October 23, 2008
Obama's Secruity Free Online Donations

The most interesting story in the conservative blogosphere was host of talk about the gaping holes in the security of Barack Obama's online contribution system.

Patrick Ruffini and Mark Steyn have two of the more encapsulating posts. Jim Gerghaty also provides an effective rundown.

Short story: the Obama campaign is deliberately not using the most basic security options available in online credit card use to prevent fraud. Consequence: fraudulent contributions are a piece of cake.

Hope and change.

Posted by Eric Earling at October 23, 2008 08:23 PM | Email This
Comments
1. That probably explains this story....

Northland Couple Warns of Political Credit Card Fraud

NORTH KANSAS CITY, MO. -- A North Kansas City couple has been left scratching their heads after they became the victims of a political scam.

Steve and Rachel Larman say a strange credit card charge appeared on their statement this month -- a $2300 donation to Barack Obama's presidential campaign. The Larman's say they don't want this to be about their political affiliation, but they say they're not about to give the Obama campaign any help from their pocketbook


Link:
http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7599837&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

Posted by: Glenno on October 23, 2008 08:30 PM
2. "Hope and change"...and promised "transparency"

So far, Obama has delivered none of the above (and will not in the future either), but it sounds good to the ignorant and uninformed who'll be casting their ballots for him in November.

Posted by: Rick D. on October 23, 2008 08:50 PM
3. MORE:

Who is John Galt?

Woman "Donates" $175k to Obama?

The Purchase of the White House
And millions and millions of dollars of those funds are illegal donations made with phony names.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 23, 2008 09:38 PM
4. And probably a lot of those are foreign sources laundering through disposable/single use cards. No wonder Obama was able to raise so much money, it was most likely financiers that had enough money that they could fund these phony name card donations.

But it wouldn't even be a race if they couldn't cheat.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 23, 2008 09:44 PM
5. And "The One" is already erecting a 2 million dollar stage for accepting his fate on Election Night.

This guy thinks he is about to be elected Emperor!

While millions of Americans are financially suffering, he couldn't have found a hotel lobby to rent?

I'd love more and more to see him lose after flaunting money all over the place as he does. He is in his place in Chicago, that is for sure.

Posted by: GS on October 23, 2008 09:51 PM
6. Hat tip to WestBellevueDad on another thread here, about voter registrations...

All those false voter registrations on the list? Each could be a fraudulent donation conduit, and if challenged there is a "legitimate" enrolled voter name to back it up.

You don't have to use fraudulent voter registrations just for votes...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 23, 2008 10:05 PM
7. You might want to correct the spelling of Security in the heading!

Posted by: J.C. on October 23, 2008 10:24 PM
8. fraudulent contributions, fraudulent ACORN help ($800K worth, eh Barack?), fraudulent citizenship, perhaps. Why doesn't he show his birth certificate? I think there is something to this birth certificate story.

Posted by: Michele on October 23, 2008 10:34 PM
9. McCain I suspect has actually rec'd more legitimate donations thru his compliance fund and the RNC that are actual donations, unlike hussein, who's "donations" are some propped up foreign exchange or Soros gimmick.....

so goes our once proud country, down the tubes....I will have no pity for my fellow citizens IF that slime is elected..

we will have a draft...we will have our retirement accts raided in some way...we will have no free speech...our churches will be monitored so they won't say bad things like "gay marriages are wrong"...will we have elections?....I doubt .

its time to let go of the "American" dream if hussein pulls this debacle off..

consequences......consequences....

Posted by: lee on October 23, 2008 10:38 PM
10. Despite being a Democrat, I agree that it's sketchy for the Obama campaign to set the security settings so low. Any reporting of this story, though, should mention that the campaign does do serious monitoring of contributions on the back end. I.e. they don't verify information right when it is entered, but they do verify it before they actually take any money. If there is a problem, then they refund the money to the donor's account. So it's not accurate to say that fraudulent contributions are actually being made. Rather, fraud is being attempted -- but then thwarted a bit later in the process.

Also, I thought conservatives opposed limits on campaign contributions anyway. Abridgement of free speech and all that jazz. In that case, why the sudden concern about people donating more than they should?

Posted by: northwind on October 24, 2008 06:55 AM
11. There are at least two other Surrendercrats, Jack Murtha (Idiot - Abscam) and Rick Noriega (Slimeball - Texas) accept fraudulent donations. Their opponents don't.

Anyone tried Darcy's campaign?

Posted by: Obi-Wan on October 24, 2008 07:15 AM
12. Your comments are 'wind' alright, but just not the northwind.

It will take a long time to sort this out and in the meantime (if elections can indeed be bought), he will be annointed.

The Democrats from Chicago are indeed pulling out all the stops for their native son and showing the rest of the political world just how corrupt Chicago politics are. And in the same breath, how corrupt Democrat politics are.

Posted by: swatter on October 24, 2008 07:21 AM
13. Northwind, whether or not conservatives oppose limits on campaign spending is irrelevant as I'm fairly certain you'll agree that most oppose breaking the law.

And even if his campaign is blocking problematic contributions on the backend, the question is why? Why would you disable the safeguards that every other online vendor uses? Wouldn't it be easier and more accurate to automatically block those contributions in the first place? We do know that the campaign accepted donations from "Good Will," "Doodad Pro," and "VCX" and had to be ordered by the FEC to return them. How many more illegal donations are being missed?

Posted by: Paula on October 24, 2008 07:37 AM
14. Why does this look just like the Clinton/Gore election money mess. (Can you say China)

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 24, 2008 07:39 AM
15. I want to know how much is charged to foreign credit cards. And how often the same credit card number is used under different names.

Posted by: SeaRep on October 24, 2008 07:58 AM
16. From Obama's own website:
The Obama/Biden plan
Create a Transparent and Connected Democracy
Open Up Government to its Citizens: The Bush Administration has been one of the most secretive, closed administrations in American history. Our nation's progress has been stifled by a system corrupted by millions of lobbying dollars contributed to political campaigns, the revolving door between government and industry, and privileged access to inside information-all of which have led to policies that favor the few against the public interest. An Obama presidency will use cutting-edge technologies to reverse this dynamic, creating a new level of transparency, accountability and participation for America's citizens.

How much longer will this fraud known as Barack Obama be foisted upon the American public before they wake up? With any luck, before November 4th.

Posted by: Rick D. on October 24, 2008 08:04 AM
17. Rick, sometime in the middle of February.

Posted by: swatter on October 24, 2008 08:07 AM
18. "So it's not accurate to say that fraudulent contributions are actually being made. Rather, fraud is being attempted -- but then thwarted a bit later in the process."

"Later" as when someone complains about fraudulent charges on their credit card, then they investigate? In the meantime how much interest is being earned on that money while they "investigate".

The has nothing to do with a debate about how campaign funding should be set up. This has everything to do with walking a fine line of breaking the law.

Posted by: Dave on October 24, 2008 08:52 AM
19. Hussein Obama's entire campaign is based on fraud. Why shoud it surprise us that he accepts fraudulent contributions?

If you think this is bad, just wait until he gets in office.

Posted by: Kato on October 24, 2008 08:53 AM
20. @5. Indeed! Isn't that type of behavior usually exhibited by despots and dictators

Posted by: Dave on October 24, 2008 08:57 AM
21. I don't see how John McCain's internet contribution system is necessarily any better. Back in 2000, I gave McCain $250.00 on-line by credit card. The federal election laws require campaigns to report any donor whose contributions total over $200.00 by name, address and amount. But you won't see my name reported for 2000, because there was some error in McCain's reporting system.

Posted by: Richard Pope on October 24, 2008 09:11 AM
22. P0-9E @ 21:
So you're saying McCain's internet contributions system is the same today as it was back in 2000? The only way to test it out is to contribute another $250.00 and then check to see if it is reported.
Barring that, you're imbecilic comparison of the 2000 with the 2008 conributions systems has no merit.
your witness,counselor.

Posted by: Rick D. on October 24, 2008 09:20 AM
23. Richard.

What makes you think we believe you anyway.
Remember your a lawyer and they always lie.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 24, 2008 09:28 AM
24. Yes Mr. Pope,

And we all know that the internet credit card verification systems haven't changed or improved a bit in nearly a decade right?

Posted by: johnny on October 24, 2008 10:10 AM
25. Don't worry, the NY Times has already thoroughly investigated this story. They asked the Obama campaign about it and they said not to worry, they check out all these things later on. So, don't worry, that story is all settled, nothing to be concerned about, just move along, these aren't the droids you're looking for.

Posted by: Frank Black on October 24, 2008 10:20 AM
26. An Obama supporter is a sheeple by all indicators.

This guy is spending money like crazy; like he hasn't seen anything like it. What if he had the purse strings of the federal government under his finger. I imagine these things in the middle of the night and break out in sweats.

Posted by: swatter on October 24, 2008 10:39 AM
27. The reason for the checks on the back end is simple. If the card has a name that doesn't match up, then to whom are you going to return the money? After making a simple search and finding the name doesn't exist, then they can claim they did due diligence to return the money, but were unable to do so. By then, the money is already long gone anyway.

It's a whole new method of ID theft.

Posted by: Ken on October 24, 2008 11:40 AM
28. It's OK. Obama can do this.

Remember, there is no controlling legal authority. . . .

Posted by: Matt from Olympia on October 24, 2008 12:08 PM
30. Maybe Richard Pope is gunning for US Attorney General in "The One's" cabinet.
Frank Black - love your droid comment... and the left loves to compare us to Darth Vader. (Apparently "OB1" was not our only hope. What a plot twist!)

Posted by: WFP on October 24, 2008 12:47 PM
31. Interesting that our friend and committed Obamaphile poster 'tc' hasn't chimed in yet. He's been singing the praises of how an Obama administration would bring about an era of "transparency" for months now.
When it's pointed out in glaring fashion that Obama's rhetoric is rarely backed up with substance, tc can't seem to find his keyboard to opine.

Posted by: Rick D. on October 24, 2008 01:05 PM
32. Better than the top paid person in your campaign for two month(!) being...the makeup person for Palin. Sigh.

Posted by: w on October 24, 2008 03:29 PM
33. I'd like to hear tc, Slavery Party Kid, Factless, obfusCATOr, Bruce, Ivan and the rest of the brain-dead crew address this point:

They all called for the removal of Tom DeLay from Congress over supposed campaign finance problems (charges that were ultimately dropped).

Will they call for Obama to drop out because of the EXACT SAME PROBLEM?

Hypocrites, liars, and thieves the Slavery Party be!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 24, 2008 04:10 PM
34. @32 Seriously! Setting up campaign donation system that filled with so many security holes MILLIONS of dollars can be donated fraudulently without oversight is BETTER than spending $150K on Sarah's wardrobe?? You really believe that? If so, then this yet even more evidence hypocricy is a core tenent of liberalism.

Tell you what. I'll be glad to write a check for $150,000 to Palin so she can make the coffers whole. Are you willing to write a check for millions to cover Barry's fraudulent donations!

Posted by: Dave on October 24, 2008 04:10 PM
35. Obama's Secruity Free Online Donations
Blogosphere News
by Eric Earling, 08:23 PM

"Secruity" Free?

Well, Goldy makes the same kind of typos on his blog, but at least he corrects them.

But George Bush's regional federal representative for EDUCATION doing this?

Hopefully, Obama's education person for the Northwest won't be making similar mistakes come January 20 ...

Posted by: Richard Pope on October 24, 2008 04:38 PM
36. Richard Joke,

So I guess you're OK with Obama breaking those campaign finance laws? Meaning we can count on your very public and vocal approval for DeLay and your indignation over the way he was ran out of Congress?

Thought so... You're the reason lawyers have a bad name...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 24, 2008 04:48 PM
37. Richard P0-9E @ 35:
"'Secruity' Free?
Well, Goldy makes the same kind of typos on his blog, but at least he corrects them.

Well, Eric has a job and Goldy doesn't. Ergo, Goldy has all day to correct his typos. Now fork over that $250 to the McCain campaign and put your money where your mouth was @ 21 ya cheap b@5t@rd, Richard.

Posted by: Rick D. on October 24, 2008 06:03 PM
38. As much as I disliked McCain-Feingold, Obama's campaign is showing one reason why McCain and Feingold thought that campaign financing was out of control and leaving the barndoor open for corruption.

How many people were able to:

Donate more than the $2300 limit?
Donate from a foreign country?
Donate from a corporation but be "laundered" through the lack of security?

If Obama had closed these loopholes (followed the law), how much less money would he have received?

Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 24, 2008 07:46 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?