National Journal Picks Up Story, Weakly

Unless I missed it, the National Journal article does not mention that the Address Verification System is standard and basic and needs to be deliberately crippled in order to permit this.

I see no pressing questions for Barack Obama, demanding to know what possible reason they might have to deliberately cripple the most basic form of credit card security.

I cannot stress enough: AVS is default. It is not an arcane option you can choose. It is the default. To turn it off requires deliberate, intentional action.

And Barack Obama cannot offer any plausible legitimate reason for doing so.

Why does Barack Obama has less security on his credit card donations than my local cheesesteak shop?

And the Records Have Been Purged: Jerry writes--

One thing they did get, though, is important: an Obama spokesperson confirming that they do not keep credit card numbers.
This confirms that with AVS also turned off, there is no way for the Obama campaign to know how many times someone has donated, and how much, even if a donor uses the same credit card each time.
That's of moderate importance, because I've seen comments on other sites claiming that this isn't a big deal, the Obama campaign will still know if someone goes over the limit because they have the card number. If the quotes in the NJ article are correct, they don't have the card number. All they have is a bunch of names and addresses that are made up and can change with each submission.

Biff: on media priorities:

What makes this lack of reporting all the more remarkable, is when one pauses to consider all of the other lame hit pieces that has occupied the headlines over the last few weeks, not the least of which was.......gulp......Palin wearing nice clothes.
Reporting on the 'scandal' of Palin wearing nice clothes,
ignoring the intentional systematization of donation fraud.
This'll be one for the history books.

Something like $63 million has poured into Obama's coffers from foreign sources -- the tip there is that the donations end in pennies, like $43.36, which indicates they've been converted from foreign currency. Hence the odd amount of the donation.

Until very recently, Barack Obama did not even require overseas donors to prove their citizenship (as McCain and Hillary have always done) via a passport number or some other measure.

He did this deliberately. He only began asking for passport numbers when our sleepy-headed press roused itself enough to write an article on his deliberate law-breaking.

Where the fuck are the quotes from Obama's camp?

Camp Obama almost certainly offered "no comment," a damning statement in this context.

Where is that quote?

Why is National Journal playing this as a problem with "the system" rather than a deliberate subversion of the system by The One?

Hillary Clinton and John McCain had no problem keeping AVS turned on. Why is it Obama and Obama alone deliberately turned off the basic, standard system for verifying that credit card donations are being made by people legally entitled to donate?

Posted by: Ace at 04:40 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 Tapper picked up on the Biden interview story, and, predictably, did not even mention any Biden answer, just listed the questions and agreed with Obama's move to pullout from future interviews because of the mean questions.
Unbelievable.
I'm mixing it up in the comments section best i can, feel free to join in.

Posted by: geoff at October 25, 2008 04:42 PM (zEGWh)

2 Oh, come now, Ace. You and I both know that the cheesesteak is the absolute pinnacle of Western civilization. If the terrorists got ahold of them...well, I shudder to think at what would become of us.

Posted by: Chris at October 25, 2008 04:45 PM (b7ds2)

3 If lack of access to Obama's campaign hurts that TV station perhaps they'll consider some interviews with Palin...who tends to attract significant audiences.

Posted by: Popcorn at October 25, 2008 04:46 PM (Tha0W)

4 Wow. That was a supra-weak takedown by NJ.

Posted by: Blacksheep at October 25, 2008 04:47 PM (4VCIX)

5 It is amazing how this story is still being ignored.

Posted by: geoff at October 25, 2008 04:47 PM (zEGWh)

6 The hot air is interesting - if the credit card companies are involved in massive in kind too (Biden been berry berry good to the credit card companies)

I just realized something (it’s been awhile since I wrote credit card code); I don’t believe any standard automated service would accept simply the unverified credit card number. They either are doing it in collusion with a credit card processor willing to accept a high rate of fraud, or they are manually re-entering the card number and amount as you would do in your neighborhood sandwich shop. Either way, there is extra work that actually has gone on to perpetrate the fraud.

The other issue to understand in this is the vendor’s involvement, because that is a very suspicious arrangement. They very likely are taking in excessive number of bogus charges. They have to make good on the ones on which a customer complains, but the question is; is the company getting reimbursed from the Obama campaign or essentially making a multi-million dollar illegal contribution by eating it and serving as a money launderer for one of Obama’s billionare friends? And bogus ones not caught by the credit card holders, or reported (or addressed after the election) don’t enter into the picture. One wonders how clear is the charge showing up on the bills; Many internet purchases end up as pretty arcane entries on statements. Lots of questions, very few answers, and very little time to find them.

Posted by: Topsecretk9 at October 25, 2008 04:50 PM (eQwUw)

7 Doing a story and doing it without mentioning the most critical damning element is worse than no story at all.

One is ignoring, the other is actively diffusing.

Not reporting on the deactivation is like reporting on the "tragic" death of a woman as if it was an accident, while omitting the fact that the husband was found standing over her corpse with a gun, and that she had been shot.

Posted by: biff at October 25, 2008 04:54 PM (6X2az)

8 It is amazing how this story is still being ignored,

yeah, it is especially when the campaign was caught with shenanigans hiding payments to an ACORN front for "lighting and sound"

Even the actual payment amounts to ACORN are weird and not passing the smell test:

"Our contracts were relatively small for Obama," he said, declining to specify amounts because of "proprietary" rights of CSI's clients. The largest project for Obama was during the Ohio primary, he said.

"That was a very short-term contract for one week of work. In Ohio, they asked us to do canvasses in five cities statewide," Robinson said.

The Ohio primary was March 4. According to FEC records, the Obama campaign paid Citizens Services Inc. $832,598.29, from Feb. 25 to May 17.

A Trib analysis of campaign finance reports showed Obama paid CSI for services that stood out as unusual. For example, CSI received payments of $63,000 and $75,000 for advance work. Excluding the large payments to CSI, the average amount the Obama campaign spent with other organizations was $558.82 per check on more than 1,200 entries classified as advance work.

http://tinyurl.com/664yr2

Posted by: Topsecretk9 at October 25, 2008 04:57 PM (eQwUw)

9 One thing they did get, though, is important: an Obama spokesperson confirming that they do not keep credit card numbers.

This confirms that with AVS also turned off, there is no way for the Obama campaign to know how many times someone has donated, and how much, even if a donor uses the same credit card each time.

That's of moderate importance, because I've seen comments on other sites claiming that this isn't a big deal, the Obama campaign will still know if someone goes over the limit because they have the card number. If the quotes in the NJ article are correct, they don't have the card number. All they have is a bunch of names and addresses that are made up and can change with each submission.

Posted by: Jerry at October 25, 2008 04:57 PM (7Ahkq)

10 What makes this lack of reporting all the more remarkable, is when one pauses to consider all of the other lame hit pieces that has occupied the headlines over the last few weeks, not the least of which was.......gulp......Palin wearing nice clothes.

Reporting on the 'scandal' of Palin wearing nice clothes,

ignoring the intentional systematization of donation fraud.

This'll be one for the history books.

Posted by: biff at October 25, 2008 04:58 PM (6X2az)

11 Why does Barack Obama has less security on his credit card donations than my local cheesesteak shop?

Because it enables him to commit fraud with impunity?

Posted by: Milesdei at October 25, 2008 04:58 PM (ACHxk)

12
There's a word for all this.

Putsch.

There's a precedent.

1933.

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at October 25, 2008 05:01 PM (kZ9L/)

13 ace

paragraph 3 and 4 isn't me, but I take that to mean, he's saying that there may be people being dinged unknowingly (since charges come up in arcane hidden ways on statements) and if a card holder says "hey, what's this 25 dollars to Citizen Services? and complain to the CCompany, is the company getting reimbursed or are they eating the cost)

but I agree it hasn't been established.

Posted by: Topsecretk9 at October 25, 2008 05:03 PM (eQwUw)

14 If they don't keep credit card numbers, how do they refund the money when a donation is determined to be bogus?

Posted by: myiq2xu at October 25, 2008 05:03 PM (twWym)

15 Hello?

Justice Department? FEC? ICC? Anyone? Anyone home? Anyone at all?

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at October 25, 2008 05:04 PM (kZ9L/)

16 so when do we start going through the donations? when will we have access to all of the donations? and how do we go about it?

Posted by: Kaptain Amerika at October 25, 2008 05:05 PM (UHPcb)

17 #12... the history books will miss it too, since our schools will become more of an automated indoctrination factory of political conformity under the "chosen one". They already have pieces from Obama's musings in some texts, just wait a few more years. This is just another example of our freedoms disappearing.

Posted by: Sean at October 25, 2008 05:05 PM (vZzYJ)

18 f they don't keep credit card numbers, how do they refund the money when a donation is determined to be bogus?

Excellent question, because they say the do refund.

Hmmmm.

Posted by: Topsecretk9 at October 25, 2008 05:05 PM (eQwUw)

19 Suppose that credit card numbers are being guessed.
Without verification, who pays?
Is Team Obama spending potentially non-existant money?
They rack up millions of dollars of fraudulent conations, then spend the resulting credit. The various employees. consultants, contractors, material vendors are owed money (and some have spent money), but if the donations are fraudulent, then the money doesn't exist. Who pays to setle the debts of the workers and vendors?
Even ifthe intent is in fact to reimburse unwilling / unwitting charges, does Obama have the money? What if they don't? How will they reimburse everyone?
Doubtless there are more than a few people (old, single mothers, etc.) who cannot fight bogus charges.
There are very many credit card users. Guessing a credit card number is easy, but getting the rest of the information is tough. Unless, of course, no other information is needed.
How then do the credit card companied differentiate between a legitimate charge, and a fraudulent one?
Didn't we just see and experience something very much like this?

Posted by: Arbalest at October 25, 2008 05:06 PM (AgBuQ)

20 They "don't keep credit card numbers?" What horseshit. Any time anyone enters any information on a web site, that info is retained in perpetuity somewhere. So, I don't know what they mean by this statement. Their system for damn sure "keeps" the credit card numbers. They would also be on the funding reports from the credit card companies. This is complete and utter nonsense.

And, the funny thing is, the fraudulent bastard is going to lose anyway!

Posted by: CB at October 25, 2008 05:07 PM (9Wv2j)

21 Credit card processing systems have to keep the card number to handle charge backs and bank reconciliations. It may be encrypted. However, the encrypted strings could be compared for multiple donations.

If they were interested in being legal, they could be.

Posted by: SJPHOTO at October 25, 2008 05:08 PM (RyCFu)

22 You know, the whole -gate suffix is used much too often, but when you think about it,all it takes is oneinvestigative journalist supported by oneeditor not in the tank to really delve into this.
Doesn't have to be the NY Times or Wash Post doing it like a generation ago. A paper out in Iowa or Tennessee or Texas could take the lead on this just as well.
The Obama pattern is really living up the thugocracy that Michel Barone named it, and the parallels between this and Watergate may soon begin to pile up.
Why was the verification switch turned off? Who authorized it? Was there a monetary incentive provided by the campaign to the vendor to turn off standard authorizing procedures? What did Obama know, and when did he know it?
Talk about the possibilities.

Posted by: Lee at October 25, 2008 05:09 PM (TxTIh)

23 So, will the U.N. election observers be sent in now?

Posted by: cheshirecat at October 25, 2008 05:11 PM (oCkjB)

24

"Why is it Obama and Obama alone deliberately turned off the basic,
standard system for verifying that credit card donations are being made
by people legally entitled to donate?"

Um, because he's a fifth columnist Communist scumbag?

But, Bush had a DUI!!!!!!!!!

PSY OPS!!!!

Posted by: Senator Rev. Dr. E Buzz Miller at October 25, 2008 05:13 PM (vFeQi)

25 The ad for this is very simple:

Barack Obama signed an agreement saying he would accept public financing, blah, blah, blah...

But he backed out of that agreement...

(Evidence of deliberate online CC donation fraud)

Now we know why.

Posted by: Editor at October 25, 2008 05:13 PM (p4YSL)

26 I think that since others were able to accomplish the same task with Senate/House Dems, there seems to be some type of concerted effort here.

Can someone put together a youtube video at least, similar to the fannie/freddie ones, that shows how AVS works, the legal ramifications (like FEC regulations for donation tracking along with the NJ quote Jerry caught) and how turning off the extra check could lead to massive fraud efforts?

Posted by: Sean at October 25, 2008 05:14 PM (vZzYJ)

27 Not keeping the credit card numbers? That seems like it needs more investigating because I don't see how they can refund, and they are doing lots of chargebacks; if you look at any list of contributors you can see the chargebacks. Also, why not store the credit card information? Most e-commerce sites have an option for people to save their credit card information and on the backend there are ways to scramble that data so unscrupulous people don't use it. Though in this case the whole lot of them are unscrupulous so that less than matters.
I don't know, I may be seeing shadows where there aren't any, but that just seems fishy to me. And for what purpose are vast numbers of their donors using gift cards to donate anyway? I don't get it, shouldn't that be an issue? I mean I get why in the sense of money laundering, but I don't get the thinking on the stupid media's part about why this is no big deal.
But, I am FURIOUS that the gist of the National Journal article is that McCain has these problems too. That's just not true as has been proven over and over again.
OT rant. The other day when Palin was nailing Biden on his "generated crisis" gaffe I was on CNN.com for some inexplicable reason and saw the headline "Palin apologizes." Knowing that currently her top talking point was Biden's gaffe I groaned and was upset she'd apologized for it. Then I clicked the article and it was about the "parts of the country that are patriotic" thing. It was so misleading. The media is purposefully wording their headlines to deceive, knowing a lot of people just scan them without delving further. Fuckers.

Posted by: ParanoidInSeattle at October 25, 2008 05:14 PM (AJ4xq)

28 when are we going to get proof that the messiah is a u.s. citizen?

Posted by: RD at October 25, 2008 05:14 PM (zlGlY)

29 If they don't keep credit card numbers, how do they refund the money when a donation is determined to be bogus?

You know this is a really good question because not only dod they say they do refund, but HOW do they keep track of legal limits if all they have is fake names and addresses?

Fake names/addresses on donation fields = illegal donations for Obama

BUT

Fake names/addresses on registration cards DO NOT = voter fraud

so sayeth the left

Posted by: Topsecretk9 at October 25, 2008 05:15 PM (eQwUw)

30 yikes, didn't mean to bold the whole thing.

Posted by: Topsecretk9 at October 25, 2008 05:16 PM (eQwUw)

31 McCain wont fight with this story....sadly, he wants to be a honorable Senator not a fighting President.......

Posted by: geoff at October 25, 2008 05:17 PM (zEGWh)

32 Man, if someone could do some sleuth work on this, it would be huge and make watergate look like a Melrose Place episode.

Posted by: CDR M at October 25, 2008 05:17 PM (TJoU6)

33 If they do not keep credit card records, how are they refunding people's money then? Another lie here.

Posted by: Kaitian at October 25, 2008 05:18 PM (d14cR)

34 Damn I've been beaten like a redheaded stepchild regarding the refund.

Posted by: Kaitian at October 25, 2008 05:19 PM (d14cR)

35 Ace, I know it's tiny and also in the weeds of a bigger more in the face issue.

-------

Seriously though, how do they keep track of people exceeding the legal limit ($2600?) if they do not keep cc numbers?

Posted by: Topsecretk9 at October 25, 2008 05:20 PM (eQwUw)

36 RE: Obama campaign not keeping CC records
Wouldn't the bank which processes the transactions and receives the funds keep records?

Posted by: James OK at October 25, 2008 05:21 PM (/qqDa)

37 The behavior of the press at this point is criminal imo. In their silence, they're abetting what may be the greatest systematic fraud in modern political history. Christ, Obama's entire campaign bill could be put on Bin Laden's Discover card and they wouldn't care. Gotta get their guy in there, even if he is dirty and corrupt and hellbent on turning this country into a socialist cesspool.
Once upon a time, I worked as a journalist. Now, I'd sooner take a job as a street walker. At least they have standards.

Posted by: TiredWench at October 25, 2008 05:22 PM (Kx1hM)

38 That's the only thing that will stop OBama, CDR.
One enterprising young journalist will decide that risking shame and hate from his/her collegues is worth it and will take Obama down on this story and others. The AVS default protection issue is there for the taking, as is the 60-80 million in foreign donations with non-rounded figures, like 45.77, because they are converted from foreign currency. That 60-80 million is Obama's buffer over McCain during the general election, and will probably be a fairly strong proximate cause of his victory, along with the MSM attack dog role played against McCain.
It won't be 6 months before enterprising young journalists take Obama down, just on the stuff that's out there in the blogs right now. Read Noquarter, read this blog, read Jawa, and its all there.
Sad but true.

Posted by: geoff at October 25, 2008 05:22 PM (zEGWh)

39 Wouldn't the bank which processes the transactions and receives the funds keep records?
As has been suggested here by others, Soros has his claws in a lot of banks.

Posted by: TiredWench at October 25, 2008 05:24 PM (Kx1hM)

40 If they don't keep credit card numbers, how do they refund the money when a donation is determined to be bogus?

Hello, Obama Campaign? You put a bogus charge for $1,000,123.79 on my credit card, and I demand that you issue me a credit immediately! Here's my number ...

Posted by: lmg at October 25, 2008 05:24 PM (A/vgC)

41 I heard an interesting comment from a woman (mom) at a baseball picnic today. She said "Americans have always been revolutionaries. It's in our blood".
Interesting how women are always the first to get it. Being the more vulnerable sex, they are more sensitive to threats tosurvival. It'll be women who spur their men on to be patriots.

Posted by: pc at October 25, 2008 05:25 PM (S7zPk)

42 PC, how 'bout some context?

Posted by: Editor at October 25, 2008 05:27 PM (p4YSL)

43 Meanwhile:

Utah's chief federal judge apologized Friday for campaign contributions to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama that "caused an appearance of impropriety."

U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell donated a total of $300 to Obama in 2007 listing her job as "lawyer," her employer the "govtt" and her address as her federal court chambers.

It is against the Judicial Code of Conduct for a judge to donate or participate in a political campaign, as judges are expected to be apolitical.

But in a statement released by her clerk, Campbell said she was not familiar with that part of the code when she made her contributions.

Campbell would not say how she learned of her error or if she had donated to any other candidate since President Clinton appointed her to the federal bench in 1995.

Her clerk said the judge would not answer any questions or make any further statements.

The Obama campaign, when contacted by The Salt Lake Tribune, promised to return the donations.

The punishment for violating this part of the code is usually minimal. If someone does file a complaint to the chief circuit court judge, Campbell may receive a letter of reprimand

http://tinyurl.com/6jjtlf

Posted by: Topsecretk9 at October 25, 2008 05:29 PM (eQwUw)

44 BREAKING!!!!! I just got a direct quote from an Obama spokesman:

"Hahahahahaha. Suckers."

Posted by: Editor at October 25, 2008 05:35 PM (p4YSL)

45 and this is why it's not a story - McCain's transparency vs. Obama's deceit is allowing the Obama campaign and DNC file a complaint against McCain- so that's where the MSM is on the issue - unbelievable

"In a letter to the Federal Election Commission to be submitted Monday, the Democratic National Committee alleges McCain has received donations from 6,653 individuals who exceeded the legal $2,300 limit by at least $1,000 and 23 donation in excess of $50 from anonymous donors. The DNC cited one donor who appeared to have given more than $56,000.

The complaint is based in part on data that the McCain campaign provides on its Web site — an extra step of disclosure not required by election laws. The campaign of Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, does not disclose as much information about its donors as McCain does. Obama only reports the identities of donors who give $200 or more — the legal requirement.

The McCain campaign said Saturday that transactions on its Web site are only updated monthly and do not necessarily reflect corrections that the campaign routinely undertakes."

Posted by: Topsecretk9 at October 25, 2008 05:37 PM (eQwUw)

46 Why doesn't McCain make a nuclear issue out of it and threaten to rescind his public finance option? I guess he'd have to be prepared to return 85m but sheez - at least make a threat out of it to get it in the news. I'm sick of reading about Palin's wardrobe.

Posted by: ReginaldL at October 25, 2008 05:39 PM (AuXAX)

47 Seriously though, how do they keep track of people exceeding the legal limit ($2600?) if they do not keep cc numbers?
If you can use disposable credit cards, it's a complete joke. Online payments withoutverifying the name and address, gift cards, foreign donations without checking the citizenship of the giver.
All from a guy who said he'd accept public financing. If only media or an opponent could put together a coherent statement on the audacity of deceit.

Posted by: MamaAJ at October 25, 2008 05:41 PM (X6Zdh)

48
Odd that we can't buy cigarettes in the usa online using a credit card cause it might fund terrorists but terrorists can fund/rig a usa election using credit cards online ?

Posted by: politicalmuse at October 25, 2008 05:41 PM (kLKnf)

49 NOt that anyone gives a fuck, but check LGF- Ashley Todd, the "attacked" "McCain" volunteer is a Paulian, and not with the McCain campaign

Posted by: TMF at October 25, 2008 05:44 PM (/YM8H)

50 Just start submitting it to Drudge Report on the main page, it worked for the blue dress. MAKE THEM COVER THE STORY!!!!!

Posted by: Joe Dagostino at October 25, 2008 05:45 PM (FtFDe)

51 My late father was a Nigerian election official who processed over $60,000,000 in illegal campaign contributions to Barack Obama. If you will send me your bank account numbers so that I can transfer this money to you, I will give you 1/3 of the total amount.

Posted by: Joints at October 25, 2008 05:45 PM (2a3WJ)

52 Without verification, who pays?
Is Team Obama spending potentially non-existant money?
AOL got hammered with that sorta shit, with CC sniffers, and direct check sniffers and shit, in the early 90's which is what moved them to a fixed rate service, rather than a charged based on log time.
Then again AOL was playing some dirty fucking pool with their delayed logout shit back then.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at October 25, 2008 05:46 PM (ul7te)

53 Guess it's up to you ace. We as readers can spread the word as much as possible but....damn, this is frustrating.

Posted by: brak at October 25, 2008 05:46 PM (CHiw8)

54 McCain should immediately turn off all security measures regarding credit card donations and stop listing donors under $200. The media might take notice.

Posted by: ricky at October 25, 2008 05:52 PM (muUqs)

55 Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.

Posted by: Lawrence Walsh at October 25, 2008 05:54 PM (Yw/4J)

56 Stomping up and down about media bias isn't going to do anything. Everyone should know that by now.

The thing to do is to work against *specific reporters by name* and by striking directly at their conceit, their weakest point: their claim to be journalists. Showing that they aren't journalists at all will have a great impact on their coverage.

One way to do that is by making them the center of attention in a post. In this case, I had to click through two pages in order to find out the name of the National Journal reporter. Put his name in the title of this post. Then, when the situation presents itself, go leave comments on his entries calling him a bad journalist.

Now, of course, in this case he might actually be on the right track so that might not apply in this case. But, if he's covering things up then try the above.

Posted by: The other plan at October 25, 2008 05:54 PM (ghGJT)

Posted by: Lee at October 25, 2008 05:56 PM (TxTIh)

58 Ace-since the Obama campaign is not keeping credit card numbers, would it be possible to have hundreds or thousands of contributors on one credit card number? I wonder how many credit card numbers someone like Soros has? Could he set up an operation and have a bunch of people at computers making up names and addresses and donating to the Obama campaign with his credit cards?

Posted by: Lori at October 25, 2008 05:58 PM (VVEAz)

59 If Sen. Obama gave up these fraudulent donations, his campaign would go broke.

So Sen. Obama destroyed the evidence of fraudulent donations.

EVERY SINGLE ATTACK AD Barack Obama buys between now and election day is paid for with dirty money.

EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Because if he gave them back, he'd be bankrupt. He couldn't buy ANY ads. That means EVERY SINGLE ONE is paid for with dirty money.

This is important. Repeat it. Tell your friends.

Posted by: Daryl Herbert at October 25, 2008 05:59 PM (YvLui)

60 Posted by: lmg at October 25, 2008 05:24 PM (A/vgC)

you might be on to something.

Posted by: DCA at October 25, 2008 05:59 PM (80uXY)

61 D'oh. Sorry bout that.
I swear, though, I wondered why the Hillary supporters were acting the way they were towards the end of the primary run,but now I know.
It's one thing to lose. It's another to be cheated and lose. But what's trulyirritating like sand in theswimtrunksis to be cheated in plain sight, lose, and then have the media willfullyignore their duty and any professional calling by intentionally avoiding to investigate the truth.

Posted by: Lee at October 25, 2008 06:02 PM (TxTIh)

62 I keep thinking of Bident's being from Delaware, the credit card capital of America....

Posted by: goddessoftheclassroom at October 25, 2008 06:11 PM (Syrgw)

63 The records are NOT gone. The Obama campaign may certainly have purged its records; however, VISA/Mastercard certainly have not. They have records of every transaction they have processed on behalf of the Obama campaign. They'd have to in order to bill Obama for their percentage of each transaction and in order to charge the appropriate credit card for that transaction.

Posted by: Jim B at October 25, 2008 06:12 PM (0WHwz)

64 Hey all,

I saw this on some other thread and I think it's about the only thing left to do: get the impeachment papers ready, just in case.

Posted by: bullfrog at October 25, 2008 06:13 PM (AlOqU)

65 A month after Obama has stolen the election the blind masses will find mysterious fraudlent charges popping up on their statements. It's like the tax hikes have already begun.

Posted by: robojadison at October 25, 2008 06:13 PM (9+esH)

66 Ace,

its not about AVS. Get off AVS. It's stupid.

It's about gift cards.

Untraceable. unverifiable. Completely legal - IE no credit card fraud.

It would allow someone, say Soros, to buy $300 million in gift cards and donate to Obama anonymously and if done in $200 or less increments, Obama wouldn't have to report it.

Get off AVS. That's not the right angle.

The scandal is the gift cards themselves.

Posted by: lorien1973 at October 25, 2008 06:19 PM (ddGv/)

67 So is my above scenario possible with gift cards instead of credit card numbers? Some one could probably set up a computer program to process it. You probably wouldn't have to put the info in manually.

Posted by: Lori at October 25, 2008 06:23 PM (VVEAz)

68 Not keeping credit card numbers is good security practice. A database of every credit card number would be a very attractive target for thieves. Refunds can be effected using a transaction ID (obviously, the banks involved would still have a record of the account numbers associated with the transaction, but the campaign doesn't need that information).

But they should at least keep a hash of the credit card number (like Ace's IP address hash system) so they can find accounts that donated too much (over $2,300). Is that too arcane a point for a journalist to ask about?

Posted by: Jobius at October 25, 2008 06:29 PM (sCFiE)

69 33
yikes, didn't mean to bold the whole thing.\

It's OK Topsekret. But did you ever answer a drunken Wicked's question about your...uh...situation?

Posted by: Abusing himself in his mom's basement at October 25, 2008 06:36 PM (iooso)

70 And all stupid uncle Joe Plugs does is, sit there, flashing his big, fake, teeth, and squints? Then lies his ass off, because that's all he's ever known?. People here in Scranton (drink) hate his guts for his trying to pimp us out every time he runs for another failed try at National office. Hey Joe..Don't go nowhere Amtrak can't take ya! Uhkay

Posted by: hutch1200 at October 25, 2008 06:38 PM (PI2nP)

71 Tapper picked up on the Biden interview story, and, predictably, did
not even mention any Biden answer, just listed the questions and agreed
with Obama's move to pullout from future interviews because of the mean
questions.

Mr. MeetThePress? Can't handle tough questions?

Well, it's understandable, it's not like he's a Senator or he's running for Vice President or anything.

I have no problem with the meanest or stupidest questions, as long as the response is not edited. Ask Sarah Palin whatever you want, don't distort her answers.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 25, 2008 06:47 PM (GlrN/)

72 In short, the Obama campaign has deliberately bypassed basic checks, and that could have no other reasonable explanation than to open the door to fraud. Period.

They're the fucking Mafia.

Posted by: Stinky Esposito at October 25, 2008 06:47 PM (MMC8r)

73 69

If someone bought a huge amount of gift cards / prepaid cc's, that can be traced right? It's hard to imagine someone paying cash for all those cc's.

Posted by: perineumpirate at October 25, 2008 07:05 PM (rKSJ1)

74 Thank God Politico is all over this story.
http://tinyurl.com/5ed9t7

Posted by: ricky at October 25, 2008 07:08 PM (muUqs)

75 I don't know if this is a stupid idea or not. Maybe someone can write up a serious, legit-looking chain email thing that warns people to watch out for fraudulent transactions from the obama campaign on their credit card statements and unbilled transactions. And have links to the screenshots of fraudulent donations that people have made and link to the stories of people that have already been victims of obama's donation fraud.

Posted by: perineumpirate at October 25, 2008 07:10 PM (rKSJ1)

76 It's about gift cards.Untraceable. unverifiable. Completely legal - IE no credit card fraud.It would allow someone, say Soros, to buy $300 million in gift cards and donate to Obama anonymously and if done in $200 or less increments, Obama wouldn't have to report it.
We have a winner.

Posted by: JackStraw at October 25, 2008 07:26 PM (VBon8)

77 Yeah,I think the gift cards angle should be worth pursuing too. What legitimate reason is there for a huge number of people to use gift cards to donate? There isn't one that I can think of.

Posted by: ParanoidInSeattle at October 25, 2008 07:48 PM (AJ4xq)

78 Ricky

I know, see up thread :

The complaint is based in part on data that the McCain campaign
provides on its Web site — an extra step of disclosure not required by
election laws. The campaign of Barack Obama, the Democratic
presidential nominee, does not disclose as much information about its
donors as McCain does. Obama only reports the identities of donors who
give $200 or more — the legal requirement.

The McCain campaign said Saturday that transactions on its Web site
are only updated monthly and do not necessarily reflect corrections
that the campaign routinely undertakes."

--- So basically, they are saying Obama hides his donor fraud, so that's OK, they are exploiting McCain's transparency. It's chutzpah.

Posted by: Topsecretk9 at October 25, 2008 07:49 PM (eQwUw)

79 Obama should be charged with campaign fundraising and other election fraud violations and in prison.

Posted by: Christoph at October 25, 2008 07:52 PM (hawOV)

80 Encourage MORE from the weak. Write to them. Thank them for a good start but ask for MORE.

"Please, sir; may I have more?" [Oliver Twist]

Posted by: maverick muse at October 25, 2008 08:19 PM (F1b/5)

81 Obama should be charged with campaign fundraising and other election fraud violations and in prison.

Posted by: Christoph
AT LEAST disqualify his campaign immediately!
To force prison time, take him to trial for the conviction.
But Obama has disqualified his own candidacy with his campaign of fraud.

Posted by: maverick muse at October 25, 2008 08:22 PM (F1b/5)

82 Sick. He's trying to buy the election and no one's calling him on anything. Somebody should be indicted.

Posted by: seguin at October 25, 2008 08:27 PM (Q8BJW)

83 If the chose one wins, I've already decided I'm going to the local Dem headquarters the day after the election and asking for my $1000 they promised. I know it's supposed to be in the form of a tax credit, but I figure they won't care if I get it a little early. I mean, they're taking it in however they want, why can't they give it out that way too?

Posted by: Sean at October 25, 2008 08:37 PM (vZzYJ)

84 Wow, deleting my comments just for being an unmitigated dickbag troll? And this site bashes "fascist Obama"?

Yes, now that I think about it, comparing editing a comment to illegally accepting foreign donation is pretty fucking retarded. Oh well. What do you expect? I'm a softheaded little pussy-assed lefty.

Posted by: Conserve at October 25, 2008 08:50 PM (lVlbp)

85 Obama's campaign recently said that they refunded money to illegal donors. How can they refund money if they don't keep the card numbers? Lie upon lie upon lie.

Obama lies to steal the election and subvert democracy.

Posted by: indga at October 25, 2008 08:51 PM (3NsFt)

86 indga: How can [Obama] refund money if they don't keep the card numbers?
Quoted for truth.

He destroyed the evidence on purpose. When a corporation does that . . . well, actually, when a corporation does that, they usually move for summary judgment and win.

Posted by: Daryl Herbert at October 25, 2008 09:04 PM (YvLui)

87 Wow, deleting my comments because of dissent? And this site bashes "fascist Obama"? The echo chamber is deafening.

Got any tax liens, bitch?

Posted by: Stinky Esposito at October 25, 2008 09:05 PM (MMC8r)

88 The echo chamber is deafening.

Shut up, liebot. We're not playing your Alinsky game any more.

Posted by: Dead Career Sketch at October 25, 2008 09:06 PM (JTN0y)

89 How can they refund money if they don't keep the card numbers?

By transaction numbers, and the credit card company takes it from there.

Posted by: Stinky Esposito at October 25, 2008 09:14 PM (MMC8r)

90 By transaction numbers, and the credit card company takes it from there.

Yes, there are records for everything. Even if gift cards were used, there's a record of any purchase of that magnitude (if they were bought piecemeal by thousands of individuals -- well, some of them can be persuaded to talk).

Posted by: Dead Career Sketch at October 25, 2008 09:16 PM (JTN0y)

91 Note on the card numbers: They are stored even if the campaign does not proactively keep them. We get a report every day that shows the card numbers from that days transactions, and the credit card processor will have a record as well.

Posted by: Chuck at October 25, 2008 09:20 PM (UX1OK)

92
Suppose that credit card numbers are being guessed.

Without verification, who pays?
When a credit card customer claims a charge is bogus the credit card company simply voids the charges(on small amounts at least) and bills it back to the vendor (in this case the One's campaign) That's why a smart vendor leaves the AVS on so he has the information to contest the chargeback.

Posted by: Bobo at October 25, 2008 09:33 PM (UX1OK)

93 bills it back to the vendor (in this case the One's campaign)

Plus a hefty chargeback fee in most cases.

Posted by: Dead Career Sketch at October 25, 2008 09:34 PM (JTN0y)

94 "This'll be one for the history books."

If it even makes it into the history books in the first place!

Posted by: PJ at October 25, 2008 09:56 PM (GVdvM)

95 You won't believe this.

Posted by: koopy at October 25, 2008 10:39 PM (bL4cA)

96 Um...wow. A quarter of the commenters here are extremely perceptive. Half are well-intentioned, good people but astonishingly naive.

51 Odd that we can't buy cigarettes in the usa online using a credit card cause it might fund terrorists, but terrorists can fund/rig a usa election using credit cards online. -- politicalmuse

Certainly "odd" in the sense that it hardly seems reasonably/rational to have stronger regs against buying cigs than against rigging the presidential election. But completely predictable and rational *if* one party and candidate have decided to win at any cost. And I do mean any.

66 The records are NOT gone. The Obama campaign may have purged its records; however, VISA/Mastercard certainly have not. They have records of every transaction they have processed on behalf of the Obama campaign. They'd have to, in order to bill Obama for their percentage of each transaction and in order to charge the appropriate credit card for that transaction. -- Jim B

Jim makes a great point: It's obvious that in order for a card to be billed for the donated amount, the CC companies must know which account to debit, eh? So even if the Obama folks deliberately refuse to keep records (to maintain "plausible deniability"), *someone* could theoretically compel the CC companies to do the research and find how many millions were illegally donated to Obie's campaign. But of course, that won't happen, and you all know that in your heart of hearts. At the rarified levels Obama occupies, there is never any penalty for any lawbreaking. That's for peons like you and me.

Understand that not only am I not condoning this, I hate it. Unfortunately, it's a fact, and trying to deny it or ignore it accomplishes nothing.

67 I saw this on some other thread and I think it's about the only thing left to do: get the impeachment papers ready, just in case. -- bullfrog

A noble sentiment, and if it could be done it would be a great remedy. Unfortunately, both impeachment and removal from office depend on a majority vote of the two houses of congress. And I know of only one Democrat who would vote against his party's president. Which makes impeachment impossible.
But I like the sentiment behind it.

75 In short, the Obama campaign has deliberately bypassed basic checks, and that could have no other reasonable explanation than to open the door to fraud. Period. They're the fucking Mafia.
-- Stinky Esposito

Stinky gets it. And the"deliberately bypassed" part is the entre--the hook, if you will--to get this story out: Because if reports are accurate, the Obama campaign *deliberately* disabled the safeguards devised by the credit-card companies to prevent fraud. By all reports, this could not have happened by accident.

For all honest people, that should be prima facie evidence. Smoking gun. Case closed.

But for every move there's a counter-move, and this is no exception. The hard evidence will never be subpoenaed--because the courts will rule that no individual or private organization has the legal standing to sue to enforce FEC rules on contributions. Note that the soundness of this opinion matters not a bit. Once the courts have thrown in with one party, the notion of legal remedies is...how to put it? Ludicrous. Foolish to the point of ridicule. Yet there will be many nominal conservatives who say, well, hey, we followed the rules to the letter and exhausted all legal remedies, so we are compelled to abide by the decision of the courts (or whatever corrupt entity has issued its august "ruling")

To summarize: The justly-revered system of free elections embodied in our system by the Founders depended on one of two things: either honest politicians, or an honest system of courts to prosecute obvious fraud. Lacking either today, this system was easy-pickins for the Obots.

Specifically, once Obama company determined not to bother with playing by the rules, it was child's play to figure out how to game the system. And I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve charging donations to randomly-selected cc numbers--too much risk. Rather, as many have written, foreign donors (totally safe from prosecution) make scores of contributions to Obama on each card. With the courts de-clawed there is absolutely no risk. And if Obie is elected, it wouldn't matter if sworn depositions surfaced after the election attesting to the fraud--because no one will prosecute.

So *if*, as expected, Obama's fraud results in a win, what should a principled person do? For my part, I will oppose an Obama administration in every way I can devise. By their eager complicity in two frauds--both the contributions and the hundreds of thousands of fraudulent voter registrations by ACORN -- it should be self-evident that they have forfeited the protection of our laws.

It's said that those who sow the wind will reap the whirlwind. Those bent on destroying this country have always relied on the idea that the rest of us would honor the majority vote even if it required sacrificing our most fundamental beliefs and goals. They count on this being true even if they steal the election by fraud.

What rational person would obey laws put forth by a party that "won" by means of such huge and obvious fraud?

Posted by: sf at October 25, 2008 10:54 PM (EsQly)

97 Dumb fucking question, cause I know all of shit about campaign finance. If Obama takes in X amount on fraudulent donations, throws them in a bank account, gets caught about a month later, gives it back, would he keep any interest?

moron question I know, but I wonder

Posted by: micheal at October 26, 2008 12:30 AM (RvRj+)

98
sf,
have you read The End of Democracy??
It was originally a symposium in First Things magazine, later published as a book. The same question was raised, albeit from a different angle. Does the increasing insanity of our courts--their rejection of reason, natural law, and the very principles that make democracy possible--destroy the courts' legitimacy, and if so, then the legitimacy of our whole political system--hence, are we justified in revolting?

Thank you for your excellent commentary. It is not that half of us are naive, it is that the idea of America that most of us grew up with dies really hard. For myself, growing up during the Cold War, with the Soviet Union as the locus of evil--and it being located very, very far away--it is extremely hard to BELIEVE that such things really are happening here, in my own beloved America.

And yet, it is precisely because we remember some things about the Soviet Union that we do have a paradigm for understanding what's happening here and now. For example, remember Pravda and Tass? I often think of them when I look at our news media. I remember, back in the day, hearing about how Soviet citizens would figure out what was really happening in the world by reading Pravda and assuming that the reality was the opposite of however Pravda was presenting things!

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at October 26, 2008 12:31 AM (kZ9L/)

99
.....and that is why I don't worry at all if the media report that McCain is lagging in the opinion polls!

Call it "the Pravda principle." Assume that everything coming over an AP wire is total bullshit--at best, a distortion of the truth, and at worst, its complete opposite!

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at October 26, 2008 12:35 AM (kZ9L/)

100 AVS does detect anonymous cards.It returns a code indicating that the cardholder does not have an address on file with the issuing bank.
IIRC, the McCain website rejects such cards.

Posted by: Gideon7 at October 26, 2008 05:33 AM (eWnjT)

101 Visa/MC acceptance rules require that the merchant keep all pertinent transaction information for at least 60 days to allow for processing of chargeback disputes.
Often the merchant will keep a transaction ID number in lieu of the actual card number for security reasons. (The card numberis usually stored by the merchant's computer in masked form, ****1234.) Mastercard for example requiresthe merchant to produce, on demand, a receipt showing the masked card number.
The merchant is supposed to keep the full "tape": the complete response data stream from the processor. This includes the timestamp, amount, authorization number, AVS response code, and the transaction ID.
The transaction ID number is used for issuingany refund; the full original card number is not necessary. Theprocessor's computer has the information that connects the transaction ID numbers back to the original card numbers. That way if the merchant's website is hacked all the card numbers aren't exposed.

Posted by: Gideon7 at October 26, 2008 05:44 AM (eWnjT)

102 And if they steal this thing, and we lose all legal recourse, what do we do then?

Posted by: SGT Dan at October 26, 2008 06:05 AM (Q6BTe)

103 "would he keep any interest?"

Of course, he is THE ONE.

Posted by: Kaitian at October 26, 2008 06:12 AM (d14cR)

104 cheap designer wedding dresses
wedding dresses
Prom Dresses
Cocktail Dresses
Flower Girl Dresses
Bridesmaid Dresses
Quinceanera Dresses
Wedding Dress Accessories
bridal gowns
bridalgownsonsale.com

Posted by: salinna at December 24, 2009 03:08 AM (+yPUE)

105 Yo no he robado en mi vida tío... ENTERATE. Robar es ilegal y punto, y sí, he comprado sólo una vez, para probar esas basuras de screeners que venden en los top manta, o esos dvd rips que se facilitan por ciertas páginas...EL RESULTADO es que joden los lectores de los DVD esto, para los que no lo sepan, tengo 3 DVD estropeados por eso.Segundo si le prestas ÇáÚÇÈ ÈäÇÊ algo a tus tías ( a las que tanto quieres ) no tienes porqué cobrarles nada.Si te miraban con caras raras cuando pedías cosas, ÇáÚÇÈ haber cambiado de tienda, eso a mi también me paso, y sinceramente games ÇáÚÇÈ ÕæÑ æ ÝáÇÔ me suda la P.LL.El tema es ÇáÚÇÈ ØÈÎ que hay que pagar a las personas por sus servicios prestados, lo mismo se aplica a la compra del pan, o lo que sea, quizás tu ( hipotéticamente )te dediques a hacer "simpas" cuando vas a bares. Es mi última aparición en esta MIERDA de blog. Saludos.

Posted by: ÇáÚÇÈ ÝáÇÔ at March 30, 2010 04:34 AM (drCfP)

106 In the cold winter, let your children put on a pair of Kids UGG Boots, making them free from feeling cold. It can come as classy, sporty, sophisticated and trendy preppy for the younger generations.

Posted by: kids ugg at January 18, 2011 02:26 AM (2cgzl)

Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0235 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0084 seconds, 115 records returned.
Page size 86 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.