Was Obama rattled by developing donor scandal story?

[R8ers]

President Obama's reelection campaign, rattled by his Wednesday night debate performance, could be in for even worse news. According to knowledgeable sources, a national magazine and a national web site are preparing a blockbuster donor scandal story.

Sources told Secrets that the Obama campaign has been trying to block the story. But a key source said it plans to publish the story Friday or, more likely, Monday.

According to the sources, a taxpayer watchdog group conducted a nine-month investigation into presidential and congressional fundraising and has uncovered thousands of cases of credit card solicitations and donations to Obama and Capitol Hill, allegedly from unsecure accounts, and many from overseas. That might be a violation of federal election laws.

The Obama campaign has received hundreds of millions in small dollar donations, many via credit card donations through their website. On Thursday, the campaign announced a record September donor haul of $150 million.

At the end of the 2008 presidential campaign, the Obama-Biden effort was hit with a similar scandal. At the time, the Washington Post reported that the Obama campaign let donors 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."


http://washingtonexaminer.com/articl.../#.UG4qY2t5mK3

[bandwagonjumper]

No he wasn't. It was the 2007 video which rattled him. If only Breitbart wouln't have died but the good die young.
Lets be evil.

[qabbaan]

I read the same story (about massive untraceable foreign donations to the Obama campaign) in 2008 and the story didn't seem to go anywhere.

[cosmo20002]

I don't know what happened here and I'm not saying what did or didn't.

But wouldn't it be fairly easy for an opponent to arrange for a bunch of foreign contributions in relatively small amounts that might fly under the radar initially, and then later call out the oppenent for taking illegal contributions?

[stonedstooge]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I don't know what happened here and I'm not saying what did or didn't.

But wouldn't it be fairly easy for an opponent to arrange for a bunch of foreign contributions in relatively small amounts that might fly under the radar initially, and then later call out the oppenent for taking illegal contributions?

Must be true if you're already trying to spin it

[R8ers]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I don't know what happened here and I'm not saying what did or didn't.

But wouldn't it be fairly easy for an opponent to arrange for a bunch of foreign contributions in relatively small amounts that might fly under the radar initially, and then later call out the oppenent for taking illegal contributions?

YOU don't have to take the money if it is suspicious

[HonestChieffan]

He was not rattled. He and his ego just assumed his awesomeness would overwhelm Mitt. But then the Mitt he wanted didn't come to play.

Obama underestimated Mitt

Obama overestimated Obama

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by R8ers

YOU don't have to take the money if it is suspicious

Fairly small amounts that come in via credit card with nothing on its face to be suspicious about? Just saying that it doesn't seem too far-fetched for it to happen.

[R8ers]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Fairly small amounts that come in via credit card with nothing on its face to be suspicious about? Just saying that it doesn't seem too far-fetched for it to happen.

Lets see how it pans out, story should come out hard Monday if the Main Stream will report it

[jjjayb]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I don't know what happened here and I'm not saying what did or didn't.

But wouldn't it be fairly easy for an opponent to arrange for a bunch of foreign contributions in relatively small amounts that might fly under the radar initially, and then later call out the oppenent for taking illegal contributions?

It would be really easy for the Obama campaign to prevent. But, unfortunately, they still refuse to do it. Try and donate money to Romney from out of the country and see what happens. Nothing, because it won't accept the donation. Obama's website on the other hand. No problem. This even after it was brought up in the 2008 election.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by jjjayb

It would be really easy for the Obama campaign to prevent. But, unfortunately, they still refuse to do it. Try and donate money to Romney from out of the country and see what happens. Nothing, because it won't accept the donation. Obama's website on the other hand. No problem. This even after it was brought up in the 2008 election.

A lot of assertions here--and how do you know these things?

Considering all the shit that can be done via computer with the right knowledge, you're telling me it is impossible for someone in another country to make a donation to a political candidate because it would be "easy to prevent?"

[jjjayb]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

A lot of assertions here--and how do you know these things?

Considering all the shit that can be done via computer with the right knowledge, you're telling me it is impossible for someone in another country to make a donation to a political candidate because it would be "easy to prevent?"

When you use a credit card online, you have to give the 3 digit security code on the back of the card, as well as the address of the person the credit card is issued to. If you don't put the correct address and the correct 3 digit code, the verification fails. The Obama donation page has this turned off. You can put in any address you want, and the card will go through. At least as of a couple days ago this was the case.

[qabbaan]

Article

On Thursday, the Washington Examiner reported that the Obama campaign has been trying to block a story that reveals a major donor scandal being prepared by a national magazine and web site.

"But," Paul Bedard wrote, a "key source said it plans to publish the story Friday or, more likely, Monday."

According to Bedard's sources, "a taxpayer watchdog group conducted a nine-month investigation into presidential and congressional fundraising and has uncovered thousands of cases of credit card solicitations and donations to Obama and Capitol Hill, allegedly from unsecure accounts, and many from overseas."

"That," he added, "might be a violation of federal election laws."

Bedard said that the Obama re-election campaign has received "hundreds of millions in small dollar donations, many via credit card donations through their website. On Thursday, the campaign announced a record September donor haul of $150 million."

"To raise $150 million in a month, you need an awful lot of donors," a post at Hot Air observed.

A similar problem was unearthed during the 2008 campaign when a Kansas City couple reported a "strange" $2,300 donation to Obama that appeared on their credit card statement. The couple said they were McCain voters and would never donate to Obama.

Although Chase dropped the charge, further investigation revealed a number of donations from fictional characters like Bart Simpson, Daffy Duck and King Kong, all using prepaid credit cards. Even "O. J. Simpson" donated $5 to the campaign.

"At the time," Bedard said, "the Washington Post reported that the Obama campaign let donors 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.'"

In 2008, the Post said that questions were raised when they discovered that Mary T. Biskup, a retired insurance manager from Manchester, MO., had donated $174,800 to the Obama campaign, according to FEC reports.

"Contributors are limited to giving $2,300 for the general election," the Post said.

Worse yet, Biskup told the Post she never donated to the Obama campaign and her credit card was never billed for the donations.

[qabbaan]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I don't know what happened here and I'm not saying what did or didn't.

But wouldn't it be fairly easy for an opponent to arrange for a bunch of foreign contributions in relatively small amounts that might fly under the radar initially, and then later call out the oppenent for taking illegal contributions?

It doesn't matter if an illegal contribution was sent or not. The campaign is responsible for its own compliance with the election finance laws

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I don't know what happened here and I'm not saying what did or didn't.

But wouldn't it be fairly easy for an opponent to arrange for a bunch of foreign contributions in relatively small amounts that might fly under the radar initially, and then later call out the oppenent for taking illegal contributions?

Yes, but it wouldn't make nearly as much a sense as the candidate doing it for contributions to his own campaign. In your scenario, you're pumping your competitor's campaign full of cash hoping that someone will care about an obscure, hard-to-prove scandal. In my scenario, you're pumping your own campaign full of cash and betting that no one will care or that if they do it will be long after the election.

But I commend you for investigating all possibilities as any good middle-of-the-roader would do.