Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (271736)	10/1/2008 7:36:02 PM
From: Neeka	7 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794015

If Stalin were their candidate they'd support him. Democrats are NOT going to lose another election and will do ANYTHING to win this one.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (271736)	10/2/2008 2:22:21 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794015

Must read: Ken Timmerman on Obama’s unreported campaign donations hotair.com posted at 1:15 pm on October 1, 2008 by Allahpundit Via Andy McCarthy, who sets an example I’ll follow by keeping his own commentary short to get you to read the whole thing. To be clear: Obama’s not required by law to identify contributions of less than $200. But given that (a) McCain does it voluntarily, (b) The One claims to be all about a new, transparent politics in Washington, and (c) his campaign is famously powered by small donors, it’s a tad curious that most of the names of people who’ve dropped a little north of $222 million on him in small contributions remain known only to him and his campaign. Especially when some of the ones who have been identified look like this: 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. The fact that the campaign itself is reporting a cumulative balance in excess of the legal limit means they know, or should know, that they’ve got more money on hand than they’re supposed to have. And like McCarthy says, it’s only because “Good Will” was so stupid as to use the same phony identity for all of his donations that he crossed the $200 reporting threshold in the first place. A smart, determined fraudster would have used multiple identities. But the fun doesn’t end there. Remember that phone bank in Gaza? Combine it with the Economist feature I linked yesterday on the “world electoral vote” and consider the implications: Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted. With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners. Why would The One be so negligent about his standards knowing that, at the very least, it creates an appearance of impropriety? Because, dummy: He knows big media’s not going to press him on it. And with that, I’ll keep my promise and send you off to dive in.