SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (145230)10/8/2012 2:54:52 PM
From: TideGlider1 Recommendation  Respond to of 224749
 
Are we all supposed to cheer? I really do wish he would correct the credit card problem on his website. Same as 2008, people from any country can send money.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (145230)10/8/2012 3:22:14 PM
From: Ann Corrigan4 Recommendations  Respond to of 224749
 
Foreign contributors no doubt. Are Putin and Chavez BO's international bundlers?



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (145230)10/8/2012 5:21:57 PM
From: longnshort6 Recommendations  Respond to of 224749
 
Obama gave 80 billion of tax payers monies to the muslim brother hood and they turned around and gave 1 billion to his campaign and you libs don't care



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (145230)10/8/2012 5:23:46 PM
From: longnshort2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224749
 
Report: Foreign Nationals Donating to Obama Campaign
Campaign also accused of soliciting foreign donations in groundbreaking new Government Accountability Institute report

A groundbreaking new report raises serious questions as to whether President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign is knowingly, and illegally, accepting and soliciting donations from foreign nationals.

The Government Accountability Institute (GAI), run by Stanford University research fellow Peter Schweizer, conducted an extensive, six-month investigation examining the potential for fraudulent and foreign funds being funneled to U.S. political campaigns via the Internet.

The “alarming” results detailed in the report, GAI found, highlight “a serious and systemic threat to the integrity of the U.S. election system” that demands a full-scale investigation by federal authorities.

The Obama campaign in particular warrants further scrutiny, the report and subsequent analysis by GAI’s lawyers determined, because it is the organization with the greatest potential to solicit and accept fraudulent and foreign donations online.

The report suggests there is compelling evidence to suggest that the Obama campaign is not only breaking law, but also doing so deliberately.

The Obama campaign oversees one of the most extensive and technologically sophisticated online fundraising operations in history, pulling in more than $500 million via the Internet in 2008, and hundreds of million dollars more during the current cycle.

The vast majority of those donations were less than $200, and federal law does not require campaigns to collect information about the individual making such low-level donations: As of August, the Obama campaign has raised $138 million in such small donations.

Furthermore, the campaign neglects to employ the most basic anti-fraud security measures to ensure that online donations are legitimate and only come from U.S. citizens, making it extremely vulnerable to fraudulent and illegal activity.

A number of investigations into the campaign’s online fundraising efforts in 2008 found thousands of fraudulent small donations, many coming from fictitious persons. In one case, the campaign received $175,000 from Mary T. Biskup, a retired insurance manager from Missouri. Not only is that far above the legal limit for individual donations, Biskup denied making any contributions to the campaign.

The lack of standard security features, such as card verification value (CVV) and address verification system (AVS), which are commonly used to verify the legitimacy of online credit card payments, is “incongruous with the acknowledged technological sophistication of the campaign,” the report states.

Additionally, the campaign is willfully paying millions of dollars in higher processing fees by neglecting to install such basic verifications measures. Credit card issuers typically charge a 3.5 percent fee to process payments on websites that do not employ CVV or AVS.

Not using these measures likely cost the Obama campaign about $7 million in additional processing fees in 2008, the GAI estimates.

The campaign’s refusal to secure its online donations is “rather curious,” the report states, given that the campaign employs a number of technology experts who operate websites that use CVV for financial transactions.

“Even more curious,” the report finds, is the fact that the Obama campaign does use CVV to authenticate purchases at its online merchandise shop.

The Obama campaign has claimed the CVV method is unnecessary because it employs its own (undisclosed) techniques to weed out fraudulent donations.

But as the report points out: “This begs the question: why is it using different techniques when it comes to selling campaign merchandise?”

In addition to the Obama campaign’s lack of standard verification measures, the extraordinary foreign interest in President Obama, winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, makes the campaign particularly susceptible to illegal foreign donations.

The campaign’s main website, BarackObama.com, receives approximately 43 percent of its traffic from foreign IP addresses, the report found, the majority of which could be from foreign nationals, as opposed to American citizens living abroad.

The level of foreign traffic, according to GAI, “creates significant vulnerabilities for the integrity of the campaign’s donation process.”

The GAI report also found ample evidence suggesting the Obama campaign is actively soliciting donations from foreigners, another violation of federal law.

Foreign citizens frequently receive solicitation letters via my.barackobama.com, the campaign’s social media platform created in part by Facebook cofounder and current owner and editor in chief of the New Republic Chris Hughes.

Through this platform, which has no apparent safeguards to prevent foreign citizens from participating, the Obama campaign sends out frequent requests for donations to more than 13 million email addresses.

The GAI looked at a random sample of 65,000 links to the my.barackobama.com site, and discovered that approximately 20 percent originated from foreign locations.

The report cited several examples of foreign bloggers—in China, Egypt, Italy, Holland, Norway, Azerbaijan, and Vietnam—reposting solicitations letters from the Obama campaign, some of which encourage others to donate.

“I imagine many nonAmericans have money transferred to the Obama campaign,” wrote one Dutch blogger. “It’s just too easy.”

A Norwegian blogger who had posted several Obama campaign solicitations told another blogger who asked about U.S. restrictions on foreign contributions: “I have in practice given money to Obama, I had done it.”

Obama campaign solicitations also appear on numerous social media websites around the world. The report found examples of Twitter notifications from Obama campaign manager Jim Messina reposted on a South Korean site. A solicitation from Obama campaign bundler and taxpayer-subsidized green energy investor Steve Westly appeared on the Hong Kong Facebook website.

The report also noted the “curious case” of Obama.com, a website previously (and possibly currently) owned by Robert Roche, an Obama campaign bundler and left-wing Super PAC donor with deep business ties to the communist government in China.

The site, which according to GAI receives more than two-thirds of its traffic from foreign users and foreign-language websites, redirects visitors to the main donation page at BarackObama.com.

Kenneth Sukhia, a Florida attorney retained by GAI to examine the legal implications of the report, wrote that the findings raise “legitimate questions as to a campaign’s knowing failure to use its best efforts to comply with the laws prohibiting foreign contributions.”

In particular, the Obama campaign’s apparent willingness to pay millions of dollars to forgo basic online security measures raised serious questions about its motivations, the attorney stated.

“It’s hard to imagine any campaign would pay extra for less security and marketing intelligence, unless it stood to benefit in some way from doing so,” Sukhia wrote. “There is reason to suspect that such decisions may be motivated by the belief that more money could be raised through foreign contributions than lost in added fees by declining security tools designed to stop them.”

Because the Obama campaign employs a number of individuals that can reasonably be classified as experts in the field of online fundraising, and are presumably aware of the inherent security risks and legal restrictions, the campaign could ultimately be liable for knowingly soliciting and accepting foreign donations.

“The law does not make it a crime to unintentionally or unknowingly receive contributions from foreign nationals,” the report notes. “But the law does not allow a person to cast a blind eye to the truth. In other words, no one can avoid responsibility for a crime by deliberately ignoring the obvious.”

“It appears that if the Obama campaign has received and retained donations from foreign nationals,” Sukhia added, “the on-line Campaign team would be deemed to possess a high level of sophistication and expertise in this area and could not overcome the circumstantial evidence suggesting the knowing solicitation and receipt of such illicit finds.”

Sukhia concurred with the report’s suggestion that a formal federal inquiry is warranted, finding “clear justification for further investigation” into whether the Obama campaign “disregarded their responsibility under [the law] to ensure that the Campaign is not knowingly soliciting contributions from foreign nationals.”

The GAI plans to submit copies of the report to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Justice, and several state attorney generals for review.

The report’s findings are especially troubling for President Obama, who has repeatedly denounced the alleged influence of foreign funds in U.S. elections.

“I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities,” he said during his 2010 State of the Union Address.

The GAI report appears to provide amble impetus for a Congressional investigation in Obama’s campaign activities, something that could pose serious problems for the president if he is elected to a second term.




To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (145230)10/8/2012 6:31:56 PM
From: longnshort1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224749
 
Romney’s Strong Debate Performance Erases Obama’s Lead GOP Challenger Viewed as Candidate with New Ideas Overview


2012 Election Voter Preference Trends Track voter preferences for Obama vs. Romney overall and by demographic group among registered voters.


Mitt Romney no longer trails Barack Obama in the Pew Research Center’s presidential election polling. By about three-to-one, voters say Romney did a better job than Obama in the Oct. 3 debate, and the Republican is now better regarded on most personal dimensions and on most issues than he was in September. Romney is seen as the candidate who has new ideas and is viewed as better able than Obama to improve the jobs situation and reduce the budget deficit.

Fully 66% of registered voters say Romney did the better job in last Wednesday’s debate, compared with just 20% who say Obama did better. A majority (64%) of voters who watched the debate describe it as mostly informative; just 26% say it was mostly confusing.

In turn, Romney has drawn even with Obama in the presidential race among registered voters (46% to 46%) after trailing by nine points (42% to 51%) in September. Among likely voters, Romney holds a slight 49% to 45% edge over Obama. He trailed by eight points among likely voters last month.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Oct. 4-7 among 1,511 adults, including 1,201 registered voters (1,112 likely voters), finds that 67% of Romney’s backers support him strongly, up from 56% last month. For the first time in the campaign, Romney draws as much strong support as does Obama.

More generally, the poll finds Romney’s supporters far more engaged in the campaign than they were in September. Fully 82% say they have given a lot of thought to the election, up from 73% in September. The new survey finds that Romney supporters hold a 15-point advantage over Obama backers on this key engagement measure. Supporters on both sides were about even in September.

Coming out of the debate, Mitt Romney’s personal image has improved. His favorable rating has hit 50% among registered voters for the first time in Pew Research Center surveys and has risen five points since September. At the same time, Obama’s personal favorability rating has fallen from 55% to 49%.

In the presidential horserace, Romney has made sizable gains over the past month among women voters, white non-Hispanics and those younger than 50. Currently, women are evenly divided (47% Obama, 47% Romney). Last month, Obama led Romney by 18 points (56% to 38%) among women likely voters.

Views of Candidates’ Traits, Issue Strengths Romney now ties Obama in being regarded as a strong leader and runs virtually even with the president in willingness to work with leaders of the other party. And by a 47% to 40% margin, voters pick Romney as the candidate who has new ideas.

Conversely, Obama continues hold leads as the candidate who connects well with ordinary people and takes consistent positions on issues. And Obama leads by 10 points (49% to 39%) as the candidate who takes more moderate positions on issues.

Romney has gained ground on several of these measures since earlier in the campaign. Most notably, Obama and Romney now run even (44% each) in terms of which candidate is the stronger leader. Obama held a 13-point advantage on this a month ago. And Obama’s 14-point edge as the more honest and truthful candidate has narrowed to just five points.

In June, Obama held a 17-point lead as the candidate voters thought was more willing to work with leaders from the other party. Today, the candidates run about even on this (45% say Obama, 42% Romney).

Similarly, Romney has made progress on the issues. He and Obama now run about even on dealing with health care, Medicare, foreign policy and taxes. Obama led on most of these issues by significant margins in September. Romney also holds a significant 49% to 41% advantage on improving the job situation, despite the fact that most of the interviewing was conducted after the October jobs report, which showed the unemployment rate falling below 8%.

Romney also has once again opened a double-digit advantage as the candidate who can deal with the budget deficit (51% vs. 36%). Romney led by 14 points on the budget deficit in July, but had lost that advantage last month.

Swing voters express varying views of the candidates’ strengths. Some 18% of registered voters are swing voters in the latest survey, meaning they are either undecided, only lean toward one of the candidates, or favor a candidate but say there is still a chance they will change their mind. A month ago, 22% of registered voters fell in this category.

By a 69% to 7% margin, swing voters say Obama is the candidate who connects will with ordinary Americans. Swing voters also tend to rate Obama as the more consistent, honest and moderate candidate, and as a strong leader. Swing voters also favor Obama on the issues of health care, Medicare and foreign policy.

But Romney continues to hold a decided edge over Obama on jobs and the budget deficit. By a 37% to 24% margin, more swing voters say Romney would improve the job situation. Swing voters favor Romney on the deficit by a two-to-one (41% vs. 20%) margin.

Obama, Romney Now Seen as Equally Likely to Help the Middle Class A substantial majority of voters continue to say that Mitt Romney’s policies would help the wealthy, but he has made gains since the summer in the perception that his policies as president would help the much-discussed middle class. In July, just 41% thought Romney’s policies would help the middle class. This has risen to 49% in the current poll; a comparable percentage of voters (50%) say that Obama’s policies would help the middle class.

Three-quarters of voters say Romney’s policies would benefit the wealthy (75%), basically unchanged from July (74%). Far fewer (31%) see Obama’s policies benefiting the wealthy. Conversely, two-thirds (66%) see Obama’s policies as likely to benefit the poor, compared with 39% who say the same about Romney’s policies.

Romney’s gains on the question of how his policies would affect the middle class have come largely among upper-income voters. Among voters with incomes of $150,000 or more, the percentage saying Romney’s policies would help the middle class rose from 47% in July to 68% now. Among voters in households with incomes between $75,000 and $150,000, the increase was 10 points (from 44% to 54%). Voters in lower-income households have not changed their view of whether Romney would help the middle class, and those with household incomes under $30,000 continue to see Obama as doing more for the middle class.

Romney’s Image Improves, Obama’s Dips The edge in favorability ratings that Barack Obama had enjoyed throughout the campaign has now been erased, as voters’ impressions of Romney have continued to improve while Obama’s ratings have returned to levels seen earlier in the summer. Currently, voters are about evenly divided in their overall opinions of both Obama (49% favorable, 48% unfavorable) and Romney (50% favorable, 46% unfavorable).

While shifts are evident across many demographic groups, there has been a notable change among women voters: In September, just 42% viewed Romney favorably, while 60% had positive impressions of Obama. Today, about half view each of the candidates favorably (51% Obama, 48% Romney).

Romney also has gained ground with younger voters. Today, 51% of those under 50 have positive impressions of the GOP candidate, up from 43% in September. Mirroring Romney’s improvement among these younger voters is an erosion in Obama’s ratings among this group: 49% of 18-49-year-old voters now view him favorably, down 10 points from September.

Views of Candidate Criticisms While Romney’s personal image and standing in the horserace have improved markedly, two criticisms of the candidate register widely with voters – especially swing voters.

About six-in-ten voters (62%) agree with the statement that “Romney is promising more than he can deliver,” while 35% disagree. Among swing voters, fully 75% agree, which is closer to the views of certain Obama voters (89% agree) than certain Romney voters (30% agree).

Just more than half of voters (53%) also agree that “It’s hard to know what Romney really stands for.” This includes two thirds (66%) of swing voters, 86% of certain Obama voters and just 16% of certain Romney voters.

Criticism of Obama centers on his ability to improve the economy. Overall, 54% agree that “Obama doesn’t know how to turn the economy around”; 44% disagree with this statement. Romney voters are nearly unanimous in their agreement with this criticism (94%), while only 11% of Obama voters share this view. By a 54% to 39% margin, somewhat more swing voters agree than disagree that Obama doesn’t know how to turn the economy around.

Voters are divided in their reactions to the statement: “Obama thinks government is the solution to every problem” – 46% agree with it, while 51% disagree. The balance of opinion among swing voters mirrors that of voters overall (46% agree, 51% disagree), while Obama voters (78% disagree) and Romney voters (75% agree) hold opposing views.

Asked to describe their greater concern about each of the candidates, more swing voters say they disagree with Obama on issues than distrust him personally (58% vs. 21%). By comparison, roughly as many swing voters say their concern with Romney is his position on issues (44%) as say they don’t trust him personally (36%).

Shifting Horserace

Since September, Mitt Romney has made gains among women and younger voters, and has expanded his advantage among whites without a college degree. In the current poll, women likely voters are evenly divided between the candidates (47% each), while men support Romney by a 51%-43% margin. Last month, Obama led Romney by 18 points among women, and trailed among men by only two points.

Similarly, Obama held a solid 56%-39% lead among likely voters under 50 last month. In the current poll, Obama runs even with Romney among voters in this age group (46% Obama, 49% Romney).

Romney picked up seven points among white voters over the past month (from 51% in September to 58% now), while the horse race is unchanged among black voters. Obama’s earlier edge among college graduates (53%-42% in September) is now gone (48% Obama, 47% Romney). And Romney picked up nine points among voters with family incomes of $75,000 or more.

Obama trailed Romney last month among whites who don’t have a college degree, but he has fallen further behind in the current poll. Romney led Obama 53%-40% among this group in September but now holds a much larger 28-point lead (61%-33%).

Debate Reactions A substantial majority of voters (69%) say they watched at least some part of last week’s presidential debate and by a more than three-to-one margin (72%-20%), voters who watched say that Romney did a better job than Obama. Romney’s performance exceeded voters’ expectations. Heading into the debate, about half said that Obama (51%) would do a better job, while only 29% said Romney would win. Republican and Democratic voters were about equally likely to have watched the debate.

The vast majority of Republican voters who watched the debate (95%) say that Romney did the better job, and many Democratic voters agree. Democrats are split in their assessment of who did better: 45% say Romney, 44% Obama.

Among independent voters, Romney was the clear winner (78% vs. 14%). And views of swing voters mirror those of independents: 70% say Romney won, 14% Obama.

Nearly two-thirds of voters who watched the debate say it was mostly informative (64%) compared with mostly confusing (26%). Republican voters overwhelmingly found the debate mostly informative (83%); only 11% say the debate was mostly confusing. By contrast, about as many Democratic voters say the debate was confusing (41%) as say it was informative (47%).