The Washington post calls out the Obama campaign for their fundraising operation that invites manipulation, making it so very easy to violate campaign finance reform laws.
Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.
Why would a campaign do this? The phrase “win at all costs” comes to mind.
In recent weeks, questionable contributions have created headaches for Obama’s accounting team as it has tried to explain why campaign finance filings have included itemized donations from individuals using fake names, such as Es Esh or Doodad Pro. Those revelations prompted conservative bloggers to further test Obama’s finance vetting by giving money using the kind of prepaid cards that can be bought at a drugstore and cannot be traced to a donor.
The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions.
Why would a campaign do this? The phrase “win at all costs” comes to mind.
Lawyers for the Obama operation said yesterday that their “extensive back-end review” has carefully scrubbed contributions to prevent illegal money from entering the operation’s war chest. “I’m pretty sure if I took my error rate and matched it against any other campaign or comparable nonprofit, you’d find we’re doing very well,” said Robert Bauer, a lawyer for the campaign. “I have not seen the McCain compliance staff ascending to heaven on a cloud.”
Why do an extensive, laborious back end review when it’s so easy to implement front end measures to deter casual but overzealous Obama supporters from over contributing? Once again the phrase “win at all costs” comes to mind.
In reference to a contributor named Mary T. Biskup who apparently donated $174,800 to the Obama campaign (limit is $2,300) by credit card the Obama campaigns response was…
Biskup, who had scores of Obama contributions attributed to her, said in an interview that she never donated to the candidate. “That’s an error,” she said. Moreover, she added, her credit card was never billed for the donations, meaning someone appropriated her name and made the contributions with another card.
When asked whether the campaign takes steps to verify whether a donor’s name matches the name on the credit card used to make a payment, Obama’s campaign replied in an e-mail: “Name-matching is not a standard check conducted or made available in the credit card processing industry. We believe Visa and MasterCard do not even have the ability to do this.
“Instead, the campaign does a rigorous comprehensive analysis of online contributions on the back end of the transaction to determine whether a contribution is legitimate.”
Bold is mine. LAUGHING OUT LOUD! I don’t think I believe them, do you?
In the interest in fairness in reporting, the McCain campaign isn’t lilly white either…
Dan Pfeiffer, Obama’s communication’s director, said that “no organization can fully insulate itself from these problems. The McCain campaign has accepted contributions from fraudulent contributors like ‘A for You,’ ‘Adorable Manabat,’ ‘The Gun Shop,’ and ‘Jesus II’ and hundreds of anonymous donors.”
That said, I really like this response from the McCain campaign regarding accepting anonymous temporary credit cards and gift cards…
But R. Rebecca Donatelli, who handles online contributions for the McCain operation and the RNC, said security measures have been standard in the GOP nominee’s fundraising efforts throughout the campaign. She said she was “flabbergasted” to learn that the Obama campaign accepts prepaid cards.
“Yes, a gift card would go through the same process as a regular credit card and be subject to our same back-end review,” the Obama campaign said in its response to questions about the use of such cards.
If the situation were reversed the press would be screaming so loud you’d have to cover your ears. The local liberal rag, the Daily Camera would be firing both barrels and foaming at the mouth with pure primal anger and outrage. Yet, they are so strangely quiet when it’s their “favorite son” taking the shortcuts.
