Gateway Pundit: Obama-Biden Campaign Still Not Verifying Credit Card Donations
[Guest post by DRJ]
Gateway Pundit posts a screenshot of this donation by “Tony Rezko” he received from a reader, a donation the reader claims was charged to his credit card account:
Gateway Pundit states the campaign has turned off its credit card Address Verification System, enabling it to accept donations from anywhere in the world. He calls this the “largest campaign donation fraud in history.”
There’s much more at the Gateway Pundit link.
— DRJ
This is how the Obama campaign has raised so much money. Fraud.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/25/2008 @ 3:44 pmC’mon, you guys. The “lifelong Republicans” that come here know this is just a distraction and we should be talking about Sarah Palin’s wardrobe costs.
Nothing to see here.
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/25/2008 @ 3:54 pmAce of Spades, and several others, have been all over this for a few days now. Where have you guys been?
Push this and push it hard!!!!
fred (695a1d) — 10/25/2008 @ 3:57 pmfred,
It’s a big internet and I think it’s more fun when we talk about a variety of things.
DRJ (c953ab) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:03 pmRather than calling it the “largest campaign donation fraud in history,” they need to add the word “opportunity” in there. Otherwise, this will land with a thud, just like the ACORN hysteria.
It’s a huge fraud opportunity. That’s all. Jumping to conclusions (obviously you WANT it to be fraud) will just get you ignored.
Phil (3b1633) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:08 pmfred,
It’s a big internet and I think it’s more fun when we talk about a variety of things.
Comment by DRJ —
Well, if Obama gets elected, there is that possibility that the things you talk about may be limited.
fred (695a1d) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:09 pmNo, its the largest actual fraud, Phil. If any ordinary merchant account had this much fraud, it would have been shut down by the card processing industry a year ago.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:09 pmToday I picture this:
Obama is elected as the first African American president and is also the first African American president to be impeached in his first year in office, all because of credit card voter fraud.
And it will add fuel to the racist fire.
ML (14488c) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:13 pmfred,
Maybe so, but that doesn’t mean we all have to respond at the same time and with the same talking points.
DRJ (c953ab) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:13 pmRather than calling it the “largest campaign donation fraud in history,” they need to add the word “opportunity” in there. Otherwise, this will land with a thud, just like the ACORN hysteria.
It’s a huge fraud opportunity. That’s all. Jumping to conclusions (obviously you WANT it to be fraud) will just get you ignored.
Comment by Phil
1) The ACORN situation is not hysteria. In Ohio alone, there are over 200,000 new registrations which have been flagged as not matching any available record in Ohio. Sure, there may be some that are due to benign mistakes (misspellings, etc.), but many of these are also from the ACORN effort. Despite all the known suspect activities by ACORN in Ohio, the corrupt Democrat Secretary of State ruled that no further checks will be done on them. If, indeed, a number of these turn out to be fraudulent, nothing can be done if votes are then cast.
2) The credit card scam is fraud since the verification checks have to be manually disabled.
fred (695a1d) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:18 pmFred,
Don’t worry, nobody is taking away free speech without a long bloody fight.
Even the messiah cant do it.
ML (14488c) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:20 pmNo merchant would be allowed to submit this much garbage credit card transactions. All of the card processors would shut down a merchant account that behaved like this. It is part of their contractual policies.
Only Obama can get away with this kind of crooked behavior.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:21 pmIf any ordinary merchant account had this much fraud, it would have been shut down by the card processing industry a year ago.
How much fraud is “this much fraud”? I haven’t seen any fraud actually proven, other than the fraud of the McCain supporters gaming the system.
Phil (3b1633) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:21 pmPhil, people are finding thousands of fake names in Obama’s filings. There have been many postings on it. Your willful ignorance routine got old last year.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:22 pmThe credit card scam is fraud since the verification checks have to be manually disabled.
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand where you get your definition of “fraud.” Since when is it fraud to uncheck a box in a piece of software? Why is the box there, except so that some users can uncheck it if they want?
Phil (3b1633) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:23 pmPhil, pretending not to understand is a routine of yours we grew tired of long ago.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:26 pmCredit card companies require the cardholder name and address to match the person attempting to use it, especially on internet transactions, in order to prevent someone from using someone else’s card.
In addition, federal election law requires that donations be by American citizens and the candidates are required to take reasonable steps to ensure their donors are eligible to contribute. Unchecking the box (something the Obama campaign apparently did, not the donors) is not a reasonable attempt to ensure legal donations.
DRJ (c953ab) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:26 pmPhil, people are finding thousands of fake names in Obama’s filings.
Thousands of fake names? Really? And did these fake “people” use real credit cards and computers? Because it should be very easy to establish who really donated the money, with proper investigation.
The problem is, I’m cynical after the whole ACORN “voter fraud” fiasco, where the McCain campaign has basically made up fraud.
So I’ll wait until someone who isn’t already convinced that Obama is a criminal objectively examines the evidence. Because you guys basically turn everything into fraud.
Phil (3b1633) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:27 pmPhil, pretending to be ignorant of the issue is not “cynical”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:28 pmSPQR, I have litigated civil fraud cases — and criminal fraud is even harder to prove. So I know what fraud is, and I don’t see evidence of actual fraud here yet. Even “thousands of fake names” isn’t fraud, as there are plenty of reasonable explanations for “thousands of fake names.”
Phil (3b1633) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:28 pmPhil, it is amusing that you claim to have litigated civil fraud cases, but are ignorant of card processing company’s policies.
I take that back. I am not amused at you. I got tired of your pretend ignorance a long time ago.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:30 pm…as there are plenty of reasonable explanations for “thousands of fake names.”
Phil, I’m not a lawyer. Please enlighten me.
Dana (658c17) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:31 pmLargest International Money-Laundering Fraud in History!
Another Drew (b6f99f) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:31 pmDana, Phil “enlighten” ? That would be some trick.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:32 pmDana, Obama got $150 million in donations last month. No single donation was over $2700.
That means tons of people filling out online forms. Ever seen samples of the data people enter into online forms? A lot of people use abbreviations, refuse to enter their addresses, etc. Hardly anyone capitalizes.
The thousands of “fake names” could easily be simply names where people were lazy and didn’t fill out the forms correctly.
Phil (3b1633) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:38 pmOops, the contribution limit is $2300, not $2700. So there were even more total donations than I thought.
Phil (3b1633) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:39 pmSPQR, in order for the credit card companies to be concerned about fraud, they have to get fraud complaints, and reversed/unauthorized charges. How many fraud complaints have there been regarding the Obama site? If there have been lots of fraud complaints, then I apologize, I wasn’t aware of that.
Otherwise, I’m sure the credit card companies are happy as clams collecting their percentage of each transaction.
Phil (3b1633) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:41 pmI don’t think he is, either…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:43 pm#13 Phil
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand where you get your definition of “fraud.”
I will let you in on a little secret, there is a book floating around and the title on it says: “dictionary”
ML (14488c) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:45 pmWhen you don’t know what a word means you use that book and it will tell you, remember the title was “dictionary”, they are available from the local book stores and also on-line.
Phil, I cannot believe that you really believe this.
Mickey Mouse, Mary Poppins and the starting lineup for the Dallas Cowboys? Seriously? Those are some crazy typos and/or pretty lazy people, no?
(The non-lawyer in me calls bull on the lawyer in you.)
Dana (658c17) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:47 pmThe picture shows a $10 donation, the credit card receipt shows a $15 charge.
The right wing blogs pushing this story might want to verify this, looks like a hoax.
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:49 pmcould easily be simply names where people were lazy and didn’t fill out the forms correctly.
Oh. Mah. Gawd. Most hilarious excuse yet from Phil. “Hey, it was just some lazy people who wanted to give a bunch of their personal monies to a candidate, but didn’t bother to fill out the forms. Yeah, that’s the ticket!”
Dmac (e30284) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:52 pmSnuffy, have you looked up the definition to socialism yet? We’d like to hear your thoughts on the subject, since a multitude of prior explanations seems to have been completely lost on you.
Dmac (e30284) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:54 pm#8 do you really think a Congress led by Pelosi and Reid would even consider impeaching Obama? Yes, I know it is the most ethical Congress in history or at least was promised that it would be. Pelosi wanted a former impeached judge, Alcee Hastings of Miami to head the House Intelligence committee. William Jefferson had a freezer full of cold cash. Just how many dems actually voted for impeachment of Bill Clinton? How many even now want to impeach Bush and Cheney for bogus political reasons? Jesus, there’s oodles of video out there of dems calling for ouster of Hussein and removal of wmd way before Bush even ran for POTUS and the media ignores that and everything else that reflects poorly on liberals. Bush and most other Repubs are apparently fearful of cries of racism to do anything about Freddie and Fanny as Franks and Dodd get a free pass while Dodd and Obama managed to be nos. 1 and 2 in receiving $$$ from those same agencies. How many voters are the least bit aware or give a good shite?
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 10/25/2008 @ 4:54 pmEvery body is concentrating on the Obama for America fund since that is where the bogus stuff piled up enough to hit over the 200 dollar combined donations to appear in the FEC listings with the stuff that fell through all the security measures.
Now what some forget or don’t even know about there is an Obama / DNC Joint Victory Fund also out there linked to the campaign.
Since that is a national party level fund the donor cap is 28,500.00 per donor.
A bogus donation as a proxy for a real person via a credit card they do not own will not set off alarm bells with them.
Make up a name and address and check there is not a match to your bogus person and donate 28.5k at a pop.
Repeat as necessary.
You would be surprised how many retired/unemployed people max out their donations to that fund while every body is looking through the primary Presidential fund and ignoring this one.
daytrader (ea6549) — 10/25/2008 @ 5:00 pmsnuffles,
That’s a good question. Why don’t you ask Gateway Pundit?
DRJ (c953ab) — 10/25/2008 @ 5:08 pmDRJ,
Why?
The right pushing yet another hoax in the closing days of the campaign would make me smile.
It’s not my reputation on the line.
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/25/2008 @ 5:12 pmEvery time you comment here you put your reputation on the line, as do I.
DRJ (c953ab) — 10/25/2008 @ 5:16 pmDana, Obama got $150 million in donations last month. No single donation was over $2700.
That means tons of people filling out online forms. Ever seen samples of the data people enter into online forms? A lot of people use abbreviations, refuse to enter their addresses, etc. Hardly anyone capitalizes.
So the lazy contributers put their name down as “qwerty?” The point is that contributions under 200 dollars do not have to be reported and the Obama campaign has refused to report them. So, if George Soros and Company fill out thousands of 99 dollar contributions with fake names, nobody is the wiser. If Obama is elected, I can guarantee you this will never be proven.
The thousands of “fake names” could easily be simply names where people were lazy and didn’t fill out the forms correctly.
Comment by Phil
See above. The moon could also be made of green cheese and I could look like Robert Redford did when he was 30.
This is the campaign fraud equivalent of an earthquake.
Mike K (2cf494) — 10/25/2008 @ 5:17 pmWhy is it “campaign fraud equivalent of an earthquake” Mike?
A legitamate donor using his own credit card is perfectly legal.
The Obama campaign and this fool’s credit card company know his real name and address.
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/25/2008 @ 5:22 pm# 34
Madmax333
In my lame scenario either the republicans would have to have regained control of congress or public outcry is so great the dems are left without a choice.
It’s a fantasy.
ML (14488c) — 10/25/2008 @ 5:25 pmSo you think his real name is “Toy Rezko”?
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 10/25/2008 @ 5:30 pmsnuffles
From what I understand
These transactions are CNP transactions, CNP = card not present.
The only way to verify whether the transaction is legitimate or not, is to have the number of the card and all other info, name, address, ect, match whats on file with the credit card company,
if they don’t match its fraud.
The Obama claims he can run this country, when in reality the dingle Barry couldn’t run a simple on-line store.
ML (14488c) — 10/25/2008 @ 5:33 pmScott,
This guy would have to raise his contribution to the Obama campaign (thanks, comrade) up past $2300 to see if there’s any rule-breaking taking place.
As it is, this guy just used his own credit card to donate to Obama.
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/25/2008 @ 5:36 pmThere are already documented cases of over-contributions that were accumulated at $200/donation or less. Donations from such stalwert citizens as “Good Will”!
They (the Obama Campaign) have already refunded some of these overs, though interestingly, in one case, the amount they refunded was less than the overage. How does that work? And, with contributions that came from overseas, too.
International Money-Laundering and/or Fraud!
Probably both, and not an accident in sight.
Another Drew (b6f99f) — 10/25/2008 @ 5:42 pmYou really are quite dense…
He was demonstrating how a standard, generic, default method of protection (entering the name as it appears on the card) is absent.
Now, do I have to explain to you WHY that feature is there by default, and how it being disabled could suggest a willingness to allow fraud?
Here’s the long and short of “why it’s fraud”. They have created an environment where fraud is very, very easy. They have DECREASED protections, making fraud easier.
It’s called conspiracy (*sigh* look it up, as I’m not explaining how it has multiple definitions), or probably acomplace.
I’ll say it again, moron… The campaign ACTIVELY REMOVED THIS FEATURE. It isn’t “we didn’t know you could stop people from doing that”, it’s “Shit steve… turn that stupid thing off”.
You howled about ONE MAN in Cali registering at an old address so he could “prove” he was from the state so his company could get a contract to register voters… People in Ohio (well, they were at one point) have BRAGGED how they registered illegally, and then voted by absentee ballot…
Holding to that, you would likely scream bloody murder if someone donated $2,301 to McCain…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 10/25/2008 @ 6:10 pmFor the nay-sayers here, here is a link to a post at PowerLine on this subject
Another Drew (b6f99f) — 10/25/2008 @ 6:12 pmhttp://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021881.php
Please go there, read it, and tell the rest of us how they got it wrong.
More criticism of Dems for Obama’s fraudulent fund-raising….
Another Drew (b6f99f) — 10/25/2008 @ 6:27 pmhttp://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/f86f2f0e-27d1-4ebf-91f5-ae008c868a29&trackbacks=true#commentAnchor
Darleen also did the same thing Gateway Pundit did.
And shockingly got the same results.
I went back to the Obama site and made three additional donations using the names Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Bill Ayers, all with different addresses. All the transactions went through using the same credit card. I saved screenshots of the transactions.
ML (14488c) — 10/25/2008 @ 6:39 pmExperiment on Camp Obama
I would like to know where are the records of donations as linked to credit card accounts. It would seem that the easiest way to commit fraud in this manner is to make multiple max (or sub-max) donations using many different names but on the same credit card number. I imagine somewhere those transactions are available. Who has jurisdiction to do that?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/25/2008 @ 6:50 pmDarleen also did the same thing Gateway Pundit did.
Are there any McCain “supporters” who haven’t donated to Obama’s campaign?
Priceless 🙂
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/25/2008 @ 8:18 pmsnuffles
I am sure that entire $80 bucks combined will help the messiah win this election.
Talk about priceless.
ML (14488c) — 10/25/2008 @ 8:36 pmsnuffles:
Lighten up, guys. This is funny.
DRJ (c953ab) — 10/25/2008 @ 8:39 pmSnuffles is a code name for precious. You know those Socialists. They like turning an apple into an orange. Or a fraud into a president.
Vermont Neighbor (c91cfe) — 10/25/2008 @ 8:40 pm41 ML-
Au contraire, you may be right. We saw how Americans were pissed at Clinton in the round of elections after his first two years of crap like tax raise, Hillary’s health care fiasco, etc. Trouble is the Senators are only up to 1/3 possible replacement every two years. I’m wondering what braking effect the SCOTUS might have on unconstitutional acts by Obama and his enablers in Congress? How can the SCOTUS actually enforce their decisions if Executive and Congress tell them to go blow it out their butts? Recall that FDR tried pulling an end around.
I’m hazy on the federal election commission, but isn’t Obama blocking appointment of someone to make a full complement?
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 10/25/2008 @ 8:44 pmFred,
Don’t worry, nobody is taking away free speech without a long bloody fight.
Even the messiah cant do it.
Comment by ML
Not by himself. But he will have the help of a possible Democrat super-majority in the House led by a very far left idiot. And it’s possible he may have the help of a veto-proof Democrat Senate led by another far left idiot.
Worst still, there will be three SCOTUS replacements in short order…and I don’t think he’ll make appointments in the mold of Alito and Roberts…you know..jurists who actually follow the constitution and who don’t make decisions based on their own ideology.
I am not one who is prone to hyperbole. Based on what I’ve seen about Obama..I don’t doubt that he would do whatever possible to stifle dissent
fred (850cda) — 10/25/2008 @ 8:45 pm53 it all adds up. I’d be afraid of giving those O lackeys my credit card number. Too much fraud going on online. I had ten bogus charges on paypal from someone buying credit at skype using my account. Talked to what seemed like Russians while trying to straighten it out and think since the two companies are synergistic that it was inside thievery attempt. My point being how do you know the Obamabots would not max out your card or “mistakenly” add extra decimals?
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 10/25/2008 @ 8:49 pmOne lady was charged over $100k and said it was a mistake? Like she actually didn’t know about it or didn’t realize she was over the limit?
Have you never heard of the Fairness Doctrine?
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 10/25/2008 @ 9:11 pmI fully expect one of the first things the Obama administration will do is to address the serious questions about campaign financing and media fairness.
“We need some controls on all this money!” they will cry. “Never again should it take a billion dollars to run for President!”
And then they will proceed to establish laws with teeth, that make it impossible to challenge an incumbent’s natural advantage. And of course, all those “issue ads” will have to go, along with all those internet sites and advocacy groups that stick their nose into the campaign. Too much chance for chicanery there, so we’ll just have to police the lot of it. Etc.
If any one good thing comes out of this, it would be John McCain calling for the repeal of McCain-Feingold and all other campaign laws. They obviously don’t work if Obama can buy the Presidency with foreign money and unlimited domestic donations from fat cat donors.
It’s not like the Obama DoJ or FEC or Congress or anyone is going to investigate this travesty once he wins.
And maybe that’s the challenge for bloggers: follow the money and report. No one else will.
Kevin (0b2493) — 10/25/2008 @ 9:20 pmI would like to know where are the records of donations as linked to credit card accounts.
They don’t keep the credit card numbers purportedly due to a risk of the accounts being compromised. So you could donate all you wanted just by using different names/addresses and the same card.
Taltos (4dc0e8) — 10/25/2008 @ 9:33 pmThe Bush DoJ should subpoena the credit card company and clearinghouses’ records, at least as far as all donations over the limits and/or from overseas. Obama may not have records but the CC folks do.
They’ll probably squawk about privacy, but if they limit the request to evidence of criminality it’ll be hard to refuse.
Kevin (0b2493) — 10/25/2008 @ 9:41 pmWell, I did what you lazy wingnuts are too scared to do: I interviewed the donors.
Jim Treacher (592cb4) — 10/25/2008 @ 9:58 pmI think some folks are missing a few things about credit card processing. The requirements to use AVS are set by the merchant account an organization uses. CC authorizations do not always require name and address verification. If you enter a fake name and address when the system isn’t checking against the name and address, it doesn’t matter.
Credit cards are attached to real people with real addresses and real social security numbers. That information can be used for verification purposes when the transaction occurs, but they can also be used for record keeping. Credit cards can also be checked at the time of the authorization to see if the card is domestic or foreign.
As far as fraud goes, someone could use a stolen CC to make a donation, but all that will do is cost the campaign transaction fees after the transaction is flagged as fraud and the campaign has to return the donation.
So it looks like Gateway Pundit, Powerline and Steyn haven’t really thought this cunning Obama plan through. But that’s not really surprising.
PC (b4b303) — 10/25/2008 @ 10:08 pmSo it looks like Gateway Pundit, Powerline and Steyn haven’t really thought this cunning Obama plan through. But that’s not really surprising.
Comment by PC
Are you lying or a fool ?
The credit card is owned by the person who wishes to make the fraudulent contribution. In order to avoid FEC penalties, they generate thousands of fake names linked to the donor’s card. He is not going to complain to the credit card company. This was his intent all along. The perfect crime but the Obamabots don’t see it.
Why am I not surprised ?
Mike K (2cf494) — 10/25/2008 @ 10:42 pmIn order to avoid FEC penalties, they generate thousands of fake names linked to the donor’s card.
If the FEC is using user entered information to track who has donated how much they are utter morons. The sensible thing to do is require a monthly report that includes the information that is on file with the credit card companies. That information will have the name, address and social security number and can be cross referenced to see if the card holder has made donations with other cards. The SSN is the most important piece of information since it is used as a PK for identity.
Seriously. This conspiracy theory is stupid.
PC (b4b303) — 10/25/2008 @ 11:01 pmPC – your assumptions peg you as the “stupid” one.
Do you seriously suggest that credit users have real names like “Test Person”, or jumbles of consonants? Those are the ACTUAL names posted by the Obama campaign, so I seriously doubt they have the real names on hand.
Calvin Dodge (ce0475) — 10/25/2008 @ 11:43 pmCalvin Dodge – It’s late and my SQL is a bit rusty, but off the top of my head:
select sum(c.amount) from charges as c, account as a, vendor as v where a.cc_number=1234123412341234 and a.account_id=c.account_id and c.vendor_id=v.vendor_id and v.vendor_id=12345;
Not sure if anyone at the FEC has figured out how to do the same thing.
PC (b4b303) — 10/26/2008 @ 12:22 amAmazing.
Blame the people uncovering the fraud for their efforts into uncovering the fraud.
The fact is that you must specifically opt out of the name AND address cross reference versus the CC number. It is NOT an opt-in system. Opt-out is specifically done to combat FRAUD.
If someone steals my CC, my name is printed on it; my address is not. So for someone to make multiple small contributions and not complain to the cc company, he/she has to be a willing participant in the fraud.
So, the Obama campaign has specifically disabled this anti-fraud provision. Why would someone do that?
The ONLY reason to do it is to aid and abet fraud. Willfully.
What is amazing is the Obamians absolutely refuse to see how this could be a problem.
And I will not even mention the lack of proof of citizenship for foreign donations.
I guess “Yes we can!” is the answer to the question: is there any way, leagally or not, to scam the FEC regulations without getting caught?
Dr. K (5139b5) — 10/26/2008 @ 5:13 amOk, then they’re utter morons. Just because you could figure out a system which would stop this, doesn’t mean it’s in place.
At this point it’s too late, the whole matter is going to be investigated by the Obama Justice department.
Brett Bellmore (e96d96) — 10/26/2008 @ 5:47 amAnother way to look at it is that the Obama campaign’s credit card processing security is deliberately worse than a porn DVD company’s.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/26/2008 @ 10:19 amAre you lying or a fool ?
The credit card is owned by the person who wishes to make the fraudulent contribution. In order to avoid FEC penalties, they generate thousands of fake names linked to the donor’s card. He is not going to complain to the credit card company. This was his intent all along. The perfect crime but the Obamabots don’t see it.
Why am I not surprised ?
Comment by Mike K —
In addition, there are likely corrupt well-to-do Dems who fund credit cards for Obama “volunteers” who do the dirty work..like the fraudulant registrants or the ACORN crooks all across the country
fred (695a1d) — 10/26/2008 @ 10:33 amThe fraudulent campaign contribution enabling methodology methodology shows that Obama did indeed learn something from his years in Chicago and has been exporting it to other Democratic politicians as indicated on some of the links.
The Chicago Way!
daleyrocks (60704b) — 10/26/2008 @ 11:34 amI would like to know where are the records of donations as linked to credit card accounts.
They don’t keep the credit card numbers purportedly due to a risk of the accounts being compromised. So you could donate all you wanted just by using different names/addresses and the same card. Comment by Taltos — 10/25/2008 @ 9:33 pm
The Bush DoJ should subpoena the credit card company and clearinghouses’ records, at least as far as all donations over the limits and/or from overseas. Obama may not have records but the CC folks do.
They’ll probably squawk about privacy, but if they limit the request to evidence of criminality it’ll be hard to refuse. Comment by Kevin — 10/25/2008 @ 9:41 pm
Thank you for your replies.
In regards to the FEC, we would need to know the specific procedures they use to look for irregularities, and whether or not they actually use them.
But I believe WLS (correct me if I’m wrong) has posted several times about Obama’s non-compliance with timely submission of reports to the FEC, and we know that in Ohio at least the authorities charged with oversight of the election process are refusing to carry out their responsibilities.
I wonder if the Obama operatives think that as long as they stall any investigations until after the election they’ll be clear, thinking that no one would risk public uprising at the attack of “The One’s” victory.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/26/2008 @ 11:59 amOk, then they’re utter morons. Just because you could figure out a system which would stop this, doesn’t mean it’s in place.
A government agency being moronic? Unpossible!
It just seems odd that such an obvious loophole as what is being described here would take this long to discover. Let me present another scenario that is also easily exploitable if there is no verification via SSN using credit cards.
Say I have multiple residences, multiple credit cards and a relatively common name. Donating through a system that uses AVS would never catch me if it didn’t also check something against a primary identity key.
This is a massive loophole if it actually exists. But I would still like someone to explain how the FEC tracks and verifies donations to political candidates. Both campaigns have had to return donations, so there is some other check in the system that is catching fraudulent donations.
PC (b4b303) — 10/26/2008 @ 12:02 pm“Donating through a system that uses AVS would never catch me if it didn’t also check something against a primary identity key.”
PC – You may be right, but who knows. The primary potential fraud the AVS check can prevent is contributions in a name other than the card holder, some foreign contributions, and others described in the linked articles. Multiple primary billing addresses for the different cards are another issue. How common do you think it is?
daleyrocks (60704b) — 10/26/2008 @ 12:09 pm— I would still like someone to explain how the FEC tracks and verifies donations to political candidates. —
cboldt (3d73dd) — 10/26/2008 @ 1:24 pm.
Why don’t you inform yourself? Say by reading the FEC website.
.
Then you can use what you’ve read and misrepresent it.
Multiple primary billing addresses for the different cards are another issue. How common do you think it is?
They don’t need to be multiple primaries, it could be a secondary address. I have a secondary address attached to my cards for shipping things to the office. As to the number of people that could exploit such a hole? Any retirees with two houses and any college kids that don’t live at home while in school, to start.
If what is being reported is an existing loophole, it is huge, and it needs to be closed. Here is an interesting article explaining potential abuses and what the FEC requires the campaigns to do if they can’t verify donor information.
PC (b4b303) — 10/26/2008 @ 1:37 pm— the Washington Post reported on Oct. 21 that $174,800 was returned to a Missouri couple after their credit card number was used to make more than 70 donations in one day to the Obama campaign. —
cboldt (3d73dd) — 10/26/2008 @ 4:00 pm.
Oops.
$174,800 divided by more than 70 is something close to 2,300 per transaction. Whoever was pumping cash into the campaign used the wrong CC No, one that happened to translate into some Missouri couple. Modify that so the CC holder has no objection to the $174,800 charge, and those same “over 70 donations on the same card” will fly below FEC radar.
cboldt (3d73dd) — 10/26/2008 @ 4:03 pmML
Just point of fact: you posted this on a blog that can’t manage to set up a login system at all. The domain name was outside of Patterico’s control. The login system is well within his control.
Either you just put your foot in your mouth, or you truly believe Patterico is a dingle. You’re not saying Patterico is a dingle, are you?
But the larger point is: I want to see this investigated. If there is a crime here, I want justice to be served. I want no criminals as my President. I support Obama, but I wouldn’t support him that far.
On the other side of the coin, if the investigation turns up nothing, I want the matter dropped. I want it dropped like it never happened, because it didn’t.
i like america (d2f951) — 10/26/2008 @ 4:34 pmHow can “over 70” contributions totalling $174,800 (when the individual limit is $2350) not be anything other than a crime?
Another Drew (77fad0) — 10/26/2008 @ 4:41 pmIs this just a mistake? Over 70 different contributors being mistakenly charged to one, particular credit card?
That line of reasoning doesn’t pass the smell test!
When you have committed the largest international money-laundering in history to secure the nomination, and election, to the highest office in the land, how can anyone look at you other than as a crook?
Credit card companies require the cardholder name and address to match the person attempting to use it, especially on internet transactions, in order to prevent someone from using someone else’s card.
ya know to say I’ve made some CC purchases viz the internet might be a bit of an understatement, I’ve spent a massive amount via the net using a card. If EVER I tried to send merchandise to an address that was not specifically added to my CC company, the purchase got turned down! 100% of the time!
CC co.’s got onto the fraud thing rather early when customers refused to pay the bill because the stuff purchased was not purchased by them. In the hotel biz, I know that we must have an address on file to charge for a No-show reservation. When we did the term we used was, “Phone Order”. Lots of stuff if bought and eventually charged for via phone. Even doing all the CC co required us to do,if the cardholder balked, AX, would side with the holder, (except when it was me), VISA/MC handed it to local bank issuing card to most favored customer, (merchant farked), thank gawd for fig chains that had some clout with the card companies. But I fear that on too many occasions, it was the chain actually picking up the tab.
But for a political campaign to be allowed such open discretion? Considering our current laws about contributions, such is a total fraud. Both on the card holder and the American public! Not to mention something as simple as , “if it don’t fit, then you must NEVER acquit!
You desire to check it out, call VISA and see their requirements for an online merchant! If such has indeed happened the CC co’s themselves are contributing directly to the fraud!
Drew, #81, I do totally agree with your comment, but then try to think it through the left mindset. The end justifies the means, always!
Just ask Joe the plumber.
TC (0b9ca4) — 10/27/2008 @ 12:38 amI have not yet read the comments here, but I am going to predict that tmj argues that it is hypocritical to even talk about this, and sniffles will suggest that if Cindy McCain were not a felon, Baracky would not have done this.
JD (5b4781) — 10/27/2008 @ 5:39 amPhil – Is it, or is it not, a felony to make a political contribution in someone else’s name?
qwerty poiuyt (5b4781) — 10/27/2008 @ 5:41 amACORN’s felonies are McCain’s fault. Gotcha.
As opposed to the Baracky campaign, where they make no such effort to verify donors, and actual strip the available built-in safeguards from their system.
ila makes this assertion, but I do not recall any inability to do so. I do not even recall it being discussed. Maybe ila can show us where Patterico attempted to do so, and was not capable of doing so.
JD (5b4781) — 10/27/2008 @ 5:54 amCredit cards are assigned an account number, a verification number (3-4 digit number on the back), and the name of the account holder. To verify who is makeing a dontation tou check the the total dolar amount drawn from the credit card not the name filled in the database. This is the only name that can be truely validated.
Example: Joe Smith American Express Card. #5555.
Joe uses the card to make a $200 dontation and fills out Mickey Mouse on the form. Joe then makes a second $200 donation and fills out Miney Mouse. The only verifiable action is that $400 has been donated using Joe Smith’s American Express Card.
Using the above example it is not even possible to prove Joe broke the rules. The second donation could have been from his wife using the family credit card.
The real area of concern is that the check for who is dontating is using an unverifiable data field instead of the proven data provided by the credit card. The check system was set up to allow abuse.
james (ae64d8) — 10/27/2008 @ 7:53 amFrom the Corner:
“Meanwhile, last week a reader made a donation to the Obama campaign under the name “Adolfe Hitler” (Don’t ask me why the “e”) of “#1 Reichstag Building, Berlin, Germany”, charging it to his Mastercard and is now getting welcome-to-the-big-change emails:
‘ Dear Adolfe,
Thanks for joining this movement. It will take all of us working together to bring change to this country, and we wanted to make sure you know about all the opportunities to get involved in your community and online.
Check out the resources below — learn how you can connect with fellow supporters, organize in your neighborhood, build our national grassroots organization, and stay informed with the very latest campaign news.’ “
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/27/2008 @ 9:05 pm