EXPLOSIVE REPORT: Obama Campaign Website Lacks Important Tool to Prevent ILLEGAL DONATIONS

www.TheBlaze.Com ^ | October 8, 2012 | Mytheos Holt

[Yosemitest]

EXPLOSIVE REPORT: OBAMA CAMPAIGN WEBSITE LACKS IMPORTANT TOOL TO PREVENT ILLEGAL DONATIONS
October 8, 2012 by Mytheos Holt

This past Thursday, TheBlaze teased a potential scandal surrounding President Obama’s donors.
Now, we might know what that scandal is.
According to a report by the conservative nonprofit Government Accountability Institute (GAI), and an explosive series of stories on Breitbart.com and the Daily Caller,
the Obama campaign website appears to be built with an uncharacteristic lack of security where foreign donations are concerned.

Despite donations from foreign sources being illegal under Federal law, all campaigns, whether at the congressional level or the presidential level, have insufficient security to prevent these donations, according to the GAI Report.
The problem afflicts an alarming number of politicians, across all parties.

However, for reasons that remain unclear, the Obama campaign stands apart from its peers in its lack of security preventing these donations.
The most dangerous vulnerabilities for the campaign appear to lie in two separate channels – specifically, the website Obama.com, and the lack of a requirement that users input CCV codes when donating online through their credit cards.

To begin with, Obama.com is owned by Shanghai executive and former Chicago resident Robert Roche, a powerful Obama bundler with enough financial clout to break bread with the President, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and even Chinese President Hu Jintao, at the same time.
Breitbart elaborates on Roche:

In 2011, Mr. Roche obtained one of the most sought-after pieces of real estate in Washington, DC: a seat at the head table for President Obama’s State Dinner for Chinese President Hu Jintao.
How Roche—a man whose infomercial company hawks fitness equipment, cell phones, and breast enhancement products
—landed a seat alongside Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former President Bill Clinton, Sen. John Kerry, former President Jimmy Carter, and Chinese President Hu Jintao remains unclear.

Since 2009, White House Visitor Logs list the name Robert Roche at least 19 times, despite the fact Mr. Roche’s primary residence is in China.

Mr. Roche, who is originally from Chicago, is a co-chair of the Technology Initiative for the Obama campaign.

According to Acorn International’s prospectus, the success of Mr. Roche’s company hinges on maintaining access to state-run media
and “preferential tax treatments and subsidies” doled out by the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

That a powerful bundler owns the Obama.com website is unsurprising, given that the site redirects to the fundraising page for the Obama campaign.
However, the fact that it is Mr. Roche specifically may strike some as dangerous,
especially given that Roche lives in a foreign country, and thus might find it easy to fundraise off of foreign business connections.
Indeed, this concern is even more potent, given that 68% of the traffic to Obama.com comes from foreign sources, according to the report.

Nevertheless, these details could be considered less damning if the report didn’t also find a level of credit card security within the Obama fundraising apparatus that is below even industry standard.
Why?
Because unlike most web merchants, the Obama campaign does not require those making a donation to enter their CCV code –
a 3-4 digit code that appears on the back of most credit cards, and that indicates the location of the cardholder.
This particular omission is not only problematic from the perspective of campaign security, but also economically irrational, according to the Daily Caller’s Matthew Boyle:

Obama for America does not require online credit card donors to input Card Verification Value data to confirm that a political donor is legally authorized to charge contributions to a given credit card.
GAI said CVV data consists of “a three or four digit number generally imprinted on the back of the card”
in order “to verify that the person executing the purchase physically possesses the card.”

GAI notes that the Obama campaign’s failure to use such security measures in its online donation system likely costs it “millions of dollars in additional fees”
because “card processors charge higher transaction fees for campaigns that fail to use the CVV.”

The group estimates that Obama’s 2008 campaign, which raised over $500 million, likely “paid at least an additional $7.25 million in fees to the banks that it could have avoided
if it were to have used the CVV,” assuming the campaign paid typical rates for processing credit card transactions.

Nor is this oversight accidental.
Breitbart’s Mike Flynn explains that the campaign chose to use this apparently irrational system:

Why would they do this?

The clear implication is that they will reap more money without these security procedures than they would with them.

Granted, this implication is just that – an implication.
However, given that the cost of $500 million in donations is a mere $7.25 million,
it is easy to envision a calculation
whereby the money that is accessible because of this lack of security vastly outstrips the money that is lost
from ignoring the CCV codes.

This concern over foreign donations cuts across party lines.
During the 2010 elections, Democrats alleged that the US Chamber of Commerce was supported by foreign money.
A report by ABC News at the time found little evidence to support the claims, but nevertheless, the issue remains a touchy one for a candidate.
[ Watch the report at www.theblaze.com's original report by clicking on the video of the $100.00 bills. ]

Basic consistency would seem to demand that this particular instance of this charge be answered and corrected.

UPDATE: The Daily Beast has published a story highlighting even more problems with campaign financing from illegal donors.
It describes problems that extend beyond mere foreign donations and into the realm of fraudulent donations, both of which are not protected against by the Obama campaign.
They also add more details on Robert Roche.
The relevant sections are below:

Further complicating the issue are websites like Obama.com—which is owned not by the Obama campaign but by Robert Roche,
an American businessman and Obama fundraiser who lives in Shanghai.
Roche’s China-based media company, Acorn International, runs infomercials on Chinese state television. Obama.com redirects to a specific donation page on BarackObama.com, the official campaign website. Unlike BarackObama.com, Obama.com’s traffic is 68 percent foreign, according to markosweb.com, a traffic analysis website.
According to French-based web analytics site Mustat.com, Obama.com receives over 2,000 visitors every day.

The name Robert W. Roche appears 11 times in the White House visitors log during the Obama administration.
Roche also sits on the Obama administration’s Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations, and is a co-chair of Technology for Obama, a fundraising effort.
(In an email exchange, Roche declined to discuss his website, or his support for the Obama re-election effort, referring the inquiries to the Obama campaign team.
The Obama campaign, in turn, says it has no control over Roche’s website;
it also says only two percent of the donations associated withObama.com come from overseas.)

But it isn’t just foreign donations that are a concern.
So are fraudulent donations.
In the age of digital contributions, fraudsters can deploy so-called “robo-donations,” computer programs that use false names to spew hundreds of donations a day in small increments, in order to evade reporting requirements.
According to an October 2008 Washington Post article, Mary Biskup of Missouri appeared to give more than $170,000 in small donations to the 2008 Obama campaign.
Yet Biskup said she never gave any money to the campaign.
Some other contributor gave the donations using her name, without her knowledge.
(The Obama campaign explained to the Post that it caught the donations and returned them.)

This makes it all the more surprising that the Obama campaign does not use a standard security tool, the Card Verification Value (CVV) system—
the three- or four-digit number generally imprinted on the back of a credit card,
whose purpose is to verify that the person executing the purchase (or, in this case, donation) physically possesses the card.
The Romney campaign, by contrast, does use the CVV—as has almost every other candidate who has run for president in recent years, from Hillary Clinton in 2008 to Ron Paul this year.

[Yosemitest]

Thanks for the link.

[Charles Martel]

A quick Google search for “2008 election credit card fraud” turns up links to articles on Michelle Malkin’s site as well as Newsmax. This issue was definitely discussed here four years ago.

[Yosemitest]

This head should roll right after the Kenyan Turd's head rolls.

[expat1000]

>Give me 500 push ups.

That would be 100 per $! Give me a break - it was only 5 bucks.

[I want the USA back]

They are charged with enforcing the laws that they are violating. Seeing that they have no principles, do you think that they will prosecute themselves?
These are the same people who deliberately allowed crimes committed by “their people” to go unpunished.

[Yosemitest]

Don't forget Who Barry Soetoro is.

Barry Soetoro, AKA Obama, was lawfully adopted by a foreign national, Lolo Soetoro, and Barry's name was legally changed to "Barry Soetoro" (Barry’s own admission).
Barry Soetoro was also made an official legal Indonesian citizen (again Barry’s own admission).
The adoption would be noted in Barry's vital statistics record in Hawaii on his original birth certificate OR Lolo Soetoro may have always been Barry's legal birth father.

Read Barack Obama Running From Barry Soetoro.

[tshaun]

Explosive like a popcorn fart.

[Puddleglum]

No - but the exist same issue was raised four years ago and (crickets)

[ETL]

Don't forget Who Barry Soetoro is

"Barack Obama received at least some instruction in the Islamic faith of his father and went with him to the mosque, but the importance of this experience is vastly overstated by conservative commentators who seek to portray Obama as a Muslim of sorts. Radical anti-Americanism, rather than Islam, was the reigning faith in the Dunham household. ...

Barack Obama is a clever fellow who imbibed hatred of America with his mother's milk, but worked his way up the elite ladder of education and career. He shares the resentment of Muslims against the encroachment of American culture, although not their religion. He has the empathetic skill set of an anthropologist who lives with his subjects, learns their language, and elicits their hopes and fears while remaining at emotional distance. That is, he is the political equivalent of a sociopath. The difference is that he is practicing not on a primitive tribe but on the population of the United States.

There is nothing mysterious about Obama's methods. "A demagogue tries to sound as stupid as his audience so that they will think they are as clever as he is," wrote Karl Krauss. Americans are the world's biggest suckers, and laugh at this weakness in their popular culture. Listening to Obama speak, Sinclair Lewis' cynical tent-revivalist Elmer Gantry comes to mind, or, even better, Tyrone Power's portrayal of a carnival mentalist in the 1947 film noire Nightmare Alley. The latter is available for instant viewing at Netflix, and highly recommended as an antidote to having felt uplifted by an Obama speech. ..."

Article: Obama's women reveal his secret
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB26Aa01.html

[Yosemitest]

Spoken like someone who has been a member since "Aug 16, 2012" and is probably a paid Obama troll.

[Yosemitest]

Thanks. That’s a good link.

[ETL]

Explosive like a popcorn fart.

How do you mean that? Do you mean nothing will happen as a result, or it's just not important?

[Yosemitest]

I really like the comment:

"A demagogue tries to sound as stupid as his audience so that they will think they are as clever as he is," wrote Karl Krauss.
Americans are the world's biggest suckers, and laugh at this weakness in their popular culture.
Listening to Obama speak, Sinclair Lewis' cynical tent-revivalist Elmer Gantry comes to mind,
or, even better, Tyrone Power's portrayal of a carnival mentalist in the 1947 film noire Nightmare Alley.
The latter is available for instant viewing at Netflix, and highly recommended as an antidote to having felt uplifted by an Obama speech. "

" ... there is nothing worse for an embittered outsider manipulating the system from within ... to achieve his goals -
and nothing can be more terrible for the system. "

[Buckeye McFrog]

And I doubt anything will ever be done about it, even if Romney wins.

-He’s too nice a guy.
-The impulse will be to “look forwards and not backwards”
-Both parties have declared a DMZ around fundraising.

[tshaun]

Its a non story because the media will make it a non story at least until after the election. I mean look how they are dragging out the Benghazi story.Its worse than watergate ever was and the media is treating it like it was a misunderstanding over a parking ticket.

[ETL]

Its a non story because the media will make it a non story at least until after the election. I mean look how they are dragging out the Benghazi story.Its worse than watergate ever was and the media is treating it like it was a misunderstanding over a parking ticket.

Well, I'm glad I gave you the opportunity to clarify yourself. :)

However, the left-wing media will NEVER adequately cover scandals involving their own. Should we then just ignore them as well?

[Yosemitest]

I like your sarcasm.
But they're counting on us just ignoring them.

We should continuie to
"beat the drums of TRUTH"
and call the honest, liberty-loving, pro-constitutional people to battle AGAINST these VILE EVIL PEOPLE.

[Churchillspirit]

Are you going to tell your bank that it is a fraudulent transaction and get your money back?

If not, why did you contribute to The Kenyan?

[expat1000]

Are you going to tell your bank that it is a fraudulent transaction and get your money back?

Lie, you mean? No.

If not, why did you contribute to The Kenyan?

If you can't figure that out in the context of this thread, then explaining it is not worth the effort. BTW, it was $5.

[Churchillspirit]

$5 here...$5 there...adds up.