Here we go again: Obama website accepting contributions from phony donors?

posted at 7:38 pm on April 2, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via Bryan Preston, your must-see clip of the day. But before you watch, re-read Ed’s posts from October 26 and October 29 of 2008. This isn’t the first time AVS protections have mysteriously disappeared from Team Hopenchange’s donations page, and it’s not just the missing security-code field that got them in trouble in 2008. Remember how they made a point of accepting money from untraceable prepaid credit cards then too? WaPo raised an eyebrow at the time:

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…

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…

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.

Republican Patrick Ruffini tested Obama’s AVS procedures at the time, attempting to donate five dollars by providing an address different from the one linked to the credit card he used. Result: Transaction accepted. Said Ruffini, who worked on online organizing for Bush’s campaign, “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.” Note the part too about AVS protections being “standard.” Mark Steyn checked the prefab template for his own little web store at the time and found that the defaults were all set for maximum verification. To make the system as lax as it was — and apparently still is — at BarackObama.com, you had to deliberately weaken its security checks. Which, per the staff’s own admission to WaPo, they did.

I recommend re-reading that old WaPo piece in its entirety as it cites the case of a retired insurance manager whose name had been stolen to donate $174,800 to Obama. In reality, the manager had never donated a cent. Team O claims that they catch all this stuff on the back end when they review the names and donations to look for suspicious activity, which is easy to do when the phony contribution came from “Bart Simpson” but not so easy to do when it came from “Paul Smith” or some other generic yet plausible (and possibly stolen) name. In fact, the end result of all this nonsense was an FEC discretionary review (i.e. audit) of the campaign. You would think, after that, that they’d do everything by the book this time. But when your fundraising’s going worse than expected, maybe your priorities change — assuming anti-fraud priorities were ever there to begin with.

Exit question: Should we be worried that these same guys are pioneering new ways to donate electronically?


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

I seem to also remember.. that back in 2008, people were getting charges on their credit cards towards the Obama campaign.. and they never donated. The charges just appeared and that was it. They ended up donating whether they had wanted to or not.

JellyToast on April 2, 2012 at 8:47 PM

now I am leaving before this thread goes off the rails

DBear on April 2, 2012 at 8:40 PM

coward, gutless useless coward..

Do you have kids?..

The only attacks I’ve seen were on Sharpton and the MSM race baiting scum hoping to twist this into some kind of gotcha moment.. Nobody is saying the kid deserved to die, just that he was no angel here, a far far cry from the vile thing you imply..

I have a son too.. but I damn well wouldn’t want some racist scumbag like Sharpton exploiting his life for personal profit, and inciting a mob to kill other people like he is..

get some help, you’re a twisted sick piece of work..

mark81150 on April 2, 2012 at 8:48 PM

So, since the rule of law means nothing anymore… oh wait, it does? But just for me?

I’m getting good and damned tired of this bullsh1t.

Midas on April 2, 2012 at 8:48 PM

The FEC is basically an arm of the DNC at this point.

WisCon on April 2, 2012 at 8:49 PM

The Parrot Press will be combing over this like they were Sarah Palin’s 20,000 emails! Count on it!

KOOLAID2 on April 2, 2012 at 8:51 PM

And bringing up a 15-year-old affair as evidence that an entirely different president may have done…what, exactly? — is evidence of how pathetically bankrupt your position is. Try to get something from this century, and having to do with campaign finance. k?

No you silly tool. It was mocking your drooling defense of Obama. What logical reason can you posit for turning off the security any mom and pop e-sales operation has unless it is to open the door for fraud?
Go back to Media Matters and refill your (very tiny) quiver.

Aviator on April 2, 2012 at 8:51 PM

So, since the rule of law means nothing anymore… oh wait, it does? But just for me?

I’m getting good and damned tired of this bullsh1t.

Midas on April 2, 2012 at 8:48 PM

That pretty much sums it up. Obama can pretty much do whatever he wants. Laws are for all of us. And the so called press… they just go right along covering.

JellyToast on April 2, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Oh, and that new stand your ground law seems to work pretty good, huh? I bet it makes a few more kids think twice before they attack now.

HotAirian on April 2, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Nobody is saying the kid deserved to die

mark81150 on April 2, 2012 at 8:48 PM

you were saying?

DBear on April 2, 2012 at 8:54 PM

In fact, the end result of all this nonsense was an FEC discretionary review (i.e. audit) of the campaign.

The second rule of lawbreaking is to control the investigation once one gets caught.

Steve Eggleston on April 2, 2012 at 8:54 PM

They ended up donating whether they had wanted to or not.

JellyToast on April 2, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Just a beta test for Obamacare.

coldwarrior on April 2, 2012 at 8:55 PM

No you silly tool. It was mocking your drooling defense of Obama. What logical reason can you posit for turning off the security any mom and pop e-sales operation has unless it is to open the door for fraud?
Go back to Media Matters and refill your (very tiny) quiver.

Aviator on April 2, 2012 at 8:51 PM

So, once again, you admit that you have nothing.

urban elitist on April 2, 2012 at 8:55 PM

urban elitist on April 2, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Answer the question.

Aviator on April 2, 2012 at 8:58 PM

This is a case study in liberals can be openly corrupt, even admit they turn off the security ware to allow phoney donations, but they’ll check, maybe, later,.. if they feel like it.

and the MSM says nothing..

crickets….

but hey, lets check into a speech some republican gave a decade ago in case there’s something we can extrapolate into another smear..

hey.. HEY.. WE TOLD YOU TO LOOK AWAY

The MSM, Obama’s Praetorian Guard..

When did my country turn into a pale nite-mare imitation of the old Soviet Empire? They haven’t reached the worst criminal excesses yet, but even if they did, would the MSM even care?

apparently not.

This is surreal… no way this is my country, when the news media doesn’t care that the president they shilled for and prop up, is dirty, just

do

not

care…

2012 is our last chance.. we loose this one,.. what limits are left..

mark81150 on April 2, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Aviator on April 2, 2012 at 8:58 PM

I have no idea. Despite my affinity for the President he has not made me a member of his fundraising tech team.

Why don’t you provide a single piece of evidence from now or 2008 — you’ve had years now, to find it — that there’s something nefarious afoot?

Oh yeah — because you don’t have any.

urban elitist on April 2, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Of course they’re going to cheat. They got away with it last time, so there’s no reason for them to expect they won’t get away with it again. It’s not like they have any personal ethics to get in their way or cause them to lose a minute’s sleep over it.

Murf76 on April 2, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Of course they’re going to cheat. They got away with it last time, so there’s no reason for them to expect they won’t get away with it again. It’s not like they have any personal ethics to get in their way or cause them to lose a minute’s sleep over it.

Murf76 on April 2, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Every donation is a public record. You’ve had years to document “cheating.” You haven’t, because you can’t.

urban elitist on April 2, 2012 at 9:06 PM

I work with a lot of ecommerce sites, and you have to do A LOT to reduce the security checks to the point this campaign has. It’s an intentional effort to allow fraud and pretend they have no idea it’s happening. There is no question about it. They intend to fund their campaign with whatever cash they can get their hands on, legit or not.

The fact that this does not bother more people makes me cringe.

goflyers on April 2, 2012 at 9:06 PM

of course I would! i don’t want ANY teenagers killed by zealous neighborhood watch volunteers w/ a history of violence.

Hold on there Tex; what evidence or source do you claim that Mr. Zimmerman has a “History of Violence”?

better question: would you people be attacking this kid if he was white?

If you have so much concern, it shouldn’t matter that the race of *either* of them; but to use your own argument…would *you* be so concerned if Zimmerman was Black? How about the fact that by the Left/Progressives own definition he’s Hispanic, because his Mother was also (of course, that would bring in the uncomfortable question about President Obama…but i digress).

actually the only “life” you people care about is fetuses (and that’s only so you can play sex police) so maybe yes…

now I am leaving before this thread goes off the rails

DBear on April 2, 2012 at 8:40 PM

That alone…completely at odds with itself. A Fetus baby hasn’t made *any* choices about its life, good or bad. An person, especially both Zimmerman & Martin *have*.

If it turns out that after all of these investigations, Martin lost his life because he did attack Zimmerman, then what will you say or do then? Or rather, who will you blame then? Bush? The GOP? Haliburton?

Have concern or empathy if you like, but lay off the sanctimony, its fattening and bad for the environment.

BlaxPac on April 2, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Every donation is a public record. You’ve had years to document “cheating.” You haven’t, because you can’t.

urban elitist on April 2, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Um, the Obama Administration COULD NOT document the legitimate source of many of their donations in 2008, but still refused to return the money. Donations from dead people seemed to be in vogue at the time.

goflyers on April 2, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Nobody is saying the kid deserved to die

mark81150 on April 2, 2012 at 8:48 PM

you were saying?

DBear on April 2, 2012 at 8:54 PM

that you’re an ass..

To note actions have consequences is not saying he deserved to die.. cold,.. I wouldn’t say it, but not what you claim, not even close…

would you now explain why dead Christian kids don’t matter to you?

They too pale in complexion?

or the wrong liberal demographic?

and you lied then when saying you were leaving? Trolls never just leave, they enjoy saying stupid things to incite the division just a little bit more..

your tears on November 6th will be epic.. I almost feel sorry for you.. almost… if it weren’t for the corruption, lies, and hate the liberals love to lay on thick..

mark81150 on April 2, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Um, the Obama Administration COULD NOT document the legitimate source of many of their donations in 2008, but still refused to return the money. Donations from dead people seemed to be in vogue at the time.

goflyers on April 2, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Links. Documentation. I’m waiting.

urban elitist on April 2, 2012 at 9:09 PM

More corruption from the home of political corruption: Chicago.

Jaibones on April 2, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Wish more people would take an interest.

This is a rehash of several events from Campaign 2008 that have never been satisfactorily answered, save to say that all those illegal contributions were allegedly returned.

They were?

All of them?

Any documentation of that?

And if there was an interest, even a casual interest, in minimizing the possibility of a repeat of 2008, wouldn’t Team Obama tighten up the credit card donation security protocols rather than loosen them up?

This is intentional.

The Chicago Way.

coldwarrior on April 2, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Every donation is a public record. You’ve had years to document “cheating.” You haven’t, because you can’t.

urban elitist on April 2, 2012 at 9:06 PM

and since the dems have turned off the recording software to log ip addresses, names and donations only were kept, everything else they erased, and admitted that in 08.

so how do you investigate someones accepting fraudulent donations, when all the logs were erased?

Pixie dust and unicorn farts may work for you, everyone else smells a rat.

The fact is, Obama could admit on national TV that the Chinese were funding his campaign, and Soros carried the slack..give middle America the finger and smirk, you won’t touch me..

and your devotion wouldn’t change one tiny bit..

liberals always excuse their own, always.. like a street gang, the DNC is a criminal enterprise. You just don’t care.. an ethical liberal would be troubled at the least, demand the highest standards from your president.

but you never do..

now why is that, ethics is something you only expect from republicans, but your own always get a slap on the back and an atta boy..

so excuse me,…

I was taught ethics matter..

mark81150 on April 2, 2012 at 9:21 PM

would you now explain why dead Christian kids don’t matter to you?

They too pale in complexion?

or the wrong liberal demographic?

I dunno they might’ve had it coming, like I said I am waiting for the Daily Caller to publish their tweets and Facebook messages…

seriously though, if the killer of these unarmed kids is walking around as a free man 35 days from now i GUARANTEE you I will be marching on their behalf!

and since we both agree this is a tragedy, will you align with me and call for a new assault weapons ban?
(go ahead and counter with the absurd yet predictable “everyone needs to carry a gun to shoot any gun-toting varmint dead like we still the wild west yeeee haw!!!”)

your tears on November 6th will be epic..

mark81150 on April 2, 2012 at 9:09 PM

tears of happiness, yes. seriously even if Mitt wins I will be so thankful we got a moderate empty suit and didn’t end up w/ a crazy like Palin, Bcahmann, Newt, Perry or Santorum

DBear on April 2, 2012 at 9:23 PM

I have no idea. Despite my affinity for the President he has not made me a member of his fundraising tech team.

Why don’t you provide a single piece of evidence from now or 2008 — you’ve had years now, to find it — that there’s something nefarious afoot?

Oh yeah — because you don’t have any.

urban elitist on April 2, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Nice. You just demonstrated what a sycophant you are. Instead of even a lame attempt to come up with a logical reason the security has been disabled you constructed a straw man. Thanks for proving my earlier post where I implied you and your ilk were not honest debaters
You are now dismissed, I’ve wasted enough time on a useless piece of navel lint like you.
Run along Junior. Quit bothering the adults.

Aviator on April 2, 2012 at 9:25 PM

you were saying?

DBear on April 2, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Are you having a problem with reading comprehension?

HotAirian on April 2, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”

The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.

It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.

Biersack would not comment on whether the FEC was investigating the huge amount of cash that has come into Obama’s coffers with no public reporting.

But Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for CRP, a campaign-finance watchdog group, dismissed the scale of the unreported money.

“We feel comfortable that it isn’t the $20 donations that are corrupting a campaign,” he told Newsmax.

But those small donations have added up to more than $200 million, all of it from unknown and unreported donors.

Ritsch acknowledges that there is skepticism about all the unreported money, especially in the Obama campaign coffers.

“We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors,” he said. “The Obama campaign never responded,” whereas the McCain campaign “makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online.”
[snip]

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Obama-fundraising-illegal/2008/09/29/id/325630

Personally I like the donors Mr.Good Will and Doodad Pro. LOL

Deanna on April 2, 2012 at 9:35 PM

That last bit of info was for our local Obama suck-up, urban elitist who knew very well there had been problems with the Obama campaign not identifying donors in 2008.

Deanna on April 2, 2012 at 9:38 PM

I dunno they might’ve had it coming, like I said I am waiting for the Daily Caller to publish their tweets and Facebook messages…

Why wait? If they have Tweets or a FB page, then the correspondence is…stay with me…already in the public domain, so theoretically you sir, could go and get them yourself.

seriously though, if the killer of these unarmed kids is walking around as a free man 35 days from now i GUARANTEE you I will be marching on their behalf!

Again, why wait? Unlike Zimmerman/Martin, the gunman was found without marks or bruising, and stalked and killed those college kids. Other than the bruising on Zimmerman, including the police report and 2 witnesses at the scene, there is nothing (so far i will add) that shows that Martin was being stalked for execution.

and since we both agree this is a tragedy, will you align with me and call for a new assault weapons ban?
(go ahead and counter with the absurd yet predictable “everyone needs to carry a gun to shoot any gun-toting varmint dead like we still the wild west yeeee haw!!!”)

No, but i will counter than Martin was not shot with a so called *assault rifle* he was shot with a pistol.

Repeat. Pistol. Which was licensed and hence legal to carry.

Plus, since the weapon (by the police reports) was only fired once, not 30 times, not 20, not even 10….Once.

tears of happiness, yes. seriously even if Mitt wins I will be so thankful we got a moderate empty suit and didn’t end up w/ a crazy like Palin, Bcahmann, Newt, Perry or Santorum

DBear on April 2, 2012 at 9:23 PM

I’d rather have a moderately empty suit compared to a suit full of excrement that seems to be running out of the Democratic frontrunner.

BlaxPac on April 2, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Good ol’ Bryan Preston.

It’s nice to hear from him here on HotGas once in awhile.

FlatFoot on April 2, 2012 at 9:41 PM

Four years ago I used my own credit card with a fake name and address (I was Harrison Ford from Alliance NE–info that did not match the card) to donate $5 each to John McCain and Barack Obama. John McCain wouldn’t accept it, but guess who would?

I don’t trust the President as far as I can throw him.

rogaineguy on April 2, 2012 at 9:45 PM

So, since the rule of law means nothing anymore… …
Midas on April 2, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Well, what do you expect when the Head of the Executive Branch tells the world that the Supreme Court should just shut the hell up and approve his signature plan, because they aren’t popularly elected.

LegendHasIt on April 2, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Links. Documentation. I’m waiting.

urban elitist on April 2, 2012 at 9:09 PM

get your glasses out,..

Everyone knows how dirty Obama is,.. the FEC is now under his thumb.. and you will make excuses, but the trail of dirt is pretty clear.

mark81150 on April 2, 2012 at 9:47 PM

So, you have no evidence whatsoever that there is a conspiracy to launder campaign money, correct?

urban elitist on April 2, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Plenty of evidence. His deliberate breaking of the safeguards on the internet software are evidence. His campaign admitting that they did it deliberately is evidence. Of course, it might require you to have more than just a couple neurons functioning inside your brain to understand this.

astonerii on April 2, 2012 at 9:49 PM

In cased you missed it, it’s:

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Obama-fundraising-illegal/2008/09/29/id/325630

itsspideyman on April 2, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Were they allowed to keep the $178,000? If so, why? Also why should they, as they have in the past be able to donate to the liberal charity of their choice.

dunce on April 2, 2012 at 10:02 PM

astonerii on April 2, 2012 at 9:49 PM

It won’t matter. You could provide proof and urban would only lambast the source as lying.

Urban is the type who would excuse videotape of Obama murdering puppies on the White House lawn as nefarious editing from Fox News.

Simple fact of the matter is that there is no valid reason to disable those security features. No reason at all. Since they can’t excuse it, they’re trying to turn the tables and point the finger at us for giving a damn.

I can’t even order a 99cent song from Amazon without that security code.

tdpwells on April 2, 2012 at 10:06 PM

I dunno they might’ve had it coming, like I said I am waiting for the Daily Caller to publish their tweets and Facebook messages…

DBear on April 2, 2012 at 9:23 PM

nice way to prove my point,.. that you even could consider, they might have deserved to be gunned down while attending class says everything we need to know about you.

They aren’t your peeps.. so you really don’t care very much, and if you think that it’s all a colossal joke, that’s an even worse statement on your attitude about life and death..

I don’t wish death on anyone, I’ve seen enough people die in horrible ways from cancer to ever have a sense of humor about anyone deserving death… once you hear someone screaming their life out in their last agonizing hours.. you don’t laugh about death.

and you damn well don’t sneer about it..

I don’t know anything about Traven, just that two families are in pain, and that fat slug of a race baiter Sharpton is just inciting even more rage..

He’ll get his fame and money, and if we are profoundly lucky, somebody else won’t die because of him stoking the flames..

Liberal trolls disgust me, all so cocksure they know what’s in our heads.. so certain their petty stereotypes are true.. and they can’t even claim to know any of us.

mark81150 on April 2, 2012 at 10:06 PM

I just donated $5 to Zero with a fake name and address (John Galt of Ayn Rand Lane with nostalgia for 2008) and my Visa card. It went through. Let’s see if it is refunded after thorough review on the back side. I’m not holding my breath.

stvnscott on April 2, 2012 at 10:16 PM

If you have the pardon power and control the Justice Dept. and the Media, laws do not matter. Just ask Putin or Khamenei or Chavez.

KW64 on April 2, 2012 at 10:16 PM

As a vendor the security I’ve purchased for online payments was not a premium price, it’s basic with every standard transaction.

There’s a simple way you can run the test yourself. Go online to any website, anyone, doesn’t matter if it’s the lowest of the low. Try to enter your credit card stuff under a phony name. Not only will the website squak, your bank will scream that someone is using a phony ID on your card.

Online fraud is so pervasive, and with so many processors of such a lucrative trade, in order to compete requires the most absolute security possible.

The ONLY way you can enter in a name that is not associated with a card is if the security is turned off DELIBERATELY. There is no other possible way.

itsspideyman on April 2, 2012 at 10:17 PM

I just donated $5 to Zero with a fake name and address (John Galt of Ayn Rand Lane with nostalgia for 2008) and my Visa card. It went through. Let’s see if it is refunded after thorough review on the back side. I’m not holding my breath.

stvnscott on April 2, 2012 at 10:16 PM

Andrew Brietbart, we need you buddy. Do 10,000 of these fakes, film the guys who are setting this up, and expose these rats.

itsspideyman on April 2, 2012 at 10:19 PM

No one got in trouble for it last time, so of course they would do it again.

Also (putting on my tinfoil hat) what about those Visa and MC records that were recently hacked? If there are no checks at the Obama site, how easy would it be to use those cards to donate millions to his campaign?

29Victor on April 2, 2012 at 10:22 PM

The ONLY way you can enter in a name that is not associated with a card is if the security is turned off DELIBERATELY. There is no other possible way.

itsspideyman on April 2, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Yeah, that was pointed out in 2008. It was pretty obvious at the time that the only reason for doing this was to encourage fraud, but the MSM said little or nothing about it and the Feds didn’t do anything about it.

Yet another reason Democrats love regulations like Campaign Finance “Reform.” They know for a fact that, whatever the laws, they’re going to ignore them and get a pass from the same MSM that watches the GOP like a hawk.

29Victor on April 2, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Also (putting on my tinfoil hat) what about those Visa and MC records that were recently hacked? If there are no checks at the Obama site, how easy would it be to use those cards to donate millions to his campaign?

29Victor on April 2, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Don’t feel *too* paranoid Victor..

The possibility is there, but for the most part the Companies already announced that the intrusion took place, and at least 8 out of the 10 cards people tend to check their statements. And all of the cards affected would be monitored for that kind of activity…

Unless this is supposed to be a electronic version (with MC/V consent) of “Fast n Furious” in which case the cards are already buying tickets to the donkey show in Tijuana…lol

BlaxPac on April 2, 2012 at 10:34 PM

Anyone else notice urban elitest snob demands proof then disappears when it’s presented?

Hard Right on April 2, 2012 at 10:37 PM

when will the Daily Caller publish their tweets?

DBear on April 2, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Oh? You didn’t like those? Why?
One hundred and fifty-two pages of filth — from your newest saint.

Why, Treyvon’s “just like Jesus Christ”! /s/

Kinda blew you guys’ story out of the water, didn’t it?

Solaratov on April 2, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Solaratov on April 2, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Pretty sure DBear bowed out for the night.

Pity. I had a few more questions for him, but then again I didn’t a lot of answers from my prior ones, so…

BlaxPac on April 2, 2012 at 10:43 PM

BlaxPac on April 2, 2012 at 10:43 PM

DBear never answers questions — except with snark or sanctimonious BS. I wouldn’t be looking for any honest answers from him. (Or from any of his fellow trolls)

Solaratov on April 2, 2012 at 11:01 PM

You crush the remnants of your conscience with booze or pills? Because being human is pretty low on your list isn’t it?

mark81150 on April 2, 2012 at 8:42 PM

There’s your problem!

You are crediting liberals with having a conscience. They don’t.

Moral equivalence is impossible if you have a conscience.

Intellectual dishonesty is impossible if you have a conscience.

Denying rampant corruption is impossible if you have a conscience.

A fanatic level of devotion where anything done in the name of a cause is alright is impossible if you have a conscience.

If you have a conscience, treating a liberal as a moral, rational individual should keep you up at night – you lend credibility to their malfeasance when you do.

It is just that simple.

PolAgnostic on April 2, 2012 at 11:05 PM

DBear never answers questions — except with snark or sanctimonious BS. I wouldn’t be looking for any honest answers from him. (Or from any of his fellow trolls)

Solaratov on April 2, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Well if that’s true, it’s kinda sad. I don’t mind honest debate, even from those with opposing views ( i have to, especially if you ever met my sister or some of my friends, lol).

BlaxPac on April 2, 2012 at 11:11 PM

… it’s not just the missing security-code field that got them in trouble in 2008.

Really? They got in trouble for being lying crooks? When? Where? Were there investigations? Charges? I think not! Not a damn thing happened! The Federal government is a criminal enterprise run by crooks. They really just don’t care, and all we are going to do in November is change the crooks in charge while we continue on our march to a dictatorship.

woodNfish on April 2, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Anyone else notice urban elitest snob demands proof then disappears when it’s presented?

Hard Right on April 2, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Yeah happens all the time….typical. And DBear likes to change the subject in case you hadn’t noticed. I personally think he’s Al Sharpton.

Deanna on April 2, 2012 at 11:38 PM

We really can’t expect the dishonest people covering for the dishonest Obama campaign to be honest, can we?

Adjoran on April 3, 2012 at 2:17 AM

Hey elitist
what in the heck do assault rifle bans have to do with this kids death?
The next time I see you make sure you clarify why one kids shooting by a hand gun has anything to do with anything.
I know your scared of them so no one should be able to own one, right?
Your a freaking moron!

angrymike on April 3, 2012 at 3:26 AM

Pft. But of course this is happening again. No sense pretending to be shocked.

Be shocked IF something is actually done about it this time.

Yakko77 on April 3, 2012 at 5:08 AM

Each year – thousands of Candidates are removed from ballots and/or are not allowed to file a petition – due to clear rules… like using a staple over a paper clip, wrong color ink (red is a no no) and improper paper size.

These are valid, state and federal election laws that are enforced immediately.

Yet Obama and his corrupt minions not only break the law – they admit it, break it again – and nothing is done.

A crime is and has been committed. Thats a fact.

Odie1941 on April 3, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Exit question: Should we be worried that these same guys are pioneering new ways to donate electronically?

Why present that in the form of a question? It’s a statement of fact that ObaMao’s campaign is implicated in aiding and abetting fraud and therefore we must all be worried about what they are doing.

cicerone on April 3, 2012 at 8:58 AM

I’m sure the Palestinians will start up their phone bank again for him by the end of summer….

easyt65 on April 3, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Exit question: Should we be worried that these same guys are pioneering new ways to donate electronically?
Why present that in the form of a question? It’s a statement of fact that ObaMao’s campaign is implicated in aiding and abetting fraud and therefore we must all be worried about what they are doing.

cicerone on April 3, 2012 at 8:58 AM

I agree, was miffed at the exit question myself. “pioneering new ways” – isnt equating to “intentionally taking down verification, per Federal Laws”

Odie1941 on April 3, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Will somebody tell me why there is not a criminal investigation here? Can they be any more blatant about their intent to circumvent the law?

philwynk on April 3, 2012 at 9:39 AM

And why not? I mean they got away with it last time and back then they weren’t running the Justice Department. The president could stand in the middle of Time Square and take 6 figure cash donations from the Chinese and Russian ambassadors and nothing would come of it. The press won’t report it and the government won’t prosecute it. Given the way things are now he could outright murder a busload of children and get away with it provided he did it on federal ground.

Browncoatone on April 3, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Will somebody tell me why there is not a criminal investigation here? Can they be any more blatant about their intent to circumvent the law?

philwynk on April 3, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Yes, why isn’t there an investigation? Why have rules and laws if there is no enforcement mechanism or no will to enforce? What happened in 2008? Was Obama made to return the funds obtained by fraud? Did they track down the donors? Another of those what if Bush/Romney/Santorum had done it moments?

hopeful on April 3, 2012 at 10:49 AM

What would you expect from the most corrupt administration in our country’s history? The lies and deceptions have never stopped since this narcisstic eunuch came on the scene. The scariest part is they are no longing hiding their disdain for the country or it’s Constitution. If he is re-elected, life as we know it will cease to exist.

volsense on April 3, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Re: how can the banks condone this?

It is likely a large bank with an executive office largely friendly to (or cowed by) Mr. O.

Turns out the bank doesn’t care, what happens is the campaign can do this as long as they are willing to bear all the risks and costs. Which means that when challenged the money is immediately refunded and the bank / credit-card-clearing consortium gets a handling fee/penalty. Call it a win-win especially since no one challenges the offshore contributions, because no one knows, and the illegal donor certainly isn’t going to complain when they pay their credit card bill.

However, there have been rumors of one of the anonymous like groups which has stolen large number of credit cards over the years (as well as some insider knowledge of how card numbers are “minted”), who also run their own botnets for fun and (click fraud) profit will do something mischievous this year – point their botnets at Mr. O’s campaign and start making multiple thousand dollar donations to his campaign using these millions of valid cards but with names and addresses in error. When the actual card holder notices the bill on their statement, they’ll demand (and get) a refund, plus the Campaign will pay anywhere from a $10 to $100 penalty per transaction.

Another option is civil disobedience. A couple of million of us bitter clingers could make a strange amount donation (like $1,987) under a fake name and address since the campaign doesn’t check, using an anonymous browser (search for “inprivate browsing”), then when the charge shows up in the “recent activities” entries on your account, call and report the fraud, and it’ll be refunded and the campaign will get the bill plus a merchant penalty (granted, the bank might be waiving it, but we can FOIA that eventually and get it declared a donation). Arguably this is another loss to civil society but it’s not like oranges have been safe when left unattended on a cart since the change in common values we saw in the 60s.

With luck it’ll bankrupt the campaign (but.. given who we’re dealing with, TBTF will be invoked and we’ll continue down the path to being a Venezuela ..)

aritai on April 3, 2012 at 11:39 AM

BlaxPac on April 2, 2012 at 11:11 PM
Deanna on April 2, 2012 at 11:38 PM

The libs will try to ignore the question(s) or call you stupid for asking, obfuscate, change the subject (“well, what about…”), invent straw men, and disparage the source of your proof when you provide it.
Arguing with liberals/leftists is like playing chess with a pigeon…..

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc85/Mamba1-0/Stet/arguingwithlibs.jpg

Solaratov on April 3, 2012 at 11:44 AM

When I first saw the headlines for this thread I was thinking, “How easy would it be to set up a phony account and accept donations meant for Chairman Obamao”?

Then I’d siphon off a modest percentage of the Libtards’ contributions sent to said account to Romney…maybe some to help Newt get out of the hole….and of course, spend the majority.

ROTFLMAO

Whew…hope somebody does…probably in either Russia or Nigeria I’m guessing.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 3, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Okay, this is one of those “my blood starts to boil” issues.
My brother-in-law, stationed in Bahrain in 2008 with the Navy, tested the security by donating $10 to Obama using his correct credit card number, but the name Haywood Jablome and a made up address in Bahrain. And, of course, it would have all come from a Bahraini IP address. The donation went through without a hitch.

He informed everybody and their brother and the result was… nothing. We need to start screaming about this to the FEC. We can’t let this happen again. He will be getting tons of illegal foreign money and illegal ‘above the cap’ money if it’s not stopped.

Dexter_Alarius on April 4, 2012 at 8:35 AM

Comment pages: 1 2