In 2004, I argued that we had a growing problem of distributed vote fraud, vote fraud committed not by a party or candidate, but by individual voters, mostly operating independently. I argued that a party could increase the amount of "distributed vote fraud" by getting rid of the usual checks, for instance, by allowing voters to register and vote on election day — without setting aside their ballots for a later check to be sure they were properly registered. (That example is not random; voters could do just that in recent Wisconsin elections.)
This year we may be seeing what I would call "distributed campaign finance fraud". The fraud is not committed by the candidate or his party, but by individuals, most of them operating independently. The candidate's organization can make this fraud easier by getting rid of essential checks.
And that, it appears, is exactly what the Obama campaign has done.
More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose.
And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.
Timmerman goes on to give many examples of dubious donations, and a few examples of obviously illegal donations, from here and abroad.
Any campaign with a large number of donors will receive a few illegal donations. But a candidate can choose to check donations carefully, so as to keep those to a minimum, as McCain has done, or he can choose to facilitate illegal donations, as Obama has done. Their choices show much about each man's integrity.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(If you are interested in the subject of distributed vote fraud, you may want to read my disclaimer.
The Federal Election Commission may get interested in these dubious donations to Obama, though, according to this report, they haven't so far.)
Posted by Jim Miller at October 02, 2008 11:03 AM | Email ThisThe number of donations by Good Will are staggering. It shouldn't be too hard to track donations to insure they haven't exceeded limits. Especially now when the campaign is hemorrhaging cash and having to cut back. Most of Obama's time is dialing for cash. Obama's machine needs to be fed.
Someone could even make the argument McCain does a better job managing his limited finances, so he deserves the nod. Obama's finance management consists of begging for more money (which is similar to the Gregoire Management Style) until he has what he wants. In other words, his style is throwing money at it without doing any managing.
Posted by: swatter on October 2, 2008 11:31 AMThe scumbag mouthpiece, LaBolt, is quoted as "pledging" that the campaign will return the contributions identified by the FEC as questionable.
But when?
Some of the contributions have been credited back to the credit cards they came from, but the remaining amounts are still twice the $4600 limit.
Returning the illegal donations is not a remedy, if it isn't done until after the election. If Obama is permitted to hold onto his ill-gotten gains, and uses them to buy his way into the White House, a fine (even a massive one) by the FEC months after the fact (and the election) doesn't do justice.
It should be emphasized:
1) That Obama broke his promise to use public financing; and,
2) That the McCain campaign has made their entire contribution database available online, which Obama has not done.
I'd conclude by saying that these actions show Obama for the lying weasel he is, but that would be unfair to the other weasels.
Posted by: ewaggin on October 2, 2008 12:55 PMLOL. Well look at you. When big biz gives to the rep. You guys have a fit. Now Obama is getting money from outside the US. You say, hey it's ok.
Pot, meet kettle!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 2, 2008 02:18 PMAre you then quoting yourself as also being a disciple of the Alinsky religion as mastered by the Messiah?
So many questions that I doubt you can comprehend and "honestly" answer, but, I'll throw it out anyways.
Posted by: swatter on October 2, 2008 02:20 PMBy analogy, I am saying that some of our current vote fraud is committed, not by a few people at single location, but by many people, doing a little bit, at many locations.
When we get rid of some of the traditional checks on illegal votes, we make distributed vote fraud more likely -- and I believe that some partisans have done so deliberately.
Posted by: Jim Miller on October 2, 2008 04:17 PMOBTW, I'm pretty sure Palin would have had no problem whatsoever figuring that out. Have you taken the WASL test? I'd love to see that score.
Posted by: Rick D. on October 2, 2008 06:23 PMThis process is still orchestrated from a single source, and the results are fed back to that source. So the current methods of tracking votes should till apply. Guess how much fraud they've found recently?
"When we get rid of some of the traditional checks on illegal votes, we make distributed vote fraud more likely -- and I believe that some partisans have done so deliberately."
Have you any proof of any kind whatsoever? Or do you get your jollies from throwing criminal charges around without any basis in reality?
P.S. When we recognize that voting is a right, yes, that makes voter fraud easier. Therefore, we should punish violators to the fullest extent of the law. What did you guys advocate for Lori Sotello?
Posted by: tensor on October 2, 2008 07:09 PMI guess that can be asked of the Bush/Cheney derangment syndrome people as well, right?
Posted by: Rick D. on October 2, 2008 08:09 PMI'm pretty sure there once was a place called the World Trade Center. Now, about this "distributed voter fraud"?
Posted by: tensor on October 2, 2008 09:01 PMTo remain consistent, I suppose Clinton/Gore attempted to bring down the towers in 1993, right?
Can't the moderators of this site let us know when Alex Jones is posting under a pseudonym?
Posted by: Rick D. on October 2, 2008 09:21 PMThe egregious "Oh, I thought that was how I was supposed to do a ballot reconciliation!" defense was pretty freaking lame too.
Posted by: Al on October 2, 2008 11:30 PMBut, but, but...I thought Obama was all about transparency??? Just another instance of saying one thing and doing another I guess. This clown excels at it.
Welcome to D.C. Senator Obama, you'll fit right in with the rest of the greed and corruption already going on here.
Posted by: Rick D. on October 3, 2008 09:40 AMFunny, the Democrats had no problem at all in proving that some of those votes had gone to Rossi -- in precincts where we legitimate voters went for Gregoire in huge numbers. After getting spanked in Judge Bridges courtroom, those who lacked the character to admit they'd lost invented this bogus term, "distributed voter fraud", so they could still accuse their opponents with fraud -- without having to prove anything. As sniper19 notes, this post follows in suit, by imputing some nefarious intent to Obama's supporters. There is a suspicious pattern of middle-class donors suddenly making huge donations, but those donations all went to the McCain camp. Funny how Mr. Miller can't seem to find any evidence of that. Perhaps he needs to read DailyKos a little more carefully!
Posted by: tensor on October 4, 2008 11:42 AM