About Matthew C. Scaro

You may not know me. I am not a politician. I am an average Illinois citizen just like you. I am not an embedded political candidate, I am part of no machine. I have no special interest groups nor financial backers. I care only about one thing, serving you. I, Matthew C. Scaro, am running for Governor of Illinois to represent the people not the politicians. I stand for the taxpayers, the small-business owners, the farmers, the industrial workers, the teachers, and everyone in-between. I stand for equality for all. For every race, creed, religion, sexuality, nationality and personality. I am not a Republican, I am not a Democrat. I am a Libertarian.


My reason for running is civic duty. Illinois needs a third party perspective to work with our divided general assembly. We need a truly balanced budget, not a bargain or a band-aid. As governor, I can and will do that. Our state needs honesty, transparency and solutions. That is what I offer. That is what I will provide.

That wasn’t always the case. For most of my life I had no idea what a Libertarian was. Growing up, I was raised in a conservative household and considered myself a republican because my family were republicans, and seemed to feel strongly about the identity. I had no concept of how government works or how it could be improved. I do remember being told if I worked hard, I could make something of myself, that a penny saved was a penny earned, to never bully anyone, but also to never let myself be bullied. Those were lessons in life, but did they teach me to identify as a Republican? I don’t know.

I do know, however, what brought me to the Libertarian Party, and why I am proud to be a Libertarian.

In 2009, I became an entrepreneur. With little money and a lot of effort, I started a small corporation. I learned more through that process then any schooling had ever taught me. It helped me grow as a man. It helped me discover one of the greatest pleasures most business owners understand; creating jobs and writing paychecks. Paying someone for what they earned was a feeling I’ll never forget. It wasn’t easy, but it was worth it.

A few years later, a friend asked who I supported in the 2008 presidential election. I told him John McCain. He was surprised. He asked me why I wouldn’t support Ron Paul.

I didn’t have an answer. I didn’t know anything about Ron Paul.


He said that, although he was a democrat, he would have voted for Ron Paul in a heartbeat had the GOP nominated him. At the time, I was still stuck in a “default mindset” of voting the party-line. …But I remembered that conversation. Something about it stuck with me.


Two years later, in 2010, I did a google search on Ron Paul and found an interesting video on YouTube. It was a compilation of Ron Paul quotes from debates during his 2008 campaign. The title was “This video changed my life.” That short video, did, in fact, change my life.


I began researching the issues he spoke on and found I agreed with most of his stances. I learned that he was once a presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party and started researching what they stood for. There was much of their platform with which I agreed. I supported LGBT rights, I supported ending the drug war, and I opposed foreign military interventionism. Over time, I came to realize I was never really a Republican, although libertarians do favor a republican form of government that is subject to democratic means of preservation and restoration. I chose the party of principle. I chose to become a Libertarian.

In the 2016 election cycle, I served as the Gary Johnson Illinois Events Coordinator. During that same time, I lobbied and spoke on behalf of Kent McMillen and Claire Ball for the Illinois Libertarian Party. I became a member of the local Chicago Chapter, and worked to gain signatures for Illinois ballot access. (Note: The signature requirements required for Libertarian Party ballot access are inconsistent with “free and open elections.” In America, every citizen, even those with no money, ought be able to run for government office, even if they cannot pay signature gatherers to gather 43,000 signatures with 25,000 that can survive the bogus “signature challenge” process. The idea that there can be “too many choices” on a ballot casts Illinois residents as simpletons who can choose between thousands of food choices in a grocery store, but can’t scroll through a list of candidates and choose which one best matches their political preferences. Is a choice of tastes in food really more important than a choice of political freedom that would expand that choice and every other choice?) I took action, because action needs to be taken by someone in the Illinois of 2018. Illinois is bankrupt, and Pritzker and Rauner are promising handouts to the very people they intend to tax and ticket to pay for those handouts.

Illinois taxpayers want representatives who can be held accountable to their campaign promises. Our state is insolvent, and without action our citizens will get hurt. The “solutions” provided by both Madigan-controlled-Democrats and Rauner-controlled-Republicans has been to try to steal enough money from motorists(from due-process-denied traffic tickets) and businesses(from due-process-denied “administrative fines”) to balance the budget. The problem with that approach is, eventually you run out of other people’s money! The problem is made worse because it encourages business to relocate across state lines in the less “business hostile” States of Missouri, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Iowa. (The prior statement is one of the few things Rauner gets right …in campaign season.) Illinois voters want answers and they want real solutions that neither “status quo party” billionaire plutocrat can provide. Their focus-group-polished language is evidence of that. They are both far too beholden to “status quo party” donor bases that are financing their campaigns. I will provide transparency and honesty as Governor, opening up the Illinois budget to public criticism and commentary, and demanding the State Nullification and Jury Nullification of unpopular budget items. As governor, my testimony would be a powerful defense for any business or defendant accused of criminal tax-evasion, and would likely sway jurors in the trial stage, thus allowing this election to act as a real limit on government power, in a way not seen since Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation. This stance would go a long way toward eliminating the most abusive portions of the Illinois budget, empowering Illinois citizens to use their individual voices to shape their government, and even opt-out of being governed if they peacefully refuse to consent to that government. In fact, “the consent of the governed” referred to in our Declaration of Independence is only meaningful if we can refuse to consent.

Opening the budget to public criticism will especially give a voice to regional voices who are being oppressed by the current unresponsive, uncaring, ever-more-punitive Illinois government. I will sign all taxpayer protection pledges from all watchdog groups that incur no hidden spending increases, and hereby promise to never raise taxes to “solve” problems (most of which are caused by reckless government spending). I hereby pledge to pardon all prisoners convicted of actions that lack a valid “corpus” comprised of “injury and intent to injure,” thus reinstating the long-ago-abandoned constitutional right of habeas corpus in Illinois. I will also eliminate all profit motives and hidden quotas from policing, by educating Illinois jurors about their right to conscientious “jury nullification of law,” and immediately pardoning all “no corpus delicti” convictions due to the bar-licensed prosecutorial-and-judicial jury-stacking conspiracy known as “voir dire.” (Google “Surviving voir dire” and “corpus delicti”! …Illinois schools never taught you the History of this term, because doing so would have empowered you resist unjust laws, including compulsory property tax laws that finance the government schools! This, more than anything, is why the government now acts as your master, rather than your servant.) My goal is not to serve you, so much as it is to restore the tools that once allowed you serve yourself. I want an Illinois of confident voters, who can plan their own lives, unmolested by costly, random assaults from extortionist government bureaucrats and busybodies. If you want to smoke marijuana, nobody has any right to stop you. If you want to fail or succeed in business before you are arbitrarily approved for a government permit or license, nobody has a right to stop you (as long as you don’t violate anyone else’s individual, constitutional rights). Permits don’t grant rights. Rights are valid legal claims. Everyone in America has a valid legal claim to the pursuit of happiness, and, last time I checked, Illinois was a part of America. I will also flatly refuse to comply with all unconstitutional federal agencies, the full list of which would now take up more text than this entire page displays.


Am I right in thinking that Illinois voters are tired of two nearly-identical political parties pointing their fingers at each other while they pander to the 20% of citizens who voted them into power? I hope so. I hope existing voters see me as a legitimate alternative, but even if they don’t, I intend to increase youth voter participation by offering them meaningful change they can’t get from the political status quo. If you’re looking for real change, I’m your man. Neither Pritzker nor Rauner have pledged to pardon all “victimless crime” offenders, but they both claim that they will institute “criminal justice reform.” They want to be “tough on (non-)crime” friends of the police unions and bar-licensed prosecutors, simply shifting puritanical non-crime prosecutions from marijuana to cocaine, methamphetamines, heroin, and other drugs. They want business-as-usual, while claiming to present a change they hope you’re not bold and independent enough to actually pursue. How do I know this? Because there is no solution to victimless (non-)crime prosecution, except: NOT PROSECUTING NON-CRIMES. The only “solution” possible is restoring strong due-process protections of the accused’s individual rights. ​