decades. After all, almost 42 percent of eligible voters have either not registered to vote or registered as something other than Democrat or Republican.
ballot
Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran
June 19, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 72:5
Yet with the results of the recent election, there was no chance for Iranian citizens to participate in democracy. On June 12, 2009 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was ostensibly re- elected to his second term as President, as a result of the tenth Presidential elections in Iran, held and calculated on June 13, 2009. Subject to official results released by Iran’s election headquarters, out of a total of 39,165,191 ballots cast in the presidential election, Ahmadinejad allegedly won 24,527,516 votes, which accounts for approximately 62.6 percent of the votes, while his opponent and former Prime Minister of Iran Mir- Hossein Mousavi purportedly secured only 13,216,411 (37.4 percent) of the votes. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei announced that he envisions Ahmadinejad as president in the next five years, a comment interpreted as indicating support for Ahmadinejad’s reelection.
ballot
- If someone accepts federal cash, then they must follow rules taxpayers set and deserve
15 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 15 September 1997 verse 9 ... Cached
The two items I will be introducing on Tuesday embrace rather than disgrace the first amendment. The first is called the Voter Freedom Act of 1997. It will prohibit states from erecting excessive ballot access barriers to candidates for federal office. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to control federal elections, and I firmly believe that the more voices participating, the more likely it is that the entrenched, out-of-touch, Washington establishment will be swept to the side.
ballot
Never sacrifice liberty for "campaign reform"
02 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
The Voter Freedom Act prohibits states from erecting excessive ballot access barriers to candidates for federal office, while the Debate Freedom Act prohibits recipients of taxpayer-funded campaign matching funds from participating in debates to which everyone qualifying for such funds are not invited.
ballot
Campaign reform should encourage choice
15 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
The Debate Freedom Act of 1997 expands the opportunity for political debate and discourse by requiring recipients of federal matching campaign funds (currently available only for Presidential and Vice Presidential campaigns) to agree in writing not to participate in debates to which every other candidate for that office whom either qualifies for federal funds or is on the ballot in a minimum of 40 states, are not invited. If the candidate violates the agreement, they lose the federal matching funds.
ballot
Campaign reform should encourage choice
15 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
A lack of differing views in the debates is not the only problem; there is also a lack of choice at the ballot box.
ballot
Campaign reform should encourage choice
15 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
Undue restrictions on access to the ballot impair the ability of citizens to exercise their rights, and has a direct and damaging effect on citizens' participation in the electoral process. Many states unduly restrict access to the ballot by means of such devices as excessive petition signature requirements, insufficient petitioning periods, unconstitutionally early petition filing deadlines, petition signature distribution criteria, and limitations on eligibility to circulate and sign petitions.
ballot
Campaign reform should encourage choice
15 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 14 ... Cached
The Voter Freedom Act will establish fair and uniform standards regulating access to the ballot by eligible citizens who desire to seek election to Federal office and political parties, bodies, and groups which desire to take part in elections for Federal office; and to maximize the participation of eligible citizens in elections for Federal office.
ballot
Electoral Follies
03 April 2000 Texas Straight Talk 03 April 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
I have long advocated sweeping changes that would open up elections here. I have suggested that federal spending limits be abolished, and that presidential debates be opened. I have also worked for years to make ballot access easier to attain. The problem with elections is not that there is too much money involved, but rather that choices are restricted by government policies crafted by incumbents who want to be protected from competition.
ballot
"Campaign Finance Reform" Serves Entrenched Interests in Washington
09 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 09 April 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
Grass roots organizations and third-party candidates especially suffer when contributions are limited. Such groups are prohibited from raising needed seed money from sympathetic wealthy donors interested in funding a new political movement. Millions of voters might be attracted to a third party, but they lose interest when their candidate garners very little publicity or is not on the ballot. It is virtually impossible for grass roots campaigns and new parties to match the established parties $1,000 at a time.
ballot
Tax Day- A National Nightmare
16 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 16 April 2001 verse 8 ... Cached
Other oppressive tax regimes have met their demise in the past, and I fear our government may be as arrogant and wasteful as any in history. Perhaps America is ready to reclaim the proud tax-fighting heritage of our Founding Fathers. I suggest the 2002 ballot box as the first battlefield. Those who support higher taxes and spending deserve to be the first political casualties.
ballot
The Deepening United Nations Quagmire
14 May 2001 Texas Straight Talk 14 May 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
The United States recently was humiliated when the UN Economic and Social Council voted by secret ballot to remove us from the UN Human Rights Commission. Ironically, the U.S. was instrumental in establishing the commission; Eleanor Roosevelt was a founding chairman in 1946. Apparently, our fellow member states no longer consider America qualified to judge human rights violations, although brutal regimes like Sudan and Cuba remain on the commission. The U.S. also was voted off a UN counter-narcotics commission, raising questions about how other countries view our self-appointed status as the global drug policeman.
ballot
Legislation Needed to End the IRS Threat to Religious Freedom
13 August 2001 Texas Straight Talk 13 August 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
Speech is speech, regardless of the setting. There is no legal distinction between religious expression and political expression; both are equally protected by the First amendment. Religious believers do not drop their political opinions at the door of their place of worship, nor do they disregard their faith at the ballot box. Religious morality will always inform the voting choices of Americans of all faiths. The collectivist left, however, seeks to impose the viewpoint that public life must be secular, and that government cannot reflect morality derived from faith. The collectivist left is threatened by strong religious institutions, because it wants an ever-growing federal government to serve as the unchallenged authority in our society. People of faith tend to put their religious convictions ahead of any allegiance to the government, particularly when that government displays such hostility towards religion in general. In other words, the collectivists fear that some Americans' deeply held religious beliefs will stand in the way of the continued growth of secular big government. So the real motivation behind the insistence on a separation of church and state is not based on respect for the First amendment, but rather on a desire to diminish the influence of religious conservatives at the ballot box.
ballot
What Happened to the Surplus?
20 August 2001 Texas Straight Talk 20 August 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
American voters should understand that Congress will always find a way to spend every last dollar sent to Washington. Remember, politicians get votes by promising everything to everyone, always at the expense of some other invisible taxpayers. Most politicians are unashamed of their unconstitutional pork-barrel spending, even highlighting during campaigns their "accomplishment" of spending more and more of your money. The federal government cannot maintain a budget surplus any more than an alcoholic can leave a fresh bottle of whiskey untouched in the cupboard. We must change our perception that a budget surplus is healthy for the economy, because every dollar parked in the federal treasury ultimately is spent by Congress. Those dollars could have been spent, saved, or invested in the private marketplace. With a spendthrift Congress, high federal revenues simply mean more federal spending. The only way to end the unconscionable waste is to drastically reduce federal revenues by cutting taxes. Voters need to regain control of the nation's finances by rejecting the big spenders at the ballot box.
ballot
Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
11 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 11 August 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. This is why federal legal precedents in so many areas do not reflect the consensus of either federal or state legislators. Whether it’s gun rights, abortion, taxes, racial quotas, environmental regulations, gay marriage, or religion, federal jurists are way out of touch with the American people. As a society we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, while Congress and the President should remember that the Supreme Court is supreme only over other federal courts- not over the other branches of government. It’s time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not.
ballot
Useless Conventions
02 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 02 August 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
Why should taxpayers be expected to pay for private political conventions? There is nothing sacred or noble about political parties, nor do they serve any altruistic purpose. Political parties per se have no basis in the Constitution, yet they hold tremendous power over our lives. Today’s modern two-party political process has narrowed voter choices and emasculated political courage. The parties enjoy a virtual stranglehold on national politics, thanks to outrageously restrictive ballot access laws and campaign finance rules that reward status-quo incumbency. They also receive millions in federal matching funds.
ballot
The Imperial Judiciary
04 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 04 October 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. As a society we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, and pay closer attention to the judicial nomination procedure. It’s time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not. It’s also time for Congress to start establishing clear limits on federal judicial power.
ballot
IRS Threatens Political Speech
24 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 24 July 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
But what exactly constitutes political activity? What if a member of the clergy urges his congregation to work toward creating a pro-life culture, when an upcoming election features a pro-life candidate? What if a minister admonishes churchgoers that homosexuality is sinful, when an initiative banning gay marriage is on an upcoming ballot? Where exactly do we draw the line, and when does the IRS begin to violate the First amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion?
ballot
IRS Threatens Political Speech
24 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 24 July 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
Speech is speech, regardless of the setting. There is no legal distinction between religious expression and political expression; both are equally protected by the First amendment. Religious believers do not drop their political opinions at the door of their place of worship, nor do they disregard their faith at the ballot box. Religious morality will always inform the voting choices of Americans of all faiths.
ballot
IRS Threatens Political Speech
24 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 24 July 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
The political left, however, seeks to impose the viewpoint that public life must be secular, and that government cannot reflect morality derived from faith. Many Democrats, not all, are threatened by strong religious institutions because they want an ever-growing federal government to serve as the unchallenged authority in our society. So the real motivation behind the insistence on a separation of church and state is not based on respect for the First amendment, but rather on a desire to diminish the influence of religious conservatives at the ballot box.
Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance.
Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see.