Thursday, October 09, 2008

Doodad Pro????

H/T ConcreteBob

Obama's funny money: Good Will & Doodad Pro
Serious questions from credible quarters are being raised about hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign donations to Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama. But too few alarm bells are going off over a Camp Obama said to be so confident of victory on Nov. 4 that it's having visions of White House curtain-measuring.

In the most ignored story of this political season, veteran investigative journalist Kenneth R. Timmerman of Newsmax reports that more than half of the nearly $427 million raised by the junior senator of Illinois (through Sept. 29) comes from small donors whose names his campaign will not release.

Indeed, Mr. Timmerman notes that federal law does not require presidential campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. It does, however, require publicly disclosed running totals for each donor once they exceed $200.
"Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold," Timmerman writes. That's nearly $223 million coming from, supposedly, individual contributions of $200 or less.

Is this truly a testament to Barack Obama's grass-roots popularity, as is the spin? Or is it something nefarious?

It's a valid question given what Timmerman discovered about a strange series of reportable contributions from one "Good Will" of Austin, Texas, who lists his employer as "Loving" and his profession as "You."

There are 1,000 separate campaign disclosure entries for Mr. Will, most for $25, totaling $17,375. The per-cycle, per-person primary/general election limit is $4,600.
And then there's somebody named "Doodad Pro" from the mythical "Nando, N.Y." Funny, but Mr. Pro also is employed by "Loving" and his occupation is "You." Newsmax's Timmerman found 786 separate donations, most again for $25, for a grand total of $19,500.

When questioned by the Federal Election Commission, the Obama campaign credited credit cards whence some of the money came -- but not enough to meet the legal limit. And, most curiously, multiple additional donations from credit cards linked to both were made after some of the clearly illegal donations were credited.

But there's more. Timmerman details information that suggests the Obama campaign raised illegal foreign cash by, among other things, laundering donations from those living in the Gaza Strip through the bulk purchases of T-shirts shipped to the Gaza Strip.

And an FEC auditor tells The American Spectator magazine that he can't get his bosses to seek a formal investigation? What does it take to get somebody to notice? Barack Obama wearing a paper hat made of this funny money? Barack Obama smoking a cigar rolled in funny money?

Something smells. And it behooves the FEC to pull its head out of the sand -- and, obviously, elsewhere -- before next month's election. The American people have a right to know who's really bankrolling Barack Obama.

A Doodad Pro complaint
The RNC says it plans to file a complaint about Obama's low-dollar fundraising, based on two incidents, reported by Newsmax and then Newsweek, in which clearly fictional donors gave thousands, which were then returned. There's no evidence that this is widespread, but Obama's campaign doesn't disclose the small contributions publicly (though it does to the FEC), so there could be other instances, and it could be possible to funnel a lot of money to a campaign in small chunks this way.
By Ben Smith 12:38 PM

1 comment:

Ron Robinson said...

This is a very sobering indictment especially since most ecommerce software has several checks (such as Billing ZIP check and CVV check) turned ON by default when solutions are newly installed. Web site/revenue managers would have to make a conscious decision that they want these checks turned off and would have to change software settings (pretty easy) to do so.

For 15 years, I have developed secure card processing software for a major shopping cart processor. Since we offer a free secure shopping cart, we have a lot of experience with new and inexperienced merchants processing credit cards for the first time. I can tell you this: it’s not a case of ignorance or naïveté, especially since this credit card security issue has been so widely discussed online, and we have many proofs that this administration is highly aware of critical discussions taking place in the blogosphere.

Doing what we’ve observed does not require a special arrangement or a conspiracy with the credit card companies: any tiny merchant on the internet could do the same, even with Paypal. After 60 or 90 days, the credit card company would want to have a ‘serious’ conversation with you, but all you would have to do is promise remedial action and you can continue merrily on your way without getting serious about remediation.

The more serious issue is compliance with FEC regulations and federal campaign law – it’s very obvious that the campaign was actively trying to solicit foreign contributions (illegal) when you visit pages like: where the activist controls on the site even report to everyone how much foreign activist fundraising has taken place in the Paris group. Since most of the page is in French, I seriously doubt that all of the $39,000+ was raised by citizen expatriates in Paris. The common billing address check and a simple SQL query would have prevented so many foreign contributions.

My exit question is this: if this activity is what we observed prior to the election, if this candidate was so careless with common checks that most merchants use, what kind of care and diligence can we expect when this guy has his hands on the US budget?

Ron Robinson