Obama runs to the sound of Soros voice on SuperPacs

by Datechguy | February 7th, 2012

Readability

Obama runs to the sound of Soros voice on SuperPacs

I don’t often agree with Barack Obama but he is exactly right about this:

The Pres­i­dent opposed the Cit­i­zens United deci­sion. He under­stood that with the dra­matic growth in oppor­tu­ni­ties to raise and spend unlim­ited special-​interest money, we would see new strate­gies to hide it from pub­lic view. He con­tin­ues to sup­port a law to force full dis­clo­sure of all fund­ing intended to influ­ence our elec­tions, a reform that was blocked in 2010 by a unan­i­mous Repub­li­can fil­i­buster in the U.S. Sen­ate. And the Pres­i­dent favors action — by con­sti­tu­tional amend­ment, if nec­es­sary — to place rea­son­able lim­its on all such spending.

But this cycle, our cam­paign has to face the real­ity of the law as it cur­rently stands.

Just because you dis­agree with the DH doesn’t mean an Amer­i­can League man­ager should make his pitcher bat.

The NYT uses an inter­est­ing turn of phrase:

Pres­i­dent Obama is sig­nal­ing to wealthy Demo­c­ra­tic donors that he wants them to start con­tribut­ing to an out­side group sup­port­ing his re-​election, revers­ing a long-​held posi­tion as he con­fronts a deep finan­cial dis­ad­van­tage on a vital front in the campaign.

The Bil­lion Dol­lar Man has a finan­cial dis­ad­van­tage? Say it isn’t so.

Now I don’t have a prob­lem with the pres­i­dent play­ing by the cur­rent law even as he claims he wants it changed. I’ve always thought it was disin­gen­u­ous when the left attacked Social secu­rity and Medicare recip­i­ents who sup­ported the tea party for tak­ing the pay­ments allowed them by law.

The real story here isn’t that he is tak­ing the money, but they whys and where­fores listed by Politico (empha­sis mine)

But that wasn’t enough, sources say, to pull in major play­ers such as George Soros, Peter Lewis, Steve Bing and oth­ers into the game. And many top Demo­c­ra­tic donors were afraid of giv­ing to Pri­or­i­ties USA until Obama made clear he wouldn’t stand on the side­lines and crit­i­cize their efforts

And THAT is the bot­tom line. All of those who say that this pres­i­dent doesn’t run to the voice of Soros & co will either be spin­ning or ignor­ing this.

And politico story has this inter­est­ing line too:

Obama’s top cam­paign staff and even some Cab­i­net mem­bers will appear at super PAC events.

I’m sure Chuck Schumer will be all over this in his hear­ings over coor­di­na­tion between Super Pacs and cam­paigns, as he put it:

It doesn’t pass the smell test to say some of these groups aren’t coordinated”.

Hey you have to replace that Mex­i­can Drug money some­how, but then again Obama has a his­tory of tak­ing untrace­able and ille­gal funds so I don’t see why this is so odd.

If you don’t remem­ber the story, he is the old Pow­er­line post in full, for some odd rea­son his archives from May-​Dec 2008 don’t exist but I found a print ver­sion online

Who is John Galt?
Octo­ber 23, 2008 Posted by Scott at 6:52 AM

We’ve pre­vi­ously noted the gusher of ille­gal cam­paign con­tri­bu­tions flow­ing into the Obama cam­paign from con­trib­u­tors such as “Doo­dad Pro” and “Good Will.” More recently, inci­dents have been reported in which peo­ple have seen credit card charges sur­face sug­gest­ing they donated to Barack Obama when they did not. Matthew Mosk and Sarah Cohen noted one such inci­dent ear­lier this week:

Now comes the story of Mary T. Biskup, of Man­ches­ter, Mis­souri. Biskup got a call recently from the Obama cam­paign, which was try­ing to fig­ure out why she donated $174,800 to the cam­paign — well over the con­tri­bu­tion limit of $2,300.

The answer she gave them was sim­ple. “That’s an error.”

Is the Obama cam­paign know­ingly receiv­ing ille­gal con­tri­bu­tions? Yes­ter­day one of our read­ers reported the results of an exper­i­ment he conducted:

I’ve read recent reports of the Obama cam­paign receiv­ing dona­tions from dubi­ous names and for­eign locales and it got me won­der­ing: How is this possible?

I run a small Inter­net busi­ness and when I process credit cards I’m required to make sure the name on the card exactly matches the name of the cus­tomer mak­ing the pur­chase. Also, the purchaser’s address must match that of the card­hold­ers. If these don’t match, then the pay­ment isn’t approved. Period. So how is it pos­si­ble that the Obama cam­paign could receive dona­tions from fic­tional peo­ple and places? Well, I decided to do a lit­tle exper­i­ment. I went to the Obama cam­paign web­site and entered the following:

Name: John Galt
Address: 1957 Ayn Rand Lane
City: Galts Gulch
State: CO
Zip: 99999

Then I checked the box next to $15 and entered my actual credit card num­ber and expi­ra­tion date (it didn’t ask for the 3-​didgit code on the back of the card) and it took me to the next page and… “Your dona­tion has been processed. Thank you for your gen­er­ous gift.”

This sim­ply should not, and could not, hap­pen in any busi­ness or any cam­paign that is hon­estly try­ing to vet it’s donors. Also, I don’t see how this could pos­si­bly hap­pen with­out the col­lu­sion of the credit card com­pa­nies. They sim­ply wouldn’t allow any busi­ness to process, poten­tially, hun­dreds of mil­lions in credit card trans­ac­tions where the name on the card doesn’t match the pur­chasers name.

In short, with the sys­tem set up as it is by the Obama camp, an indi­vid­ual could donate unlim­ited amounts of money by sim­ply mak­ing up fake names and addresses. And Obama is doing his best to facil­i­tate this fraud. This is truly scandalous.

Our reader was not yet done. He tried the exper­i­ment on the McCain site: “I tried the exact same thing at the McCain site and it didn’t allow the trans­ac­tion.” He then repeated the exper­i­ment at the Obama site:

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.

Our reader reports, inci­den­tally, that he was using his Mas­ter­Card for the con­tri­bu­tions. We sub­mit this report in the spirit of inquiry and would espe­cially appre­ci­ate hear­ing from read­ers who can illu­mi­nate how credit card pro­ce­dures might (or might not) allow this to happen.

UPDATE: Read­ers have repli­cated the exper­i­ment reported in this post. We will have to revisit the issue tonight or tomor­row and appre­ci­ate any infor­ma­tion you can pro­vide in the meantime.

CLAR­I­FI­CA­TION: Many read­ers point out that the Obama cam­paign would exer­cise some con­trol over the secu­rity level required to ver­ify small dol­lar trans­ac­tions and that no col­lu­sion with the card issuer or bank is there­fore required. Mark Steyn elab­o­rates here. Mark explains the ques­tion of secu­rity set­tings and then adds:

As the Pow­er­line reader has noted, if “John Galt” of “Ayn Rand Lane” attempts a con­tri­bu­tion at the McCain cam­paign, it gets rejected. Which is just as well. If the Repub­li­can candidate’s web­site were inten­tion­ally set up to facil­i­tate fraud­u­lent dona­tions, it would be on the front page of The New York Times. But, as it’s King Barack the Spreader, we can rest assured the crack inves­tiga­tive units will be too pre­oc­cu­pied with Gov­er­nor Palin’s shoes over the next two weeks.

It is a point that needs mak­ing and that could be made every day.

I don’t often agree with Barack Obama but he is exactly right about this:

The President opposed the Citizens United decision. He understood that with the dramatic growth in opportunities to raise and spend unlimited special-interest money, we would see new strategies to hide it from public view. He continues to support a law to force full disclosure of all funding intended to influence our elections, a reform that was blocked in 2010 by a unanimous Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate. And the President favors action—by constitutional amendment, if necessary—to place reasonable limits on all such spending.

But this cycle, our campaign has to face the reality of the law as it currently stands.

Just because you disagree with the DH doesn’t mean an American League manager should make his pitcher bat.

The NYT uses an interesting turn of phrase:

President Obama is signaling to wealthy Democratic donors that he wants them to start contributing to an outside group supporting his re-election, reversing a long-held position as he confronts a deep financial disadvantage on a vital front in the campaign.

The Billion Dollar Man has a financial disadvantage? Say it isn’t so.

Now I don’t have a problem with the president playing by the current law even as he claims he wants it changed. I’ve always thought it was disingenuous when the left attacked Social security and Medicare recipients who supported the tea party for taking the payments allowed them by law.

The real story here isn’t that he is taking the money, but they whys and wherefores listed by Politico (emphasis mine)

But that wasn’t enough, sources say, to pull in major players such as George Soros, Peter Lewis, Steve Bing and others into the game. And many top Democratic donors were afraid of giving to Priorities USA until Obama made clear he wouldn’t stand on the sidelines and criticize their efforts

And THAT is the bottom line. All of those who say that this president doesn’t run to the voice of Soros & co will either be spinning or ignoring this.

And politico story has this interesting line too:

Obama’s top campaign staff and even some Cabinet members will appear at super PAC events.

I’m sure Chuck Schumer will be all over this in his hearings over coordination between Super Pacs and campaigns, as he put it:

“It doesn’t pass the smell test to say some of these groups aren’t coordinated”.

Hey you have to replace that Mexican Drug money somehow, but then again Obama has a history of taking untraceable and illegal funds so I don’t see why this is so odd.

If you don’t remember the story, he is the old Powerline post in full, for some odd reason his archives from May-Dec 2008 don’t exist but I found a print version online

Who is John Galt?
October 23, 2008 Posted by Scott at 6:52 AM

We’ve previously noted the gusher of illegal campaign contributions flowing into the Obama campaign from contributors such as “Doodad Pro” and “Good Will.” More recently, incidents have been reported in which people have seen credit card charges surface suggesting they donated to Barack Obama when they did not. Matthew Mosk and Sarah Cohen noted one such incident earlier this week:

Now comes the story of Mary T. Biskup, of Manchester, Missouri. Biskup got a call recently from the Obama campaign, which was trying to figure out why she donated $174,800 to the campaign — well over the contribution limit of $2,300.

The answer she gave them was simple. “That’s an error.”

Is the Obama campaign knowingly receiving illegal contributions? Yesterday one of our readers reported the results of an experiment he conducted:

I’ve read recent reports of the Obama campaign receiving donations from dubious names and foreign locales and it got me wondering: How is this possible?

I run a small Internet business and when I process credit cards I’m required to make sure the name on the card exactly matches the name of the customer making the purchase. Also, the purchaser’s address must match that of the cardholders. If these don’t match, then the payment isn’t approved. Period. So how is it possible that the Obama campaign could receive donations from fictional people and places? Well, I decided to do a little experiment. I went to the Obama campaign website and entered the following:

Name: John Galt
Address: 1957 Ayn Rand Lane
City: Galts Gulch
State: CO
Zip: 99999

Then I checked the box next to $15 and entered my actual credit card number and expiration date (it didn’t ask for the 3-didgit code on the back of the card) and it took me to the next page and… “Your donation has been processed. Thank you for your generous gift.”

This simply should not, and could not, happen in any business or any campaign that is honestly trying to vet it’s donors. Also, I don’t see how this could possibly happen without the collusion of the credit card companies. They simply wouldn’t allow any business to process, potentially, hundreds of millions in credit card transactions where the name on the card doesn’t match the purchasers name.

In short, with the system set up as it is by the Obama camp, an individual could donate unlimited amounts of money by simply making up fake names and addresses. And Obama is doing his best to facilitate this fraud. This is truly scandalous.

Our reader was not yet done. He tried the experiment on the McCain site: “I tried the exact same thing at the McCain site and it didn’t allow the transaction.” He then repeated the experiment at the Obama site:

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.

Our reader reports, incidentally, that he was using his MasterCard for the contributions. We submit this report in the spirit of inquiry and would especially appreciate hearing from readers who can illuminate how credit card procedures might (or might not) allow this to happen.

UPDATE: Readers have replicated the experiment reported in this post. We will have to revisit the issue tonight or tomorrow and appreciate any information you can provide in the meantime.

CLARIFICATION: Many readers point out that the Obama campaign would exercise some control over the security level required to verify small dollar transactions and that no collusion with the card issuer or bank is therefore required. Mark Steyn elaborates here. Mark explains the question of security settings and then adds:

As the Powerline reader has noted, if “John Galt” of “Ayn Rand Lane” attempts a contribution at the McCain campaign, it gets rejected. Which is just as well. If the Republican candidate’s website were intentionally set up to facilitate fraudulent donations, it would be on the front page of The New York Times. But, as it’s King Barack the Spreader, we can rest assured the crack investigative units will be too preoccupied with Governor Palin’s shoes over the next two weeks.

It is a point that needs making and that could be made every day.

Buy Raspberry Ketone Here

American 023

From a Former Atheist:

From a Former Atheist:

Try the Double Burger!

nashoba

Annie’s Book Stop of Worcester

Annies Book Stop of Worcester 001

Find Discounts at the Stores you Love

TOP STORES

Listen to your Granny

RWG

Forest of Assassins

Forest of Assassins

DH Gate Dot Com, Online Shopping

ecigarette

Support our favorite Charties

Read me at Examiner.com

Examiner badge2

Only 114 Million Hits to retirement!

Most Innovative Blogger 2013

Most Innovative Blogger 2013

Tags

Help a Brother Knight of Mine who needs a hand