Here’s an interesting topic of discussion with regard to campaign finance laws. Darryl W. Perry, a candidate vying for the Libertarian Party 2016 nomination, has decided to only accept Bitcoin, Litecoin, and precious metals as campaign donations. If you’re unfamiliar with the digital currency known as Bitcoin, see this Wikipedia entry for some background.

Report from IVN:

Darryl W. Perry, who hopes to succeed Governor Gary Johnson as the party’s national torchbearer, recently determined his campaign will shun “real world” currencies and solely accept their digital alternatives. He also announced such donations will not be reported to the FEC, and declared as much in a letter sent to the commission. Though the decision not to accept “traditional” money is incredibly unconventional and will likely spark intense controversy, Perry believes he is merely practicing what radical libertarians preach by avoiding contact with the government.

“I am attempting to put into practice a belief that I hold that we should get rid of the Federal Reserve, which is a central bank,” Perry explained. “And unlike some who want to get rid of the Fed, I don’t want the government stepping in to fill the void.”

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has been wrestling with this new technology since it is not traceable the way a credit card donation is.

I’m not sure this will be a factor in 2016 but it certainly will moving forward. As citizens seek alternate currencies and technology progresses, always outpacing government, there will be regulatory movement on how to govern these types of donations.


  1. By Mr. Perry believing the government won’t want some sort of donation accounting it sort of paints the Libertarian Party as the party wearing tin foil hats doesn’t it? Not to mention it would severely restrict the common mans donations.

  2. If you look up “moron” in the dictionary, you should see the guy’s face there.

    The announcement would have made more sense if he had said he will ALSO accept donations of Bitcoin, Litecoin, precious metals, somebody’s old car, cents-off coupons, postage stamps, and 8-track tapes.

    • WOW, amazed that all of you responding to this are dismissing the VALID POINT OF IT: “I am attempting to put into practice a belief that I hold that we should get rid of the Federal Reserve, which is a central bank,” Perry explained. “And unlike some who want to get rid of the Fed, I don’t want the government stepping in to fill the void.”

      This statement alone, by Darryl W. Perry, is APODICTIC — he does not want to be party in receiving COUNTERFEIT US Dollars as ILLEGAL donations (which nowdays are known as US Federal Reserve NOTES, backed NOT by Gold or Silver by the US Treasury (as the US Constitution demands), but by politicians’ promises…thus LACKING ANY INTRINSIC WORTH), but instead takes a BRAVE and LOSING STAND that he’ll accept only what ACTUALLY HAS REAL VALUE (what the original US Dollar used to be)!

      Bob, Geothe, and Sam — shame on you all for not comprehending this (willing to lose, but not willing to compromise — that’s what a true patriot is all about)!

      Darryl W. Perry: “How can a government operate without taxation? I believe that governments (if they are to continue existing) can operate without taxation in a similar way that your neighborhood grocer operates without taxation…. Any proposed government project should be able to be funded through voluntary means. …. Just as your local grocer doesn’t point (or threaten to point) a gun to your head to force you to purchase his groceries; governments should not use the same tactics to force you to fund its schools, roads, post offices, bureaucrats, regulatory agencies, military conquests, and/or any other government function.”

      The thoughts of a simple man — but, they are so true for anyone that values Liberty over Compulsion!

      • Surf: I don’t think any of us were criticizing the guy’s point. But (a) you don’t win anyone over by beginning with an unprecedented oddball stance, and (b) you don’t win by telling people they are not allowed to contribute to the campaign.

        Besides, exchange is only possible when you have something of value to exchange. My late mother-in-law (who was otherwise very devout and quiet) said the Three Wisemen were nuts. Why exactly is a baby in a manger going to do with gold, frankencence OR myrrh?? Why didn’t they bring blankets, diapers, and milk???

        Seriously, gold has some industrial use, but what good is it otherwise? As far as I know, I have no gold at all. Who needs it?

        Then you’re suggesting the use of BitCoin, which came out of nowhere, is in fact, nothing (it has no physical existence), which is not guaranteed by any authority or value source. AND billions of bucks worth recently just disappeared!!

        What about “LiteCoin”?? What is that? Empty Coors Lite cans?? Talk about aluminum foil hat thinking!

        The Libertarian Party shoul begin by talking about things normal people understand.

        • Goethe Behr — my post was to show that this Libertarian is making a Protest Stance against the phoney money the Feds are printing as “notes” instead of Real Us Dollars. And thus wants no part of receiving counterfeit donations via Federal Reserve Notes!

          Instead of dismissing him as a “nut” — he should be commended as a brave individual.

          • Surf:

            It all depends on what you’re trying to accomplish. In American history, third parties have not really attempted to win. They just gather together to scream about one or a few issues. That’s good, because if they can get enough attention, one of the major parties will co-opt their message, and the third party withers away.

            The Tea Party has been an anomaly, because they have always seen themselves as part of the GOP. So the GOP has never had any particular need to promote their issues.

            So, anyway, if you don’t intend to get elected, you can do things “to make a point,” such as the current guy, not accepting American currency. As I say, if he were serious about getting elected, he would have made the same point, but that he PREFERRED tin-hat money.

            If you want to get elected, you come up with issues and stands that are palatable to the majority. YOU sent a link a few months ago with Doug Wead saying that it was ok for Ron Paul to be “isolationist,” because he wasn’t going to be elected anyway–but Wead said that since Rand Paul DOES have a chance to be elected, Libertarians should develop some warlike policies, to seem serious.

Comments are closed.