Rep. Ron Paul received support from porn mogul Scott Banister, co-founder of adult website Zivity.com. While the endorsement comes from a pornography chair, the ideologies between both men bear no similarities.
It's an unlikely source for campaign contributions, but donations during election years, especially when it involves a presidential campaign, have no face attached.
While his site is frowned on by Christian conservatives for its pornography elements, it allows aspiring supermodels a chance to market themselves. And for $9, you can interact with nude or lingerie-clad models through chat sessions.
In fact, Banister, a former Silicon Valley entrepreneur and board member of PayPal stayed well within the scope of political campaign contributions, based on the Federal Election Commission.
For his Rep. Ron Paul 2012 endorsement, the Zivity.com co-founder contributed $2,500 towards the candidate and another $5,000 for Congressman Paul's Liberty PAC political action committee.
The donations, although small, represent the greatest campaign contribution any person or group can make based on California law, according to the Huffington Post.
This measure is largely practiced by all states since congress enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) aka the McCain-Feingold Act.
So, while the source of Rep. Ron Paul's endorsement is a porn mogul, his campaign contribution to the Texas libertarian congressman is legal -- period.
"I don't really care if Ron Paul and I have exactly the same personal views about naked women on the Internet. What matters is what he would do as an elected candidate," said porn mogul Scott Banister.
"He's very committed to following the limits of the Constitution," Banister added.
Photo: Facebook
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 14
Too bad the social conservatives can't be made to understand (any more than most liberals) that freedom is just that, the freedom to do what you will with what is yours. Too many people are only ok with some aspects of the idea I guess. Ron Paul more than anyone running for the White House with the possible exception of Gary Johnson is the candidate who actually believes that freedom is more than a catchy word.
Second, where do you get the right to label W. Catt or any other debater with such a filth titles
Third, why do you believe that such vile and repulsive language is acceptable to other debaters/readers/commentors, here on Gather.
Fourth, What gives you the right to decide who believes in liberty and who does not
If I were Mr. Paul, I would totally embarrassed to know that any of my supporters were of such a lowlife degenerate mindset as that which you project in your comments.
I am suprised at you choosing this particular article to author here on Gather News. This article to me is neither newsworthy nor demonstrative of your previous talent as a writer.
Mr. Paul should not be denigrated in any way whatsoever for accepting donations from his supporters, regardless of what personal life they may live nor what business they may own. A supporter is a supporter, nothing more nothing less and a businessman's money is as good as your's or mine.
I am by no sense of the word a Ron Paul "supporter", but such reporting on who is contributing to his campaign, accompanied by the tittle tattle of how the contributor operates his business, is nothing less than lowlife foul tatics in my opinion.
We are all competitive political debaters, however, Mr. Paul and his supporters deserve better here on Gather News.
{Suuuure! And if by some weird cosmic trick it was found that Obama was getting huge influxes of cash deom}
In, my comment, I said nothing about large donations. I was only attempting to make the point that all individual supporters, regardless of who their chosen candidate may be, have the right to be a supporter of their chosen candidate.
{i.e.} One individual supporter is no different from another individual. supporter.
The point of the article, if I understood it correctly, was that an individual who owns a business which is not viewed by many as being a moral entity, made a donation to the candidate of his choice. It was my counter point that the donors occupation and/or his business ownership, should not be in question nor in my opinion, should such information have been included in the story.
Bin Laden's replacement or NAMBLA leaders, it wouldn't make a bit of difference to you, would it?
Now that statement by you, was not only unwarranted, it was excessively rude, amoral and suggestive. Inasmuch, as it was framed to allude to the possibility that I am not an American in my political sentiments and that I am a supporter of child molesters in my personal sentiments.
I will neither lower myself to that level of debating nor will I give your statement any supportive credence by providing a counter comment proving where my personal and political sentiments lie.
I will only retort by saying, Shame on You, Catt, Shame on You !!!
Would you please make your statement a little more understandable by expanding on what or who, you are referring to.