[stupendousman]

Forget the fact that Obama paid Acorn a million dollars and they ended up getting caught engaging in massive vote fraud. After all, how on Earth could Obama have known that the people working for them would do such things (besides the fact that they'd been accused of the same thing before)?

Forget the fact that Obama PROMISED to accept federal funding and broke the promise once it became clear that he wouldn't be able to win if he followed the rules.

Now we find out that his campaign has CHOSEN to "not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...803413_pf.html

In other words, they aren't doing what every other candidate does, and instead they wait till later to figure out if they can find illegal contributions. No contribution that they don't discover afterwords is "illegal" in their books. It all relies on their campaign giving their word that they won't accept illegal contributions and that they'll be able to discover them before the money is spent.

Other people are doing their work for them though:

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

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

How on Earth could this happen if they are doing what they claim? It can't, because they aren't. If they simply used the same rules and regulations other campaigns use, they would never have to deal with this problem. The only reason to do it the way they are is to enable illegal contributions.

This is pretty much what the Democrats have done for years. Accept illegal funds and contributions from foreign sources over...and over...Buddhist Monks ...Indonesian Bankers...all A-OK until after the election and "WHOOPS", we'll give that money we already spent back.

Sad....sad.

A dishonest media acting as enablers.... foriegn contributions.... lies about the candidate's core values. Hey, whatever it takes to get elected!

[subego]

Doesn't seem illegal, so they aren't quite scoffing at the law, but I have to agree it's shady.

[SpaceMonkey]

You forgot the "zinger":

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

Election lawyer Brett Kappel said the FEC has never grappled with the question of cash cards. "The whole system is set up for them to accept the payment, then determine whether it is legal or not. And if it's not, send it back. That's what the statute requires," he said.

[stupendousman]

The problem is, that most other candidates use a system which detects illegal contributions at the outset. If the name on the card and address do not match, the contribution is rejected. That's the system that McCain and Clinton used.

Obama on the other hand lets ALL contributions be accepted, then we are to take them at their word that they scoured the records and caught each and every illegal contribution. The fact is that they've allowed illegal contributions to get past their diligent scouring.

With the standard security procedure, the assumption can be made that most illegal contributions will be stopped before the money is accepted, and the exception will be for them to have to go searching for illegal contributions. For Obama, the assumption can be made that they'll accept all the illegal donations, and hopefully they'll catch them all manually later, and maybe they'll have the money to pay back the contributions after the election...or not, or maybe they'll be able to find out who it was that gave them the money and return it to them...or not, just as the DNC couldn't give back all that illegal foriegn money they took back in the 90's because the original donors could not be found.

For disposable gift cards...well...uh...well...hopefully they'll catch those using them for illegal contributions as well.

Let's face it. This is being done so that they can garner illegal donations and worry about the ramifications later. This is just another prime example of why Obama wants to pretend to be like John McCain, but isn't.

[SpaceMonkey]

The fact is, both campaigns use the same fraud detection methods (only McCain uses some at "point of sale") so they should have similar error rates. Unless you've done some exhaustive research on McCain's FEC disclosures, I think we have to "take him at his word" that he is catching illegal contributions just as much as we have to give the Obama campaign the benefit of the doubt.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The fact is, both campaigns use the same fraud detection methods (only McCain uses some at "point of sale") so they should have similar error rates.

The point is just the opposite. They do not use the same fraud detection methods. There is a big difference between detecting the fraud from the get-go, and waiting until much later AND THEN TRYING to give the contribution back.

How do you give a contribution back to John Doe at 154 Main Street, Anywheresville, USA once you've deposited the money? You can't. It's the same thing the DNC did back in the 90's. They accepted the contribution, spent the money, then slapped their faces "Home Alone" style and said OH NO, these contributions weren't legal, we'll give them back. The question then becomes "back to who"? The answer is, NOBODY.

Unless you've done some exhaustive research on McCain's FEC disclosures, I think we have to "take him at his word" that he is catching illegal contributions just as much as we have to give the Obama campaign the benefit of the doubt.

I don't have to take him at his word. He's got a third party software solution that catches most all illegal contributions before they even hit the bank based on reasonable criteria - the same system Hillary Clinton uses and Obama could have used had he chosen to. There are still ways some can filter through, but they are the exception, not the rule. That's not the case with Obama. His entire operation is based on the "honor system". He already lied about taking federal funding, so I'm not sure how much his word can be taken in regards to campaign finance, especially when you see what's going on.

[SpaceMonkey]

You're talking about the procedure. The basic method ("Do the name and address match? Check.) is the same for both campaigns, only the McCain campaign uses a different procedure that tries to stop fraudulent donations automatically at the front gate, and the Obama campaign uses a more labor-intensive system at the back end. I don't think you can say that one system is more effective than the other without further evidence.

As far as what to do with fraudulent donations when you can't "give them back," it's common for campaigns to donate the money to charity or to the campaign public finance fund.

[subego]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I don't think you can say that one system is more effective than the other without further evidence.

I'd say one method is far more effective when it comes to getting money in the pot.

[SpaceMonkey]

Yes "in the pot" in general terms, but from what I understand, the Obama campaign's fraud check is performed on donations before they reach operational accounts. The advantage for the Obama campaign is that they can still credit the gift when they announce their fundraising statistics (bragging rights).

[besson3c]

Obama's breaking of his campaign financing promise is definitely one of my biggest disappointments with him.

I understand his argument about the 527s and it is a valid one, but he also knew about 527s back when he made that pledge. I'm okay with him changing his mind, but he shouldn't have made a pledge.

I'm also not pleased with illegal donations, but I have a hard time thinking that this is a campaign specific problem as opposed to just a disgusting habit of all political campaigns.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Obama's breaking of his campaign financing promise is definitely one of my biggest disappointments with him.

I understand his argument about the 527s and it is a valid one, but he also knew about 527s back when he made that pledge. I'm okay with him changing his mind, but he shouldn't have made a pledge.

I'm also not pleased with illegal donations, but I have a hard time thinking that this is a campaign specific problem as opposed to just a disgusting habit of all political campaigns.

I agree completely. If he had any doubt about raising money, he shouldn't have pledged to only accept public financing. Illegal donations happen in every campaign, this is not unique to Obama's campaign.

[ort888]

3 months until we're all cat food anyway. None of this will matter when you are converted into kibble.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm also not pleased with illegal donations, but I have a hard time thinking that this is a campaign specific problem as opposed to just a disgusting habit of all political campaigns.

Obama's is the only Presidential campaign that I can find who has done it this way. McCain, Edwards, Clinton - they all had the security in place to reject illegal donations. It is most definitely a campaign specific problem. When the Washington Post does a story essentially accusing you of not doing enough to fight known fraud, you know it's not something that the McCain camp is doing similarly.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

You're talking about the procedure. The basic method ("Do the name and address match? Check.) is the same for both campaigns, only the McCain campaign uses a different procedure that tries to stop fraudulent donations automatically at the front gate, and the Obama campaign uses a more labor-intensive system at the back end. I don't think you can say that one system is more effective than the other without further evidence.

If one is easy, and the other is more "labor-intensive" and requires more effort, there has to be a reason to go for the latter over the former and it has nothing to do with ensuring that illegal donations don't get "in the pot". Likely because once they are in the pot, it's harder to get them out of the pot. We saw this back in 1996 when the Clintons solicited all that illegal Chinese money for their campaign. This is nothing new and has everything to do with trying to leverage illegal donations before the election and worrying about what will happen with them after the election.

As far as what to do with fraudulent donations when you can't "give them back," it's common for campaigns to donate the money to charity or to the campaign public finance fund.

....after the election. After the money is spent. That's what was done with the Chinese money, but WELL AFTER the election. I think it took a couple of years to "give it back" IIRC. Really, this is quite transparent.

[kobi]

It's really getting hard to take Stupendousman's post seriously. Like this one, it had my attention until I saw the ACORN lie.

Posts that are just lies have no validity. Just like this one.

If I wanted Bullsh*t fabrications or talking points I'd watch Fox News.

It's amazing the Right is still trying to make up something to smear Obama this late in the game.

It really is.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If one is easy, and the other is more "labor-intensive" and requires more effort, there has to be a reason to go for the latter over the former and it has nothing to do with ensuring that illegal donations don't get "in the pot".

I just explained this. The benefit is that the Obama campaign gets to count all of these contributions when they announce their monthly fundraising statistics, helping them generate momentum for additional contributions and positive press. They do the vetting after the money has been received but before it goes to operational accounts (from your link: "Lawyers for the Obama operation said yesterday that their "extensive back-end review" has carefully scrubbed contributions to prevent illegal money from entering the operation's war chest"). You need more than this article to demonstrate that Obama is systematically skirting campaign finance norms and regulations more than McCain does.

[besson3c]

Stupendousman: If you really want us to take your latest "unprecedented heinous thing that the Obama campaign has done" seriously, it is best not to have a new one every week or two. It is hard to believe that all of this unprecedented stuff has been happening so often and flying under the radar, and frankly, I don't feel terribly inspired to research your latest illumination.

[kobi]

My question is does the Republican Party really want to get into a debate over campaign corruption when you have so many Republicans who have ruined their careers over this?

Off the top of my head I think of:

Rick Davis- McCain campaign chairman

Tom Delay

Jack Abramoff

Ted Stevens- who was just convicted on 7 corruption counts

Given that McCain's whole campaign hired nothing but lobbyists, again do they really want to open this can of worms? It would be stupid to do so.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by kobi 

It's really getting hard to take Stupendousman's post seriously. Like this one, it had my attention until I saw the ACORN lie.

Posts that are just lies have no validity. Just like this one.

If I wanted Bullsh*t fabrications or talking points I'd watch Fox News.

It's amazing the Right is still trying to make up something to smear Obama this late in the game.

It really is.

Your opinion is noted.

[stupendousman]

[QUOTE=SpaceMonkey;3751299]I just explained this. The benefit is that the Obama campaign gets to count all of these contributions when they announce their monthly fundraising statistics, helping them generate momentum for additional contributions and positive press.[quote]


That may well be A benefit. Another big one is when you accept donations without having to match address and name to the card, you can get money from people who have already given the limit, and use that money. How do you check against fraud with one of those credit/debit gift cards that Obama will accept? You really can't. How do you give back the money? You really can't.

They do the vetting after the money has been received but before it goes to operational accounts (from your link: "Lawyers for the Obama operation said yesterday that their "extensive back-end review" has carefully scrubbed contributions to prevent illegal money from entering the operation's war chest").

Tell it to Mary T. Biskup.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Stupendousman: If you really want us to take your latest "unprecedented heinous thing that the Obama campaign has done" seriously, it is best not to have a new one every week or two. It is hard to believe that all of this unprecedented stuff has been happening so often and flying under the radar, and frankly, I don't feel terribly inspired to research your latest illumination.

Besson, if you really want us to take your "everyone does it" schtick seriously, you really need to illustrate that the thing we are discussing actually is done by everyone. Given that it isn't, it's clear you are just forwarding sour grapes.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by kobi 

My question is does the Republican Party really want to get into a debate over campaign corruption when you have so many Republicans who have ruined their careers over this?

Off the top of my head I think of:

Rick Davis- McCain campaign chairman

Tom Delay

Jack Abramoff

Ted Stevens- who was just convicted on 7 corruption counts

Given that McCain's whole campaign hired nothing but lobbyists, again do they really want to open this can of worms? It would be stupid to do so.

I can top that with one link:

1996 United States campaign finance controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But really, I'm not trying to run a race between the two parties. I'm simply pointed out that Obama will do whatever underhanded thing he thinks he can get away with in order to win the election - things that no other Presidential candidate has done. That's what the link I provided pretty much illustrates.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Tell it to Mary T. Biskup.

The anecdote is meaningless when the other side can point to similar cases (From your article: "Dan Pfeiffer, Obama's communication's director, said that 'no organization can fully insulate itself from these problems. The McCain campaign has accepted contributions from fraudulent contributors like 'A for You,' 'Adorable Manabat,' 'The Gun Shop,' and 'Jesus II' and hundreds of anonymous donors.'")

You still haven't provided evidence that Obama's "back end" checks are substantially less rigorous than McCain's "front end" checks, anecdotes about either campaign aside. I've already explained the main benefit for the Obama campaign in using their system, and pointed out that unless a donation gets through their screening (which appears to happen for both sides), they don't get to "accept money from people who have already given the limit, and use that money." They screen after they receive the funds, but before it gets to the "war chest," as the Obama campaign puts it.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Forget the fact that Obama PROMISED to accept federal funding and broke the promise once it became clear that he wouldn't be able to win if he followed the rules.

You mean the *optional* rules.

Oh, and ...
Oh no! He promised? Heaven forbid politician should ever break a promise.

[kido331]

Obama is supposed to be about transparency and bringing the people into the political process. By not disclosing his donors under $200 and then allowing for potential abuses by disabling safety measures which are standard with every credit card service, he immediately starts his presidency with about half of the country believing he bought the election with illegal funds.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Obama on the other hand lets ALL contributions be accepted, then we are to take them at their word that they scoured the records and caught each and every illegal contribution.

You don't trust their word?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That may well be A benefit. Another big one is when you accept donations without having to match address and name to the card, you can get money from people who have already given the limit, and use that money.

Except, it sounds like they're vetting the legality of the funds before they go into use. If so, they aren't actually *using* any funds found to be illegal.

[zerostar]

Speaking of a Scofflaw.... McCain has some sticky situation himself.

Big campaign donors typically come with deep pockets and influence. But in Illinois this election cycle, no one not running for office himself has given more to the nation's federal campaigns than Shi Sheng Hao of Roselle, a virtual unknown in business and political circles.

Before September 2007, Hao's name had never appeared in the 15-year-old federal database of campaign contributors. Since then, however, his donations have topped $120,000 — including $70,100 on a single June day to Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

Over the same time frame, a network of Hao relatives has kicked in more. The take from this group over the last 13 months exceeds $269,000, a small amount to Democrats but most of it to McCain and the Republican National Committee, records show.

Hao didn't register to vote at the northwest suburban address attached to his donations until October 2007, a month after he wrote his first political check, $25,000 to the RNC.

The circumstances surrounding Hao's sudden and prolific political activism are curious and his whereabouts unclear. His name isn't listed on property records or the mailbox at the unassuming tract home listed on his donations. Hao lives "overseas," insisted a man who answered the door at the Roselle home recently. The man declined to identify himself.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,1269595.story

What do we make of this, a very relevant revelation to this thread don't you think?

[ort888]

REPUBLICANS


DEMOCRATS

[kobi]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I can top that with one link:

1996 United States campaign finance controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But really, I'm not trying to run a race between the two parties. I'm simply pointed out that Obama will do whatever underhanded thing he thinks he can get away with in order to win the election - things that no other Presidential candidate has done. That's what the link I provided pretty much illustrates.

I'm confused? Your link is about a US Campaign Controversy in 1996. After reading the article there was no Political Figure, or Elected Official that charged, indicted, subpoenaed or implicated in the mess? How is this relevant? I was talking about the Republican's that were convicted, removed from office and are currently under subpoena.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Forget the fact that Obama paid Acorn a million dollars and they ended up getting caught engaging in massive vote fraud.

It wasn't a million dollars, it wasn't for this election, and it wasn't voter fraud. The fraud was on them, they didn't try to hide it and they marked them as suspect when found. Your lies are just too much. How can anyone believe a word you say?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Forget the fact that Obama PROMISED to accept federal funding and broke the promise once it became clear that he wouldn't be able to win if he followed the rules.

You do know that McCain tried to opt-out as well in February right? Sure you didn't forget that fact did you?