Sep 26, 2008 06:00PM GMT
Question
•
Politics - United States
Who is Funding Obama Campaign?
Maureen Dowd is quite a respected investigative political reporter. Read what she has to say.....Get ready, we will have a Muslim in the White House!!!\
Or why would they send him so much money!!! 200 million!!!
Maureen Dowd, winner of the 1999 Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary, became a columnist on The New York Times Op-Ed page in 1995 after having served as a correspondent in the paper's Washington bureau since 1986. She has covered four presidential campaigns and served as White House correspondent. She also wrote a column, 'On Washington ,' for The New York Times Magazine.
Ms. Dowd joined The New York Times as a metropolitan reporter in 1983. She began her career in 1974 as an editorial assistant for The Washington Star, where she later became a sports columnist, metropolitan re porter and feature writer. When the Star closed in 1981, she went to Time magazine.
Born in Washington D.C. , Ms. Dowd received a B.A. degree in English literature from Catholic University ( Washington , D.C. ) in 1973.
WHERE DID OBAMA'S MONEY COME FROM???????
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: June 29, 2008
Go to Columnist Page
Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating
OBAMA'S TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING
Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this elec tion cycle came this week from one of the Obamaâ's campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obama's internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history and this was all from the internet campaign.
What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldn't be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that can't be broken and no ethics that prevail.
Obama's internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.
Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.
Then, about two months into the campaign the daily contribution intake multiplied. Where was it coming from? One of the web site security monitors began to notice the bulk of the contributions were clearly coming in from overseas internet service providers and at the rate and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were programmed by a very sophisticated user.
While the security people were not able to track most of the sources due to firewalls and other blocking devices put on these contributions they were able to collate the number of contributions that were coming in seemingly from individuals but the funds were from only a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds transfers. The internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were from Saudi Arabia , Iran , and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located in Saudi Arabia .
Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP with a similar pattern of limited credit card charges.
It became clear that these donations were very likely coming from sources other than American voters. This was discussed at length within the campaign and the decision was made that none of these donations violated campaign financing laws.
It was also decided that it was not the responsibility of the campaign to audit these millions of contributions as to the actual source (specific credit card number or bank transfer account numbers) to insure that none of these internet contributors exceeded the legal maximum donation on a cumulative basis of many small donations. They also found the record keeping was not complete enough to do it anyway.
This is a shocking revelation.
We have been concerned about the legality of obundling contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.
I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.
If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen?
I believe the Obama campaign's internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.
IS IT RIGHT FOR FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO HAVE AN INVESTMENT IN WHO BECOMES OUR NEXT PRESIDENT???
-
raves posted Oct 20, 2008 05:58PM GMT
Answered Undecided
I think an effort should be made to find out if anyone is breaking the law, but I'm sure these countries/companies have sent money to McCain and GWBush. They always want to be on the winning side. Additionally, if they can not track where the money came from, how can Obama "owe" them anything. They have to offer proof to him that they helped him, and I think Obama is better than to sell the country out because someone comes up to him after the election with 100,000 in reciepts to his campaing funding. However, the law is the law and he should have to follow it. -
raves +1 posted Oct 13, 2008 03:24PM GMT
Answered Obama is deceptive
We searched on [various names from fec.gov who were listed as individual contributors] and the response was "we could not find any listings to display" even when this supposed contributor was gave up to $400 on 8 occasions. I don't think these people exist. The foreign $ is automatically accredited to a lot of supposed voters. -
raves +2 Sep 27, 2008 06:18PM GMTIt has nothing to do with different my dear. It has everything to do with not wanting to see the mountain of evidence against the destroyer of the American way. If you choose to explain away this mountain that is up to you, but you drag me and every other good American down with your remarkable inability to recognize evil when it's staring you in the face.
-
raves Sep 27, 2008 06:23PM GMTDestroyer?!? Look again. That's terrorists and Obama isn't one. I've seen the evidence on both sides and the only one who stands up against whati s wrong in this country is Obama. He's not evil, but if you wish to be so ignorant and inconsiderate, feel free. I won't stop you. It will just make me believe that much more that what I believe is right for me and for this country. If Obama turns out to be wrong for the presidency, I'll admit it. However, until then, feel free to peg me as the one who dragged this country down into the hole that it is, the one who dragged you down with it, and dragged the rest of this country with it. It won't change who I plan to vote for.
-
raves +2 Sep 27, 2008 07:01PM GMTThe checks and balances of which you speak have already been prepared for his insanity. If you remember correctly, we have a majority of the people who pretend to be democrats in the house and the senate. These people have not only done absolutly nothing since they took control, but they are the most far left humans that have ever crossed the threashhold of the institution called the congress. These people are poised to end any sense of freedom that so many brave Americans have given the ultimate sacrafice for over 200 years. These people have studied under marx, stalin, lennin, salinsky and every anti capitalist that ever lived and obamaites refuse to see it because you have been told that America stinks. Well, I'm hear to tell you that you live in the greatest country on the planet and the reason it may have some stink to it is because of the people who you are about to turn your vote over to.
-
raves +1 Sep 27, 2008 06:45PM GMTYes, I think we need to question things like that. However, I think other countries realize that the world as a whole will benefit and grow out of the rut it's in with Obama as president because he's more open to conversing with them and reaching agreements. I don't think it's for terrorist purposes and Obama certainly doesn't want terrorists to attack this country again. However, I think there is advantage having a president who can communicate with other countries without belittling them or getting angry.
By the way, thank you for responding so rationally. It's nice to converse and not be attacked. :-) -
raves +4 posted Sep 27, 2008 03:12PM GMT (edited)
Answered Obama is deceptive
I have been saying for 4 months now what the locals have told me.
When asked what they thought of Obama, Egyptians, Iraqis, and Saudis not only say they "love him" but that they- in fact- "own him".
Their own words.
You have been warned. -
raves +1 Sep 27, 2008 11:35PM GMT


Answered Obama is deceptive
Every anti American on the planet is funding obama, which should give true Americans some insight into who they should vote for.