Lawson for Congress

Just getting back from the office — someone left us a gift on our front porch:

Awesome. Whoever that was, thanks!

I’m grateful that Dr. Tom DiLorenzo, professor of economics at Loyola College, took the time to write a rebuttal to an inexplicably ignorant hit-piece recently published in the Wall Street Journal entitled “A Short Banking History of the United States.”

The author of this article, Mr. John Steele Gordon, makes a number of spurious claims in an attempt to discredit the economic philosophy of sound money controlled by the people, and defend Alexander Hamilton’s loyalty to banking interests in the drive to create a private central bank to own our money supply.

Beneath Mr. Gordon’s flowery rhetoric, however, is a profound ignorance of a fundamental problem in our money and banking system: fractional reserve lending. As I noted in an article last August, this ignorance in the mainstream media is nothing new, and par for the course:

http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2007/08/29/what-cnn-doesnt-understand-fractional-reserve-banking/

What’s wrong with fractional reserve lending? This article from June outlines the details:

http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/06/04/whats-the-problem-with-banks/

Once you understand the root of the problem, namely that banks are given a monopoly on the ability to create money out of nothing based solely out of someone’s promise to pay it back with interest, the tragic absurdity of our current situation becomes clear:

http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/07/11/may-you-live-in-interesting-times/

I’m especially grateful, though, for Dr. DiLorenzo’s rebuttal that puts Mr. Gordon’s revisionist history in the proper context:

The system of financial regulatory dictatorship that Gordon praises, and which is about to be forced down the throats of the American public, has been tried before in other countries. During one of its own periodic financial crises, Italian government officials complained bitterly, as Gordon does, of regulation that has been “disorganic” and “case by case, as the need arises.” The Italian regime altered its regulatory system so that it could pursue “certain fixed objectives,” just as Gordon argues for a “unified and coherent regulatory system.” This highly centralized or even dictatorial regulatory system, the Italians argued, would supposedly “introduce order in the economic field” and achieve the goal of “unity of aim” with regard to government regulation of industry.

All of the words in quotation marks in the preceding paragraph, except for the last ones, are the words of Benito Mussolini. The “unity of aim” phrase was from Mussolini apologist/propagandist Fausto Pitigliani. There is, after all, a very keen similarity between Hamiltonian mercantilism — or an economy directed and controlled by government, supposedly “in the public interest” but in reality for the benefit of a privileged few — and the economic fascism of Italy (and Germany) of the 1920s and ’30s.

I encourage you to read the rest of Dr. DiLorenzo’s article, and to evaluate the credentials of those who praise our Federal Reserve and banking system carefully — including my opponent. As with many corporate interests in Washington, the fox has been left guarding the henhouse.

Once you’ve read the explanations of how banking works, you’ll really enjoy the below cartoon (from Sinfest) that beautifully explains the bailout in action:

Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve been jacked.

Just wanted to share some great photos from supporters who have been helping us get the word out.

So we thought about sponsoring a NASCAR team, but I couldn’t find a racing team powered by sustainable fuels… until I found a supporter Chad Wylie who races Pinewood Derby:

Simply awesome.

We also had some help getting the word out at the State Fair, although we’ve been focusing official resources solely on the polling places:

Here we are talking with a different kind of Price supporter — that’s Ray Price Harley Davidson

Finally, helpful hints on how to raise awareness even when you’re just parking:

I have the opportunity to answer some additional questions from a reporter at the Daily Tar Heel in preparation for their upcoming voter’s guide. In the interest of transparency, here goes:

1) How does he plan to push his 4 bills- rather uncommon ones- as a new face in Washington without the political clout of a veteran congressman?

Even with the political clout of a veteran congressman, pushing bills through Congress is no easy task. For example, according to GovTrack.us, Rep. David Price has sponsored 47 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 44 haven’t made it out of committee and only one (H.R. 2638: Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009) was successfully enacted.

So in the past decade in Congress, Rep. Price enacted one piece of legislation — an appropriations bill — that was signed into law just one month ago.

Apologies to Rep. Price if GovTrack missed something here, and he’s certainly signed on to co-sponsor numerous bills led by others, but his track record for advancing legislative progress over the past eleven years is modest at best.

My initial goal as our representative is to educate folks about the desperate need for the four mentioned “good government” reforms. It is only with education that change can occur, and that change must be pushed not by a single legislator, but by a coalition of principled leaders responding to people who insist on good government.

2) Congressman Price says Lawson’s “laissez-faire economic policies” are similar to ones that brought about the current economic crisis- what is BJ’s response to that?

Rep. Price has radically distorted my views on economics and banking. I oppose a financial system that preys on working Americans with high interest rates and endless fees for lending money that it creates out of nothing. I oppose taxpayer-funded bailouts of Wall Street. I oppose deregulation of the banking system, since our banking system enjoys a legislated monopoly over our money and credit.

In brief, the current crisis is the expected outcome from deregulating a legislated monopoly over money and credit.

The banking industry has a monopoly over our supply of money and credit thanks to the Federal Reserve Act and gradual consolidation of power over the past 95 years. As we’ve seen, that monopoly must be regulated aggressively, or else moral hazard and the race for short term profits puts the entire system at risk. I am decidedly not “laissez-faire” with respect to the banking system.

David Price, however, has a voting record that embraces deregulation of the banking industry. In 1999, he voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall regulations barring financial institutions from performing both commercial and investment banking, as well as a combination of other services. The financial sector lobbied very hard for this legislation. Many analysts have cited this particular action as a contributor to the current financial crisis, as a wave of merger and acquisition activity ensued in its aftermath and allowed massive leveraging of portfolios to the point where many institutions became “too big to fail.”

Additionally, he further shifted the balance of power from individuals to banks by voting for 2005’s “Bankruptcy Reform” legislation, which made it harder for individuals and families to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and instead pushed them to file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Under Chapter 7, most or all debts are forgiven, easing the burden on debtors (albeit while damaging their credit ratings) while requiring lenders to accept the cost of default. It is the risk of nonpayment, or default, that restrains lenders and encourages healthy diligence before lending money. Under Chapter 13 bankruptcy, repayment of debt under a court-set plan with wage garnishments is mandatory, making life harder for debtors.

David Price’s voting record on this topic is not surprising, as he has received over $600,000 in PAC contributions from the financial industry over his career.

3.) Why does BJ place such strong emphasis on strict Constitutionalism? Price says that it is idiosyncratic and not the right way to approach the Constitution.  How does BJ defend himself on this ground?

The Constitution represents our founders’ best attempts, as flawed human beings, to create a government that lives up to the ideals of our Declaration of Independence: “… that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

By studying the debate surrounding the framing and ratifying of our Constitution, it is apparent that our founders intended a government that protected the rights of the American individual — understanding that the individual is the ultimate minority — instead of corporate interests.

Please understand that we’ve never lived up to this ideal, and throughout our history efforts to advance a government that respects individual human rights has been under assault. One example of challenges over the last century are Supreme Court decisions that set dangerous precedents and took our government in a direction of empowering corporations over individuals. Specifically, debates have ensued over the concept of corporate personhood, and limited liability for corporations.

I do not feel a need to defend my studied, rational conclusion that the Constitution is intended to set forth a government that serves the people, derives its power from the consent of the governed, and ultimately seeks to protect individual liberties. Numerous constitutional scholars including Bruce Fein, Kevin Gutzman, and Roger Pilon share this perspective… along with Jefferson, Madison and other founders. Pilon’s thoughts provide helpful perspective:

In 1776, America’s Founders gathered in Philadelphia to draft the Declaration of Independence, which dissolved the political ties that had bound the American people to Great Britain. A new nation was thus born, free and independent, the United States of America. Eleven years later, in 1787, after American patriots had won our independence on the battlefield, many of the men who had met earlier in Philadelphia, plus others, met there again to draft a plan for governing the new nation, the Constitution of the United States. In 1789, after the plan had been ratified, the new government was established. Together, the Declaration and the Constitution are America’s founding documents.

As amended over the years, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the nation’s fundamental law. But the broad language of the Constitution is illuminated by the principles set forth in the Declaration. To better understand and appreciate the form of government we have, therefore, it is important to look first to the Declaration, where the Founders outlined their moral vision and the government it implied.

Addressing “a candid World,” the Founders’ immediate aim in the Declaration was to justify their decision to declare independence. Toward that end they set forth a theory of legitimate government, then demonstrated how far British rule had strayed from that ideal. But their argument served not simply to discredit British rule; in addition, it set the course for future American government. Indeed, for more than two centuries the ringing phrases of the Declaration have inspired countless millions around the world.

Appealing to all mankind, the Declaration’s seminal passage opens with perhaps the most important line in the document: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident.” Grounded in reason, “self- evident” truths invoke the long tradition of natural law, which holds that there is a “higher law” of right and wrong from which to derive human law and against which to criticize that law at any time. It is not political will, then, but moral reasoning, accessible to all, that is the foundation of our political system.

But if reason is the foundation of the Founders’ vision—the method by which we justify our political order—liberty is its aim. Thus, the cardinal moral truths are these:

that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.We are all created equal, as defined by our natural rights; thus, no one has rights superior to those of anyone else. Moreover, we are born with those rights, we do not get them from government—indeed, whatever rights or powers government has come from us, from “the Consent of the Governed.” And our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness imply the right to live our lives as we wish—to pursue happiness as we think best, by our own lights—provided only that we respect the equal rights of others to do the same. Drawing by implication upon the common law tradition of liberty, property, and contract—its principles rooted in “right reason”—the Founders thus outlined the moral foundations of a free society.

Only then did they turn to government. We institute government, the Declaration says, to secure our rights—our natural rights and the rights we create as we live our lives. But the powers government may need to do that must be derived from our consent if they are to be just. Government is thus twice limited: by its end, which any of us would have a right to pursue were there no government; and by its means, which require our consent.

I’d suggest that Rep. Price defend his idiosyncratic view that the Constitution is a document that is open to wide interpretation based upon which lobbyist is asking for special treatment from the federal government. Even more concerning is is our recent tendency to ignore the Constitution entirely with the recent decline in our civil liberties and expansion of power within the Executive Branch.

4.) Price says Lawson wants to eliminate the federal reserve, progressive taxation, social security, medicare and fed support of research and education- is this true? How is eliminating those things a good thing for the people? What will he do to compensate for the loss of that safety net?

One thing at a time. The Federal Reserve:

I don’t believe we need to “eliminate” the Federal Reserve — if economic history is any guide, its actions will eventually result in its own self-destruction. Instead, I simply advocate for choice — we need monetary freedom to encourage local, sustainable economic growth:

http://www.lawsonforcongress.com/issues/rising-prices/
http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/09/21/taking-the-pulse-small-is-possible/

Progressive Taxation:

I believe it’s time to look at the sustainability of our taxation policy as a whole, based upon where we want to go as a country. If we want more jobs and income, why should we tax jobs and income? Like Al Gore said, why not tax what we burn, instead of what we earn?

http://www.lawsonforcongress.com/issues/taxation/

Social Security and Medicare:

I have never said that we should eliminate safety nets like Social Security and Medicare. Over time, however, we need to transition to safety nets that are as local and accountable as possible. Medicare and Social Security must be reformed — in the short term I favor immediate redirection of funds from our irrational foreign policy to shoring up our domestic finances. But over the longer term, Medicare and Social Security have provided for our national insolvency. Don’t believe me, listen to David Walker:

http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/08/22/iousanswers/

Finally, I would never advocate privatizing social security with our current money and banking system. Why should we hand retirement savings from vulnerable individuals to a financial services industry that is capable of turning a 401k into a 201k in a matter of weeks?

Federal Support for Research and Education:

Look what happens with the federal government tries to make higher education “affordable”:

The above chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics of college tuition inflation versus overall Consumer Price Index since 1978 says it all.

So much for the government helping give us an “affordable education” — the government’s well-meaning efforts to “help” have just thrown money at higher education. Cheap money and cheap debt have driven up tuition so we start minting newly-graduated debt slaves who have no choice except working for The Man instead of trying to change the world.

Here’s the upshot regarding the Department of Education… involving the federal government takes money AWAY from our students and teachers here in North Carolina:

http://www.lawsonforcongress.com/issues/education/

Regarding research — I’m not in a huge hurry to cut research dollars. There are much better places to cut, like the cost of our trillion-dollar foreign policy. But over time, individuals investing their OWN money are better and more disciplined investors than government bueaucrats spending other peoples’ money.

I sit on a board of a local startup incubator that helps take companies out of the laboratory through pre-commercial development, and hopefully to their first fundraising. It is MUCH more difficult to work with the opaque box of federal SBIR grants funded by folks with political connections than it is to fund a great idea and a great team with a motivated investor who knows the space and the technology.

To the extent that we take money away from individuals who might be able to make their own investments in future technologies, we handicap job growth because we become dependent on a highly politicized system of seeking funds for good ideas.

That’s been my experience as an entrepreneur, and as an investor… not saying that federal grants don’t get the job done in some cases, but over time we’ll be much better off if our people have more of their OWN money to invest.

How do we compensate for loss of safety nets?

The goal of a constitutional federal government is not to eliminate safety nets. It is to empower creation of safety nets at the state and local level that are as accountable and responsive to local needs as possible. Safety nets should exist, but we’ve been trying relentlessly to “outsource” safety nets to the federal government for the past century and haven’t liked the results. Isn’t it time for a change?

5.) Does BJ have a fundamental problem with libertarianism?  Why does he seek to distance himself from this school of thought when many of his policies reflect similar trains of thought or ideals?

I do not have a fundamental problem with libertarianism. I have a fundamental problem with philosophical labels being used to define our political debate. We need to engage based upon the issues, not based upon labels that serve only to divide us into groups, prejudice discussion, and prevent reaching new levels of understanding across philosophical backgrounds.

One should not mistake a respect for a constitutional federal government as a universal belief that government at the state and local level should be so strictly limited. Indeed, that is where diversity in our states and communities is helpful.

I believe we should seek to advance state and local governments that provide the same basic rights and protections to all and serve the people instead of corporate interests, while providing freedom and flexibility to experiment with ways local governments can best leverage local resources to reflect the will of the people.

I received the following email tonight:

Please pray for my family. I got word today that [large national bank that got itself bailed out] declined my well-documented plea for a mortgage restructure. I had numerous state and non-profit organizations working to help me get the terms of the predatory loan normalized so we can afford to stay in our home. I cannot bear to tell my children and am praying for a miracle even yet…

Here’s why I am sad, and angry: this bank created the money to lend to this person out of NOTHING. There was no value created by the bank — the bank simply has an unconstitutional monopoly on the ability to create money out of nothing.

Yet the bank has the gall to refuse a restructuring for this debt, while We the People let our administration bail out this bank (among others) at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars borrowed from this very same banking system!

Oh, and now this bank can take this family’s home.

Is that right?

No, it is despicably wrong.

How did we get to the point where we accept “money” that is a token of debt instead of wealth? How did we get to the point where we accept a monopoly on money that is lent into circulation based upon the borrower’s promise to pay it back with interest?

Andrew Jackson was no friend of human rights with respect to Native Americans, but the following excerpt from his Farewell Address is a timely read in these uncertain times:

In reviewing the conflicts which have taken place between different interests in the United States and the policy pursued since the adoption of our present form of Government, we find nothing that has produced such deep-seated evil as the course of legislation in relation to the currency. The Constitution of the United States unquestionably intended to secure to the people a circulating medium of gold and silver. But the establishment of a national bank by Congress, with the privilege of issuing paper money receivable in the payment of the public dues, and the unfortunate course of legislation in the several States upon the same subject, drove from general circulation the constitutional currency and substituted one of paper in its place.

It was not easy for men engaged in the ordinary pursuits of business, whose attention had not been particularly drawn to the subject, to foresee all the consequences of a currency exclusively of paper, and we ought not on that account to be surprised at the facility with which laws were obtained to carry into effect the paper system. Honest and even enlightened men are sometimes misled by the specious and plausible statements of the designing. But experience has now proved the mischiefs and dangers of a paper currency, and it rests with you to determine whether the proper remedy shall be applied.

The paper system being founded on public confidence and having of itself no intrinsic value, it is liable to great and sudden fluctuations, thereby rendering property insecure and the wages of labor unsteady and uncertain. The corporations which create the paper money can not be relied upon to keep the circulating medium uniform in amount. In times of prosperity, when confidence is high, they are tempted by the prospect of gain or by the influence of those who hope to profit by it to extend their issues of paper beyond the bounds of discretion and the reasonable demands of business; and when these issues have been pushed on from day to day, until public confidence is at length shaken, then a reaction takes place, and they immediately withdraw the credits they have given, suddenly curtail their issues, and produce an unexpected and ruinous contraction of the circulating medium, which is felt by the whole community. The banks by this means save themselves, and the mischievous consequences of their imprudence or cupidity are visited upon the public. Nor does the evil stop here. These ebbs and flows in the currency and these indiscreet extensions of credit naturally engender a spirit of speculation injurious to the habits and character of the people. We have already seen its effects in the wild spirit of speculation in the public lands and various kinds of stock which within the last year or two seized upon such a multitude of our citizens and threatened to pervade all classes of society and to withdraw their attention from the sober pursuits of honest industry. It is not by encouraging this spirit that we shall best preserve public virtue and promote the true interests of our country; but if your currency continues as exclusively paper as it now is, it will foster this eager desire to amass wealth without labor; it will multiply the number of dependents on bank accommodations and bank favors; the temptation to obtain money at any sacrifice will become stronger and stronger, and inevitably lead to corruption, which will find its way into your public councils and destroy at no distant day the purity of your Government. Some of the evils which arise from this system of paper press with peculiar hardship upon the class of society least able to bear it. A portion of this currency frequently becomes depreciated or worthless, and all of it is easily counterfeited in such a manner as to require peculiar skill and much experience to distinguish the counterfeit from the genuine note. These frauds are most generally perpetrated in the smaller notes, which are used in the daily transactions of ordinary business, and the losses occasioned by them are commonly thrown upon the laboring classes of society, whose situation and pursuits put it out of their power to guard themselves from these impositions, and whose daily wages are necessary for their subsistence. It is the duty of every government so to regulate its currency as to protect this numerous class, as far as practicable, from the impositions of avarice and fraud. It is more especially the duty of the United States, where the Government is emphatically the Government of the people, and where this respectable portion of our citizens are so proudly distinguished from the laboring classes of all other nations by their independent spirit, their love of liberty, their intelligence, and their high tone of moral character. Their industry in peace is the source of our wealth and their bravery in war has covered us with glory; and the Government of the United States will but ill discharge its duties if it leaves them a prey to such dishonest impositions. Yet it is evident that their interests can not be effectually protected unless silver and gold are restored to circulation.

These views alone of the paper currency are sufficient to call for immediate reform; but there is another consideration which should still more strongly press it upon your attention.

Recent events have proved that the paper-money system of this country may be used as an engine to undermine your free institutions, and that those who desire to engross all power in the hands of the few and to govern by corruption or force are aware of its power and prepared to employ it. Your banks now furnish your only circulating medium, and money is plenty or scarce according to the quantity of notes issued by them. While they have capitals not greatly disproportioned to each other, they are competitors in business, and no one of them can exercise dominion over the rest; and although in the present state of the currency these banks may and do operate injuriously upon the habits of business, the pecuniary concerns, and the moral tone of society, yet, from their number and dispersed situation, they can not combine for the purposes of political influence, and whatever may be the dispositions of some of them their power of mischief must necessarily be confined to a narrow space and felt only in their immediate neighborhoods.

But when the charter for the Bank of the United States was obtained from Congress it perfected the schemes of the paper system and gave to its advocates the position they have struggled to obtain from the commencement of the Federal Government to the present hour. The immense capital and peculiar privileges bestowed upon it enabled it to exercise despotic sway over the other banks in every part of the country. From its superior strength it could seriously injure, if not destroy, the business of any one of them which might incur its resentment; and it openly claimed for itself the power of regulating the currency throughout the United States. In other words, it asserted (and it undoubtedly possessed) the power to make money plenty or scarce at its pleasure, at any time and in any quarter of the Union, by controlling the issues of other banks and permitting an expansion or compelling a general contraction of the circulating medium, according to its own will. The other banking institutions were sensible of its strength, and they soon generally became its obedient instruments, ready at all times to execute its mandates; and with the banks necessarily went also that numerous class of persons in our commercial cities who depend altogether on bank credits for their solvency and means of business, and who are therefore obliged, for their own safety, to propitiate the favor of the money power by distinguished zeal and devotion in its service. The result of the ill-advised legislation which established this great monopoly was to concentrate the whole moneyed power of the Union, with its boundless means of corruption and its numerous dependents, under the direction and command of one acknowledged head, thus organizing this particular interest as one body and securing to it unity and concert of action throughout the United States, and enabling it to bring forward upon any occasion its entire and undivided strength to support or defeat any measure of the Government. In the hands of this formidable power, thus perfectly organized, was also placed unlimited dominion over the amount of the circulating medium, giving it the power to regulate the value of property and the fruits of labor in every quarter of the Union, and to bestow prosperity or bring ruin upon any city or section of the country as might best comport with its own interest or policy.

We are not left to conjecture how the moneyed power, thus organized and with such a weapon in its hands, would be likely to use it. The distress and alarm which pervaded and agitated the whole country when the Bank of the United States waged war upon the people in order to compel them to submit to its demands can not yet be forgotten. The ruthless and unsparing temper with which whole cities and communities were oppressed, individuals impoverished and ruined, and a scene of cheerful prosperity suddenly changed into one of gloom and despondency ought to be indelibly impressed on the memory of the people of the United States. If such was its power in a time of peace, what would it not have been in a season of war, with an enemy at your doors? No nation but the freemen of the United States could have come out victorious from such a contest; yet, if you had not conquered, the Government would have passed from the hands of the many to the hands of the few, and this organized money power from its secret conclave would have dictated the choice of your highest officers and compelled you to make peace or war, as best suited their own wishes. The forms of your Government might for a time have remained, but its living spirit would have departed from it.

The distress and sufferings inflicted on the people by the bank are some of the fruits of that system of policy which is continually striving to enlarge the authority of the Federal Government beyond the limits fixed by the Constitution. The powers enumerated in that instrument do not confer on Congress the right to establish such a corporation as the Bank of the United States, and the evil consequences which followed may warn us of the danger of departing from the true rule of construction and of permitting temporary circumstances or the hope of better promoting the public welfare to influence in any degree our decisions upon the extent of the authority of the General Government. Let us abide by the Constitution as it is written, or amend it in the constitutional mode if it is found to be defective.

The severe lessons of experience will, I doubt not, be sufficient to prevent Congress from again chartering such a monopoly, even if the Constitution did not present an insuperable objection to it. But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government. The power which the moneyed interest can exercise, when concentrated under a single head and with our present system of currency, was sufficiently demonstrated in the struggle made by the Bank of the United States. Defeated in the General Government, tho same class of intriguers and politicians will now resort to the States and endeavor to obtain there the same organization which they failed to perpetuate in the Union; and with specious and deceitful plans of public advantages and State interests and State pride they will endeavor to establish in the different States one moneyed institution with overgrown capital and exclusive privileges sufficient to enable it to control the operations of the other banks. Such an institution will be pregnant with the same evils produced by the Bank of the United States, although its sphere of action is more confined, and in the State in which it is chartered the money power will be able to embody its whole strength and to move together with undivided force to accomplish any object it may wish to attain. You have already had abundant evidence of its power to inflict injury upon the agricultural, mechanical, and laboring classes of society, and over those whose engagements in trade or speculation render them dependent on bank facilities the dominion of the State monopoly will be absolute and their obedience unlimited. With such a bank and a paper currency the money power would in a few years govern the State and control its measures, and if a sufficient number of States can be induced to create such establishments the time will soon come when it will again take the field against the United States and succeed in perfecting and perpetuating its organization by a charter from Congress.

It is one of the serious evils of our present system of banking that it enables one class of society–and that by no means a numerous one–by its control over the currency, to act injuriously upon the interests of all the others and to exercise more than its just proportion of influence in political affairs. The agricultural, the mechanical, and the laboring classes have little or no share in the direction of the great moneyed corporations, and from their habits and the nature of their pursuits they are incapable of forming extensive combinations to act together with united force. Such concert of action may sometimes be produced in a single city or in a small district of country by means of personal communications with each other, but they have no regular or active correspondence with those who are engaged in similar pursuits in distant places; they have but little patronage to give to the press, and exercise but a small share of influence over it; they have no crowd of dependents about them who hope to grow rich without labor by their countenance and favor, and who are therefore always ready to execute their wishes. The planter, the farmer, the mechanic, and the laborer all know that their success depends upon their own industry and economy, and that they must not expect to become suddenly rich by the fruits of their toil. Yet these classes of society form the great body of the people of the United States; they are the bone and sinew of the country–men who love liberty and desire nothing but equal rights and equal laws, and who, moreover, hold the great mass of our national wealth, although it is distributed in moderate amounts among the millions of freemen who possess it. But with overwhelming numbers and wealth on their side they are in constant danger of losing their fair influence in the Government, and with difficulty maintain their just rights against the incessant efforts daily made to encroach upon them. The mischief springs from the power which the moneyed interest derives from a paper currency which they are able to control, from the multitude of corporations with exclusive privileges which they have succeeded in obtaining in the different States, and which are employed altogether for their benefit; and unless you become more watchful in your States and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges you will in the end find that the most important powers of Government have been given or bartered away, and the control over your dearest interests has passed into the hands of these corporations.

The paper-money system and its natural associations–monopoly and exclusive privileges–have already struck their roots too deep in the soil, and it will require all your efforts to check its further growth and to eradicate the evil. The men who profit by the abuses and desire to perpetuate them will continue to besiege the halls of legislation in the General Government as well as in the States, and will seek by every artifice to mislead and deceive the public servants. It is to yourselves that you must look for safety and the means of guarding and perpetuating your free institutions. In your hands is rightfully placed the sovereignty of the country, and to you everyone placed in authority is ultimately responsible. It is always in your power to see that the wishes of the people are carried into faithful execution, and their will, when once made known, must sooner or later be obeyed; and while the people remain, as I trust they ever will, uncorrupted and incorruptible, and continue watchful and jealous of their rights, the Government is safe, and the cause of freedom will continue to triumph over all its enemies.

But it will require steady and persevering exertions on your part to rid yourselves of the iniquities and mischiefs of the paper system and to check the spirit of monopoly and other abuses which have sprung up with it, and of which it is the main support. So many interests are united to resist all reform on this subject that you must not hope the conflict will be a short one nor success easy. My humble efforts have not been spared during my administration of the Government to restore the constitutional currency of gold and silver, and something, I trust, has been done toward the accomplishment of this most desirable object; but enough yet remains to require all your energy and perseverance. The power, however, is in your hands, and the remedy must and will be applied if you determine upon it.

These are historic times. Please pray for our country, and our leaders.

I watch little live television, although I did watch some Olympics coverage — mostly to follow Michael Phelps. One thing I learned from watching Phelps race is that it’s never a good idea to coast into the wall, and that every kick and stroke makes a difference.

So we have one more week of early voting before election day, and yesterday morning I sent out an impassioned request for one more wave of donations so we can take this campaign full throttle all the way to next Tuesday.

Briefly, we spent a lot of money on direct mail, radio, print, and TV advertisements, and underbudgeted for our GOTV and efforts at the polls — which are proving amazingly effective. Here’s a video snapshot outlining the success we’ve had reaching voters with our message of principled change, accountability, and following the Constitution:

Needless to say, the Constitution is much more effective than a trite “Working for Us” handout provided by a 20-year incumbent who works for his corporate donors. Can you help us order more Constitutions for election day?

We also have been addressing the issue of voting for a “Republican” head on. Specifically, voting Lawson for Congress is important not just to elect a principled voice of reason to Congress, but to provide a principled voice of reason to an out-of-touch Republican establishment. The party is killing itself, but even worse, it’s killing our country. We can’t run from the challenge to take back our country, or our political parties. So why re-elect a corporate establishment Democrat, who answers to Nancy Pelosi and saddles all of us with David’s Price?

Speaking of the establishment, we have a quick interview with Theresa Sanders about her experience having someone “relieve her” on the first day of early voting:

Help us win this race the right way. Wherever you are, you can join us by participating in our user-friendly Voter Outreach program — one couple raised over $750 and garnered many votes yesterday alone just by calling local voters!

Finally, here’s a video snapshot of this evening’s activities:

Thank you again for your support.

Throughout this campaign I’ve responded to numerous candidate questionnaires. One recent questionnaire was from WTVD, Durham’s ABC affiliate. Here’s how their Web site renders my questions and answers with inline advertising:

If you missed the fine print, I didn’t say that McDonald’s is the biggest problem facing America today — you can read my response here. But I bet McDonald’s is thrilled with their ad placement.

This campaign has caught our opponent, David Price, flat footed — overwhelming him with our grassroots momentum, enthusiasm, and appeal to voters with the message of Liberty.

A wise man once said — freedom is popular — and with your help, we have gotten that message out.

Today we are going positive with a new TV ad, but we need your help to keep it on the air through Election Day.

In addition to all of our media efforts - your money is helping us hand out free pocket Constitutions to voters all around the 4th District. We have dubbed these efforts ‘Operation Priceless’. Our team is staffing every early voting polling place urging people to cast their vote for Dr. Lawson.

That call to liberty has David Price scared. The Freedom Movement is threatening the establishment once again.

So much so that Mr. Price and his DNC cronies are working overtime to paint Dr. Lawson and Ron Paul as dangerous George W. Bush followers.

Ron Paul dangerous? Really Mr. Price?

Dangerous maybe to 20-year incumbents, like Mr. Price, who take most of their re-election campaign funds from lobbyists and whose 2nd largest PAC donor is the Military Industrial Complex.

I suppose from Mr. Price’s point of view we could be considered dangerous.

Your support will help us become even more dangerous to those Washington elite.

Dr. Lawson needs our help to get new ads on local broadcast television stations - right next to McCain and Obama.

These spots are expensive because North Carolina is a battleground state, but they will put our campaign in front of more voters than any of David Price’s former opponents here 4th District.

Also, we must send out another mailer to all 150,000 potential voters here in the 4th District.

To do this effectively requires us raising another $200,000.

Will you please help us with a most generous contribution of $50, $100 or more?
Could you invest the max of $2300?

This is the year of change. David Price must go.

This country needs Dr. Lawson in Congress.

Martin Avila
Campaign Manager
Lawson For Congress

Paid for by Lawson For Congress

You know it’s getting close when a 20 year incumbent needs to attack his opponent, and his political ideology, head on. Anyone who’s in office for that long should be able to stand on the merits of his own record rather than launching attacks. Here is an excerpt from a letter that he recently sent out to his supporters.

…Proclaiming to be the protégé of failed Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, Dr. Lawson has a laissez faire, libertarian approach to government and the economy that I believe is fundamentally wrong. Our current financial crisis clearly demonstrates that the hands-off, anything-goes mentality on regulation employed by the Bush Administration and supported by Dr. Lawson simply does not work and is, very frankly, dangerous to our economy and way of life.

David Price has been playing politics here in the 4th district for the last month - constantly trying to tie Dr. Lawson to the Bush Administration in any way that he can. All of this started happening when we launched our TV and Radio Ads thanks to your support.

But this time he has gone too far.

To attack our political philosophy like this, and constantly show a clear disregard of limited government principles that our nation was founded upon says something to me. It should say something to you too.

We need to get this man out of our government.

David Price is stepping up his campaign in a big way, and we need your help to continue the fight.

Please make a donation today to support our efforts - we have 2 new TV ads and a massive mailer ready to go with your help.

Mr. Price, you just called out the Revolution.

We’re making progress, and our incumbent’s machine is feeling the heat.

Early voting started last Thursday, and we’ve been staffing polling places throughout the District to spread the word about the campaign. Our team has been doing a great job — in fact, in some cases they’ve been doing such a great job that the opposition has tried to shut them down.

Theresa and Tiffany were working at a polling place in South Durham on Thursday, and apparently their readiness to engage with voters created a bit of nervousness among the Democratic party staffers. After a few hours, a lady drove up to the polling place, approached Theresa and Tiffany, thanked them for doing such a good job, and told them they were being relieved and could hand over their materials.

Needless to say, this mystery lady was not from our campaign… which raises an obvious question: How stupid do these people think we are?

A few minutes later we received a call from Theresa and Tiffany asking where they should go next, since they’d “been relieved.” Of course, this mystery was too good to pass up. JoLynn and I were driving around visiting folks at various polling places, so we dropped by the place where Theresa and Tiffany had been relieved… and I paid the Democratic party folks a visit.

I was immediately greeted by a nice fifty-something lady who asked me if I needed a sample ballot from the Democratic party. I said yes, and she graciously explained how easy it is to vote Obama, straight ticket Democrat, and then choose the slate of Democratic judicial candidates. I thanked her for the orientation, and then asked her if she’d seen my friends Theresa and Tiffany who had been working at the poll earlier that morning.

“Uhhhhh…. they left. They folded. Guess they got tired.”

Wrong answer.

I was polite, but after expressing my displeasure with the shallow deception used to steal our materials and disrupt our greeters, the trio of Democratic volunteers working at this polling place looked like they’d swallowed something a bit too big for their esophagus.

Some people believe we’re playing a game of simple party politics as we work to advance principled government that serves the people. This isn’t a game, despite the dirty pool being played by these partisan hacks.

I’ve come to the conclusion that rescuing our nation requires that we address two distinct threats: neoconservative sycophants within the Republican party, and latte liberals within the Democratic party. Both are equally blind, and equally dangerous.

After this brief distraction, however, Theresa and Tiffany returned to work their magic. We’ve continued to garner votes at the polls with our fantastic supporters on the ground, and we’re launching a new positive media campaign to stake out the high ground as we head towards election day:

Oh, and about that high ground — today my opponent launched an attack ad in the Daily Tar Heel. It’s a shame when a twenty-year incumbent can’t run on his record, and must resort to undocumented distortions of his opponent’s views:

I ask for your continued support and assistance so we can continue getting our message to the people. We’re making progress, or else my opponent would be content to ignore our campaign for principled change here in North Carolina’s 4th District.