The Patriot Files Forums  

Go Back   The Patriot Files Forums > General > Political Debate

Post New Thread  Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-19-2008, 04:15 PM
darrels joy's Avatar
darrels joy darrels joy is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indian Springs
Posts: 5,964
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default Follow the Money, Money, Money

Obama’s Secret Campaign Cash: Has $63 Million Flowed from Foreign Sources?





As Barack Obama reaped a stunning $150 million in campaign donations in September, bringing his total to more than $600 million, new questions have arisen about the source of his amazing funding.


By Obama’s own admission, more than half of his contributions have come from small donors giving $200 or less. But unlike John McCain’s campaign, Obama won’t release the names of these donors.


A Newsmax canvass of disclosed Obama campaign donors shows worrisome anomalies, including outright violations of federal election laws.


For example, Obama has numerous donors who have contributed well over the $4,600 federal election limit.

Many of these donors have never been contacted by the Obama campaign to refund the excess amounts to them.


And more than 37,000 Obama donors appear to be conversions of foreign currency.


According to a Newsmax analysis of the Obama campaign data before the latest figures were released, potential foreign currency donations could range anywhere from $12.8 million to a stunning $63 million in all. With the addition of $150 million raised in September, this amount could be much more.


When asked by Newsmax about excess contributions, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said that contributions already identified as excess had been returned and that those the campaign was just learning about - either through news accounts or from the FEC - “will be returned.”


“Every campaign faces the challenge of screening and reviewing its contributions,” LaBolt said. “And we have been aggressive about taking every available step to make sure our contributions are appropriate, updating our systems when necessary.”


But many of the donors Newsmax canvassed said they had “never” been contacted by the Obama campaign or seen any refunds, even though their contributions went over the limit months ago.


In all, Newsmax found more than 2,000 donors who had contributed in excess of the $4,600 limit for individuals per election cycle.


Such donations, if not returned within 60 days, are a clear violation of federal campaign finance laws.


Lisa Handley, a stay-at-home mom from Portland, Oregon, recalled giving $4,600 to the Obama campaign by credit card, contributions she made because “I love Obama,” she said.


According to FEC records, however, she gave an additional $2,300 to the campaign, putting her over the limit.


The Obama campaign reported that it had “redesignated” the excess money, which could mean that it had contributed it to a separate party committee or a joint fund-raising committee, which have higher limits.


But if that happened, it’s news to Mrs. Handley. “No one ever contacted me to return any of the money or told me they were redesignating some of the money,” she said.


Ronald J. Sharpe, Jr., a retired teacher from Rockledge, Florida, appears in the Obama campaign reports as having given a whopping $13,800.


The campaign reported that it returned $4,600 to him, making his net contributions of $9,200 still way over the legal limit.


But there’s one problem with the Obama data: Mr. Sharpe doesn’t remember giving that much money to the Obama campaign in the first place, nor does he recall anyone from the campaign ever contacting him to return money.


“At the end, I was making monthly payments,” he told Newsmax. The Obama campaign records do not show any such payments.


Many donors refused to answer questions about the political campaign contributions appearing in their name when they learned that the caller was from a news organization.


John Atkinson, an insurance agent in Burr Ridge, Illinois, refused to discuss his contributions, which totaled $8,724.26, before numerous refunds.


Atkinson and others gave in odd amounts: $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, $118.15, and one rounded contribution of $2,300.


Sandra Daneshinia, a self-employed caregiver from Los Angeles, CA, made 36 separate contributions, totaling $7,051.12, according to FEC records. Thirteen of them were eventually refunded.


In a bizarre coincidence, those thirteen refunded contributions – for varying amounts such as $223.88 and $201.44 – added up exactly to $2,300, the amount an individual may give per federal election.


Also giving in odd amounts was Robert Porter, an accountant for the town of Oviedo, Florida. Mr. Porter gave a surprising $4,786.02 to the Obama campaign.


In all, Newsmax found an astonishing 37,265 unique donors to the Obama campaign whose contributions were not rounded up to dollar amounts. That amounts to more than 10% of the total number of unique donors whose names have been disclosed by the Obama campaign to the public.


Of those, 44,410 contributions came in unrounded amounts of less than $100. FEC regulations only require that campaigns disclose the names of donors who have given a total of $200 or more, so that means that all these contributors were repeat donors.


Another 15,269 contributions gave in unrounded amounts between $101 and $999, while 704 of the unrounded contributions were in amounts of over $1000.


Campaign finance experts find the frequent appearance of unrounded contributions suspicious, since contributors almost invariably give in whole dollar amounts.


One expert in campaign finance irregularities offers a possible explanation.


“Of course this is odd. They are obviously converting from local currency to US dollars,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center.


“The overwhelming number of large dollar contributors – and even small donors – are in even dollar amounts,” he told Newsmax. “Anyone who doubts that can go to FEC.gov and look through the campaign contribution data bases.

You will not find many uneven numbers.”


Boehm said he had rarely seen unrounded contributions in his thirty years as a lawyer doing campaign finance work.


“There’s always the odd cat who wants to round up his
checkbook, but they are very rare,” he said.


Richard E. Hug, a veteran Republican fundraiser in Maryland who who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, and spear-headed the successful 2002 gubernatorial race for Bob Ehrlich that brought in a record $10 million, told Newsmax that unrounded contributions were extremely unusual.


“I’ve never seen this in all my years of raising money for political candidates,” he said. “The first thing it suggests is foreign currency transactions - contributions from foreign donors, which is clearly illegal.”


Top Republican fund-raiser Steve Gordon, who has raised $65 million for GOP candidates over the past 30 years, told Newsmax that such contributions in uneven amounts would be “pretty unusual.”


“You might have a rounding process if there was some kind of joint event, but since all appears to be on the Internet, it’s pretty unusual. At the very least, it would need to be explored.”


Labolt attributed the uneven amounts to the online “Obama store,” which sells T-shirts and other campaign items.


“Contributions made to the Obama Store often produce totals that are not exact dollar amounts,” he said.


But the campaign has never produced any accounting for proceeds from its on-line store, which virtually shut down several weeks ago after Newsmax and news organizations revealed that Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and other foreigners had made large purchases there.


The Republican National Committee has filed a complaint against the Obama campaign for “accepting prohibited contributions from foreign nationals and excessive contributions from individuals,” which incorporated reporting from Newsmax and other news organizations.


“Their responses to FEC inquiries have often been inadequate and late,” RNC general counsel Sean Cairncross told Newsmax. “


The Obama camp claims to have 2.5 million donors in all.

But until now, they have kept secret the names of the overwhelming majority of these money-givers. According to a Newsmax analysis, the Obama campaign finance records contain just 370,448 unique names.


Even accounting for common names such as Robert Taylor or Michael Brown, which can signify multiple donors,
Obama’s publicly-known donor base is less than twenty percent of the total number of donors the campaign claims to have attracted. But the identity of the other two million donors is being kept secret.


As of the end of August, those secret donors have given an incredible $222.7 million to Obama, according to the FEC – money whose origin remains unknown to anyone other than Obama’s finance team, who won’t take calls from the press.


While no exact figures are available, if the same percentage of potential foreign contributions found in the itemized contribution data is applied to the total $426.9 million the Obama camp says it has taken in from individuals, this could mean that Obama is financing his presidential campaign with anywhere from $13 million to a whopping $63 million from overseas credit cards or foreign currency purchases.


The sum of all unrounded contributions in the itemized FEC filings for the Obama campaigns comes to $6,437,066.07.

That is the actual amount of money that appears to have been charged to foreign credit cards that the Obama campaign has disclosed.


If the same ratio applies to the unitemized contributions, which are again as large, then the Obama campaign may have taken as much as $13 million from foreign donors.

However, the donors who made those unrounded contributions gave a total of $31,484,584.27, meaning that as much as $63 million may have come from questionable sources.


Both presidential campaigns are required to submit detailed fund-raising reports for September on Monday.




© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
__________________

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 10-22-2008, 06:48 AM
darrels joy's Avatar
darrels joy darrels joy is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indian Springs
Posts: 5,964
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

Lost in the attention given to Obama’s Internet surge is that only a quarter of the $600 million he has raised has come from donors who made contributions of $200 or less, according to a review of his FEC reports. That is actually slightly less, as a percentage, than President Bush raised in small donations during his 2004 race, although Obama has pulled from a far larger number of donors.

Interest among major party donors grew so fevered that the Democratic Party created a separate committee to capture millions of additional dollars from individuals who had already given Obama the most the law allows and who had also anted up $28,500 to the Democratic National Committee.

The Committee for Change, created in mid-July, has become a vehicle for ultra-rich Democratic donors to distinguish themselves from the 3.1 million others who have put $600 million behind Obama’s presidential candidacy.

“We kept running into donors who had maxed out to Obama Victory who wanted to do additional money and had the capacity to do it and were eager to do it,” said Alan Kessler, a Philadelphia lawyer who recently held a fundraiser for the committee. “They asked if there were vehicles and other ways to do it, and we said yes.”

"The truth is, he is attracting more money at all levels, ranging from $1 to $2,300," said Jan Baran, a Republican fundraising expert. "We're talking about someone who raised money from 3.1 million people. I think he can validly claim a widespread base of support."

From the start, Obama's campaign has designed a fundraising effort that tries to maximize contributions from both small and large donors. That effort expanded in late summer, when Obama prepared to accept his party's nomination and the DNC set up separate committees that would enable top donors to give as much as $65,500 to support his bid.

The best-known of those committees, the Obama Victory Fund, has catered to party regulars who attended one of dozens of gala events around the country, including VIP gatherings for those able to donate $28,500. The Committee for Change has quietly accepted millions more, in checks ranging from $5,000 to $66,900, from celebrities, corporate titans, Native American tribes and several of Obama's most ardent bundlers.

They include entertainment mogul David Geffen, Baltimore Orioles owner
Peter Angelos, actress Annette Bening, the California-based Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation and members of Chicago's Crown family.

DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney said the committee will support ground operations in 18 states, including all the key battlegrounds. "It's a way for donors to give directly to the state parties' ground operation, working in the field in support of Democrats up and down the ballot," she said.

The closest equivalent to the soft-money donors of the Clinton era, or to Bush's "Pioneers" and "Rangers," are those who have contributed to each facet of the Obama fundraising machine.

Among those who have both raised top dollar and donated it are St. Louis developer Bob Clark, Florida lawyer Mark Gilbert, and Hollywood moguls Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg, whose children each gave $37,000 to the Committee for Change.

The Crowns, longtime Obama patrons, are among a handful who have given across the board: They raised more than $500,000 for Obama's campaign, they collectively gave $18,500 directly to the campaign, they donated $57,000 to the Victory Fund, and they sent $74,000 to the Committee for Change.

"By both raising the most money and donating to every committee, they become double big players," said Fred Wertheimer, a campaign finance advocate who helped lead the effort to rid politics of soft-money donors, who were allowed to give unlimited amounts. "This has become the newest form of problem money."
__________________

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-22-2008, 07:01 AM
darrels joy's Avatar
darrels joy darrels joy is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indian Springs
Posts: 5,964
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

Obama Ignores Credit Card Donation Fraud





What do Bart Simpson, Family Guy, Daffy Duck, King Kong, O.J. Simpson and Raela Odinga have in common?

All are celebrities; and with the exception of Odinga and O.J. Simpson, they also are fictional characters. And yet, all of them gave money earlier this month to the campaign of Barack Obama, without any apparent effort by the campaign to screen them out as suspect donors.

The Obama fundraising machine may owe its sensational success in part to a relaxation of standard online merchant security practices, which has allowed illegal donations from foreign donors and from unknown individuals using anonymous “gift” cards, industry analysts and a confidential informant tell Newsmax.

An ongoing Newsmax investigation into the Obama campaign’s finance reports has exposed multiple instances of campaign finance violations and has been cited in a formal complaint to the Federal Election Commission filed by the Republican National Committee on Oct. 6.

Though many of the known violations include donations in excess of the $2,300 per election limit on individual contributions and contributions from foreign nationals, the extent of the amount of fraud is hidden because of a loophole in federal election law.

Campaigns are not required to disclose contributors who donate less than $200 -- and Obama’s campaign refuses to release their names, addresses and donation amounts. Obama has collected a staggering $603.2 million. Most of the money -- $543.3 million -- has come from individual contributors, half of it from “small” donors Obama won’t disclose.

The Obama campaign has turned a blind eye to the possibility of donor fraud. During the heated primary battle with Hillary Clinton, the Obama campaign “turned off” many of the security features on its online donor page, allowing any person with a valid credit card number to donate using any name or address. Typically, card merchants require a cardholder’s name to match critical personal details, such as an address or, at the least, a ZIP code.

Though in recent months the Obama campaign has tightened up security and restored some of the security features used by merchants to weed out fraud, it still has left open easy ways for potential credit card fraud, including techniques similar to those employed by terrorists and drug traffickers to launder illicit funds.

For example, on Oct. 14, an individual using the name “O.J. Simpson” participated in Obama’s latest small-donor fundraising drive, making a $5 donation through the campaign’s Web site.

Giving a Los Angeles address, he listed his employer as the “State of Nevada” and his occupation as “convict.” The donor used a disposable “gift” credit card to make the donation.

The Obama campaign sent O.J. a thank-you note confirming his contribution, and gave him the name of another donor who had agreed to “match” his contribution.

Four minutes earlier, an individual using the name “Raela Odinga” also made a $5 contribution, using the same credit card.


The real Raela Odinga became prime minister of Kenya in April and has claimed to be a cousin of Obama’s through a maternal uncle.

Obama donor “Raela Odinga” listed his address as “2007 Stolen Election Passage” in “Nairobi, KY.” This credit card donation raised no alarm bells in the Obama campaign.

A few minutes earlier, “Daffy Duck” gave $5 to the Obama matching campaign, listing his address as “124 Wacky Way, Beverly Hills, Calif.”

But just as with Odinga’s address, the “Wacky Way” address failed to raise any alarm bells or security traps on the Obama Web site. Daffy Duck also used the same credit card.

Within the hour, three other new donors gave $5 to the Obama campaign. They were:

Bart Simpson, of 333 Heavens Gate, Beverly Hills, Calif.

Family Guy, of 128 KilltheJews Alley, Gaza, GA.

King Kong, of 549 Quinn Street, Capitol Heights, Md.

Newsmax learned of these contributions, which were all made on a single $25 Visa gift card (yes, the total was $30), from a source that requested anonymity.

Calling himself “Bart Simpson,” the tipster said he had been following the Newsmax investigation of Obama’s campaign finance irregularities “with great interest,” and believed that some of the small donations were coming from gift cards -- “you know, the type of disposable debit card you can pick up at Rite-Aid or just about any supermarket.”
[See: Obama Campaign Runs Afoul of Finance Rules]


“I tried it myself a few days ago,” he said. “I’m attaching for you proof of the contributions I made in the names of Daffy Duck, Bart Simpson, Raela Odinga and Family Guy.

“What this means is that the Obama campaign does no verification of the name of the contributor. With a normal credit card, this wouldn’t wor[k], but with these disposable debit cards, no problem!

“This needs to be exposed,” he said.

The tipster attached the confirmation pages from the Obama Web site showing the names of the donors, and in some cases, the names of other Obama donors who had agreed to “match” their contributions.

None of the matching donors’ names appears in the Obama campaign’s public disclosures to the FEC.

Other donors with clearly fictitious names revealed previously by Newsmax, The Los Angeles Times and blogger Pamela Geller (“Atlas Shrugs”) include “Dertey Poiiuy,” “Mong Kong,” “Fornari USA” and “jkbkj Hbkjb.”

Five major companies process the bulk of all credit card transactions made in the United States, industry insiders tell Newsmax. The Obama campaign paid one of them, Chase Paymentech, just over $2 million to process its online transactions.

“We never discuss our relationships with any of our merchants, or customers we work with,” James Wester, a spokesman for Chase Paymentech, told Newsmax.

Newsmax asked whether Chase Paymentech had any security feature that would allow it to identify individuals making contributions using gift cards, but Wester declined to comment.

But other industry analysts, who asked not to be identified by name because of the sensitive nature of the issue, told Newsmax that processors could track gift cards and debit cards “only by the numbers on the cards.”

“There are no names associated with these cards, so as a processor, you have no way of knowing who made the transaction,” one industry analyst said.

Anyone can go into a supermarket or a Rite-Aid and buy a batch of these cards with cash, so there is no trace of the transaction, he added.

“It’s like walk-around money. They could be handing these things out as perks” to newly registered voters or others, “and there’s no way of tracing who is using them.”

Ken Boehm, a lawyer with 30 years of experience in campaign finance law, said that such contributions were clearly illegal.

“Making a contribution in the name of another person is the only part of federal election law that actually carries a criminal penalty,” he told Newsmax. Boehm is the CEO of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.

The Obama campaign has paid Synetech Group Inc. of Charlottesville, Va., close to $2 million to compile all of the campaign contribution data from online contributors, bundlers, telemarketers, campaign events and direct-mail campaigns, and process it for submission to the FEC.

The sheer scope of the Obama fundraising juggernaut was “never contemplated by the FEC,” a company official told Newsmax, asking not to be quoted by name.

“It’s a lot of data. You’re talking 7 million contributions,” he said.

The campaign itself is responsible for screening out fraudulent donors, not Synetech, he said. “I’ve been doing this for 30 years, and this is as well-managed as any [campaign]. It’s just huge. When it’s this big, any little thing becomes something more than it is.”

One of the biggest problems the campaign faces is fraud, he said. “It’s a colossal problem. They’re paying the campaign with other people’s money.”

Individuals such as “Doodad Pro” and “Good Will” who made hundreds of contributions to the campaign in excess of the legal limits were not working for the campaign, but for themselves, he insisted.

“It’s all fraud. They do it for kicks. Or they’re testing the cards. The campaign doesn’t want this. Why on earth do they want to have all these messy little transactions? It’s a colossal pain.”

However, the campaign itself has solicited these “messy little transactions” in numerous e-mails to supporters.

For instance, just days before the Democratic National Convention in Denver, campaign manager David Plouffe sent an e-mail to supporters, asking them to “make a donation of $5 or more before midnight this Thursday, July 31st, and you could go backstage with Barack.”

Since them, the campaign has run several small donation drives, claiming to “match” donations of $5, $10 or $25 with an equal amount for a previous donor.

Newsmax put a series of questions to the Obama campaign more than a week ago in preparation for this article, such as whether its Internet contribution system automatically matches a donor’s name and address to their credit card number, as is common industry practice with online stores.

Newsmax also asked if the campaign uses a similar security screen to match a donor’s name and address to the card number when the donor uses a debit card or a gift card.

Despite multiple requests from Newsmax, the Obama campaign declined to comment for this story.








© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/oba...21/142761.html
__________________

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-25-2008, 08:52 PM
darrels joy's Avatar
darrels joy darrels joy is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indian Springs
Posts: 5,964
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

Obama Camp Continues Mega-Million$$$ Campaign Donation Fraud-- Door Still Open!



While the American media continues to focus on what Sarah Palin is wearing the Barack Obama Campaign continues to pull off the largest campaign donation fraud in history.

By turning off their Address Verification System, or AVS, at the Obama website, the Democratic candidate was able to raise a record $150 million in donations last month from millions of donors from all over the world.

Here's more proof that the Obama Camp is still cheating and accepting donations from anyone anywhere in the world!

This just came in the mailbox:

Rezko Donation Entered at Obama Campaign website:

Jim,

It took a few days to confirm, but as of this morning all four charges have posted to my CC account (see attached). Remember, these were all separate donations made by:

John Galt
Saddam Hussein
Osama Bin Laden
Bill Ayers

And I have the screenshots to prove it. Also, I made another attempt this morning to make a $10 donation under the name Tony Rezko (See attached.) And it went thru again. So reports that this has been fixed are erroneous.

Further, last night on Sheppard Smith’s 3pm-ET show this issue was brought up briefly and they cited the Obama campaign falsely claiming that this sort of thing happens at the McCain site and that they catch these errors later in the processing. Well, it took three days to process my donations and they all skated through their rigorous screening.

C.
Rezko Donation Accepted by Obama Campaign:


Rezko Donation Charged to Credit Card:


Power Line has more on Obama's massive fraud.

Here's more from C.--
It’s clear to me that Obama has a sophisticated system that could easily flag and reject these donations if they wished to do so. The fact that only one of my donations showed up on my CC statement within the first 24-hrs initially gave me pause that they were screening for fraud (even though I gave a completely fake address that didn’t match my card). However, when the other three donations showed up three days later, it only confirmed my worst suspicions.

A major part of what I do is analyze and digest website traffic statistics on individual websites and sort thru in the most miniscule of detail; new visitors, browser type, sales transactions, email addresses etc. This is WebStuff 101. And even the most basic Web-Analytics and database tools would allow Obama to reject these phony donations before they occur, as the McCain site does.

Further, it’s laughable that the Obama camp claim it’s too complicated to make their under-$200 donor information available. Again, even the most basic Web-Analytics and database tools would allow the Obama camp to make this info available the way McCain does. This openness, on McCain’s part, enabled the AP to finally find something worthy of reporting on the issue:
“The McCain Campaign website also lists 23 anonymous contributions in excess of fifty dollars, despite the legal requirement to maintain the name and address of each contributor any amount in excess of $50, and dozens of additional donors who provided incomplete information.”
The info is easily available if you try. But Obama isn’t trying, and in fact has enabled the fraud to occur. This is a clear case of facilitation of fraud. As others have reported:

“I]n order to accept donations from "Della Ware" and "Saddam Hussein" et al, the Obama website had, intentionally, to disable all the default security settings on their credit-card processing. I took a look at the inner sanctum of my (alas, far more modest) online retail operation this afternoon and, in order to permit fraud as easy as that which the Obama campaign is facilitating, you have to uncheck every single box on the AVS system, each one of which makes it very explicit just what you're doing - ie, accepting transactions with no "billing address", no "street address" match, no "zip code" match, with a bank "of non-US origin" (I've got nothing against those, but a US campaign fundraiser surely should be wary), etc. When you've disabled the whole lot one step at a time, then you've got a system tailor-made for fake names and bogus addresses.”

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...a-million.html
__________________

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-25-2008, 08:54 PM
darrels joy's Avatar
darrels joy darrels joy is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indian Springs
Posts: 5,964
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

National Journal Makes Illegal Contributions To Campaigns, Obama Accepts McCain Doesn’t

By Rob on October 25, 2008 at 01:57 pm

Surprise, surprise.
Someone does think Obama’s fraudulent campaign finance practices are a more important story than Palin’s wardrobe.
To test the campaigns’ practices, this author bought two pre-paid American Express gift cards worth $25 each to donate to the Obama and McCain campaigns online. As required by law, the campaigns’ Web sites asked for, and National Journal provided, the donor’s correct name, location and employment. The cards were purchased with cash at a Washington, D.C., drugstore, and the campaigns’ Web sites were accessed through a public computer at a library in Fairfax County, Virginia.

The Obama campaign’s Web site accepted the $25 donation, but the McCain campaign’s Web site rejected it.
Rebecca Donatelli, president of Campaigns Solutions of Alexandria, Va., which processes donations for John McCain, said her system rejected the donation because American Express could not verify that the donor lived at the address given with the online contribution…

“We could lower our standards and accept more money… but this is John McCain’s campaign, and he wants to root out fraud in fundraising and have everything open and as honest as possible,” said Donatelli.
Something needs to be done about this and quick. If Obama wins the White House it’s not going to matter how much fraudulent cash he took in. He’ll be in, and with impeachment proceedings unlikely to get much traction in a Democrat-controlled Congress nothing short of a coup would pry the fraudulent schmuck out of office.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/nat...a_accepts_mcc/
__________________

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-26-2008, 07:28 AM
darrels joy's Avatar
darrels joy darrels joy is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indian Springs
Posts: 5,964
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

WaPo, Crediting Conservative Blogs, Hits Obama (A Little) On Fraudulent Fundraising

» by Bill Dupray in: 1st Amendment, Barack Obama, Blogs, Conservatives, Corruption, Election, Media
A great example of conservative bloggers shouting the truth until somebody hears. Our post, Bombshell: Obama Neck Deep in Breaking Campaign Finance Scandal, went up on October 1, pulling from a Newsmax piece. I am sure somebody had it even earlier.
The Post gives righty bloggers the hat tip.
Concerns about anonymous donations seeping into the campaign began to surface last month, mainly on conservative blogs. Some bloggers described their own attempts to display the flaws in Obama’s fundraising program, donating under such obviously phony names as Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and reported that the credit card transactions were permitted.
There is still a huge “don’t look over here” by the Post trying to protect The One. They use the tried and true, “Both parties do it, so we need a bipartisan approach to fix it,” which is a crock, in light of the fact that McCain’s campaign (and Hillary’s, for that matter) caught essentially all of the phony stuff with the existing credit card fraud prevention programs.
And while they rough up Obama a bit, there is no discussion of the fact that the Obama campaign had to deliberately disable all of the fraud protection in order to accept a these phony donations.
While the potentially fraudulent or excessive contributions represent about 1 percent of Obama’s staggering haul, the security challenge is one of several major campaign-finance-related questions raised by the Democrat’s fundraising juggernaut. . . .

Obama officials said it should be obvious that it is as much in their campaign’s interest as it is in the public’s interest for fake contributions to be turned back [biggest lie ever], and said they have taken pains to establish a barrier to prevent them. Over the course of the campaign, they said, a number of additional safeguards have been added to bulk up the security of their system.

In a paper outlining those safeguards, provided to The Washington Post, the campaign said it runs twice-daily sweeps of new donations, looking for irregularities. Flagged contributions are manually reviewed by a team of lawyers, then cleared or refunded. Reports of misused credit cards lead to immediate refunds.
If Obama has raised more than $600 million so far, then 1% (and when you add in all of the illegal foreign contributions, the tainted amout is much higher than that), is $6 million. Well, McCain only had $86 million in matching funds for the general election, so Obama fraud money is 7% of McCain’s total.

The thugs in the Obama camp know that campaign finance irregularities are never investigated until after the election is over. The message to Chicago politicians is crystal clear: Cheat and lie as much as you can, raise as much money from any source to win the thing, and we will have it “investigated” once our guy is the President.
http://patriotroom.com/?p=3379
__________________

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-27-2008, 08:08 AM
darrels joy's Avatar
darrels joy darrels joy is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indian Springs
Posts: 5,964
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

Bob Kerrey isn’t happy with secretive Obama fundraising

For a long time, I’ve said Bob Kerrey dropped out of the 1992 presidential race too early. He’s the Democratic Kerrey who should have been president.

As an independent thinker and practical liberal, the former senator from Nebraska always has been able to ignore the Democratic Party orthodoxy and look at the facts.

Now Kerrey is at it again, pointing out that Barack Obama is opening a Pandora’s Box by becoming the first presidential candidate since Watergate not to accept public financing for his campaign, by taking hundreds of millions of dollars in potentially untraceable contributions, and by not immediately releasing the names of all his contributors.

If it were McCain. Kerrey, currently president of the New School, says no Republican could have done that and escaped general condemnations in the press.
“There’s a liberal bias. There’s a preference for Obama and it’s getting underreported as a result. …

“If this thing was running the other way, if Obama was taking the public money and McCain had opted out and raised $150 million in September, do you think The New York Times would have an editorial against it?”
Again, I say it’s not a liberal bias. It’s a Democratic Party bias. But I understand too clearly what Kerrey is saying.

Broken pledge. Obama pledged in September 2007 that he would accept public financing for his campaign if McCain also accepted it. McCain accepted it. But eight months ago, Obama calculated he could collect much more cash privately, and he broke his pledge.

Obama’s move may have introduced a new virus into the already troubled political process. Four years from now, we may discover it has produced a very ugly disease.

Frank Warner
http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_...rrey-isnt.html
__________________

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-27-2008, 06:51 PM
darrels joy's Avatar
darrels joy darrels joy is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indian Springs
Posts: 5,964
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

National Right to Work Podcast - Episode 2: Big Labor's Political Spending Machine At Full Tilt

Fri, 10/24/2008 - 12:05 — Will Collins Episode 2 of the Foundation's weekly podcast is now available online for download.
Foundation VP Stefan Gleason discusses union politics and Big Labor's massive fundraising apparatus with Stanley Greer, program director at the National Institute for Labor Relations Research. Greer pegs the amount of money (largely funded with dues collected under from workers forced to pay) that Big Labor will be spending on this election at $1.2 billion or more, and explains the many ways union bosses funnel money to their hand-picked candidates. Listen here:

__________________


Last edited by darrels joy; 10-29-2008 at 11:19 AM.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-29-2008, 08:46 AM
darrels joy's Avatar
darrels joy darrels joy is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indian Springs
Posts: 5,964
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

Obama Shrugged

Shining a light on the Obama fundraising machine
http://obamashrugged.com/
__________________

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-30-2008, 09:34 AM
MORTARDUDE's Avatar
MORTARDUDE MORTARDUDE is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 6,849
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default

The Columbia World of Quotations. 1996.


NUMBER: 30729
QUOTATION: I sincerely believe ... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.
ATTRIBUTION: Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), U.S. president. Letter, May 28, 1816, to political philosopher and senator John Taylor, whose book An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States (1814) had argued against the harmful effects of finance capitalism.
BIOGRAPHY: Columbia Encyclopedia
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OpenSecrets.org Money, Money, Money darrels joy Political Debate 0 10-02-2008 10:08 AM
U.N.: Where's The Tsunami Money? David United Nations 1 05-16-2005 06:13 PM
Re: money DLovick195 General 0 02-21-2004 11:05 AM
Love Of Money Is The Root Of All Evil: And In America, Ignorance Of Money Runs Second MORTARDUDE Political Debate 0 12-14-2003 02:49 PM
Follow the Money: Bush, 9/11, and Deep Threat MORTARDUDE Political Debate 0 12-13-2003 12:22 PM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.