Incompetence? Or willful disregard of campaign finance laws?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
W

WINEX_IHB

New member
<a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021856.php">http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021856.php</a>



Who is John Galt?

Share Post Print

October 23, 2008 Posted by Scott at 6:52 AM



We've previously noted the gusher of illegal campaign contributions flowing into the Obama campaign from contributors such as "Doodad Pro" and "Good Will." More recently, incidents have been reported in which people have seen credit card charges surface suggesting they donated to Barack Obama when they did not. Matthew Mosk and Sarah Cohen noted one such incident earlier this week:



Now comes the story of Mary T. Biskup, of Manchester, Missouri. Biskup got a call recently from the Obama campaign, which was trying to figure out why she donated $174,800 to the campaign -- well over the contribution limit of $2,300.



The answer she gave them was simple. "That's an error."



Is the Obama campaign knowingly receiving illegal contributions? Yesterday one of our readers reported the results of an experiment he conducted:



I've read recent reports of the Obama campaign receiving donations from dubious names and foreign locales and it got me wondering: How is this possible?



I run a small Internet business and when I process credit cards I'm required to make sure the name on the card exactly matches the name of the customer making the purchase. Also, the purchaser's address must match that of the cardholders. If these don't match, then the payment isn't approved. Period. So how is it possible that the Obama campaign could receive donations from fictional people and places? Well, I decided to do a little experiment. I went to the Obama campaign website and entered the following:



Name: John Galt

Address: 1957 Ayn Rand Lane

City: Galts Gulch

State: CO

Zip: 99999



Then I checked the box next to $15 and entered my actual credit card number and expiration date (it didn't ask for the 3-didgit code on the back of the card) and it took me to the next page and... "Your donation has been processed. Thank you for your generous gift."



This simply should not, and could not, happen in any business or any campaign that is honestly trying to vet it's donors. Also, I don't see how this could possibly happen without the collusion of the credit card companies. They simply wouldn't allow any business to process, potentially, hundreds of millions in credit card transactions where the name on the card doesn't match the purchasers name.



In short, with the system set up as it is by the Obama camp, an individual could donate unlimited amounts of money by simply making up fake names and addresses. And Obama is doing his best to facilitate this fraud. This is truly scandalous.



Our reader was not yet done. He tried the experiment on the McCain site: "I tried the exact same thing at the McCain site and it didn't allow the transaction." He then repeated the experiment at the Obama site:



I went back to the Obama site and made three additional donations using the names Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Bill Ayers, all with different addresses. All the transactions went through using the same credit card. I saved screenshots of the transactions.



Our reader reports, incidentally, that he was using his MasterCard for the contributions. We submit this report in the spirit of inquiry and would especially appreciate hearing from readers who can illuminate how credit card procedures might (or might not) allow this to happen.



UPDATE: Readers have replicated the experiment reported in this post. We will have to revisit the issue tonight or tomorrow and appreciate any information you can provide in the meantime.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1224817662]So then you think the Obama campaign is simply incompetent...</blockquote>


"I neither admit nor deny what you just said" - MO of the Obama campaign



It's pretty laughable.
 
From <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/01/obama-defends-natural-disaster-experience/"> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/01/obama-defends-natural-disaster-experience/</a>



In an interview on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 Monday night, Obama was asked about whether his experience in the U.S. Senate dealing with weather-related situations compares to Palin?s executive experience running the state of Alaska and as the small town mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.



?My understanding is that Gov. Palin?s town, Wassilla, has I think 50 employees. We've got 2500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe 12 million dollars a year ? we have a budget of about three times that just for the month,? Obama responded.



Our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the past couple of years.
 
So your point is that due to the way the campaign's web site handles credit card transactions, Obama should not be President? Wow, that seems desperate.
 
Hey WINEX



See the latest on the Electoral Vote site ?

<a href="http://www.electoral-vote.com/">http://www.electoral-vote.com/</a>



Maybe the RNC should have bought Palin some more sexy outfits.

So much for the Hockey Mom shopping at WalMart.
 
[quote author="T!m" date=1224826082]So your point is that due to the way the campaign's web site handles credit card transactions, Obama should not be President? Wow, that seems desperate.</blockquote>


According to Obama himself, running his campaign is the executive experience that he has that qualifies him for the job.



Of course he only served in the Senate for about two years before he hit the campaign trail, so he really doesn't have much of a resume. It's not surprising that he would say something like that.



But whether or not it is incompetence or malice, it is clear that he is violating campaign finance laws.
 
[quote author="T!m" date=1224826082]So your point is that due to the way the campaign's web site handles credit card transactions, Obama should not be President? Wow, that seems desperate.</blockquote>


No, the point is, black people are horrible with money. Btw, I'm going to email Scott and thank him for his generosity.
 
I think they should make sure they are following the law when processing transactions. I also think the guy who write this committed some type of fraud by using a fake name to charge to his credit card company. I wonder if he will turn himself in.



For this to be a valid study, the author needs to compare it to other web sites. He should also try this with McCain's web site. Oh, and maybe he should try Amazon, too. In fact, he should try to buy copies of IR's book with different names - say 100 different names, just to be safe.
 
He did try it on McCain's site and the transaction was rejected.



Had he been using a credit card that wasn't his own, it would be fraud.



The only fraud being committed is by the Obama campaign.
 
So is the problem that the credit card was actually charged, or that the campaign website displayed a "thank you" message before the transaction had actually been processed?



I would honestly like to know if the charges actually went through, or if the web developer just made it look like it did.
 
[quote author="caycifish" date=1225024311]So is the problem that the credit card was actually charged, or that the campaign website displayed a "thank you" message before the transaction had actually been processed?



I would honestly like to know if the charges actually went through, or if the web developer just made it look like it did.</blockquote>


<a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGQ0MGJiNDE1MGJiYmZjYWVlMTllYjY0MTQzODZiYWM=">The charges went through</a>
 
When they receive there statements proving the charges went through, along with any other statements that would show a refund, then I will believe this is a problem.



Of course, it is not like McCain doesn't have some strangely named and repeated donors...

<em>

Unlike Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain provides on his Web site a searchable database of all of his donors, including those who fall below the <strong>$200 threshold that the Federal Election Commission requires campaigns to itemize in their reports</strong>. The political blogger Marc Ambinder recently reported that searches of this database turned up <strong>seven contributions from someone named Jesus II of Las Vegas giving a total of $851 to Mr. McCain</strong>.



The Obama campaign pointed out that a search of the name <strong>?Anonymous, Anonymous? also turns up pages of contributions to the McCain</strong> campaign, <strong>including more than two dozen that exceed $200</strong> but for some reason <strong>do not appear in F.E.C. records</strong>. It should be pointed out that campaigns are permitted to accept donations of up to $50 in cash or anonymously. There are other odd donors that appear in searches of the McCain database but fall below the $200 threshold, including ?The Gun Shop? from Hood River, Oregon., who contributed $100 and ?Adorable Manabat? from Winnetka, Calif., who gave $200.</em>



So it is perfectly acceptable for McCain to accept and provide proof of donations of $200 or more from anonymous contributors that don't show up in F.E.C. records, but charges that have not been proven with actual bank statements from contributors to Obama under various names but the same address are campaign finance law violations? Mmm... a bit of a double standard going on here. Looks like both candidates have donation issues, however only one is not properly following F.E.C. rules.
 
Perhaps opposition nutters are responsible for making fishy donations to embarass the other side. Or, it could be just plain nutters. Either way, there are bigger issues for voters to consider.



These types of scandals are merely a "tempest in a teapot." Believe me, there are many more nefarious activities going on that you will never hear about.
 
[quote author="graphrix" date=1225035274]When they receive there statements proving the charges went through, along with any other statements that would show a refund, then I will believe this is a problem.



Of course, it is not like McCain doesn't have some strangely named and repeated donors...

<em>

Unlike Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain provides on his Web site a searchable database of all of his donors, including those who fall below the <strong>$200 threshold that the Federal Election Commission requires campaigns to itemize in their reports</strong>. The political blogger Marc Ambinder recently reported that searches of this database turned up <strong>seven contributions from someone named Jesus II of Las Vegas giving a total of $851 to Mr. McCain</strong>.



The Obama campaign pointed out that a search of the name <strong>?Anonymous, Anonymous? also turns up pages of contributions to the McCain</strong> campaign, <strong>including more than two dozen that exceed $200</strong> but for some reason <strong>do not appear in F.E.C. records</strong>. It should be pointed out that campaigns are permitted to accept donations of up to $50 in cash or anonymously. There are other odd donors that appear in searches of the McCain database but fall below the $200 threshold, including ?The Gun Shop? from Hood River, Oregon., who contributed $100 and ?Adorable Manabat? from Winnetka, Calif., who gave $200.</em>



So it is perfectly acceptable for McCain to accept and provide proof of donations of $200 or more from anonymous contributors that don't show up in F.E.C. records, but charges that have not been proven with actual bank statements from contributors to Obama under various names but the same address are campaign finance law violations? Mmm... a bit of a double standard going on here. Looks like both candidates have donation issues, however only one is not properly following F.E.C. rules.</blockquote>


Coming from you, this is no surprise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top