Kenneth Timmerman, the author of the splendid 2005 book about Iran's feverish pursuit of nukes, Countdown to Crisis, has now penned an article for Newsmax calls into question much of Sen. Obama's campaign war chest. Here is a little:

"A Newsmax investigation of Obama/Biden campaign contributors, undertaken in conjunction with a private investigative firm headed by a former CIA operations officer, has identified 118 donors who appear to lack U.S. citizenship.

"Some of these 'red flag' donors work for foreign governments; others have made public statements declaring that they are citizens of Cameroun, Nigeria, Pakistan, Canada, and other countries.

"A Newsmax sampling of about 3,400 donors also found hundreds more who showed 'yellow flags'
such as not having used a Social Security number or a known U.S. address. Most U.S.-born citizens are issued Social Security numbers at birth or by the time they enter kindergarten. ...

"In addition to the donations the campaign has disclosed, however, it has taken an unprecedented $218 million from donors whose names it is keeping secret, according to FEC spokesman Robert Biersack.

"That money came from individuals who in theory never passed the threshold of $200, the limit the FEC set for public disclosure of a donor’s name and place of residence, so there is no way of knowing how much foreign money could be included in that amount.

"For example, hidden away amidst the unprecedented $150 million Obama claims to have raised from individual donors in September was more than $42 million raised from secret donors. These donations appear in the records as a single entry under the heading, 'Donors, Unitemized.'

"Using sophisticated Internet search tools, fee-based data bases, and other public records, CTC attempted to identify Social Security numbers and U.S. addresses connected to the Obama donors. Most of these donors gave obvious overseas addresses when they made their donations, but the Obama campaign had no security screen to detect them.

"'Hillary and McCain demanded proof of citizenship of all their donors,' [former CIA operations officer Frederick W.] Rustmann said. 'Obama did not, so he benefitted by receiving an enormous amount of money from foreign donors who wanted to influence the U.S. election process.'

"Rustmann and his investigative team expressed 'high suspicions' that 118 donors flagged as 'red' were not U.S. citizens. ...

"Another major loophole is the apparent widespread use of gift cards, which notoriously have been used for money-laundering purposes, especially in places such as Russia and Ukraine, industry security analysts tell Newsmax.

"Newsmax asked James Wester, a spokesman for Chase Paymentech, who was responsible for taking the unusual step of deactivating the Address Verification Service recommended by VISA USA on the Obama Web site. Such security features can be deactivated by the processing company, or at the request of the merchant, in this case, Obama for America.

"Wester said that Paymentech was 'not going to be issuing a statement at this time.'"

Here is the link to the entire story: Newsmax.com – Ex-CIA Expert: Obama Took Millions in Illegal Foreign Donations

Once it became clear that Sen. Obama would have a huge lead in fundraising over Sen. McCain, it should probably not have been especially surprising that the former would abandon his scruples, declare that the public-financing system is "broken," and that his way of fundraising is the truly democratic method. Cynical, yes; but still not surprising.

But it now appears that the Obama campaign--presumably, with the Democratic standard-bearer's blessing--is turning a blind eye to the very serious possibility that it is accepting illegal donations. I think that is called willful ignorance.

Is it even remotely possible that any democracy can long survive, if it allows foreigners to contribute to its presidential campaigns?

Then prove it.

Nor do I disclose contributors below $25 which is the law for state elections. Why should I make my small donars a target?

Newsmax.....ahhhh yes a reliable source...NOT.

__________________
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! - Frederick Bastiat

It would be easier if the Obama campaign were not actively obstructing such efforts, by disabling credit-card security features.

The following item (among many others) seems highly suggestive:

"Gilles M. lives in Zurich and claims to be 'founder and senior consultant' of 4?ME (sic) Image Consulting. Gilles made three donations to the campaign for a total of $240.39. The campaign found him suspicious enough to return one of them in July, but kept the rest. Under FEC rules, that will bring Gilles back into the shadows, since his aggregate contributions now total less than $200."

Are you entirely incurious about the legality of all this?

On the other hand, the McCain "war chest" does not include the vast amounts of money that has been paid to a special, professional smear team of ex swiftboaters and ex Rove staff. If that funding were opening declared, there would not be much discrepancy between Obama and McCain.

And that was precisely the rationale for Obama not accepting public funding. The additional money that he has received has been needed to counter the multitude of smears and lies generated by Republicans.

And if you are worried about funding, how about McCain flip flopping and coming out to support offshore drilling, and in the following weeks showing up to luncheons and dinner fund raisers with oil executives who donated millions to the McCain campaign. (I already posted the article here).

it cant be proven due to the lack of over sight or records...they are anonymous. obama's fundraising and about face on public financing really bugs me

i would be surprised if he really raised that much m oney just in the US. it is beyond belief

[quote=pjohns;166016]Show me.....I use paypal.
Show me where paypal has this fabled 'credit-card security feature' that will distinguish between a regular credit card and a 'pre-paid' credit card. Inquiring minds want to know.

Where's the proof?

Actually no. There is a difference between receiving a donation and accepting a donation. Of course the sheeple don't understand this. But those of us who actually work in politics are all too familiar with the concept. Just because a candidate does not publish what he is NOT REQUIRED to publish does not mean a vast conspiracy is at hand.

As previously stated, I do not publish every donation as I am not required to do so. Why should I expect a federal candidate to be any different?

Additionally, this statement is just supid:

Nonsense. What? Are you suggesting that McCain requires a birth certificate prior to 'receiving' a donation? This statement is so far from reality it is laughable.

FWIW, I have a english teacher in Korea that is one of my doners. The same accusation was leveled againts me as you are trying to do to this guy. Just because you move overseas does not negate your rights with respect to voting and donating to campaigns.

__________________
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! - Frederick Bastiat

This statement seems to assume that all people of good faith must agree that (a) the accusations in 2004 by John Kerry's former "Swift Boat" comrades were sleazy and untrue; and (b) that Karl Rove is the very apotheosis of evil.

Some of us would disagree strongly with both sentiments.

In other words, the end justifies the means. Right?

That is not a very inspiring defense.

Tuquoque!

Again, not a very inspiring defense.

For the record, though, I will stipulate that both candidates have done some flip-flopping. But at least on the offshore-drilling issue, there is a plausible rationale: When oil passed $147 per barrel last summer, and gas exceeded $4 per gallon at the pump, many reasonable people decided that it might be prudent to revisit the issue. (True, the per-barrel price of oil is only about half that much now; and the pump price of regular gasoline is around $2.30 per gallon--a major reduction. Still, some OPEC members are clamoring for production cutbacks, in order to maximize profits at the expense of the hated West; so this respite may be rather brief.)

On the other hand, it is very hard for me to see what intervening event might have prompted a reconsideration of Sen. Obama's position on public financing.

Rove has always been, and will always be a liar. I believe the term is congenital. Or....are you forgetting the bug issue?

That is neocon ideology....

Oh wait....Bush didn't accept public funding either....but it is OK if your a republican right?

__________________
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! - Frederick Bastiat

As I am not a merchant, or a person otherwise in a position to be expert about such matters, I really do not know; nor is it my business to know.

Are you asserting that this is a pure fabrication by the author of the piece quoted?

I'm not sure that blatant condescension is the most effective means of argumentation.

Are you suggesting, then, that willful ignorance is a justification, at either a moral or a legal level?

I don't think anyone said anything about the necessity of one's providing a birth certificate for all donations, prior to the candidate's reception of the same. But when so many donors seem highly suspect, it does not seem unreasonable to expect that an ethical organization might return such questionable donations.

Unless, of course, an unnamed credit-card industry insider understood perfectly what was going on:

"If they are not taking basic security safeguards to prevent such obvious online fraud as you have found, then how can any donor have confidence that they will protect credit card information? But if cash flow is the name of the game, it doesn’t matter as long as they get the money up-front and get the job done. They can pay the fines later."

Some people might see that as the very quintessence of cynicism.

Merchant accounts are different from political credit card vendors.

Yes

It is not condescension. It is a legal term. Donations are not 'accepted' until declared on the filing. Donations are 'received' when the transaction is complete. You are supposed to vet the donations prior to end of the reporting period. These are two different legal terms with respect to political donations and reporting requirements.

There is no ignorance involved. Most political candidates do not report donations under the this level because THEY AREN'T REQUIRED TO DO SO. People purposefully donate at lower levels in order to keep their names off the books. As a libertarian who has many campaign contributors who wish to remain anonymous (because of the black helocopters I suppose), I am very familiar with the concept. I also get donations from bigger named dems and reps as well who wish to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals from their own party. I respect that desire and hence do not report those donations below the threshold.

His donation page meets legal requirements as can be evidenced here:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden: Change We Need | Barack Obama Donate | Contribute


I am sure that if that box isn't checked it will kick out just like mine will.

unnamed insider my a$$.
I would venture to guess, especially considering the source, that this quote is more likely from the author him / herself who is a party hack who wishes to libel a candidate

Where is the 'obvious' fraud?
As I requested previously....WHERE IS THE PROOF?

__________________
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! - Frederick Bastiat