Lucas Overbay

On Monday evening Libertarian Party Candidate Lucas Overby surprised Republicans and Democrats by raising the required $10,440 to file for Florida’s 13th Congressional District’s Special Election on March 11th. Overby’s campaign raised the needed funds shortly after finding out that they ended up being 19 petition signatures short from earning ballot access.

“What we decided to do at that point was run a fundraiser over the weekend to be able to buy our way onto the ballot,” said Overby. “We had about $150 in the bank Friday night when we started and we had to raise $10,440 over the weekend.”

Overby’s campaign was able to raise the needed funds by collecting mostly small donations of about $63 on average through the three day money bomb and then the Libertarian Party of Florida donated $3,000 in order to make sure that the goal was reached.

According to Overby, “We raised about $9,000 on our own through the money bomb and only one person that donated maxed out their donations.”

Lucas Overby
Photo by: Jamie Roocke-Sherman

When Overby was asked if he was surprised that there was so much support he said, “I was thankful that the year’s worth of work paid off.”

The Overby campaign began the race last February to challenge Congressman Bill Young. Shortly after Congressman Bill Young passed away, those running had to enter the race through a special election cycle where candidates were given 2 weeks to either submit the filing fee or turn in the petition signatures needed to get ballot access.

Could Lucas Overby Become A Spoiler?

Overby became a member of the Libertarian Party when he was 17 years old. When asked about why he would join one of the two major parties he said, “Neither party quite represents where I am as an individual or as a candidate. The Libertarian Party allows me to present who I am as a person a lot better than the other two parties.”

This news comes in just weeks after Libertarian Candidate Robert Sarvis made headlines for being a spoiler in this year’s election for Governor in the state of Virginia.


You may remember that posted a video on November 8th titled, “Are Libertarians creating “Chaos” in Elections?”. The question we have now is how many times will the Ron Paul money bomb strategy be used help third party candidates get ballot access?

When Overby was asked about where he first learned about the money bomb strategy, he immediately mentioned the historical Ron Paul money bomb during the 2008 presidential campaign.

The History of the Money Bomb Strategy

Many still remember that back in 2007 the first campaign money bomb in history put together for Ron Paul by a 37-year-old music promoter named Trevor Lyman. The money bomb on November 5th raised $4.2 million for Ron Paul’s campaign and greatly surprised many in the Republican Party who were hoping that Dr. Paul would not be able to raise the funds needed to run a serious campaign.

Lucas Overby Website:
Lucas Overby Facebook Page:

The following two tabs change content below.
Profile photo of Evan Mulch

Evan Mulch

Evan Mulch currently lives in Spartanburg, South Carolina. He received his Bachelors in Business Administration from Washburn University and he currently owns and operates the Mulch Tank Business & Leadership Center in Spartanburg. Evan is a liberty activist, business consultant, and serial entrepreneur. If you have any story tips please e-mail him at

Reality Check: Fmr. General Petraeus Wants To Use Al Qaeda Fighters Against ISIS

  • brianmiddleton

    Seriously, this guy seems alright, BUT he wants a “23% Fair Tax System enacted”?? That is outrageous.

    • g.johnon

      thanks brian, this is very disturbing news.
      if we get rid of the fed and the irs, and get back to constitutional congressional money. there is no need for tax (another word for slavery) at all.
      and I thought libertarians were all about getting rid of the fed and the irs.

      • Daryl Watson

        the FairTax does get rid of the IRS you people need to study the tax before commenting on something you know nothing about. It also gets rid of payroll taxes, FICA, and Medicare

        • g.johnon

          i would strongly recommend that you take two hours of your time to learn the basics of your time and put it to good use.

          you have demonstrated that your understanding of things economic is from this told (taught) to you by the ignorant and agendized educators and public relations wonks..

          taxation is slavery, period.

          here is the two hours I am talking about.

          you may, of course choose not to watch this film.
          but you will also make it impossible to argue against the ignorant idealism of taxes if you don’t have a solid background of how the world actually works.
          you are just behind the curve daryl, no shame in that. but there is shame I willfully staying that way.

        • SRQTad

          Daryl, See my above reply to g.johnon

        • g.johnon

          I have been studying it for over 40 years daryl. fairtax (talk about your quintessential oxymoron) does not remove the fed from the equation and therefore solves nothing, just continues the illusion that we owe our masters for the singular pleasure of having them steal from us.

    • SRQTad

      Please go to and learn about the fair tax. as far as not needing ANY tax goes, that is a pretty naive statement. It costs something to run a government. The US was funded through various excises and tarriffs before the income tax was enacted. the fair tax replaces ALL forms of income tax, both personal and business/corporate. It taxes new, non-essential goods only. it provides a “prebate” to offset the effect on lower income people.
      PLEASE go learn how it works.

      • mshmsucks

        The Fair tax rate has two problems with it.

        1. There is no authority in the Contstitution for a consumption tax as described in the Fair Tax. The amendment to the constitution required by the Fair tax would require doing away with the apportionment requirements of a direct tax, along with the amendment to repeal the 16th.

        2. The 23% rate that the Fair Tax proposes is based upon the idea that we should maintain the current level of government revenue, which defeats the purpose.

        So, imho, the fair tax is flawed at its core and is thus a non-starter.

        • SRQTad

          Might want to read Art I, Sec 8, clause 1 again… Also, if you’re thinking about Art I, Sec 9, Clauses 4 and 5, the fair tax IS in direct proportion to the census and is NOT a tax on a State’s export.

          • mshmsucks

            I think you do not understand apportionment in the way that you think you do. Taxing everyone across the country at a 23% rate is not the same as splitting the tax amongst the population. If there were no “prebates” etc, that might be different. However, apportionment means that if we are to raise 100% of the revenues associated with the tax and a state has 12% of the population, that population will pay 12% of the tax. If you give any portion of that population a refund or negate the tax for a portion, then the population of the state would still be responsible for that amount, making the tax rate higher than 23% for the remaining population. This also presupposes there is an exact amount to be collected. A blanket 23% flat rate with prebates gives no indication of the amount to be collected so how can apportionment of the amount collected occur.

            Another consideration is that, although the Supreme Court has had trouble defining the limits of the taxing power of Congress (they like to flip-flop on the issue, depending on who is doing the ruling), Congress does not have the power to tax every commercial transaction in the US, especially if the 16th amendment were to be repealed as is the goal of the Fair Tax.

            If you have some evidence otherwise, please point it out. I find nothing, anywhere, on the Fair Tax website that discusses how the Fair Tax is constitutional and its burdens under the Constitution, possible court challenges to it and how they could be defeated.

      • g.johnon

        well you are just flat out wrong from top to bottom tad. the naïve idea here is that taxes are necessary to run a government.

        nothing more naïve than buying into a lie.

        if the federal government (public institution) controls the rate of introduction of money into the economy by spending it into existence without debt attached. then why would the government need to lay taxes? why would the people need to be shackled to debt that they did not borrow to accrue?

        you have been taught to think of taxes as a necessary and even a noble way to contribute to society. absolutely 180 degrees from truth. taxes burden us with debt that we are not responsible for creating.

        I can see that I have my work cut out for me here. so please do yourself and me a very big favor and watch this film.

        you may find it to be well worth your while.

        • SRQTad

          Government produces nothing. It merely consumes. If the government were to continually “introduce” (read “print”) enough currency to pay for its own cost. We would wind up in the same basic boat we’re in right now in that the chronic addition of currency would have to devalue the existing currency through the dillution across the enitire economy. The government must be able to take enough capital from the productive economy to pay for itself. The economy must be able to produce at least that much, over and above whatever it costs to produce it. This does not require a debt-based economy. It does require a value-based economy.

          • g.johnon

            so you chose not to watch the film.
            you do make some valid points and some not so much.
            all have solutions, and none of the solutions are going to be easy I grant you. but, if we are going anywhere good as a species, we have to get to work on those solutions.
            the government is actually quite productive. It produces war, despair, confusion, ignorance and stupidity. all in the highest quality and in great abundance. for this produce we are force to pay through illegal, unconstitutional taxation (burden). what do our taxes pay for exactly? only a fraction of the service on the debt accrued by our rogue self serving “government”, nothing more. everything the government does is paid for by borrowing and/or the sale of government bonds. borrowing from the federal reserve bank which is not part of the government, at interest using the tax payer (not our money, us) as collateral. it is important to understand that when the gov takes out a loan from the fed, say one billion “dollars” (actually federal reserve notes not real American dollars) , the fed electronically sends digits into the government account and the gov. has its billion. only those digits never existed before the loan nor was there anything in the fed (real money) from which the billion was born. further, only the billion was “created” the interest was not. ergo, interest derived from the loan of ghost money has to be paid in real value. every time we borrow money from the fed, the fed gets another real piece of the American pie. for nothing but happy horsecrap. it is in the interest where the core of inflation lies. it is in the interest where the downfall of America lies and no form of taxation can solve that. the only purpose of taxation is to keep WE THE PEOPLE operating under the delusion that we owe a great debt to our servants. the top 20 banks in the world carry a derivative debt load (garbage) that totals right at a quadrillion dollars. one thousand trillion just from 20 banks. more money that all of the value on the planet by about a factor of 3. (estimates vary, but principal remains intact)
            we are the unwitting victims of a Ponzi scheme that make Bernie Maddoff’s crimes look like a boy scout working on a merit badge.
            the overview I submitted (gov creates money) is right out of the constitution. only the congress has the right. the fed has no right (or good reason) to exist. it is the epitome of criminal enterprize.
            so yes, government spending could and would easily get just as out of control as it is now if the gov was tasked to create and spend money into existence.
            we the people have our own crimes to settle. we have lost oversight and control of our servants and if we do not take it back and hold on to it like it means everything, there will be no solution to tyranny whatsoever.

      • brianmiddleton

        Sorry, but Government can run on excise taxes alone. Unless you want a BIG Government and pay interest to the FED..

        • SRQTad

          True. BUT we already have that behemoth Government. The fair tax funds the entire thing, as is, while, at the same time, showing people exactly what it really costs. If we were to eliminate all the militarist, corporatist and socialist, “programs” (read “thievery”), the Feds are involved in, we would have a drastic reduction in costs. BUT, if we do that all in one fell swoop, we would be yanking the rug out from under at least two full genrations of people and a huge number of businesses who are dependent on the largesse. The result would be VERY ugly. On the other hand, the fair tax, by it’s very nature, forces people to consider how much these programs cost, everytime they want to buy something because their tax is shown on every cash register receipt. Think about it. “Take-home pay” is what it has been called for 40 years, that I know of. The actual tax rate is totally out of sight/mind AND we “get a refund”. That’s a major reason most folks don’t ever see the cost until it’s “settled law”. The fair tax stops that noise in its tracks.

          • brianmiddleton

            Doesn’t mean we should keep “that behemoth Government.”

          • inopungbish

            Brian, I agree with you. The gov can make serious cuts annually and correspondingly lower everyone’s tax burdens incrementally until it is no longer needed. The problem is you can’t take something away once it’s given…unless you use force.

        • staytuned

          But it does not run on that alone. We need a combination of spending cuts and more tax revenue. The one thing that can not go is the estate tax. This tax serves to dampen the dynasty effect of the ultra wealthy families out there. Obviously it does not eliminate them but if not given a big tax they could become many times more powerful than they already are. Which arguably is moot at this point.

          • brianmiddleton

            Maybe I am a bit more principled than some of you guys, but I don’t believe in stealing from one person to give to another… Government has ways of raising revenue without stealing..

          • staytuned

            I don’t believe in the Earned Income Credit either. But you aren’t referring to that. Please explain.

          • brianmiddleton

            I thought it was understood. I don’t believe in ANYONE having the “right” my what i earn. not a lot, or a little, or ANY of it.. let them make their own money… a little stealing isn’t okay in my book.. That’s the story and I am sticking to it… Obviously you support the concept of someone having the right to what others make… I just don’t..

    • UMTigerFan

      I agree with the poster below (SRQTad). The Fair Tax is not on top of the Income Tax, rather, it replaces the income tax. It would never go into effect until the 16th amendment is repealed and the income tax is dead.

  • HemiMG

    “This news comes in just weeks after Libertarian Candidate Robert Sarvis made headlines for being a spoiler”

    You mean by “taking” more votes from the winner than he did the loser? Does anyone else remember when facts matter to Ben Swann?

  • Andrew Craig

    Stop repeating the nonsense smear that Sarvis was a “spoiler” as if it were not only true but so obviously so as to not need any supporting statement.

  • Brian C. Cole

    I am friends with Lucas Overby, and I alerted Ben Swann about what had happened here in Florida yesterday when I posted my article about Overby’s success with the money bomb. Before criticizing Lucas, talk to the people that know him, and are excited about helping him get elected. He and I both started following Libertarianism before we could even vote.

    • brianmiddleton

      Well, the fact that he supports a 23% “fair” tax loses my support..