10 thoughts on “No One Cared Four Years Ago”

  1. I cared a LOT 4 years ago. Obama was getting zillions of small dollar donations from untraceable sources and that’s just asking for corruption….

    …Chicago style.

    1. Zillions of anonymous, untraceable small donations is not “Chicago style.” In “Chicago style” you’d never pay a bribe without the recipient knowing exactly who gave it, and what it was for.

  2. I’m sure that AG Holder will get right on this, just as I’m sure that the next lottery ticket I buy will be the big one.

    If Obama loses, it’ll be interesting to see who he pardons on his way out the door next January.

  3. The writer, and the authors of the referenced report, do not seem to understand credit card (cc) processing at all. Her theory seems to be that foreigners can affect US elections by making lots of small cc donations, which she believes is possible because some campaign websites (including Obama’s) don’t ask for cc security codes (CVVs). But if money is actually making it to the campaign, the donations are from real ccs (not stolen or made up ones). And if the cards are real, they have security codes, and the card owners could enter the security codes if they were asked.

    It is no harder for a nefarious foreigner to make cc contributions to a campaign website that checks security codes, than to one that doesn’t. In the context of campaign finance fraud, CCVs are a complete red herring.

    [pardon the use of abbreviations, the spam filter objects to the full words]

    1. Convenient of you to not address the other issues Jim. The point is that donations are coming from foreigners which is a violation of federal law.

      Your point is valid and a red herring at the same time. Keep up the good work.

      1. The point is that donations are coming from foreigners which is a violation of federal law.

        We know that it’s possible for foreigners to give (to any campaign) without being obvious. I don’t think we know how often it happens, where the funds are going, or what the donor’s motives are. On those questions the referenced article is nothing but innuendo.

          1. What exactly does the Romney campaign do to prevent illegal donations that the Obama campaign should also do?

    2. Kinda funny how the security feature is in place for buying shwag but notbfor making donations.

      Obama is essentially saying that if it is a small donation, he doesnt have to verify that it is a legal donation. And because these donations are not reported no one can check up on Mr Transparency.

      But we all know Obama is doing the right thing because he doesn’t like money in politics…

Comments are closed.