Obama May Have As Much as $200 Million in Illegal Contributions (BUMPED)
October 4th, 2008 at 01:04pm Matt Margolis
The American Spectator has the scoop:
An auditor for the Federal Election Commission is attempting to have his bosses seek a formal investigation into the collection by the Obama for President campaign of more than $200 million in potentially illegal political donations, including millions of dollars of illegal, foreign donations, and has sought a request for assistance from the Department of Justice or Federal Bureau of Investigation. But the analyst’s requests have largely been ignored. “I can’t get anyone to move. I believe we are looking at a hijacking of our political system that makes the Clinton and Gore fundraising scandals pale in comparison. And no one here wants to touch it.”
Sound serious? You bet? Is it going to go anywhere before the election? Not likely.
One reasons cited by his superiors, says the analyst, is that involvement by the Justice Department or FBI would be indicative of a criminal investigation, something the FEC would prefer not take place a month before the presidential election. Such actions, though, have been used to scuttle Republican campaigns in the past, the most famous being the Weinberger case in the days leading up to the 1992 re-election bid of President George H.W. Bush.
The analyst, who declines to be identified for fear of retribution, says that on four different occasions in the past three months, he sought to open formal investigations into the Obama campaign’s fundraising techniques, but those investigations have been discouraged. “Without formal approval, I can’t get the resources I need, manpower, that kind of thing. This is a huge undertaking.” And the analyst says that he believes that campaign finance violations have occurred.
Is there hope something can be done to get some answers on this? Yes, but we have to make it an issue.
“The question has always been, if you buy a $25 t-shirt and you go back to that purchaser eight or nine times with email appeals for $200 or $500 donations, and you have people donating like that all the time, at what point does the campaign bother to check if the FEC limit has been exceeded?” says a former Clinton campaign fundraiser. “There are enough of us from the 1992 and 1996 and 2000 races around to know that many of these kinds of violations never get caught until after the election has been won or lost. In this case, there is no way the Obama campaign will be held accountable before Election Day, unless someone raises holy hell.”
So let’s raise some holy hell!
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Corruption
27 Comments
1. Retired Spook | October 2nd, 2008 at 6:22 pm
As I said in a previous post on Pelosi funneling money to her husband’s company, perhaps someone can get the crack Bush Justice Department team that has been so successful in prosecuting William-$90,000-bribe-cash-in-the-freezer-Jefferson to look into this. The dark side of the force is clearly very strong.
2. Eric T | October 2nd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
foreign donations- I know for a fact, voters would love to know what countries these donations are coming from.
3. Casper | October 2nd, 2008 at 6:49 pm
This is another nonstory. Coming from a single unnamed source. It has less credibility than the National Enquirer stories on Palin.
4. Ricorun | October 2nd, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Come to think of it, it’s been a while since I’ve heard what’s up with ole’ William-$90,000-bribe-cash-in-the-freezer-Jefferson. So I looked it up. It turns out he is in fact running for a 10th term! I mean come on, not only is he under indictment, but so is most of the rest of his family — most of them on unrelated charges! Unbelievable.
Anyway, the good news is it looks like he’s going to have much tougher sledding this time around. And finally — finally — he has a court date.
Even by Louisiana standards I suspect it would be mighty hard to come up with a better (worse) example of political sleaze since Huey Long than the Jefferson family. Man, I wish Bobby Jindall the best of luck down there.
By the way, has anyone heard what’s happening with Tom DeLay’s case? That’s one has been moving along with glacial slowness as well.
5. neocon | October 2nd, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Rico,
I think there is a reason why Delay’s trial is going no where, there is nothing to it. Earle had to shop that case to 7 different grand juries until he found a favorable one and finally received an indictment. That was nothing more than a political witch hunt.
Jefferson on the other hand, wow. I mean what can you say? It’s so blatantly obvious that I think even Pelosi cound figure it out. Well, then again maybe not.
6. Casper | October 2nd, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I would love to see Jackson go to jail. I wouldn’t mind seeing Delay go also. They would make great cellmates.
7. Retired Spook | October 2nd, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I would love to see Jackson go to jail
What’d Jesse do now?
8. William Teach | October 2nd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Why am I not surprised that most of the libs have avoided this post like the plague?
Anyhow, yeah, it is about time he has a court date this December, the 4th I think, if the judge doesn’t get wishy washy with the legal maneuvering, which he hasn’t so far. But, seriously, it is almost 2009, he was indicted in what, 2005?
9. Ricorun | October 2nd, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Teach, Jefferson was (finally) indicted in early June 2007. It was in 2005 when his freezer was found brimming with cash.
10. FmrMarine | October 2nd, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Spook
>>perhaps someone can get the crack Bush Justice Department team that has >>>
OHH NO the FBI has been HOT on the dasterdly trail of these horrible miscreants……..
make sure you read the LAST LINE>>>>>>>
” AP, September 30, 2007
A Christian university in Oregon said Tuesday it has punished four students who confessed to hanging a likeness of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama from a tree on campus.
{snip}
A statement from [George Fox University] said the penalties against the four students were “immediate long-term suspension and public service.” The school cited federal privacy rules in not disclosing more about the students or their punishment.
The FBI is investigating whether any civil rights were violated.”
11. FmrMarine | October 2nd, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Spook
NOW we know where the DOJ has been…….
lock up CRIMINALS???
NO NO we have to solve the AA problems FIRST!
Lou Grieco, Dayton Daily News, Sept. 30, 2008
The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against the City of Dayton, alleging the city has discriminated against blacks through its hiring practices for police officers and firefighters.
12. cam | October 2nd, 2008 at 8:29 pm
William,
I think the reason for avoiding this post is that there are no facts cited.
13. js | October 2nd, 2008 at 8:35 pm
i read already about the foreign donations obama is getting…
somewhere along the line people gotta figure out that these are crimes…and they need to be prosecuted…
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_donor_contributions_sil.html
jihiadi’s donate to him and he takes it…obama is a liar
14. dickvee | October 2nd, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Obama has illegal contributions, which is par for the course. But I saw an unusually fine moment tonight…Bill O’reilly going down on Barney Frank….uh, I mean he yelled at him!! Sorry for the bad visual. Frank called him an idiot to the biggest audience, which will end up hurting his rather unmanly persona. It is really difficult to refute a video of your own words, as Frank found out. The Fannie and Freddie piggy bank for dems is disappearing before pudgies very eyes!!!
15. FmrMarine | October 2nd, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Spook
Where is the FBI, DOJ, on this one??…………
New video emerged today ending years of controversy over whether or not
Charlie Brown
attended an anti-war protest dressed in a military uniform. The video clearly shows Brown standing with anti-war demonstrators in front of a home
where a soldier had been hanged in effigy.
16. cam | October 2nd, 2008 at 9:14 pm
js,
Once again, at least from your pespective, the media is not doing its job. The problem is that the article you cite jumps to a false conclusion, that is that it happens because as the writer puts it,
“Whatever you find, whatever you discover about the Candidate of Mystery, they will blow it back in your face. And they did. Almost immediately.”
Where were you when the media failed to do its job before the invasion of Iraq? While just about everything coming out of the Bush administration on that one didn’t seem to add up no one was asking any questions.
News is no longer committed to doing investigative reporting. That is because the only way for reporters to stay employed is to get ratings. Of course that doesn’t mean that the stories we as liberals or you as a conservative would like to see investigated.
It is much easier to do what Couric did. This kind of “Today” interview is more likely to get good ratings than a true investigative report. And it costs almost nothing. True investigative jounalism requires a commitment from ownership and no guarantee that anything will pan out. As such, it rarely happens.
Its time that conservatives see this as it is and realize that jsut as often as the conservatives are disappointed with the job the media does, liberals are no less disappointed. However, we will likely not be disappointed by the same things.
17. FactCheck | October 2nd, 2008 at 9:44 pm
This is another nonstory. Coming from a single unnamed source.
Indeed. I look forward to Mark Noonan replacing this blog posting with the same “Deleted - uncorroborated allegations” he was so happy to throw around yesterday.
Oh, except for the fact that Mark Noonan is a rank coward, so he won’t.
18. js | October 2nd, 2008 at 10:45 pm
i guess the real difference cam…comes down to basic values…as liberals represent those laws one would think they had no reason to be laws…but as conservatives represent…whether there is reason or not…it is still a law…
which boils down to a basic reason…being that an enemy of the USA should not be dumpting hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars into the candidacy of an individual for president…
i know you probably have some kind of trite response…but it doesnt matter…the word illegal contributions were established before obama’s campaign took them…and the law expects the obama campaign to refuse them…which he didnt do…
the Fed’s should act…not the FEC mind you…but national security interests over rides the FEC and its failure to insure compliance…
19. js | October 2nd, 2008 at 11:01 pm
one source my arse….
one of obamas biggest backers was already arrested…foreign donations are illegal…
and more…
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.
Surprisingly, 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.
…………………..
Many of the FEC letters that Newsmax reviewed instructed the Obama campaign to “redesignate” contributions in excess of the finance limits.
Under campaign finance laws, an individual can donate $2,300 to a candidate for federal office in both the primary and general election, for a total of $4,600. If a donor has topped the limit in the primary, the campaign can “redesignate” the contribution to the general election on its books.
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.
There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama’s Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375.
In an e-mailed response to a query from Newsmax, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt pledged that the campaign would return the donations. But given the slowness with which the campaign has responded to earlier FEC queries, there’s no guarantee that the money will be returned before the Nov. 4 election.
……..
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html?s=sp&promo_code=6BF7-1
so effectively…its not only foreign donations…but bogus donors as well…that the campaign accepts….even when it knows its wrong…it keeps the money…
I think if we weigh these facts…confirmed facts…not speculation…with the facts about acorn…is several states violating election laws…we can start to envision an organized criminal conspiracy…
rico act the idiots…if they are thieves and liars before the election…and they get away with it…how much more so after the election when we have to really depend on them?
no…obama isnt changing anything…he is exploiting americans who have hope…and its an ugly reality
20. cam | October 2nd, 2008 at 11:43 pm
js,
Did you start drinking early tonight? I know I would have been drinking if I was a Palin supporter. But not to worry she did all right tonight.
Now regarding the difference as you put it between liberals and conservatives, it seems it was Bush/Cheney who flaunted the law on a myriad of things. Further, it is the Executive Branch who is responsible to enforce the laws and it seems that that has not been done during the past 7.5 years.
21. js | October 3rd, 2008 at 8:18 am
paying lip service to ignorance does not exactly reach the level of debate cam…so you’re dismissed…
22. js | October 4th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
whats so incredible is that our own government will not pick up thier responsibilty and stop these illegal acts…and defend the constitution and the people from obama…who can seriously be considered a pawn of foreign nations that despise freedom and justice for all…
they knew last april this was going on and still they have not stopped it…
Posted on Tuesday, August 05, 2008 1:01:44 PM by Winged Hussar
JERUSALEM – Palestinian brothers inside the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip are listed in government election filings as having donated $29,521.54 to Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign.
Donations of this nature would violate election laws, including prohibitions on receiving contributions from foreigners and guidelines against accepting more than $2,300 from one individual during a single election, Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the Federal Election Commission, told WND in response to a query.
The contributions also raise numerous questions about the Obama campaign’s lax online donation form, which apparently allows for the possibility of foreign contributions.
Last week, the Atlas Shrugs blog outlined a series of donations in 2007 made to Obama’s campaign from two individuals, Monir Edwan and Hosam Edwan, totaling $29,521.54.
In an online form on Obama’s campaign site, the Edwans listed their street as “Tal Esaltan,” which they wrote was located in “Rafah, GA.”
Rafah is not a city in Georgia. The Atlas blog immediately raised concerns that the money may have been donated from the Gaza Strip town of Rafah.
The Edwans’ donations are listed in both FEC filings and other election filing sites, such as CampaignMoney and donordata.org.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com …
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2056896/posts
23. What? | October 5th, 2008 at 3:17 am
js writes,
“I think if we weigh these facts…confirmed facts…not speculation…with the facts about acorn…is several states violating election laws…we can start to envision an organized criminal conspiracy…”
I am quite sure you can envision it. I imagine you salivate when you do. The problem is you have not proved it.
You write this
“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.”
Are you saying the Obama campaign jeopardized its hopes at winning the election for a measly $14,000?
You have no evidence the Obama campaign is behind the donations or the possible fraud. You have evidence suggesting the opposite:
“There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama’s Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375.”
So Obama disclosed the information. He did not try to hide the fact someone over spent. You don’t even know if there is any fraud by anyone. The person who donated could be the person he says he is. If you are claiming criminal activity you need more than a “things look fishy” hunch.
As for your first point about the $200 donations, what is your point? Obama has raised more than any other candidate by going through grassroots internet fund raising. This strategy relies on small donations. Obama has received plenty donations over $200. Where is the evidence of wrong doing here?
What I am asking for is evidence Obama and his campaign have done something bad. You are speculating at this point.
As for the article in this post, it is worthless. Some unknown guy wants to start an investigation into Obama’s campaign based on a suspicion without disclosing evidence to support it. Well, I’m sold.
24. js | October 5th, 2008 at 7:56 am
the one part that is essential to debate is the ability to think and reason rationally What?
you just dont reach that level…so it really doesnt matter what you say…because its pretty obvious from what you wrote…you dont have a clue about what you are talking about
25. js | October 5th, 2008 at 7:58 am
i guess you could call it lemming disease, no?….it affects your comprehension of facts though….garbles them right up when they run into a blind, ignorant, obamasiah worshipper
26. What? | October 5th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
js,
please explain why I am wrong.
27. What? | October 6th, 2008 at 2:23 am
js,
I am still waiting. Do you have anything other than speculation that those $200 donations came from illegal sources? All you know is that Obama got a lot of donation under $200 and that he has no duty to dislcose these donors identity. Where is the crime?
As for the foreign donors, Obama claims to have returned the money. You have not shown he has not. The fact he received this money does not make the rest of the donations suspect. The article you cited only cited this one instance as evidence of specific wrongdoing. The writer then wanders off into stating Obama recieved donations from other foriegn countries from anonymous donors.
More to the point, the simple fact money comes from abroad does not necessarily make it foreign money. Americans live abroad and have a right to donate. I made donations abroad.
The problem you have is that you still have not shown the Obama campaign knew for a fact the money was from Hamas at the time it received it (assuming any of this is true). This is essential to any crime.
Here is what you have. You have a donation received by the candidate over an internet form. You have a campaign admitting the money is from a foreign source and agreeing to return it and returning it. This is what is suppose to happen.