Ron Paul is an iconoclast, a principled libertarian, and an entertaining presidential candidate, but he has gone too far. Last week he raised boatloads of money from admirers who celebrate the violent overthrow of established government. For the sake of his reputation and his responsibility to the Congress in which he serves, he should disown that support.

No one ever accused Ron Paul of being boring and predictable. He is one of the hardest members of Congress to pigeonhole. Some congressional vote rankings show him to be the most conservative Republican, others the most liberal. His politics do not neatly line up with the traditional left-right breakdown in Congress.

It is fair to call Mr. Paul a libertarian. He was, after all, the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee in 1988, receiving nearly half a million votes. He favors a much smaller government with the elimination of many social welfare programs. At the same time, he has been an outspoken anti-war candidate and a more general critic of American entanglement in foreign affairs. Overall, he wants a government that stands aside and lets individuals act.

There is nothing wrong with Paul’s overall philosophical outlook. His call for limited government may be more extreme than that of his colleagues. His mix of issues may be a bit quirky. Yet no one would call his version of libertarianism illegitimate in itself.

But Paul sometimes displays a more sinister conspiratorial aspect, implying that those who disagree with him are the vanguard of dictatorial government. And of course, Paul and his followers are there to stop such a dictatorship. I ran across this side of Paul in my work on continuity of government. The Continuity of Government Commission issued a recommendation that there should be temporary appointments made to the House of Representatives in the extreme case of hundreds of members being killed in an attack so that the House could continue to function. Paul was the first member to oppose this recommendation; he called it “dangerous” and said that it “handed terrorists a pre-emptive victory over republican government.” His piece was picked up by conspiracy theorists who accused our Commission of trying to impose a dictatorship on America.

Last week the media found it remarkable that Ron Paul raised $4.3 million in one day. But even more remarkable was the way that it was raised. Groups of Paul supporters scheduled a mass Internet fundraiser on Guy Fawkes Day.

Guy Fawkes was the chief plotter in an effort to blow up the British Houses of Parliament and kill the king on Nov. 5, 1606. Nov. 5 also figures prominently in last year’s movie “V for Vendetta,” about a modern Guy Fawkes-inspired rebel who fights against a fascist British government. The fundraising website was ThisNovember5th.com, which includes clips of Paul warning of a descent into military government. The not-so-subtle message is that America is close to a dictatorship and that extreme and violent measures are needed to combat the government.

A Paul spokesman backed off the most egregious rhetoric by noting that he did not favor blowing up government buildings. Instead, Paul “wants to demolish things like the Department of Education, but we can do that very peacefully, in a constructive manner.” These words are a welcome corrective, but Paul still pocketed the money.

Ron Paul is a fringe presidential candidate, but he is also a sitting member of Congress who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and the institution of Congress. Trafficking with those who hint at the violent overthrow of Congress is no way to honor that oath. Give the money back.

Fortier is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.