http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021924.php

 Obama Shrugged: An update
Share Post   Print
October 30, 2008 Posted by Scott at 5:57 AM

Washington Post reporter Matthew Mosk returned to the subject of Barack
Obama's online campaign fundraising yesterday in "Obama campaign using
untraceable donations." The story was published on page 2. Mosk
reported in the second and third paragraphs of the story:

    Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use
largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to
evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to
mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.

    Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign
has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially
illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides
acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper
donations after the money has been deposited.

    The Obama organization said its extensive review has ensured that the
campaign has refunded any improper contributions, and noted that Federal
Election Commission rules do not require front-end screening of donations.

    In recent weeks, questionable contributions have created headaches for
Obama's accounting team as it has tried to explain why campaign finance
filings have included itemized donations from individuals using fake names,
such as Es Esh or Doodad Pro. Those revelations prompted conservative
bloggers to further test Obama's finance vetting by giving money using the
kind of prepaid cards that can be bought at a drugstore and cannot be
traced to a donor.

Mosk is to be congratulated on getting somewhere in the vicinity of the
heart of the story after his earlier. The story is an improvement over his
unbelievably obtuse page-one story "Campaign finance gets new
scrutiny" this past Sunday.

Yet Mosk's story yesterday is still lacking. It fails to observe that the
McCain campaign's online donation screen contributors through the use of
the basic Address Verification System. On the contary, it creates the false
impression that the McCain campaign is party to the same modus operandi.

Moreover, despite the implication of the Obama campaign's statement that it
provides "extensive review" to donations received online, Mosk
fails to note that Obama contributors using a valid credit card but a
fictitious name and address cannot be effectively screened once they have
been accepted. That's why the McCain campaign is using AVS security and the
Obama campaign is not, but Mosk's story blurs the difference between the
campaigns.

Mosk's regurgitation of the statement that the Obama campaign "has
ensured that [it] has refunded any improper contributions" is
ludicrous. We know, for example, that "John Galt," "Osama
bin Laden," "Bill Ayers," "Saddam Hussein,"
"Della Ware," and "Adolfe Hitler," among many others,
are still waiting for their refunds. Again, one wonders if Mosk means to be
obtuse.

Mosk also relates the Obama campaign's comment "that Federal Election
Commission rules do not require front-end screening of donations." But
failing to screen donors at the front end coincidentally facilitates the
violation of basic federal campaign finance law. Federal campaign finance
law requires donors contributing over $200 to be identified, limits
donations to a total of $2,300 and prohibits foreigners from contributing.

The Obama campaign's intentional disabling of basic AVS credit card
security knowingly facilitates criminal fraud and illegal contributions. Is
this too difficult a concept to grasp? John Ronning, for example, provides
a step-by-step set of instructions for foreigners seeking to contribute to
the Obama campaign.

One might think this story is something of a scandal, but Mosk doesn't get
it. He sees no causal connection between the Obama campaign's deliberate
disabling of AVS credit card security "with a with a huge influx of
donations over the Internet[.]" With two-thirds of Obama's $150
million September haul having come over the Internet, you'd think it might
dawn on a dogged reporter that the end might have something to do with the
means.

Mosk might have asked the Obama campaign why it has chosen to continue in
this manner knowing it is accepting contributions that violate federal law.
Yesterday, for example, Crazy Eight from Swindler Lane made a $25 dollar
donation to the Obama campaign. "It went right through to my credit
card after a two-day delay," writes Mr. Eight: "No security code.
No address check. No name verification. Nothing. Unbelievable."

Mr. Eight was in good company yesterday. He was joined by "Karl
Marx." Our man "John Galt" writes with questions and
comments that seem to have eluded Matthew Mosk:

    "Given the bad PR and the additional cost for all their CC
transactions, why is the AVS still turned off? This story first broke in
the blogs in a big way last Wednesday, and the MSM starting asking the
Obama campaign about it by the end of the week.

    So the Obama campaign surely knows the basic facts of the story and its
potential liability -- that they don't have even the most basic security
measures initiated at their website. Just to cover their butts, don't you
think they would have turned those features back on? So they can claim,
"Yes, we discovered the issue and have rectified it several days
ago...blah, blah, blah..."?

    So, I tested the system, yet again, this morning with the same credit
card - this time with Karl Marx as the donor - and sure enough, it went
through.

    But why? Why would they continue to expose themselves to this potential
scandal? My bet is (in spite of their claims that it's too difficult to
make the info available) they know down to the penny the exact details of
all their under $200 donors and the serial-CC-fraudsters and the simply
can't afford to give up the money. Also, as reported here(*), it's actually
costing them more per transaction to process all their online donations.
Even the ones that aren't fraudulent.

* http://tinyurl.com/6bd76z

    So they know this is a PR issue, and it's more expensive on a per
transaction basis, yet the AVS remains disabled. I can only conclude that
they know this is such a significant percentage of their overall revenue
that in spite of the publicity they have to continue to allow the fraud in
order to meet their budget goals. They must know just how many of those
small donations are coming from fraudulent sources, and if they turn the
security on it could drastically impact those $150 million donation months.

    If they did publicly announce that they restored the security features
and a big drop in the fundraising figures ensued, it would only confirm all
the fraud up to that point. Meaning, if the fundraising reports were to
show a big drop in CC transactions after they turned the AVS back on, it
would be evidence of the crime."



The sophisticated gentlemen running the Obama campaign know exactly what
they are doing. "John Galt" has caught on. Matthew Mosk doesn't
quite get it, but at least he's making a show of trying. It's more than can
be said of his illustrious colleagues in the MSM.

UPDATE: You can see the importance of the MSM's averted eyes on this story
as you observe how Obama spins Charlie Gibson.
_________

For the Charlie Gibson spin:

http://tinyurl.com/5n8mbo

-- 
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is
to fill the world with fools." --Herbert Spencer

"The republican is the only form of government which is not
eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Linux User# 416016
Linux Machine# 385029

--- Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20080925)