Jump to content

Finance Fraud in Obama's Campaign


Recommended Posts

Unlike McCain, Obama has elected to forgo federal government contributions to his campaign and hence he doesn't face spending restrictions and other reporting requirements. Note has been made of the role Oprah Winfrey is playing in financing his campaign.

Now, the Washington Post has repeated research done elsewhere:

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.

Washington Post

In September, the Obama campaign raised $150 million of which $100 million was from the Internet. The Obama campaign has not verified who donated this money. Individuals can exceed their limit ($2300) or foreigners may contribute. Obama's campaign does not compare the name of the contributor against the name on the credit or pay card. "Adolf Hitler, Berlin, Germany" made a contribution as did "Eva Braun". In both cases, Obama's campaign cashed the money within 24 hours and sent out a thank you email.

Courtesy of my (real) CC number and expiration date, the Obama campaign has just received a $19.45 donation from mister Adolf Hitler, whose occupation is "Dictator" at the company "National Socialist Party of Ger" (I got cut off). I captured screenshots to prove this.

No verification required. The listed address wasn't even close to my real address.

Link

The sad thing is that no one reported this before and no one will investigate it after next Tuesday.

I suppose that's politics. Kennedy used to say: "Don't get mad. Get even." I suppose Obama is telling his staffers the same.

----

I have two opinions on this.

First, we live in a world where technology is bound to change the rules of the game. Campaign finance rules are bound to fail for the same reason that financial market regulations are bound to fail. Governments should avoid trying to impose such rules - they are a waste of time. Obama's campaign happens to have found one loophole. There are others.

Second, I'm not certain that a candidate can "buy" a victory. If that were the case, Steve Forbes, Ross Perot and Belinda Stronach would all be successful politicians. IMV, expensive advertising shows one thing: you have alot of money. [it's the same logic behind a large house in a rich neighbourhood. The owner has alot of money. This doesn't mean the person is smart, beautiful, talented. In some cases, it doesn't even show that the person is rich.]

So, I'm not certain that spending a lot of money always helps a politician. I suppose that Obama, hardly a rich man, is trying to show that he is capable of raising alot of money and then spending it. His campaign is perceived as evidence of his broad support. This didn't work for Harper in the past federal campaign so I'm still doubtful.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a Republican was raising as much money as Obama, it would be a major story in the mainstream media, and not a positive story. Couple that with financing fraud, and it would be a huge story. But the Messiah gets away with it virtually untouched. Sadly, I'm not suprised anymore. Journalism officially died in 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a Republican was raising as much money as Obama, it would be a major story in the mainstream media, and not a positive story. Couple that with financing fraud, and it would be a huge story. But the Messiah gets away with it virtually untouched. Sadly, I'm not suprised anymore. Journalism officially died in 2008.

I think it's the potential for foreign contributors that matters.

Obama is popular in the world. People around the world now have a way to influence the choice of the next US president. The person in the White House is no longer a choice of the American people; it is a choice of the world. And my conclusion? Ordinary Americans still control the Congress and their State Capitol. In the future, they may become more important to Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's the potential for foreign contributors that matters.

The article does say they screen to ensure contributions meet the necessary requirements. As long as they

screen before the money is spent it doesn't make a difference.

Obama is popular in the world.

That's a good thing. Currently many believe they are run by the devil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a Republican was raising as much money as Obama, it would be a major story in the mainstream media, and not a positive story. Couple that with financing fraud, and it would be a huge story. But the Messiah gets away with it virtually untouched. Sadly, I'm not suprised anymore. Journalism officially died in 2008.

Republicans have raised money in past elections in significant amounts. There were questions then about financing fraud but overall it was treated as a positive story of the support that Republicans and Bush held in the U.S.

The Republicans controlled the House, Senate and the presidency for many years. They could have done so much more on financing laws. However, they didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Republicans controlled the House, Senate and the presidency for many years. They could have done so much more on financing laws. However, they didn't.

That's just not true. Without a 60 seat majority, the Dems blocked many proposed changes. The same way they blocked reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's just not true. Without a 60 seat majority, the Dems blocked many proposed changes. The same way they blocked reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Really. Please cite how they tried to initiate changes and were blocked on finance reform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barrack Hussein Obama has outspent John McCain by a HUGE margin yet is barely leading MCCain. McCain actually leads in many swing states.

Obama seems like a lot of hype and not much substance is what I've read.

How can a man who many claim to be so popular barely leading a Rep. candidate after the most unpopular recent President.

Something doesn't add up here.

Edited by Mr.Canada
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barrack Hussein Obama has outspent John McCain by a HUGE margin yet is barely leading MCCain. McCain actually leads in many swing states.

Obama seems like a lot of hype and not much substance is what I've read.

The average is 50.7 to 44.3% in favour of Obama.

John Sidney McCain III is probably hoping that Arab Muslim terrorist won't win but apparently more people are concerned about a politician with a middle name generally associated today with girls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The average is 50.7 to 44.3% in favour of Obama.

John Sidney McCain III is probably hoping that Arab Muslim terrorist won't win but apparently more people are concerned about a politician with a middle name generally associated today with girls.

Exactly Obama seems like hype. Why isn't his lead more? He losing support by the hour. He should have crushed McCain but he hasn't even though Obama hjas spent over $300 million dollars on his campaign, around 10 times that of McCain. Crazy...

Americans aren't believing the hype which is Obama, it seems to be.

Every ones painting McCain as BushII and still Obama has less than a six point lead over a man he has outspent 10 to 1...lol, really sad.

Edited by Mr.Canada
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The average is 50.7 to 44.3% in favour of Obama.

Ya, I don't know which polls Mr. C's looking at, but back here on earth this is what I'm seeing:

Ohio

In Ohio, which no Republican has ever lost and still won the presidency, 50 percent of registered voters surveyed in an Oct. 25-27 Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll said they trusted Obama to make the right decisions about the economy compared with 38 percent who backed McCain. The poll showed Obama leading by nine percentage points over McCain in Ohio.

A Columbus Dispatch poll released today showed Obama has a six-point lead, virtually identical to the seven-point lead he held a month ago. If the Illinois senator's lead of 52 percent to 46 percent in the Dispatch poll holds, he will become the first Democrat to win more than 50 percent of the Ohio vote since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, according to the newspaper.

Obama also holds an advantage in other contested states, including Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada, all of which were won by Republican George W. Bush in 2004.

A Denver Post poll released today shows Obama holding a lead of 49 percent to 44 percent for McCain among likely voters in Colorado, with unaffiliated voters -- who make up more than a third of the electorate -- backing the Democrat 57 percent to 32 percent.

Pennsylvania

Even so, McCain has pulled closer to Obama in Pennsylvania, according to an Oct. 30 Rasmussen poll. Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are two states won by 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry in which McCain is still actively campaigning. The Republican nominee campaigned in Pennsylvania yesterday and plans to hold a rally in New Hampshire later today.

The Rasmussen poll of 700 likely voters conducted Nov. 1 gave Obama a 52 percent to 46 percent lead in Pennsylvania, compared with 53-46 four days earlier. The poll has a 4 percent margin of error.

In New Hampshire, a WMUR/University of New Hampshire poll released yesterday showed Obama with 52 percent support among likely voters compared with 41 percent for McCain. The poll, taken Oct. 29-31, surveyed 549 voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.2 percentage points.

Indiana

In Indiana, a state that hasn't backed a Democratic presidential nominee since 1964, Obama and McCain were tied at 47 percent. The survey of 900 likely voters taken Oct. 27-29 by the Downs Center for Indiana Politics at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne had a margin of error of 3.3 percentage points. Obama campaigned Oct. 31 in Gary, Indiana, speaking to a crowd of about 45,000 at a nighttime rally.

The final Richmond Times-Dispatch poll showed Obama leading McCain 47 percent to 44 percent in Virginia, with nine percent of voters undecided. Because Obama's advantage is within the poll's margin of error -- plus or minus 4 percentage points --- the contest in Virginia can be considered about even, the paper said.

McCain, 72, is in close races with Obama in Florida, North Carolina and North Dakota. Those states were won by Bush in the last election, and the Republican candidate needs to win them Nov. 4 in order to have a chance of gaining the 270 Electoral College votes required to win the presidency.

National Polls

In national polls, Obama led McCain, 51 percent to 43 percent in a Gallup daily tracking poll of those deemed likely to cast ballots based on past voting behavior and current intentions.

Obama led 49 percent to 47 percent in a Gallup poll taken Oct. 25-27, before his 30-minute ad was broadcast on network and cable channels on Oct. 29. The latest survey was taken Oct. 30 - Nov. 1 among 2,503 likely voters and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

A CBS poll released yesterday showed Obama's lead even wider, with 54 percent support to 41 percent for McCain. The poll, taken Oct. 28-31, surveyed 747 likely voters. Among the one-fifth of voters who already cast ballots, 57 percent voted for Obama and 38 percent backed McCain, according to the poll.

A Rasmussen daily tracking poll of 3,000 likely voters taken Oct. 29-31 gave Obama a 51 percent to 46 percent lead, with a margin of error of 2.0 percentage points.

And a survey by the Poughkeepsie, New York-based Marist College Institute for Public Opinion put Obama ahead of McCain, 50 percent to 43 percent. The poll of 543 likely voters taken Oct. 29 had a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points.

The latest CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey, the last before the election, showed 53 percent of likely voters saying they back Obama, while 46 percent support McCain. Obama's lead in this poll has ranged from five to nine points over the last month.

Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactle BC_Chick Obama has outspent MCCain (who is dubbed BushII) at least 10 times over and Obama is losing ground daily. Obama is a lot of hype perhaps isn't he?

Perhaps people are finally wanted to vote for someone who has some experience which Obama does not. Biden would be the real President, Obama would just be a figurehead to give speeches.

Americans are finally starting to realize Obama may not have the experience needed to do the job, after all he is a one term Senator. Americans are also starting to vote for the person who they feel is the most American.

After President Bush it's hard to believe that Obama doesn't have a huge lead. A vote for Obama is a vote for hype and inexperience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a Republican was raising as much money as Obama, it would be a major story in the mainstream media, and not a positive story.

First of all, the great money raiser before Obama was Bush. With a few exceptions, the Republicans have out raised and outspent the Democrats. There was a case somewhere in the south were an incumbent Democrat was outspent over 50-1 by his Republican opponent, who won by something like 100 votes.

Second of all, how much of a story was it that the Conservative party has outspent the Liberals in a huge way ? (those Dion attack ads were running long before the election).

That's just not true. Without a 60 seat majority, the Dems blocked many proposed changes. The same way they blocked reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I might be wrong, but isn't the "60 seat majority" only applicable to a fillibuster ? I don't recall that tactic being used with campaign reform and Freddy/Fannie debates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really. Please cite how they tried to initiate changes and were blocked on finance reform.

No problem, my ignorant friend.

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

The New York Times

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem, my ignorant friend.

And Bush people blocked the reforms of Democratic Senator John Corzine in 2003.

Seems like there was a lot of dirty tricks played from 2003 to 2005.

You haven't mentioned any of those things that the Republicans did.

I know Bush and McCain supporters want to say this was all started with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It wasn't. It was a whole host of things, most of which happened under Republican watch and rules.

Certainly there are Democrats who bare blame for their part in things but Republican trying to wash their hands of the whole affair is simply not being bought by anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...