Obama’s ‘Good Will’ Hunting
The Obama campaign has shattered all fund-raising records, raking in $458 million so far, with about half the bounty coming from donors who contribute $200 or less. Aides say that's an illustration of a truly democratic campaign. To critics, though, it can be an invitation for fraud and illegal foreign cash because donors giving individual sums of $200 or less don't have to be publicly reported. Consider the cases of Obama donors "Doodad Pro" of Nunda, N.Y., who gave $17,130, and "Good Will" of Austin, Texas, who gave more than $11,000—both in excess of the $2,300-per-person federal limit. In two recent letters to the Obama campaign, Federal Election Commission auditors flagged those (and other) donors and informed the campaign that the sums had to be returned. Neither name had ever been publicly reported because both individuals made online donations in $10 and $25 increments. "Good Will" listed his employer as "Loving" and his occupation as "You," while supplying as his address 1015 Norwood Park Boulevard, which is shared by the Austin nonprofit Goodwill Industries. Suzanha Burmeister, marketing director for Goodwill, said the group had "no clue" who the donor was. She added, however, that the group had received five puzzling thank-you letters from the Obama campaign this year, prompting it to send the campaign an e-mail in September pointing out the apparent fraudulent use of its name.
"Doodad Pro" listed no occupation or employer; the contributor's listed address is shared by Lloyd and Lynn's Liquor Store in Nunda. "I have never heard of such an individual," says Diane Beardsley, who works at the store and is the mother of one of the owners. "Nobody at this store has that much money to contribute." (She added that a Doodad's Boutique, located next door, had closed a year ago, before the donations were made.)
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said the campaign has no idea who the individuals are and has returned all the donations, using the credit-card numbers they gave to the campaign. (In a similar case earlier this year, the campaign returned $33,000 to two Palestinian brothers in the Gaza Strip who had bought T shirts in bulk from the campaign's online store. They had listed their address as "Ga.," which the campaign took to mean Georgia rather than Gaza.) "While no organization is completely protected from Internet fraud, we will continue to review our fund-raising procedures," LaBolt said. Some critics say the campaign hasn't done enough. This summer, watchdog groups asked both campaigns to share more information about its small donors. The McCain campaign agreed; the Obama campaign did not. "They could've done themselves a service" by heeding the suggestions, said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics.
© 2008
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: roguerr @ 11/18/2008 3:30:07 PM
Comment: 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: my.barackobama.com/page/group/LesParisiensavecleSenateurOBAMA 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
Posted By: tj46405 @ 10/26/2008 2:34:07 PM
Comment: part of his money is being provided by the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party who use fake names so it can't be traced therefore keeping it out of the press.
Posted By: aryam079 @ 10/26/2008 1:40:12 PM
Comment: I understand how Obama has raised so much money. I have always voted since the age of 18, yet I had never donated to any campaign. But this year I felt different, I gave two donations one was $10 and the other one $15. Little by little we are all making a difference. Expressing the same sentiment as others, I just cannot afford to have McCain and Palin in the White House. I have already lost enough.