Obama’s Secret Money

Loading

I find it disturbing, but not surprising that this article by Ken Timmerman has gotten no MSM notice. If the kind of evidence existed against Palin or McCain it would be front page, prime time news.

But not if it includes Obama apparently.

Bottom line, the Obama campaign has raised almost a half a billion dollars and half of that has come from small donors who the Obama campaign won’t name. The McCain camp releases ALL of that information, but not Obama. Wanna guess why not?

The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.

It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.

~~~

The rise of the Internet as a campaign funding tool raises new questions about the adequacy of FEC requirements on disclosure. In pre-Internet fundraising, almost all political donations, even small ones, were made by bank check, leaving a paper trail and limiting the amount of fraud.

But credit cards used to make donations on the Internet have allowed for far more abuse.

“While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center.

Already, the FEC has noted unusual patterns in Obama campaign donations among donors who have been disclosed because they have gone beyond the $200 minimum.

When FEC auditors have questions about contributions, they send letters to the campaign’s finance committee requesting additional information, such as the complete address or employment status of the donor.

Many of the FEC letters that Newsmax reviewed instructed the Obama campaign to “redesignate” contributions in excess of the finance limits.

Under campaign finance laws, an individual can donate $2,300 to a candidate for federal office in both the primary and general election, for a total of $4,600. If a donor has topped the limit in the primary, the campaign can “redesignate” the contribution to the general election on its books.

In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas.

Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”

A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.

In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.

Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 — still well over the $4,600 limit.

There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama’s Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375.

Then there is the donor named Doodad Pro from Nando, NY, who gave over 19 grand in 786 separate donations. Employer? Loving. Profession? You.

Hmmmmm, not suspicious at all.

Ken details that once caught the Obama campaign said they would return the money but the majority of that money has yet to be returned and most likely will not be returned prior to election day.

And then the foreign contributions:

The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their “state” as “IR,” often an abbreviation for Iran. Another 63 listed it as “UK,” the United Kingdom.

More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680.

But others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France.

Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.

With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners.

In July and August, the head of the Nigeria’s stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigeria’s largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners.

At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000.

The sponsors said the fundraisers were held to help Nigerians attend the Democratic convention in Denver. But the Nigerian press expressed skepticism of that claim, and the Nigerian public anti-fraud commission is now investigating the matter.

Lets not forget about Moammar Gadhafi who praised Obama in a speech saying:

“All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man. They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency.”

The Obama campaign should be proud. Especially seeing as how he wants to be loved by the rest of the world, now those foreigners are helping to elect the President of the United States.

Just wonderful.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
6 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Your MSM are so biased, it is disgusting.

Let’s take for instance, the militaro-indusrial complex. Who do you think received more money in this election campaign? The Democrats or the Republicans? I bet you think it is the Republicans.

Well think again.

52% of all donations given by the militaries industries went to the Democrats.
48% went to Republicans.

Defense: Top Contributors to Federal Candidates and Parties
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?cycle=2008&ind=D

Why doesn’t Newsmax put out a press release on this but substitute “McCain” for “Obama”? It would be interesting to see of the MSM jumped on the story then.

One of the problems is “individual donation limitations” can be exploited by loopholes in the legislation. One can break it up and donate under fictitious names. I’ve heard of it being done by donations being put in under children’s names, employee’s names, etceteras. It is just like with alleged Acorn’s voter fraud. They can just set down at a table and stuff envelopes all day with form letters and cash. And hand them right over to the campaign offices. That gets by any tracking methods. We have the Democrats for this little “Campaign Finance Reform” tactic as well.

I find it disturbing, but not surprising that this article by Ken Timmerman has gotten no MSM notice.

The FEC might be reluctant to influence the outcome of an election with an investigation one month before, but the MSM has no excuses here in mentioning this.

Gee…maybe the Justice Dept. and FBI could go ahead with their investigation and not influence the election, because no on in MSM will report on it anyway.