Of course, not a word of this appears in the main stream media - nothing! They don't care - oh, if this were McCain - whoa - the heads lines in the media would be on fire. This is what is called formally biased reporting, misinformation, managed news and or just conscious deception of the truth to support a fabricated alternative to the actual truth. It certainly isn't journalism by any stretch of the imagination.
Finding criminal intent in not high on the agenda of the liberal left news media or any liberal for that matter. Just remember who is responsible for the financial disaster - all are liberal Democrats including Barack Obama.
Keep the faith - think things through - weigh alternatives - use common sense - ask yourself the question, 'does this make sense?' - do not believe anything you read or hear from the lettered television stations as being the truth -Fox does the best here, but even then sometimes you have to read between lines to get the real story.
*DUBIOUS DONATIONS *
By SCOTT W. JOHNSON
October 27, 2008
Barack Obama has proved the greatest fund-raiser of all time by a long shot. His campaign has raised more than $600 million - $150 million in September alone. But the campaign has also failed to adopt standard protections against fraudulent giving. The average contribution to Obama in September was just under $86. And federal law only requires the disclosure of identifying information for contributions in excess of $200. Campaigns must keep running totals for each donor and report them once they exceed $200.
The Federal Election Commission says the Obama campaign has reported well over $200 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only a small portion of that sum is attributable to donors the Obama campaign has disclosed. No presidential campaign has ever before received such a gargantuan sum of money from unidentified contributors.
The campaign's records reveal big contributors with names like "Doodad Pro" (employer: "Loving," profession: "You") and "Good Will" (same employer and profession). Both donated via credit card. Other reports have suggested that some donations come from overseas - raising the question of whether Obama is accepting donations from foreigners, another violation of federal law. All of which prompted an enterprising citizen to test the controls put in place to enforce compliance with federal campaign law by the Obama and McCain campaigns.
Last Thursday, he decided to conduct an experiment. He went to the Obama campaign Web site and made a donation under the name "John Galt" (the hero of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged"). He provided the equally fictitious address "1957 Ayn Rand Lane, Galts Gulch, CO 99999." He checked the box next to $15 and entered his actual credit-card number and expiration date. He was then taken to the next page and notified that his donation had been processed. He then tried the same experiment on the McCain site, which rejected the transaction. He returned to the Obama site and made three more donations using the names Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Bill Ayers, all with different addresses but the same credit card. The transactions all went through. By Saturday, he'd reported that the transactions had all posted to his credit-card account.
Others repeated "John Galt's" experiment last week, giving to Obama under such fictitious names as Della Ware, Joe Plumber, Idiot Savant, Ima BadDonation (with a Canadian bank card) and Fake Donor.
What accounts for the Obama campaign's acceptance of these fraudulent donations? Most merchants selling goods and services use the basic Address Verification System that screens credit-card charges for matching names and addresses. (It can also screen cards issued by foreign banks.) The McCain campaign uses AVS and provides a searchable database of all donors, including those who fall below the $200 threshold.
The Obama campaign apparently has chosen not to use the AVS system to screen donations."Della Ware" contacted The New York Times to report her experience contributing under a fictitious name and address ("12345 No Way") to the Obama campaign, while her contribution was rejected by the McCain campaign. Times reporter Michael Luo verified "Della Ware's" account and reported it online at the Times' campaign blog. But Luo missed the story's point."To be fair to the Obama campaign," he wrote, its "officials have said much of their checking for fraud occurs after the transactions have already occurred. When they find something wrong, they then refund the amount."
But the Obama campaign is running a system that complicates the discovery of "something wrong." It has chosen to operate an online contribution system that /facilitates illegal falsely sourced contributions, illegal foreign contributions and the evasion of contribution limits/.Obama backers making such contributions may not be worried that "something wrong" will be detected if they have no intention of complaining about it.
According to journalist Kenneth Timmerman, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently - in contrast not just with McCain but also with Hillary Clinton http://www.nypost.com/news/p/clinton_hillary/clinton_hillary.htm.
Sen. Clinton's presidential campaign required US citizens living abroad to fax copies of their passports before it would accept donations. By contrast, foreign donors to Obama can just use credit cards and false addresses.
Why has the Obama campaign chosen to operate without the basic automated credit-card controls that would prevent or hamper fraud and illegal contributions? Has it made a conscious decision to assist the evasion of federal campaign law or worry about it after it has had the use of the money?
It's hard to see any other motive.
Scott W. Johnson is a Minneapolis attorney and contributor to the blog Power Line (power/ /lineblog.com)./