It seems very unwise to knowingly take money from any group that society generally considers an across-the-spectrum unpalatable hate group. Paul may very well lose more votes than gained by such acts and certainly dish himself a bad self-inflicted wound that his competition will pour heaps of salt into at every opportunity.


Try as any candidate might to claim that taking money from someone or something does not automatically mean endorsement of the views of the donors, many voters will draw a reasonable inference that the candidate does endorse such views to some measureable if not full extent because they are associating with and taking money from the person or group at issue rather than distancing themselves from them. Moreover, it is reasonable for voters to draw an inference that those financially backing a candidate have a greater chance of having and/or achieving personal influence with that candidate--"whoever pays the piper calls the tune." If a politician wants to avoid these inferences being drawn as they relate to any particular financial backer, then they should not accept money from them.

Also, it can certainly lead to embarassments down the road:





Some direct associations and cash assistance offers are just better off to decline. If Paul gets the supremacists' votes because they like his platform more than the rest, that is how voting decisions are made for every citizen and it's every voters' prerogative to vote for whom they want.

__________________