“John Galt” donating to Obama this year too, apparently; Update: RNC files new complaint with FEC; Update: Foreign credit cards being accepted too? Update: Ruffini cries fraud

posted at 12:50 pm on October 23, 2008 by Allahpundit

I’m ripping the content straight from Powerline. Ace actually had the story last night, but it was only a single source; PL claims in an update that other readers have replicated the experiment. Quote:

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.

The same guy claims to have tried to donate the same way on McCain’s website and had his card rejected. I’m skeptical that The One would be quite this blatant about things, but (a) at the Corner, Mark Steyn notes that the only way to get his own online merchandising vendor to bypass a name check when processing credit card information would be to modify certain security settings, and (b) this wouldn’t be the first time Team Barry’s website had dragged its feet on online donation security measures. From Ken Timmerman’s much-linked piece at Newsmax last month: “Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.” Meanwhile, in response to his earlier post on this, Geraghty receives this e-mail from an Obama supporter:

Back in August or September (not sure which) Obama’s site definitely would not take my money because I was entering my school address instead of my permanent (parent’s) one. I remember being slightly annoyed at the time. I just tried it to donate again using my school address and it went through no problem. That’s more than a bit disappointing.

Hopefully, the suspect funds will be returned. Almost 2 million was refunded just last month.

There’s definitely no excuse for this though.

Any readers willing and able to help confirm or debunk? Knowledge of online vending a plus! Also a plus: Tolerance for being called a hater or racist for questioning the security measures of a guy who famously hasn’t released any information about his many, many, many small donors. If you succeed, your reward will be watching the media pounce on this story — to find out who “John Galt” is, so that they can give him a beating Joe-the-Plumber-style.

Update: A reader tells Steyn that his donation as “JarackBoe BOamabiden” was accepted.

Update: Lots more info at Ace’s from readers who are replicating the experiment. Question: Is it possible that the website’s showing a “transaction confirmed” message before the transaction’s actually confirmed, and all these donations are being rejected later?

Update: Reader “Dale in Atlanta” says he tried it with a fake name and the transaction showed up on his credit card immediately — but marked “pending.” We’ll find out later today if it clears.

Update: Just across from the RNC:

The Republican National Committee (RNC) today filed a supplement to its complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against the Obama for America campaign addressing its acceptance of foreign national and excessive contributions, donations from unknown sources, and demonstrated lack of oversight or concern for compliance with the law. The complaint demonstrates that the Obama campaign has failed to comply with federal campaign finance law in its fundraising. RNC Chief Counsel Sean Cairncross released the following statement today concerning the supplement to the complaint:

“Based on numerous press accounts that have come to light since our initial filing in early October, it is clear that the Obama for America campaign is operating outside of the law. The complete and total lack of any control mechanisms within the Obama campaign’s fundraising operation has undermined any confidence in their ability to curtail excessive, foreign, and fraudulent contributions and demands immediate attention from the Federal Election Commission (FEC).”

Update: Here’s something a reader sent me, for what it’s worth:

I recently set up credit card processing for my startup company and the way it works is the vender (ie me, or Obama’s campaign) selects whether the info must match what is on the card. If they opt not to they accept the risk of being flagged after too many fradulent charges are reported by them to the credit card companies. Since these people are (presumably) using their actual credit card and just giving a different name to avoid the donation limits I doubt they’ll file complaints about the charges with their card company.

So the only time you would ever do this is if you know your clients really well. The only reason I can think of for Obama’s campaign to do this is to avoid the donations cap. The fact that this isn’t all over the media is truly a shame.

Update: Unbelievable. Suddenly, after multiple blog readers had their phony donations accepted and this story started percolating on right-wing blogs, the security system is magically back in place.

Update: I don’t know what happened to the guy in the last update but Flip says he successfully donated five bucks at 2:05 p.m. with the following info:

Name: Nodda Realperson
Address: 1000 This Is a Bogus Street
City/State: Neighborhood of Makebelieve, CA
Email: if.a.live.person.is.vetting.this.donation@its.fake.dont.process.it.com
Employer: Barack Obama
Occupation: Cow-Eyed Disciple

A friend e-mails to ask if anyone’s tried this with a foreign credit card to see if there’s any difference. Anyone got one?

Update: Commenter “Bombast” says his foreign credit card worked like a charm:

I have a credit card issued by a bank in Hong Kong.

I’ve just made 5 donations of $5 each using the card. I listed fake addresses in North Korea, Iran, Gaza, Venezuela and Kenya. The names and addresses were made up, each was different, I listed real Yahoo email addresses that forward to me.

Fake Name
Not A. Realperson
Finance Violation
Fraudulent Charge
Over Donation Limit

All 5 went through without a problem. I’m already being solicited for more money.

Update: One of Jonah Goldberg’s readers says he tried this at McCain’s website and was rejected.

Update: Patrick Ruffini was Bush’s web guy in 2004 and specializes in online campaign finance, so he knows what he’s talking about here. Verdict: Fraud.

The issue centers around the Address Verification Service (or AVS) that credit card processors use to sniff out phony transactions. I was able to contribute money using an address other than the one on file with my bank account (I used an address I control, just not the one on my account), showing that the Obama campaign deliberately disabled AVS for its online donors…

The end result? “Donors” like “Doodad Pro” can submit tons of donations totaling well above the $2,300 limit using different bogus addresses (this does clarify how donations from “Palestine”, or PA, got through). And the campaign has no way to reliably de-dupe these donations, besides looking at the last four digits of the credit card number, which with 3.1 million donors is an identifier that could be shared by literally hundreds of donors, and is not as easy to eyeball like a common name or address would be. The ability to contribute with a false address, when the technology to prevent it not only exists but comes standard, is a green light for fraud.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5

Surprise?

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 23, 2008 at 12:54 PM

“Fraud you can believe in”

joepub on October 23, 2008 at 12:55 PM

Obama’s so good at making money from the Internet that he ought to be making commercials with Ty Coughlin. Hell, Coughlin’s a piker compared to The One.

Mr. D on October 23, 2008 at 12:56 PM

Between this and voter registration fraud, Obama is literally trying to steal the election.

BadgerHawk on October 23, 2008 at 12:56 PM

Fellow blogsters:

PBS has an online poll asking if Palin is experienced enough. Currently, the results are neck and neck. Go and vote now! Here is the link:

http://www.pbs.org/cgi-registry/poll/poll.pl

ErinF on October 23, 2008 at 12:57 PM

You’d think with all of the security requirements that reputable businesses have to meet in order to do business online that a presidential campaign would have at least as much scrutiny.

Tacitus_SGL on October 23, 2008 at 12:58 PM

This doesn’t help….well, this actually does help Michelle Obama’s children.

jimmy the notable on October 23, 2008 at 12:58 PM

I see a real opportunity to expose this scam though multiple donations using the names of obviously dead presidents, terrorists and the like and then posting screen shots.

moxie_neanderthal on October 23, 2008 at 1:00 PM

Remember the ACORN Lady? She says,” That’s not the point”.

bloggless on October 23, 2008 at 1:00 PM

ErinF on October 23, 2008 at 12:57 PM

Here’s a working link:
http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html

jimmy the notable on October 23, 2008 at 1:00 PM

63 million in fake name and overseas donations, so far! Don’t y’all hope he will change and decide to follow the law?

Gohawgs on October 23, 2008 at 1:01 PM

The twenty million received from Hugo Chavez was thoroughly vetted, so no worries.

Bishop on October 23, 2008 at 1:03 PM

jimmy the notable on October 23, 2008 at 1:00 PM

Done :)

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 23, 2008 at 1:03 PM

You know, Obamuhhh’s new ad campaign “I am asdf asdfghjkl;” just doesn’t resonate with me….

Master Shake on October 23, 2008 at 1:04 PM

Forget waiting for the media. Dont’ we have election laws that cover this?

TexasDan on October 23, 2008 at 1:05 PM

It’d be good if the people making those ‘racist’ comments would ‘read up on John Galt’ – and Midas Mulligan for that matter. Collectivism HERE WE COME!

Joek7132 on October 23, 2008 at 1:06 PM

I suggest we form a 527 and make this into a commercial

Vashta.Nerada on October 23, 2008 at 1:06 PM

I’m a software developer and I wrote the credit card system for our online web site. The latest version of credit card merchant is here.

I would be FIRED if I failed to program these rulesbeause it could cost us our merchant license (merchant license = ability to accept MC/VISA.)

If Obama does not require the 3 digit code on the back of the card for internet transactions, he should lose his merchant status.

Here is the requirement for a remote transaction (ie, card not present such as online…the req below is only for “not present” so if in a store and you hand the card to the clerk, this rule does not apply)

3. A Remote Transaction account must be assigned a 16-digit account number, in conformance with the Standards applicable to Cards, and must be assigned a Card Validation Code 2 (CVC 2) value and an expiration or “valid through” date.

It is section 6.4.1 on page 136. If searched, I’ll bet Obama is violating all kinds of rules. And it can’t be unintentional, it must be deliberate. Everybody knows the rules and how to skirt them. But you just don’t, because if you do, you can lose your license.

JustTruth101 on October 23, 2008 at 1:06 PM

Here’s my question. Ok, the donation form said “thank you for your donation of $15.” Fine. But did the donation actually hit his credit card account? How do we know the merchant software didn’t “quietly” decline to charge the card because verification failed?

Still, this election simply underscores the need for greater transparency in the donation process, especially over the internet. The FEC should pass new rules to take effect for the 2010 races as follows:

1. All transactions must be reported to FEC, regardless of the amount, within 15 days.

2. The name and address of the donor must match the name and address on file with the credit or debit card issuer.

3. There should be a computer system in place that tallies every donor’s donations in real time, such that if a donor attempts to give over the $2,300 limit, the system will instantly reject (or lower) the donation. No more of this nonsense where the campaigns just accept whatever comes in, and then “true up” 3 months after the election with refunds for excess donations.

Outlander on October 23, 2008 at 1:06 PM

Remember the ACORN Lady? She says,” That’s not the point”.

bloggless on October 23, 2008 at 1:00 PM

Yes, because it’s for the Greater Good of the Collective.

End of Days indeed.

Rick on October 23, 2008 at 1:06 PM

The fact that “John Galt ” was used as a name with Ayn Rand’s name in the address , as an Objectivist, makes me smile.

MNDavenotPC on October 23, 2008 at 1:07 PM

Confirmed. I have screenshots.

cryptojunkie on October 23, 2008 at 1:08 PM

I

suggest we form a 527 and make this into a commercial

Vashta.Nerada on October 23, 2008 at 1:06 PM

RACIST!

Rick on October 23, 2008 at 1:08 PM

I’ll test out the system.. anyone want to give me 25 to donate? :)

DaveC on October 23, 2008 at 1:08 PM

Yes, because it’s for the Greater Good of the Collective.

End of Days indeed.

Rick on October 23, 2008 at 1:06 PM

For the Hive, for the Swarm! Glory to the Many, you are a Voice in the Choir!

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 23, 2008 at 1:08 PM

A prediction about Obama’s finances

If Obama wins any money problems the campaign has will simply disappear: access to power is, after all, highly saleable.

If he loses, however, I predict that we’ll see his wing of the democratic party undergo the biggest financial disaster anyone’s ever seen in a political party.

Here’s why: if he loses, donor fraud will become a big issue – and when some of his donors discover that lots of people who really didn’t donate are protesting charges made against their credit cards, they’ll follow suit. So if around 5% of the donations he’s collected in the last two months of the campaign turn out to have been charged illegally, another 5% turn out to have exceeded legal limits or come from ineligible donors, and 5% of legitimate donors get on the bandwagon to repudiate charges – he could be facing a 40+ million dollar shortfall.

Worse, since his campaign accepted illegal donations and contracted for television time and other campaign goods and services on the basis of those revenues, there are both bankruptcy and “proceeds of crime” issues to be considered.

On two of these issues: excess or illegal donations and donations obtained through fraudulent card use, the critical legal issue, assuming I understand this correctly, will be whether or not the campaign applied normal business practices to verify the origin and legitimacy of the payments.

I believe that the Obama campaign relies mainly on Paymentech’s “Orbital” merchant payment technology – and that technology has four main features of interest in this context:

the web payments system (software plus services) is treated as a virtual device with every customer implementation assigned a unique identifier just as if it were a physical device like the visa terminals you see in stores. That identifier enables access to the normal banking records system. As a result, the customer has immediate, on-line, access to all transactions data from the current, and six preceeding, months.

As a result the Obama campaign could trivially produce lists of donors sorted by card, date, amount – with subtotals by card holder.

It actually is possible (although deprecated and risky) to process transactions with nothing more than a card identifier (including date) and without authentication from either the AVS (Address Verification System) or CVS (Cardholder Verification System) – basically you just turn off all reasons for declining a transaction other than account verification.

This is considered poor practice, in large part because it makes it easy for people with access to other people’s card information to commit theft, and the Paymentech people certainly would have warned the Obama campaign against doing this.

the system automatically warns of same day duplicated transactions with user selectable parameters governing what has to be duplicated to count – so it’s easy to set it to warn if the same card number is used with more than one address or name even if you choose not to use any of the available security checks (AVS/CVS/CID/CVV2/CVC -a whole bowl of alphabet soup) before accepting a transaction.

In other words, the Obama campaign would have to willingly ignore or bypass automated alarms if someone made multiple donations on the same card on the same day.

Merchants have the option of either creating or updating a user profile when a card is used on their site (or in their store). These profiles include (from AVS and other sources) the customer’s name; address; card type and number; along with the transactions amounts and unique IDs.

In other words, just about everything the FEC requires could be produced through some limited post processing of prepackaged reports already available from Paymentech.

Bottom line? Willfull blindness to abuse – and if he loses, that, coupled with the actual cash shortfall in the campaign, could sink everyone involved.

Paul Murphy on October 23, 2008 at 1:09 PM

WHY ARE YOU GIVING THE ONE MONEY?????

ocbrat on October 23, 2008 at 1:09 PM

GOOD INFO ALSO HERE:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/who-is-john-gal.html

Lockstein13 on October 23, 2008 at 1:09 PM

I’m skeptical that The One would be quite this blatant about things

I’m not.

CP on October 23, 2008 at 1:09 PM

I see a real opportunity to expose this scam though multiple donations ***
moxie_neanderthal on October 23, 2008 at 1:00 PM

Be careful. Making real donations to a presidential campaign with “fake” names and addresses is a crime, as I understand it, even though you are doing it to expose hypocrisy and not to confer a truly illegal benefit on a candidate.

Outlander on October 23, 2008 at 1:10 PM

Not John Galt TOO..

has the planet gone MAD?!?!?!?

DaveC on October 23, 2008 at 1:10 PM

Dude, if you’re trying to make a point about The One accepting $$$ from dead, illegal convicts, then please just make it in the amount of $.01! I certainly hope you don’t go about proving the voter fraud issue by casting votes for him!

ocbrat on October 23, 2008 at 1:11 PM

Barak is too smart. He figured out how to get conservatives to donate to him. Blatantly shoddy id verification.

Barak Obama supports campaign finance missinformation.

Tim Pancoast on October 23, 2008 at 1:11 PM

So, this also means that those stories of people discovering mysterious charges on their credit cards to the Obama campaign is completely possible.

It would be trivial to steal CC numbers for this usage since you don’t even need the correct name, address, and zip code* to process the card. You only need the CC number and expiry.

Nice one.

* you do need a valid zip code, it just doesn’t need to match the CC number. I first used 11111 and it rejected it until I used a valid zip.

cryptojunkie on October 23, 2008 at 1:11 PM

It’s racist and voter suppression to raise these points of blatant illegality.

The are no laws where Obama is concerned.

Topsecretk9 on October 23, 2008 at 1:11 PM

Not to mention the ability of ‘gift card’ credit cards to dump donations into Barry’s coffers with no ties to the givers identity whatsoever.

Soros could pick those up by the thousands and launder the money through them quite nicely.

snickelfritz on October 23, 2008 at 1:12 PM

I just donated 5 dollars under the same name and address as MR. John Galt. It was accepted.

Free Constitution on October 23, 2008 at 1:12 PM

But if you try this, Osama Obama gets another $15, right?

I don’t think it’s worth giving him any money just to prove a point the MSM — and the sheeplike multitudes — will ignore.

If given an honest audit, I suspect the Obama campaign might have taken in $20 million last month. That’s still too much for a dangerous charlatan.

MrScribbler on October 23, 2008 at 1:12 PM

Barak is too smart. He figured out how to get conservatives to donate to him. Blatantly shoddy id verification.

Barak Obama supports campaign finance missinformation.

Tim Pancoast on October 23, 2008 at 1:11 PM

Can’t these people file a complaint with the FEC?

Topsecretk9 on October 23, 2008 at 1:12 PM

Well, it’s COMPLETELY True!

I just went to the Obama website, and donated $15.00; using a fake name (Heywood Jablowmee); a completely fake address; phone number, zip code, city and state.

I also lied about my employer, my email address, etc.

The only thing I had to do, was check a box that said I was a US Citizen and I was 16 years of age.

Here is the line from my Visa Card, online, as the charge was processesed IMMEDIATELY and taken from my account:

Pending CHECKCARD 10/23 OBAMA
FOR AMERICA CHICAGO IL -$15.00

I buy extensively online: eBay/Paypal, Amazon.com; etc., etc.

I have NEVER seen this; without putting in the 3-digit Security Code from the back, and the exact, CORRECT address!

If you even come up with one digit out of place, it gets rejected!

Un-freaking-believeable!

And, no one will care!

Dale in Atlanta on October 23, 2008 at 1:13 PM

Between this and voter registration fraud, Obama is literally trying to steal the election.

BadgerHawk on October 23, 2008 at 12:56 PM

Do you think he’ll try and sneak the election out the side door stuffed down his pants while we’re not looking? Just wondering how one goes about ‘stealing’ an election….seems a tad too abstract to be meaningful.

Perhaps he’s ‘buying’ the election? I didn’t notice a price tag either. Can I buy one? Will it look good mounted over the fireplace?

LimeyGeek on October 23, 2008 at 1:13 PM

NO MORE DONATIONS — please.

Topsecretk9 on October 23, 2008 at 1:13 PM

WHY ARE YOU GIVING THE ONE MONEY?????

ocbrat on October 23, 2008 at 1:09 PM

Good point. Afterall, The One is asking for $10 from each of us. At this rate, he’s going to get it and more.

Rick on October 23, 2008 at 1:13 PM

This post has a false assumption to it.

The form online may not, in real time, validate credit cards. They may do that after the fact; and just accept any entry into that form to acquire data. That is not uncommon at all.

You’d be surprised how many companies do this; especially big companies. Each authorization is charged to the merchant account and you could easily run up a huge tab by authorizing each card immediately. Whereas, doing it as a batch saves quite a bit of money.

If the holder’s CC is actually billed; I’d be more than a little surprised.

lorien1973 on October 23, 2008 at 1:14 PM

Guys, please forgive me, but I just donated 5 bucks to Bambi’s war chest.

The scam works!

Proof first here then here.

Take it away “National Security Forces”.

I’ve fought bigger commies than you in my life.

Over.

1GooDDaDDy on October 23, 2008 at 1:14 PM

I would try it but there is no way in hell i’m donating to Barack’s campaign..

DaveC on October 23, 2008 at 1:15 PM

If the holder’s CC is actually billed; I’d be more than a little surprised.

lorien1973 on October 23, 2008 at 1:14 PM

Check out Dale in Atlanta’s post:

Here is the line from my Visa Card, online, as the charge was processesed IMMEDIATELY and taken from my account:

Pending CHECKCARD 10/23 OBAMA
FOR AMERICA CHICAGO IL -$15.00

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 23, 2008 at 1:15 PM

I work for a small publishing company. Most of our revenue is from advertising but we sell some data products online. If you want to buy from us in the middle of the night, you fill out an online form with your name, address and credit card number. If the credit card number looks like it is valid (there is a mathematical algorithm to decide whether a 16-digit number could conceivably be a credit card number) then you get a confirmation. The next business day a live person takes your data and charges your credit card through a terminal. John Galt’s payment would be rejected at that point.

So I’m not really surprised that the Obama campaign’s server accepted John Galt’s info. Maybe they are more comfortable with a live person eyeballing the info on every transaction before they make the charge. (Can’t blame them, after all, some people make donations under fake names like “John Galt”!) The real question is whether the card was successfully charged, and I doubt that.

BTW, don’t try this at home. It may not be legal to make a credit card payment under a false name.

factoid on October 23, 2008 at 1:15 PM

There was even an article in the New York Times about Obama donors putting in names and town names that looked like a blindfolded monkeyed dragging a finger across a keyboard, although the state names were correct (they probably had to choose from the 57 real states in a drop-down menu).

What if these fictitious donors actually lived in a foreign country? Are these the thousands of gibberish aliases of George Soros’ keyboard monkeys?

Wonder if this can be made into a 527 ad?

Steve Z on October 23, 2008 at 1:16 PM

1. All transactions must be reported to FEC, regardless of the amount, within 15 days.
——
3. There should be a computer system in place that tallies every donor’s donations in real time, such that if a donor attempts to give over the $2,300 limit, the system will instantly reject (or lower) the donation. No more of this nonsense where the campaigns just accept whatever comes in, and then “true up” 3 months after the election with refunds for excess donations.

Outlander on October 23, 2008 at 1:06 PM

1) There is no reason why the transaction can’t be copied to the FEC at the same time it is being completed. Real time baby.

3) Does this include cross checking for previous donations by a person with the same name and address? Shouldn’t be hard to do.

MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2008 at 1:16 PM

I HATE myself for not being smart enought to make it for $0.01; I’m a tool.

God forgive me, I just gave $15 to an Anti-American/Pro-Jihadi Anti-Semitic Anti-White Racist Marxist Muslim, who is going to destroy this country.

I feel like throwing up…

Dale in Atlanta on October 23, 2008 at 1:16 PM

This is a distraction.. lets get back to the REAL stories..

Sarah Palin and her $150,000 wardrobe..

DaveC on October 23, 2008 at 1:16 PM

Everybody should start donating under William Ayre’s name.

Rick on October 23, 2008 at 1:17 PM

ErinF on October 23, 2008 at 12:57 PM

fyi – just did it and it’s 50% yes 48% no right now.

tru2tx on October 23, 2008 at 1:17 PM

factoid on October 23, 2008 at 1:15 PM

But they’ve accepted Doodad Pro and Good Will all with fake info and no real address – that exceeded the LIMITS!

Topsecretk9 on October 23, 2008 at 1:17 PM

Rabid support of base
+Rabid support from fawning media
+Record (dubious) domestic donations
+Record (illegal) international donations
+Massive GOTV and registration efforts
+Electoral climate favoring Dems
+(lots of other stuff)
—————————–
=barely ahead in most polls, edging out cranky
old guy who has an underfunded, occasionally
sloppy campaign

innominatus on October 23, 2008 at 1:17 PM

lorien1973 on October 23, 2008 at 1:14 PM

Very good point.

However, easily determined. Those that have tested this will just need to watch their accounts.

Also, I’d like to put out there, if they are doing off-line processing of these cards, then how are donors with names like ddfhjkj getting reported into the databases?

Plus, with the amount of donations they are supposedly getting, how would it possible logistically?

cryptojunkie on October 23, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Everybody should start donating under William Ayre’s name.

Rick on October 23, 2008 at 1:17 PM

Check my earlier post. Heh.

Over.

1GooDDaDDy on October 23, 2008 at 1:19 PM

Dale in Atlanta on October 23, 2008 at 1:16 PM

no worries, call your CC company and stop payment.

cryptojunkie on October 23, 2008 at 1:19 PM

at least I donated in this name:

Heywood Jablowmee…

Small consolation for giving $15 to the Anti-Christ incarnate…

Dale in Atlanta on October 23, 2008 at 1:20 PM

oh god, this is like Christmas. Let this be real. This is our October surprise.

jimmy the notable on October 23, 2008 at 1:20 PM

Oppps, just saw your earlier post. Checkcard? What were you thinking? /s

cryptojunkie on October 23, 2008 at 1:21 PM

On the off-chance that it’s ignoring what you enter on the screen, and taking the name and address straight from the card, has anyone with a foreign credit card (with a foreign billing address) tried this?

As I recall, there are at least a few readers here that live overseas.

Tanya on October 23, 2008 at 1:21 PM

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 23, 2008 at 1:15 PM

That’s an authorization. They have to perform this check to check the AVS on the card (the CC will either reply YYY – good; NNN – bad or some mix of therein).

Pending is an authorization. Was the amount actually removed from the account?

lorien1973 on October 23, 2008 at 1:21 PM

Be careful. Making real donations to a presidential campaign with “fake” names and addresses is a crime, as I understand it, even though you are doing it to expose hypocrisy and not to confer a truly illegal benefit on a candidate.

Outlander on October 23, 2008 at 1:10 PM

And the media will tear you apart, instead of reporting on a Presidentail candidate trying to steal the election.

BadgerHawk on October 23, 2008 at 1:22 PM

Tanya on October 23, 2008 at 1:21 PM

Name on the card is only if the card is swiped. Since the testers are entering the CC numbers it doesn’t apply.

The whole idea of having to supply the name, address, etc is a protection against theft.

cryptojunkie on October 23, 2008 at 1:22 PM

On the off-chance that it’s ignoring what you enter on the screen, and taking the name and address straight from the card,

Isn’t that even stupider, as it encourages using a stolen card? And equally illegal?

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 23, 2008 at 1:22 PM

Of course they wouldn’t see this as strange. What self-respecting liberal would admit that he’s read Atlas Shrugged?

jbohanon on October 23, 2008 at 1:22 PM

Oppps, just saw your earlier post. Checkcard? What were you thinking? /s

cryptojunkie on October 23, 2008 at 1:21 PM

I’m an complete and utter dumbass!

I thought it wouldn’t work, and was just doing on a lark!

Last time I do that!

Excuse while I go into the bathroom and wretch..

Dale in Atlanta on October 23, 2008 at 1:23 PM

Call me ignoramus, but I didn’t know who John Galt is, so I did a search.
For those who don’t know, he’s a character in an Ayn Rand novel called Atlas Shrugged.

jgapinoy on October 23, 2008 at 1:23 PM

Well, here’s the thing – I worked for a timeshare rental company (NOT sales, just nightly rentals) and the owner would use dozens of individual owner accounts, with their permission. So when she went to pay the fee for the point rental, she would input their names (to match the account under Sunterra or Fairfield or wherever), but her own credit card and her own address. Her bank never questioned it, to my knowledge.

In many hotels, you just have to know the correct zipcode and the street number (not street name) to get an authorization. The 3-digit code is required almost everywhere now, as it is considered proof in lieu of your signature for a transaction by phone or internet — the theory being that only the person holding the card would actually have that code (versus all the fraud that could happen years ago when your number was listed in its entirety on a bill, for instance).

When your bank approves your credit card on an online transaction, isn’t it their policies that come into play, rather than the website’s? I think it might be an industry standard to ignore name and just check numbers and expiration dates these days.

But even with all of that said, what are the federal checks and balances to prevent the type of fraud that we suspect is happening with Obama’s donations? If we are only able to give $2,000 to a campaign, surely there are ways to monitor that, to detect fraud? Or is it a pipedream to think that a campaign is actually being watched?

eucher on October 23, 2008 at 1:24 PM

Will the site actually accept a $ .01 donation?

I suspect since it is an “other” amount that there must be some sort of human intervention/check to make sure a credit card isn’t charged 25,000 rather than $25.

moxie_neanderthal on October 23, 2008 at 1:24 PM

Pending is an authorization. Was the amount actually removed from the account?

lorien1973 on October 23, 2008 at 1:21 PM

It’s always “pending”; it will clear at midnight tonight.

I’ll report honestly if it comes back..

Dale in Atlanta on October 23, 2008 at 1:24 PM

I’m skeptical that The One would be quite this blatant about things,

After all we’ve been reading/hearing about his minions and associates??? C’mon you have GOT to be saying this tongue-in-cheek!

tru2tx on October 23, 2008 at 1:25 PM

WHY ARE YOU GIVING THE ONE MONEY?????

Because they don’t care that he’ll use it to facilitate destroying our country.

jgapinoy on October 23, 2008 at 1:25 PM

WHY ARE YOU GIVING THE ONE MONEY?????

Because they don’t care that he’ll use it to facilitate destroying our country.

jgapinoy on October 23, 2008 at 1:25 PM

I think it’s more that they didn’t think it would work.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 23, 2008 at 1:25 PM

What we need to ask Obama is…

Who is John Galt?

And then while we’re at it…

Why did you write the blurb for Ayers?
When did you discover Bill Ayers did those things?
If McCain has been in Washington too long what about Joe Biden?
Was Biden appropriate to lying to Clarence Thomas during the run up to the confirmation hearings and was that really something he would be proud of in a debate?
Why did John Edwards talk about two Americas in the DNC in 2004, the night after Obama called for a United States of America?
Doesn’t wealth redistribution sound like it would discourage people from working hard to have money, if they know those who work less will get some of it anyway?
Isn’t there a reason many countries are trying to remove the welfare state system?
How is he different from Jimmy Carter?
How is he different from the change George W. Bush promised in 2000?

amazingmets on October 23, 2008 at 1:25 PM

For those who don’t know, he’s a character in an Ayn Rand novel called Atlas Shrugged.

jgapinoy on October 23, 2008 at 1:23 PM

Go buy a copy immediately, and read it. Grue, did you get yours yet?

Vashta.Nerada on October 23, 2008 at 1:27 PM

UN-FRIGGIN-BELIEVABLE! “Corn Holio of Butthead, IL” just donated $5 to his campaign. My 1st attempt to donate $1 was rejected (only accepts $5 or more).

This is criminal.

Hammerhead on October 23, 2008 at 1:27 PM

BIDEN IS A SENATOR FROM DELAWARE.

DELAWARE IS WHERE ALL THE CREDIT CARD COMPANIES ARE LOCATED.

BIDEN SIGNED THE BUSH BANKRUPTCY LAW THAT EXEMPTED CREDIT CARDS.

HIS FELLOW DEMOCRATS EXCORIATED HIM FOR COMPLICITY.

BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT’S PAYING OFF.

wordwarp on October 23, 2008 at 1:27 PM

Pending CHECKCARD 10/23 OBAMA
FOR AMERICA CHICAGO IL -$15.00
Dale in Atlanta on October 23, 2008 at 1:13 PM

Heywood,

The key word here is “Pending.” This is the typical way to treat a charge when there is a discrepancy (e.g., you mistype your ZIP code on a legit order). I’m pretty sure the charge will be rejected and you will not be successful in donating your fifteen bucks to That One.

factoid on October 23, 2008 at 1:27 PM

Perhaps he’s ‘buying’ the election? I didn’t notice a price tag either. Can I buy one?

LimeyGeek on October 23, 2008 at 1:13 PM

No. You’re just a stupid peasant.

It doesn’t cost anything to have ACORN submit fake registrations in a dozen states. It doesn’t cost anything to have your partisan hack in Ohio sit on 200k registrations with ‘inconsistancies’. It doesn’t cost anything to have the Democrat legislature here in Wisconsin fight against a lawsuit that would require poll workers to verify a voter before letting them cast a vote.

And it doesn’t cost him anything to break the law by raking in millions of dollars from foreign/ unknown sources.

BadgerHawk on October 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM

Doesn’t the merchant agreement take some portion of the transaction in fees? Some of the local convenience stores here have a minimum purchase (like $2) for accepting plastic because of this.

Is it possible that VERY small (like 1 cent) donations to The One might actually cost him money?

innominatus on October 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM

factoid on October 23, 2008 at 1:15 PM

When you validate the credit cards, does it just reject it, or does it give you the valid credit card information to compare with the invalid info?

If it gives you the correct information to compare, is it possible that they are switching out bad information with correct info and processing anyway?

JadeNYU on October 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM

God forgive me, I just gave $15 to an Anti-American/Pro-Jihadi Anti-Semitic Anti-White Racist Marxist Muslim, who is going to destroy this country.

I feel like throwing up…

Dale in Atlanta on October 23, 2008 at 1:16 PM

Go give $30 to McCain right now to make yourself feel better!

Ann on October 23, 2008 at 1:29 PM

Go buy a copy immediately, and read it. Grue, did you get yours yet?

Vashta.Nerada on October 23, 2008 at 1:27 PM

Yar. Not finished yet.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 23, 2008 at 1:29 PM

Isn’t that even stupider, as it encourages using a stolen card? And equally illegal?

I’m not sure it makes it any more likely that you’d use a stolen card. But it’d make it impossible to use the same credit card for over $2300, no matter how many fake names you used. (If anyone was checking. Which they apparently aren’t.)

Since it apparently changed recently (according to the Dem email in the post), I thought maybe they just had an incompetent coder who thought that was the best way to limit donations.

*eats*

Dear god. I’ve been eaten by a grue.

Tanya on October 23, 2008 at 1:30 PM

1GooDDaDDy on October 23, 2008 at 1:14 PM

Did it go through on your credit card? Is it pending?

tru2tx on October 23, 2008 at 1:30 PM

Hammerhead on October 23, 2008 at 1:27 PM

Bummer. That ruins my little scheme…

innominatus on October 23, 2008 at 1:30 PM

innominatus on October 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM

I tried donating $0.01 and it rejected it. Said it needed to be at least $5. They also required my email address. Didn’t seem to have a problem with the fact that the information I gave them as to the owner of the card was completely wrong.

Here’s what I don’t get – I’ve bought stuff online before and accidentally put in my work zip instead of my home zip on the billing information (it differs by 1 number and I ship to work). It’s always been rejected as not matching with the billing info immediately. It doesn’t let me submit it and tell me it was rejected later. It’s an instant validation. Why can’t BO have that low level of security in his donation?

JadeNYU on October 23, 2008 at 1:31 PM

A friend of mine actually had charges to Acorn on her latest credit card bill – donations she never made! I’m wondering if it is possible for a program to automatically change the donor name to the name on the credit card which would allow the charge to go through. I’m totally technologically challenged so just thinking out loud here…

Ann on October 23, 2008 at 1:31 PM

STOP GIVVING THIS FRAUD MONEY!!!! YOU ARE FINANCING OUR IMINENT DEMISE!!!!

loudmouth883 on October 23, 2008 at 1:31 PM

I think it’s more that they didn’t think it would work.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 23, 2008 at 1:25 PM

I wasn’t sure either, but investing 5 bucks to expose this creep is a small price to pay.

Every day I wear my McCain/Palin 3″ button on my chest and twice now in the last few days I been called a racist to my face.

They’re not going to get away with it.

Over.

1GooDDaDDy on October 23, 2008 at 1:31 PM

Grue in the Attic on October 23, 2008 at 1:29 PM

You’re a good kid.

Vashta.Nerada on October 23, 2008 at 1:31 PM

Saul Alinksy says not to worry… there will be an investigation… beginning November 5th.

Texas Rainmaker on October 23, 2008 at 1:31 PM

amazingmets on October 23, 2008 at 1:25 PM
What we need to ask Obama is…

Who is John Galt?

LOL. Beat me to it.

Paul-Cincy on October 23, 2008 at 1:32 PM

I suggest getting vid’s of your actions. I’m sure there are more than a few who can, with some slight editing, obscure the cc number, etc. Call it whistle blower stuff, and say the raw video will be available for the DoJ or any organization willing to sue for elections fraud.

Dusty on October 23, 2008 at 1:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5