OBama's Secret Foreign Money

[JustRalph]

Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign

Monday, September 29, 2008 9:23 PM

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

ore than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose.

And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.

Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report.

But because of Obama’s high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage — at least, not yet.

The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

The McCain camp and the Republican National Committee had $94 million, because of an influx of $84 million in public money.

But Obama easily could outpace McCain by $50 million to $100 million or more in new donations before Election Day, thanks to a legion of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret.

Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).

Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.

urprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.

“Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”

The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.

It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.

Biersack would not comment on whether the FEC was investigating the huge amount of cash that has come into Obama’s coffers with no public reporting.

But Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for CRP, a campaign-finance watchdog group, dismissed the scale of the unreported money.

“We feel comfortable that it isn’t the $20 donations that are corrupting a campaign,” he told Newsmax.

But those small donations have added up to more than $200 million, all of it from unknown and unreported donors.

Ritsch acknowledges that there is skepticism about all the unreported money, especially in the Obama campaign coffers.

“We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors,” he said. “The Obama campaign never responded,” whereas the McCain campaign “makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online.”

The rise of the Internet as a campaign funding tool raises new questions about the adequacy of FEC requirements on disclosure. In pre-Internet fundraising, almost all political donations, even small ones, were made by bank check, leaving a paper trail and limiting the amount of fraud.

But credit cards used to make donations on the Internet have allowed for far more abuse.

more here (http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html)

More on Obama Money

In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas.

Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”

A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.

In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.

Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 — still well over the $4,600 limit.

[Greyfox]

I'm surprised JR that there haven't been more reactions to your two threads.
I've been waiting to see how people will respond to them.
For some time, in fact from the very start of Obama's campaign I've wondered
"Who is funding this guy?"

Tying his funding in with mysterious sources, also leads my imagination to wander. We really don't know much about this guy.
My creative mind is thinking that a novelist could get a great book about how a sleeper cell worked it's way into the White House? Nah. That's just paranoid speculation from the conspiracy theory part of my brain.

Who is funding this guy?

[Tom]

Money from terrorists?

[JustRalph]

I am surprised. This is being ignored by the MSM at our peril

[ddog]

Ok, I am going to rock your little shell of a world.

What if someone has given cash to pols, no checks no credit cards.

What if someone is sub-leasing for a couple of ladies who are now full-time for the Mccain campaign.

Would these be a "campaign" contribution, is it listed on a web site ???

Wow, imagine that, as to terrorist money , why not, they take money from all manner of people that they never do a thing for after they are elected.

is this still a surprise to anyone but a couple on this board?

The "sleeper cells" in this country reside in the minds of you who seem to be in denial as to the state of the game!

[PaceAdvantage]

Ok, I am going to rock your little shell of a world.

What if someone has given cash to pols, no checks no credit cards.

What if someone is sub-leasing for a couple of ladies who are now full-time for the Mccain campaign.

Would these be a "campaign" contribution, is it listed on a web site ???

Wow, imagine that, as to terrorist money , why not, they take money from all manner of people that they never do a thing for after they are elected.

is this still a surprise to anyone but a couple on this board?

The "sleeper cells" in this country reside in the minds of you who seem to be in denial as to the state of the game!How is it you know everything about everything?

[wonatthewire1]

I am surprised. This is being ignored by the MSM at our peril

very strange indeed - and the streets are dripping with liebrals in Jersey - they practically own the place

how can a honest guy like McCain catch a break?

[delayjf]

Wow, imagine that, as to terrorist money , why not, they take money from all manner of people that they never do a thing for after they are elected.

is this still a surprise to anyone but a couple on this board?

The "sleeper cells" in this country reside in the minds of you who seem to be in denial as to the state of the game!

Hey OZ,

I'd be curious as to your reaction if half of McCains money was coming from a fereign source or if say President Bush's campaign had been funded by the Saudis. And if it's no big deal why not disclose and let the American people decide if it's no big deal.

[DJofSD]

It's not his fault. It came in from a fund raiser at a Buddis temple.

[Tom]

Allah works in mysterious ways.

[JustRalph]

very strange indeed - and the streets are dripping with liebrals in Jersey - they practically own the place

how can a honest guy like McCain catch a break?

if you are reaching for Droll, you are a long way off. But you have reached tedious quite easily.............

[ddog]

Hey OZ,

I'd be curious as to your reaction if half of McCains money was coming from a fereign source or if say President Bush's campaign had been funded by the Saudis. And if it's no big deal why not disclose and let the American people decide if it's no big deal.


THE BUSHES THEMSELVES HAVE BEEN FUNDED BY THE SAUDIS FOR DECADES.


The american people can't decide if white is black or not.

leave the "sainted" people out of this one.

Oh and , YOU KNOW where and HOW Mccains money is coming from???
How EXACTLY IS THAT?

Detail please since you are all fired for knowledge here.

[ddog]

How is it you know everything about everything?


I don't , I only know what I know, that is not everything.
How is it that you still wonder?

Do you have a large circle of friends and do you talk to many dozens of people across the country almost every week for years now?
You would be amazed at the things you hear from that.

There are many topics I don't post on, since I don't have anything to say on them.

Check it out!

you really go for the straw man deal way too much.
:confused:

[delayjf]

THE BUSHES THEMSELVES HAVE BEEN FUNDED BY THE SAUDIS FOR DECADES
You've been reading too many "I hate Bush" books - prove it, some me the money.

[ddog]

that's it , go for the old cannard.

You are the one claiming virtue and light , you prove it , show me how it's not true.

You are SURE that no actions of the Bushes either before or after he was out of office in regards to the saudis were greasing the wheels for stock deals,board membership, business deals, library contributions and on and on?

and you call me OZ , I guess that makes you the scarecrow in your little play world then.

:lol:

[Greyfox]

This thread is about Obama's foreign money sources. That's what I'd like to hear more about. Anything else is a deflection.

[JustRalph]

This thread is about Obama's foreign money sources. That's what I'd like to hear more about. Anything else is a deflection.

Thank you!

[delayjf]

You are the one claiming virtue and light , you prove it , show me how it's not true.

That's what I thought, all accusation and no proof. You are the one claiming that the Bushes have sold out their country to the Saudis - but you can't come up with ONE piece of tangible evidence that shows that the Bushes have lined their pockets with Saudi money. Yet you just know its true, How?? BECAUSE CHRIS UNGER WROTE A BOOK ABOUT IT. :lol: :lol: I mean seriously, this guy claims the Saudi’s have invested 1.4 TRILLION dollars through the Bush’s. So you tell me OZ, out of 1.4 trillion dollars, what’s the Bush’s cut?
You want me to prove they are NOT on the take. What would you have me do point out the yachts they don’t own, the secret bank accounts that don’t exist, the opulent mansions they don’t live in, customized airplanes that don't exist, not to mention the over the top extravagant lifestyle of the Bush's family??

Everybody, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. :lol:

Sorry, I'm done now.

[rastajenk]

I just this week finished a book called The Dark Intrigue, about the efforts of Democrats to defeat Lincoln in the election of 1864. The similarities between then and now are nearly creepy. Of course, there's no incumbent this particular year; I'm thinking more in terms of this entire decade so far compared to the 1860's.

There were three main factions within the party, all of them sick of the war and just wanting it to end. The Gen. McClellan backers wanted peace, reunification with the South, and to let them have their states' rights, aka slavery. Some wanted peace no matter the cost; if that meant a successful secession, so be it. And a third faction was out-and-out pro-Confederacy, going so far as to plan armed rebellions in the Northwest of the times (today's Big Ten country) with the goal of splitting that region off from the nation as well, maybe allying itself with the South eventually.

Those of the latter two factions were buoyed by Northern losses, and disheartened by Northern advances. Key players met with Confederate agents in Canada to get financing for the armed rebellions north of the Ohio river, and conspired with them to affect the party's convention in Chicago. Some would rightly call such a conspiracy with the enemy treason.

It wasn't just some tiny minority fringe group, either. It is said that if 25- to 30-thousand votes in a handful of states had gone the other way, Lincoln would not have won a second term (in spite of the rather large electoral vote margin).

The point is, Dems then and now are motivated solely by the pursuit of power, not principled opposition nor faith in the differences of opinion that may exist. If foreign money helps them achieve power, then use foreign money. If the voting process can be cheated, then cheat. If military or economic setbacks can help the party, then hope for setbacks. And above all, project these abuses onto the opponents with no regard for the truth.

The Democrats of the nineteenth century paid for their anti-American positions, losing the White House for the next 50 years, along with statehouses and legislatures and everything else. One can only hope that part of the parallel will play out too, but I don't think at the moment that that's very likely.

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't , I only know what I know, that is not everything.
How is it that you still wonder?

Do you have a large circle of friends and do you talk to many dozens of people across the country almost every week for years now?
You would be amazed at the things you hear from that.

There are many topics I don't post on, since I don't have anything to say on them.

Check it out!

you really go for the straw man deal way too much.
:confused:And here I thought I asked an honest question....silly me....

[Greyfox]

I just this week finished a book called The Dark Intrigue, about the efforts of Democrats to defeat Lincoln in the election of 1864. The similarities between then and now are nearly creepy. Of course, there's no incumbent this particular year; I'm thinking more in terms of this entire decade so far compared to the 1860's.

There were three main factions within the party, all of them sick of the war and just wanting it to end. The Gen. McClellan backers wanted peace, reunification with the South, and to let them have their states' rights, aka slavery. Some wanted peace no matter the cost; if that meant a successful secession, so be it. And a third faction was out-and-out pro-Confederacy, going so far as to plan armed rebellions in the Northwest of the times (today's Big Ten country) with the goal of splitting that region off from the nation as well, maybe allying itself with the South eventually.

Those of the latter two factions were buoyed by Northern losses, and disheartened by Northern advances. Key players met with Confederate agents in Canada to get financing for the armed rebellions north of the Ohio river, and conspired with them to affect the party's convention in Chicago. Some would rightly call such a conspiracy with the enemy treason.

It wasn't just some tiny minority fringe group, either. It is said that if 25- to 30-thousand votes in a handful of states had gone the other way, Lincoln would not have won a second term (in spite of the rather large electoral vote margin).

The point is, Dems then and now are motivated solely by the pursuit of power, not principled opposition nor faith in the differences of opinion that may exist. If foreign money helps them achieve power, then use foreign money. If the voting process can be cheated, then cheat. If military or economic setbacks can help the party, then hope for setbacks. And above all, project these abuses onto the opponents with no regard for the truth.

The Democrats of the nineteenth century paid for their anti-American positions, losing the White House for the next 50 years, along with statehouses and legislatures and everything else. One can only hope that part of the parallel will play out too, but I don't think at the moment that that's very likely.

Food for thought. :ThmbUp:

[bigmack]

What the hell? Do I read the story right that they've raised $200M from donations less than $200 and they simply didn't answer the inquiry, refuse to disclose, and this ain't a news story?

What is with the fact that the media is so in the tank it's almost become accepted?

[Tom]

What the hell? Do I read the story right that they've raised $200M from donations less than $200 and they simply didn't answer the inquiry, refuse to disclose, and this ain't a news story?

What is with the fact that the media is so in the tank it's almost become accepted?

It ain't a news story when you got no news. There area NO legit news sources left in America. All have been bought and paid for. If we had a government, I'd demand they repeal all news privileges. But we only have an occupying force in DC.

[JustRalph]

CBS is actually reporting some more secret money

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/06/cbsnews_investigates/main4504955.shtml

More Bogus Obama Donors Surface
Donations Made Between July and Early August
October 6, 2008


(CBS) CBS News Investigative Producer Laura Strickler wrote this story for CBSNews.com with additional reporting from Sarah Fitzpatrick and Ariel Bashi.
CBS News has learned that two donors to the Obama campaign that gave a total of $7,722 appear to have made their contributions under fake names that look like they were written by a mouse running across a keyboard: Dahsudhu Hdusahfd of Df, Hawaii with the following employer CZXVC/ZXVZXV and Uadhshgu Hduadh listed as living in Dhff, Florida listed their employer as DASADA/SAFASF.

CBS News did not find any records of these last names, towns or employers anywhere else. Newsweek reported two questionable Obama donors over the weekend named “Doodad Pro” and “Good Will”.

Contributions from the two donors Hdusahfd and Hduadh were made on the same day starting on July 16, 2008. Federal Election Commission (FEC) records show the campaign began refunding the donations as early as August 6, 2008.

Despite numerous refunds from the Obama campaign, Hdusahfd still has a record of giving a total of $7500 to Obama which is well over the legal limit for the primary and general election of $4600. Hduadh gave $14,200 but the Obama campaign returned all but $222.00.

The Obama campaign says “out of an abundance of caution” all of these donations are in the process of being returned.


~more at the link~

[Tom]

While he is at it, how about the Messiah give back all the contributions he took from the failed financial institutions that he just voted OUR TAX MONEY to bail out?

C'mon, Obama, show some class - how can you call yourself a man when you accept money from them and them make us bail them out?

Oh wait, your aren't a man, and you have no class. Never mind.

[Boris]

CBS News did not find any records of these last names, towns or employers anywhere else.



No shit?

[samyn on the green]

I am a little disappointed in you guys, do you really think some dude in Texas kicking in $25 a pop is controlling this country?

It is common knowledge that Obama is George Soros' puppet and his fame and candidacy is powered by Soros. Obama moved to the fore when Soros' Move on group through their support behind Obama and pulled out from the Clinton campaign. Not only is Soros a powerhouse in international Economic markets but he wields considerable political power. George Soros provided more than $15 million to MOVE ON and is the main powerhouse that pulls Obama's strings. Soros provides the bankroll for the operation, David Axelrod provides the content for the teleprompter, Obama says the words and the dumb Americans eat it up.

[witchdoctor]

Funny you talk about George Soros. He is a big time investor. I was wondering how he fits into the current financial mess. Maybe he doesn't have doesn't have anything to do with it but I still wonder.

[Tom]

He owns the dems who caused it.