Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
I would say that there is a 99.9% chance of some type of fundraising scandal post election.

We know he took money from people in the Gaza strip, he gave the ones they found back.

We know there have been numerous reports of donations being made with stolen credit card numbers, again refunded.

We know, if you read the right wing media, that he has disabled basic fraud protection mechanisms on his fund raising sight. TONS of information about that floating around. People named Osama Bin Laden with address such Afghanistan etc making donations. In short, Obama does not compare the credit card info to the info given by the donor to see if they match. This opens up ALL kinds of fraud issues.

And now we know that he allows people to use prepaid credit cards to make donations. There is NO way to track these donations. I could go out today and buy $5000 in prepaid Visas and donate it all to Obama and no one would ever find me.

I think post election we need to look at fund raising laws and tighten them up greatly in order to prevent some of the above things from happening in the future.
Washington Post
Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.

Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

The Obama organization said its extensive review has ensured that the campaign has refunded any improper contributions, and noted that Federal Election Commission rules do not require front-end screening of donations.

In recent weeks, questionable contributions have created headaches for Obama's accounting team as it has tried to explain why campaign finance filings have included itemized donations from individuals using fake names, such as Es Esh or Doodad Pro. Those revelations prompted conservative bloggers to further test Obama's finance vetting by giving money using the kind of prepaid cards that can be bought at a drugstore and cannot be traced to a donor.

The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions.

"They have opened the floodgates to all this money coming in," said Sean Cairncross, chief counsel to the Republican National Committee. "I think they've made the determination that whatever money they have to refund on the back end doesn't outweigh the benefit of taking all this money upfront."

The Obama campaign has shattered presidential fundraising records, in part by capitalizing on the ease of online giving. Of the $150 million the senator from Illinois raised in September, nearly $100 million came in over the Internet.

Lawyers for the Obama operation said yesterday that their "extensive back-end review" has carefully scrubbed contributions to prevent illegal money from entering the operation's war chest. "I'm pretty sure if I took my error rate and matched it against any other campaign or comparable nonprofit, you'd find we're doing very well," said Robert Bauer, a lawyer for the campaign. "I have not seen the McCain compliance staff ascending to heaven on a cloud."

The Obama team's disclosures came in response to questions from The Washington Post about the case of Mary T. Biskup, a retired insurance manager from Manchester, Mo., who turned up on Obama's FEC reports as having donated $174,800 to the campaign. Contributors are limited to giving $2,300 for the general election.

Biskup, who had scores of Obama contributions attributed to her, said in an interview that she never donated to the candidate. "That's an error," she said. Moreover, she added, her credit card was never billed for the donations, meaning someone appropriated her name and made the contributions with another card.

When asked whether the campaign takes steps to verify whether a donor's name matches the name on the credit card used to make a payment, Obama's campaign replied in an e-mail: "Name-matching is not a standard check conducted or made available in the credit card processing industry. We believe Visa and MasterCard do not even have the ability to do this.

"Instead, the campaign does a rigorous comprehensive analysis of online contributions on the back end of the transaction to determine whether a contribution is legitimate."

Juan Proaño, whose technology firm handled online contributions for John Edwards's presidential primary campaign, and for John F. Kerry's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2004, said it is possible to require donors' names and addresses to match those on their credit card accounts. But, he said, some campaigns are reluctant to impose that extra layer of security.

"Honestly, you want to have the least amount of hurdles in processing contributions quickly," Proaño said.

Sen. John McCain's campaign has also had questionable donations slip through.

Dan Pfeiffer, Obama's communication's director, said that "no organization can fully insulate itself from these problems. The McCain campaign has accepted contributions from fraudulent contributors like 'A for You,' 'Adorable Manabat,' 'The Gun Shop,' and 'Jesus II' and hundreds of anonymous donors."

But R. Rebecca Donatelli, who handles online contributions for the McCain operation and the RNC, said security measures have been standard in the GOP nominee's fundraising efforts throughout the campaign. She said she was "flabbergasted" to learn that the Obama campaign accepts prepaid cards.

"Yes, a gift card would go through the same process as a regular credit card and be subject to our same back-end review," the Obama campaign said in its response to questions about the use of such cards.

Campaign finance lawyers said there is a long history of debate within the FEC about how to ensure that donors use their own credit cards.

Election lawyer Brett Kappel said the FEC has never grappled with the question of cash cards. "The whole system is set up for them to accept the payment, then determine whether it is legal or not. And if it's not, send it back. That's what the statute requires," he said.
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,030
5,319
136
Make sure your next worthless thread is titled:
"Sen. John McCain's campaign has also had questionable donations slip through. "

directly from your quote.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
4
0
Yeah, like Obama really needed that last few million in "questionable" funds.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
he gave back the money of the ones that were discovered.

as for the donations not discovered he is going to keep the money, until they are discovered.

but if they aren't discovered...I guess that means Obama is accepting illegal donations.

to me, it means that weeding out the illegal donations leads to refunding those donations.

What more do you want?

Is he actively seeking out illegal donors? If so, and IF it can be substantiated with actual evidence and not rumors, then there is a problem.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

I would say that there is a 99.9% chance of some type of fundraising scandal post election.

I would say there's an even greater chance that you're out of lies, distractions and deceptions, and you're down to grasping desperately at any straws you can find or invent.

PJ -- You're Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal have devastated our nation and the world, politically, socially and economically for almost eight years. The American people are beyond tired and beyond pissed at the damage they've done.

We will NOT allow your two faced, lying jackass wannabe and his brain dead jillass vice wannabe to continue along the path of their tragic legacy. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,056
27,785
136
Since the McCain campaign also let questionable donations through we are just dicking around about the amount?

This thread is so worthless I'm not even going to respond....ooops!
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

I would say that there is a 99.9% chance of some type of fundraising scandal post election.

I would say there's an even greater chance that you're out of lies, distractions and deceptions, and you're down to grasping desperately at any straws you can find or invent.

PJ -- You're Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal have devastated our nation and the world, politically, socially and economically for almost eight years. The American people are beyond tired and beyond pissed at the damage they've done.

We will NOT allow your two faced, lying jackass wannabe and his brain dead jillass vice wannabe to continue along the path of their tragic legacy. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:
pssst this thread has nothing to do with Bush, take your crazy rambling elsewhere.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: techs
Yeah, like Obama really needed that last few million in "questionable" funds.

How many millions are questionable? If I give his campaign a million in pre-paid credit cards under a bunch of different aliases how are they going to know?

This is an interesting story given the unebelieavable amount of cash Obama has raised.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: techs
Yeah, like Obama really needed that last few million in "questionable" funds.

How many millions are questionable? If I give his campaign a million in pre-paid credit cards under a bunch of different aliases how are they going to know?

This is an interesting story given the unebelieavable amount of cash Obama has raised.

It's also interesting to note that McCain has "untraceable" donations, too.

John's post is pretty misleading.
 

Aharami

Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
21,294
148
106
Please edit your thread title to include the bit about McCain letting questionable donations through. Otherwise please slap on a "partisan hack" sticker on your forehead
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,030
5,319
136
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Make sure your next worthless thread is titled:
"Sen. John McCain's campaign has also had questionable donations slip through. "

directly from your quote.

Johnny? Hello?....
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: techs
Yeah, like Obama really needed that last few million in "questionable" funds.

How many millions are questionable? If I give his campaign a million in pre-paid credit cards under a bunch of different aliases how are they going to know?

This is an interesting story given the unebelieavable amount of cash Obama has raised.

It's also interesting to note that McCain has "untraceable" donations, too.

John's post is pretty misleading.

Ok? So you dont have a problem with entities outside the United States funding presidential candidates?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Thread title is based on the title of the Washington Post. Complain to them if you have a problem.

BTW the post endorsed Obama. AND McCain has basic security measures on his web site, Obama does not.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,531
2
81
for the first time in recent history the Dems have a lot more to spend than the GOP does - and now they cry about it?

Care to wager that some Arab money helped fund GWB's campaign activities?

Nothing new here - more desperation, that's all.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Thread title is based on the title of the Washington Post. Complain to them if you have a problem.

BTW the post endorsed Obama. AND McCain has basic security measures on his web site, Obama does not.

They dont care, they have a perfect duhversion. But but but John McCain does it too!
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,432
6,090
126
A lot of people who make a living f@cking America are going out of business. They will do everything they can to keep Obama from being elected or governing once he's in office. Pigs at a trough aren't easy to push away.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Thread title is based on the title of the Washington Post. Complain to them if you have a problem.

BTW the post endorsed Obama. AND McCain has basic security measures on his web site, Obama does not.

They dont care, they have a perfect duhversion. But but but John McCain does it too!

Why should we care? We already know where this is going, he's being funded by Hezbollah right?

Sorry don't give a flying fuck.
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,030
5,319
136
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Thread title is based on the title of the Washington Post. Complain to them if you have a problem.

BTW the post endorsed Obama. AND McCain has basic security measures on his web site, Obama does not.

They dont care, they have a perfect duhversion. But but but John McCain does it too!

Not so much a duhversion, but a, pull your lips off of mccains ass long enough to realize that the title was clearly implying mccain is clean and obama is not.
 

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,622
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Thread title is based on the title of the Washington Post. Complain to them if you have a problem.

BTW the post endorsed Obama. AND McCain has basic security measures on his web site, Obama does not.

They dont care, they have a perfect duhversion. But but but John McCain does it too!

It isn't that people don't care. The problem is that certain people are flailing so pathetically and posting anything they can possibly find to attempt to smear Obama that it is hard to take it seriously. Should I go collect 50 accusations against John McCain and expect each person on the forum to defend it? People are sick of this crap. If Obama knowingly did something wrong, then prove it, otherwise , please, just get a grip on yourself.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Thread title is based on the title of the Washington Post. Complain to them if you have a problem.

BTW the post endorsed Obama. AND McCain has basic security measures on his web site, Obama does not.

They dont care, they have a perfect duhversion. But but but John McCain does it too!

That is not a diversion. It is a more objective analysis to identify that both candidates have accepted questionable donations and therefore there needs to be something done in the future to clamp down on this illegal activity.

It is more subjective (and partisan) to simply point the finger at one candidate and not both of them.

That isn't a diversion, that is more like cleaning up the partisan messy diapers that PJ likes to leave in his posts.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: retrospooty
bah...

Desperation thread # 1 of 10/29/08. I give it a 4 on a 10 scale.

NEXT!

Exactly. If there are loopholes both sides have access to them and they should be fixed. I can't wait until > 11/4/08.
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,030
5,319
136
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Thread title is based on the title of the Washington Post. Complain to them if you have a problem.

BTW the post endorsed Obama. AND McCain has basic security measures on his web site, Obama does not.

They dont care, they have a perfect duhversion. But but but John McCain does it too!

That is not a diversion. It is a more objective analysis to identify that both candidates have accepted questionable donations and therefore there needs to be something done in the future to clamp down on this illegal activity.

It is more subjective (and partisan) to simply point the finger at one candidate and not both of them.

That isn't a diversion, that is more like cleaning up the partisan messy diapers that PJ likes to leave in his posts.


You said it alot more eloquently that I did, thank you.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Originally posted by: OrByte
It is more subjective (and partisan) to simply point the finger at one candidate and not both of them.

That isn't a diversion, that is more like cleaning up the partisan messy diapers that PJ likes to leave in his posts.
Again, it is the Washington Post that is doing the finger pointing.

McCain may have taken some questionable donations, but he total is NOTHING compared to what may have done. Read the article, $174,800 from one person?? That is $170,500 ABOVE the federal limit. And then we learn that she did not even give the money herself, but that someone else gave it in her name. So where did the money come from?