Fluffy, how you can make unlimited campaign contributions to Obama

metalman

Active Member
Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
10,232
Reaction score
3,006
The Obama campaign announced that, combined with the DNC, the campaign raised $181 million in September. This is a huge increase over July and August, when the campaign raised around $100 million, although it is less than the $193 million it raised in September 2008.

The campaign said that just over 1.8 million people made donations to the campaign last month. According to the campaign, over 500k of these were brand-new donors, having neither given in 2008 nor 2012. 98% of contributions were under the reporting threshold of $250. Of these, the average contribution was $53.

35k people gave an average of $2,600, while just over 1.7 million people gave an average of $53. Half the campaign's haul came from people giving around the maximum amount and half from people who don't have to be disclosed.

Contributions under $200 don't have to be disclosed, but the campaign still has to keep track of the donor's name, in case subsequent donations push their contribution over the reporting threshold. For contributions under $50, however, the campaign doesn't even have to keep track of the donor's name.

Therefore you could make 10 $49 donations to Obama, and never even be reported!
just use one of those prepaid credit cards and its untraceable
The Obama campaign has disabled the credit card verification system, and anti-fraud security for online credit card donations, so pick any name and address you like!

But if your ordering some Obama swag from their online store, beware, anti-fraud verification is enabled.
 
Therefore you could make 10 $49 donations to Obama, and never even be reported!

A million bucks in $49 chunks would require more than 20,000 transactions. Hardly worth it when Citizens United has already made it legal to give however much you want if you do it through a foreign owned corporation. Now, I was going to link to a more general article but this one popped up and since most of the new post Citizens United money is flowing to Romney ...

Makes that $49 look pretty puny, no?
 
A million bucks in $49 chunks would require more than 20,000 transactions. Hardly worth it when Citizens United has already made it legal to give however much you want if you do it through a foreign owned corporation. Now, I was going to link to a more general article but this one popped up and since most of the new post Citizens United money is flowing to Romney ...

Makes that $49 look pretty puny, no?
hire some Chinese

only 2 million transactions to raise $100 million

or you could just automate the process with a little programming
 
or you could just automate the process with a little programming
The supreme court is fine with that. You guys won already - that's what Citizens United was all about, remember? Making sure that politicians could get more money from anyone anywhere.
 
The supreme court is fine with that. You guys won already - that's what Citizens United was all about, remember? Making sure that politicians could get more money from anyone anywhere.

But those don't get to say "I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this ad"
 
But those don't get to say "I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this ad"
Of course not. Why would Mitt Romney say "I'm Barack Obama"? He would use his own name - but he is still benefitting from the laissez faire funding rules.
 
@Metalman,
The same funding rules apply to all candidates.
 
And? Again the same rules apply to both. If Mitt wants to take the chance he can do so too. CCV code only confirms whomever is calling has the card in hand. If you broke into my house, stole my credit card, and used it to donate to Mitt you'd have the CCV. Again they wouldn't know it's not me and is really you.

Really what using the CCV does is secure the agency a bit more. If we don't collect CCV then VISA passes the risk of a fraudulent transaction to us. We don't get to collect the money. I assume Obama's situation would be the same. As always there's a trade off of risk and reward. It appears Obama's group decided it's not worth the risk. Which again Mitt can do, so there's nothing special here that Obama is 'getting away with' that Mitt could not too.
 
CCV code only confirms whomever is calling has the card in hand.

If address verification were enabled, it would show the address for the card in their transaction records. They only want the information the donor is prompted to enter, which can be made up, pick any name and address in the phone book, or just make one up.

address verification is disabled to allow Obama to accept campaign contributions from foreigners and allow contributions from individuals in excess of legal limits.
 
I think the answer is simple. No more contributions from Superpacs, pacs, businesses, unions, or individuals. The Government gives each candidate the same amount of money and that's all they get. Mittens and Obamayama are each on the way to spending $1Billion. We've been selling the Presidency and Congress to the highest bidders. It's time for it to stop.
 
"All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law; directors should not be permitted to use stockholders' money for such purposes; and, moreover, a prohibition of this kind would be, as far as it went, an effective method of stopping the evils aimed at in corrupt practices acts. Not only should both the National and the several State Legislatures forbid any officer of a corporation from using the money of the corporation in or about any election, but they should also forbid such use of money in connection with any legislation save by the employment of counsel in public manner for distinctly legal services."

Roosevelt - address to Congress in 1905
 
Back
Top