pageok
pageok
pageok
Campaign Staffers Withdraw Voting Registrations:

From a Columbus Dispatch story on election developments in Ohio:

Starting today, county elections boards can begin verifying voter eligibility for absentee ballots cast and discard envelopes to process ballots for scanning. Those envelopes are the only way to link a ballot with a particular voter.

With that deadline looming, 13 Obama staff members sent letters yesterday to the Franklin County Board of Elections voluntarily withdrawing their voter registrations and any absentee ballots cast.

County Prosecutor Ron O'Brien wrote to the campaigns this week reminding them that state law doesn't allow temporary residents to vote; voters must live at their registered address for at least 30 days before the election and intend to become permanent residents.

But no McCain staffers followed suit. "We have consulted with elections officials and have written them to confirm that our staff meet all requirements of Ohio law and are legally registered to vote in the state," said Jon Seaton, McCain's regional campaign manager.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Campaign Staffers Withdraw Voting Registrations:
  2. Update on Outsiders Voting in Ohio:
  3. Outsiders Voting in Ohio:
Sarah (mail) (www):
I'm really curious about those McCain staffers -- how long have they lived in the state? Are they actually intending to keep living here (doing what, exactly?) Are they really New Yorkers (like the Brownlee Ave. kids -- I keep meaning to drive by that house) just here to influence the election and leave the day after? I mean, maybe they're all from Cincinnati and such, or have fallen in love with Columbus. Or, maybe they're so itinerant that they might as well vote here, because they don't really live anywhere. But that seems unlikely, and Ohio law has that "wherever you intend to return to when you're away" clause that seems to preclude any of these campaign types from voting.

The whole thing reminds me of the pre-Civil War era -- Bleeding Kansas, etc.
10.25.2008 5:08pm
taney71:
Since McCain doesn't have the money to pull staff from out of state like Obama does I am going to guess that the McCain staff is entirely local. Therefore, they can and are going to vote in the state they live.

I remember reading about Obama's campaign pulling staff out of Michigan to go to Virginia. The guy has the funds and some of the staff probably think, "hey I am here for a few weeks might as well vote to help the campaign out." I don't think this is Obama campaign policy. Just a few inexperienced kids that don't know any better.
10.25.2008 5:24pm
taney71:
Oh, what does Bleeding Kansas have to do with this? I always thought that had to do with pro-slavery and anti-slavery elements in the terrority of Kansas, not anything to do with voter fraud.
10.25.2008 5:27pm
Sarcastro (www):
taney71 nooo! It's a conspiracy! If the other side does something, it's because they're evil, always. Never give an inch!

They be stealin mah elections!!
10.25.2008 5:32pm
Smokey:
Sarah, it almost astonishes me that you can look at a black and white issue, and then blame the honest folks. That is "projection"; imputing your own faults onto others.

Obama's staffers knew they were illegal voters, and they withdrew only because they realized that someone was scrutinizing them.

Then you follow your excusing of illegal voting by Obama's people by launching a series of "what-if" ad-homs against the honest campaign workers, with absolutely zero evidence, and no basis in fact.

George Orwell knew your type very well: up is down, black is white, left is right, and evil is good.

Doubleplusungood, Sarah.
10.25.2008 6:05pm
cboldt (mail):
-- I don't think this is Obama campaign policy. Just a few inexperienced kids that don't know any better. --
.
NY Post - October 21, 2008

Barack Obama's presidential campaign [Obama's Ohio spokesman, Isaac Baker?] last night insisted there's nothing illegal about its supporters temporarily moving to the battleground state of Ohio and registering to vote there - adding that, in any case [huh? "even if it IS against the law?" Why not just say, "Yes, we do that, it's legal."], John McCain's backers do the same thing.

.
At least some of those "few inexperienced kids" are lawyers.
10.25.2008 6:05pm
Matt_T:
The whole thing reminds me of the pre-Civil War era -- Bleeding Kansas, etc.

Here's your hyperbole of the week award, enjoy it.
10.25.2008 6:12pm
anon345 (mail):
Let's continue to sow the seeds of hate and mistrust. After all when violence erupts, it's just what those dirty, election stealing traitors deserved.
10.25.2008 6:38pm
Lily (mail):
Sarah:

Are you as curious about how the Obama camp is accepting Campaign Contributions? It has become clear that the Obama website intentionally disabled all the basic credit-card-processing security checks and thereby enabled multiple contributions from donors with fake names.

Campaign contributions under false names are illegal, as are contributions by noncitizens. Federal campaign law also limits the amount any one citizen can contribute to the presidential campaign to $2,300. The acceptance of campaign contributions via credit card without AVS protection facilitates illegal contributions. This is what the Obama campaign has chosen to do, and what the McCain campaign has chosen to avoid.
10.25.2008 6:40pm
John from Dallas:
McCain has all kinds of out-of-state volunteers working in Ohio, etc. I know lots of folks from Texas that have gone to battle-ground states to campaign on McCain's behalf.

For example, has anyone checked to see if Ashley Todd was registered to vote in Pennsylvania (she was from Texas)?
10.25.2008 6:45pm
John from Dallas:
taney71: "I am going to guess that the McCain staff is entirely local."

You would guess wrong. E.g., Ashley Todd was from Texas and working for the McCain campaign in Penn.
10.25.2008 6:48pm
taney71:
John from Dallas:

Ok, then I am wrong. Still what does it matter? You are basically saying the McCain staff competed voter fraud before any charges have been made. Why? Has anyone said Ashley Todd registered to vote in Pennsylvania?

Seriously, I am pretty non-partisan on this type of stuff but I have had a lot of rational people talk to me about how the Republicans are going to steal the election. This crap has been going on since 2000. From what I read the only party that has actually stole an election was the Democrats in 1960. And even that wasn't proven with all certainty.
10.25.2008 7:02pm
Lily (mail):
Sarah: You hear that Obama's staff has definately done the wrong thing, and your first thought is to wonder, with no evidence whatsoever, if McCain's staff is cheating? Can't you pause even for a moment to condemn those who were actually caught cheating?
10.25.2008 7:04pm
Douglas2 (mail):
Ashley Todd was working for College Republican National Committee, not (directly) the McCain campaign.
10.25.2008 7:30pm
smitty1e:
@Lily,
With the credit checks disabled, setting up a bot to pump cash from anywhere on the planet would be technically straightforward.
And you can bet your bippy that if the McCain campaign had done such, the Media Electoral College would be all over it like crappy speeches on Bush.
10.25.2008 7:32pm
loki13 (mail):
Lily,

It's funny how different takes on the story can be. Here was mine: given an unclear application of the law, the requisite authorities in Ohio asked the two campaigns to comply with the Ohio voting law.

The Obama campaign complied.

The McCain campaign did not.

Your mileage, obviously, did vary.
10.25.2008 7:32pm
New Pseudonym:

The whole thing reminds me of the pre-Civil War era -- Bleeding Kansas, etc.




Oh, what does Bleeding Kansas have to do with this? I always thought that had to do with pro-slavery and anti-slavery elements in the terrority of Kansas, not anything to do with voter fraud.




Here's your hyperbole of the week award, enjoy it.


I might add Santana on repeating history.

Many (if not most) of the pro-slavery "voters" in the election to determine whether Kansas would enter the Union as a free state or a slave state were what were known as "Border Ruffians." That is, they were people who crossed over the state line from Missouri (a slave state) into Kansas in order to vote to cast their illegal votes for Kansas to enter the Union as a slave state. The other prong of this voting effort was to reduce the number of free state voters. This was done with some effeciveness at Lawrence -- partially offset fairly soon thereafter by the free staters at Ossawatamie.
10.25.2008 7:48pm
PC:
Are you as curious about how the Obama camp is accepting Campaign Contributions? It has become clear that the Obama website intentionally disabled all the basic credit-card-processing security checks and thereby enabled multiple contributions from donors with fake names.

Neat. A brand new conspiracy theory.
10.25.2008 8:24pm
cboldt (mail):
-- A brand new conspiracy theory. --
.
It's no more conspiratorial than making a section of interstate highway to be known as a "speed limit not enforced here" zone.
.
The contention is that the Obama campaign could be looking for violations, and chooses not to. That's not a conspiracy.
10.25.2008 8:36pm
PC:
cboldt, if Lily's description of what is happening is accurate then people inside the Obama campaign are conspiring to break Federal law.

Here's a list of Obama conspiracies so far. Thanks for the new one Lily:

Obama is a Muslim
Obama was born in Kenya
Obama is working with ACORN to steal the election
Dreams of My Father was written by Bill Ayers
Obama engaged in domestic terrorism while at Columbia University
Obama was a drug smuggler while at Columbia University
Obama had an affair with a staffer and forced her to move to the Carribean
Obama had a gay "affair" with a pedophile when Obama was a boy
Obama had drug fueled gay sex with some guy
Obama is the Anti-Christ
Obama's college was paid for by Saudis
Obama's campaign has disabled credit card verification for donations so foreigners can donate to his campaign

Feel free to add some more!
10.25.2008 8:51pm
BlackX (mail):

Doubleplusungood, Sarah


I'll be glad when the election's over and these idiot trolls go away.
10.25.2008 9:03pm
Smokey:
BlackX,

Apparently you're unfamiliar with George Orwell's work. No doubt you had a government education.

Sad.
10.25.2008 10:19pm
Dan M.:
Is there proof that any McCain campaign staffers have voted? And of those have voted, have any already left the state, as some of the Vote From Home People had? If the McCain staffers intend to stay in Ohio, and have been there for more than 30 days before the election, they ARE voting legally and don't need to withdraw their ballots.
10.25.2008 10:24pm
darrenm:
PC, do you even know what a 'conspiracy' is?
10.25.2008 10:26pm
PC:
darrenm, maybe I should have qualified the list. "Here is a list of conspiracy theories and other crazy claims that are being pushed by the right." Better?
10.25.2008 10:48pm
loki13 (mail):

Smokey


Apparently you are unaware that you are always recognized as a troll, now. No doubt you were homeschooled. Please go peddle your false facts and your bogus concern elsewhere.

Sad.
10.25.2008 10:52pm
Smokey:
loki,

Feel better now?
10.25.2008 11:26pm
loki13 (mail):

Smokey,


No. But I will by November 5th.
10.25.2008 11:30pm
Smokey:
Enjoy paying your hefty new Obama taxes. They won't affect me much.
10.25.2008 11:36pm
loki13 (mail):
Amazing. You're resigned to losing, so all that's left is the hate. Let it go, you'll feel better.

Five stages of Smokey:

1. Denial
Obama is going to lose! The polls are wrong!

2. Anger
Clearly, only you uneducated dolts would vote for Obama.

3. Bargaining
If only Palin can peel off some of those Clinton supporters . . . .

4. Depression
I don't even make enough money for Obama and his terrorist pals to effect me because I spend my time on the intertubez insulting people.

5. Acceptance
. . . still waiting.
10.25.2008 11:56pm
Dr. Weevil (mail) (www):
loki13:
Care to offer evidence that the McCain campaign has not complied with Ohio law? It's just possible that none of his out-of-state campaigners registered to vote in Ohio because they knew that that would be illegal. If they weren't violating the law, they didn't need to do anything different to comply with it.
10.26.2008 12:04am
loki13 (mail):
Dr. Weevil,

No, not really. Don't need to. I just thought it was interesting how completely differently people were reading the article. Especially in light of the previous article on the subject. You know . . .


Both campaigns' Ohio spokesmen -- Paul Lindsay for McCain and Isaac Baker for Obama -- are among the out-of-staters who've registered in Ohio.


So I'm sure all of McCain's operatives from out of state, such as Mr. Lindsay, who registered to vote in Ohio will remain there indefinitely.

But I don't really care. Y'all are way too hyped up. Maybe you'll be normal again after the 5th, and you'll stop buying up the tinfoil in the stores so I can get some for cookin'.
10.26.2008 12:19am
Dr. Weevil (mail) (www):
I'm curious as to the evidence that McCain's Ohio spokesman Paul Lindsay is in fact an out-of-stater who has registered in Ohio. Has the Columbus Dispatch actually proved that, or is this something like the claim that 'Joe the Plumber' is related to Enron's Charles Keating, which turned out to be a false assumption based on a shared surname?

I do find it offensive to suggest that those who worry about stolen elections are "too hyped up". Perhaps you should worry a bit more instead of encouraging others to worry less?
10.26.2008 12:29am
loki13 (mail):
Dr. Weevil,

Dunno. I actually am doing something, as a state-sanctioned poll monitor during early voting and on election day. Other than complainin', what are you doing?
10.26.2008 12:40am
road warrior99 (mail):
ahhh the voting conspiracy theories begin! LOVE IT! the funny thing is that every year a different party benefits. One elections is the crazy conservative the next election is the liberal illuminati. It's all crazy to me! I mean seriously, with the technology we have these days there has to be a solid way to registering voters, even if they are out of state, and making this think fool proof. But it is far from fool proof, obviously!
10.26.2008 12:53am
Dr. Weevil (mail) (www):
So now I'm not entitled to an opinion because I have to work at my regular job on Election Day, loki13? Do you have any idea just how obnoxious your last comment sounds?
10.26.2008 1:03am
loki13 (mail):
*shrug*

You're entitled to your opinion. But you asked me to worry more. So . . . what else would you like me to do? I value election integrity enough that I'm taking two days off to do something about it. I also value the right to vote, so I can make sure that there's no voter disenfranchisement. You know, using my powers for good and all that.

Or, I could just just go around sowing hate and discord. I choose not to. I've always found it odd that the same people who squawk the loudest aren't really doing anything about it. I guess mustering up all that anger and outrage and crazy on the intertubez takes up so much energy there isn't much left for the real life.
10.26.2008 1:14am
PC:
Lily, I checked up on the conspiracy theory du jour and it seems like the people offering up the theory don't understand how credit card processing works. You can process a credit without having a valid name attached to it. In fact, you can process a credit card without a name at all. This is how people pay for things at stores, restaurants, gas stations, etc.

Another neat thing about credit cards is that they are tied to actual, real people who have had their identities verified in one form or another. This identification is also attached to a real, live address. In fact, the authorizing system will flag whether or not a given credit card is domestic or international.

Of course it might make sense to add in all of the extra security checks like the CVV2 number in order to prevent fraud. Well, that would make sense if you don't understand why online merchants check those things. Online merchants actually exchange merchandise for the numbers that are entered on a website. Often times that merchandise will be shipped before the credit card holder would see the fraud on his statement and report it to the bank. If the charge is actually fraudulent the merchant ends up eating the cost of the merchandise.

The thing with donations is, other than the transaction fees that are paid by the campaign, any fraudulent charges will be credited back to the card holder's account.

So the idea that there are groups of foreigners giving donations to the Obama campaign because the campaign doesn't require name and address verification in their CC processing system is silly.
10.26.2008 1:47am
ChrisIowa (mail):

The thing with donations is, other than the transaction fees that are paid by the campaign, any fraudulent charges will be credited back to the card holder's account.

Only if the card holder complains.

Why disable the very easy and very standard fraud screening utilities unless you are intending to accept foreign or fraudulent donations?

And BTW when I order stuff online, it usually gets rejected if the shipping address does not correspond to the billing address on the card. Which is inconvenient if I want something delivered to me at work.
10.26.2008 2:00am
loki13 (mail):
PC-

You don't understand. It's inconceivable to some people that the democratic nominee in general, and Obama specificallyy, could be popular. They have already prepared their entire dolchstosslegende.

Obama attracts many new voters?
No! Voter fraud!

Obama attracts numerous enthusiastic donors?
No! Credit card fraud!

Obama is a thoughtful writer who had, at most, a passing relationship with Bill Ayers?
Bill Ayers wrote Obama's books!

Obama's moderate and conciliatory ideology is attractive to the electorate?
No! Obama is a communist who is pulling the wool over the eyes of the American people with the help of the compliant mainstream media!


And so on. The sickness is everywhere- I remember talking a liberal friend down from the (proverbial) ledge after Kerry lost and hearing about Diebolt blah blah blah Ohio blah blah blah etc. You know what? No matter who wins, the sun will rise, the sun will set, and I'll have lunch the next day. And four years later (or two, counting other political races) the game will start again.

That's the problem with some people- every election is treated as the apocalypse. Just stay in the game- don't hate the players.
10.26.2008 2:13am
PC:
Only if the card holder complains.

So now there's an army of credit card thieves that are donating amounts small enough that the CC holder won't notice it? Seriously?

Why disable the very easy and very standard fraud screening utilities unless you are intending to accept foreign or fraudulent donations?

Simple usability would say that requiring a person to enter less information would make them more likely to enter a donation. It's not like the credit card doesn't actually belong to someone. For record keeping purposes you just have a report generated once a month that lists the actual card holder information and how much he has donated.

And again, credit cards attach to real people. The credit card companies know if the account is domestic or foreign. I would even go as far as saying the credit card company has the card holder's SSN on file since that's the primary key for our identities in the US.

The idea that a bunch of foreigners can somehow secretly slip through the cracks is silly. All of these donations are recorded and turned into the FEC. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the FCC requires the reports to flag any donations that come from foreign card holders.
10.26.2008 2:19am
Bad English:
"You know, using my powers for good and all that."

Narcissists are funny, though in a nauseating way.
10.26.2008 8:59am
Brett Bellmore:

For record keeping purposes you just have a report generated once a month that lists the actual card holder information and how much he has donated.


To do that accurately kinda requires that the actual card holder information have been entered accurately, and disabling the security checks means that doesn't have to happen.

And again, credit cards attach to real people.


And you can buy with cash cards that function through the credit card system, without giving any information which would identify which particular real individual you are. Not that anybody needs that to do an illegal donation to Obama, since you can just enter false information about what real person you are, and after the transaction is complete, Obama doesn't retain even the one number that has to be real to get his money.


All of these donations are recorded and turned into the FEC.


Yes, I'm sure Obama will turn all the information into the FEC, which means nothing, since the information deliberately isn't reliable.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the FCC requires the reports to flag any donations that come from foreign card holders.


I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess that if you've arranged so that your donors can fraudulently claim to be Americans without your catching them, by disabling a DEFAULT setting on the software, then you're not going to be doing much flagging, because they're going to be telling you that they're Americans.
10.26.2008 10:52am
PC:
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess that if you've arranged so that your donors can fraudulently claim to be Americans without your catching them, by disabling a DEFAULT setting on the software, then you're not going to be doing much flagging, because they're going to be telling you that they're Americans.

And we're back to a massive conspiracy. I understand that internet sleuths think they've broken some huge story here. Citizen journalism at its best. The problem is the claim makes no sense.

If this flaw in the donation system really exists I guarantee it has been exploited by every side from the time the regulations went into effect. The fact this "flaw" hasn't been discovered before now, and would be a huge, obvious problem, means I doubt there's really a flaw.

It sounds more like the ravings of fevered bloggers that push stories about Michelle Obama giving an exclusive interview to a press agency that only exists as a free WordPress blog. You know, Ace of Spades, Gateway Pundit, etc.
10.26.2008 2:13pm
Dr. Weevil (mail) (www):
PC alleges that Ace of Spades and Gateway Pundit have "push[ed] stories about Michelle Obama giving an exclusive interview to a press agency that only exists as a free WordPress blog". This is not even a half-truth, but more like a quarter-truth.

Both sites have mentioned the allegation that 'African Press International' has a tape of Michelle Obama saying shocking things, but so far as I can determine neither has 'pushed' the story.

A quick look at Ace of Spades October archives finds two mentions, both on 10/15: One, signed 'Purple Avenger' is entitled "Michelle Obama Tries to Bribe African Press", but title and story are both entirely crossed out, which is what honest bloggers do when they find that a story is false. (Dishonest bloggers delete the post and pretend that they never wrote it or revise it to say something entirely different without marking the changes.) The other, by Ace himself, is entitled "That "Michelle Obama" Phone Call to API? Campaign Claims It's 'Made Up'" and reads in full "I pretty much believe them. It always seemed dodgy.
See? I don't link every [link to NRO debunking]goofy report that floats over my transom[/link]. Thanks to CJ."

GatewayPundit's latest (10/16) post on the subject comes with links to two previous posts, and is entitled "African Press: We Are Going to Release the Michelle Obama 'White Racists' Tape". Sounds promising, but the first line of the story is "Game changer or fraud?", and GWP never asserts which he thinks it is. The story is just a long quotation with no endorsement, and anyone who notes the date can easily judge the likelihood of any release of the supposed tape by the fact that it's been a week and a half and it hasn't happened yet.

In short, both sites mention the claim, but GatewayPundit does nothing that can be honestly described as 'pushing' it, while Ace of Spades specifically debunks it.

So why does PC lie about these two sites? Most likely because he's worried that people will read the absolutely devastating things they've written about Obama's illegal fundraising, including the very important fact that the McCain site does not allow donations where the address of the donor does not match the credit card billing address. This "flaw" has not "been exploited by every side", as PC writes, but is in fact being used by one side only to make it possible for citizens and non-citizens to contribute as much as they want, though the former are legally limited to $2300 and the latter cannot legally contribute at all. How much of Obama's astonishing fundraising success comes from accepting illegal donations? We'll never know, because Obama has taken good care to prevent us from knowing.
10.26.2008 3:36pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
And BTW when I order stuff online, it usually gets rejected if the shipping address does not correspond to the billing address on the card. Which is inconvenient if I want something delivered to me at work.
Then you "usually" don't order stuff from the most prominent internet retailer in the country (world?) Amazon.com, because they let you ship to any address you want. (It would be difficult to send gifts otherwise.)
10.26.2008 4:25pm
Dr. Weevil (mail) (www):
Of course, Amazon let's you ship to a different address. But you still have to give them your billing address, and it has to match the billing address of your credit card, or they won't take the charge. In short, Amazon demands one or two addresses, depending on whether the shipping and billing address are the same, and the billing address is checked for validity. The Obama campaign asks for one address, and not only can it be different from the billing address, it can be entirely bogus, with a nonexistent zipcode (e.g. 99999) or a zipcode that doesn't match the state, or any of a dozen other varieties of bogosity. So ChrisIowa is wrong on the minor point, but right on the major point, that what Obama is up to is sleazy.
10.26.2008 5:04pm
just me (mail):
I think the moral to the Obama fundraising story is that public financing is dead, and what is needed rather than limits and minimums is a requirement to make public all donations and a requirement to make sure those donations are coming from legitimate donors.

While I really think anyone should be able to give however much they want to any individual candidate, I just want fully open and public records of the transactions.

I think there is a lot of fishy stuff going on with the internet donations, and I suspect many of them are intended to work around donation limits per person. My guess though is that over the long haul the FEC will take a pass on auditing Obama, or if they do he will end up with a fine that he can easily pay from all those millions of dollars he has raised.

In the end congress should probably look at scrapping altogether public financing, and restructuring how donations are made, who can make them and in what amounts.
10.26.2008 5:27pm
PC:
So why does PC lie about these two sites? Most likely because he's worried that people will read the absolutely devastating things they've written about Obama's illegal fundraising

You've found me out! No pudding cup for you in the reparation camps.
10.26.2008 5:58pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
PC.
You got busted. Snark doesn't unbust the busted. It doesn't even do a good job of changing the subject.
10.26.2008 7:43pm
Lily (mail):

So the idea that there are groups of foreigners giving donations to the Obama campaign because the campaign doesn't require name and address verification in their CC processing system is silly.


And yet, the technology exists, and is in common use, to match name/addresses with the card number. The FEC has strong rules about who can donate and how much each person can donate. The McCain camp uses the technology to follow the rules. The Obama camp disabled this technology. Why? Is this on purpose? Or are they just incompetent and/or law violators? Is this how they will run our government?
10.26.2008 8:18pm
a knight (mail) (www):
Why isn't the intention to become a permanent resident clause a violation of The 14th Amendment, Section 1?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This regulation disenfranchises American citizens. Is a graduate student, employed full time as a instructor at OSU, who has already committed to taking an assistant professorship at a University in another state upon completion of their degree, legally barred from voting in Ohio's elections? Is a member of the USAF, stationed presently at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, and who knows they are going to be transferred to a different state's AFB in 2009, ineligible to vote in Ohio's elections? Is a resident at a Cincinnati hospital's emergency room, who intends to set-up their private practice in a different state upon completion of their residency program, lawfully exempted from voting in Ohio's elections? There are many more examples.
10.26.2008 8:31pm
Aleks:
Re: It has become clear that the Obama website intentionally disabled all the basic credit-card-processing security checks


???
Are you seriously claiming that the credit card banks are conspiring with the Obama campaign in this matter? That they are eager to elect a fairly liberal president with a fairly liberal Congress at a time when there are quite a few progressive proposals floating around to rein in the excesses of the credir card industry?

Sorry, but that does not even pass the laugh test!
10.26.2008 9:06pm
cboldt (mail):
-- The Obama camp disabled this technology. Why? Is this on purpose? --
.
It is on purpose. That verification facility is "on" by default, because it protects the merchant from being stuck with bad payment.
.
I got a kick out of the MO couple who had 70+ charges of under $2,300 each, against one CC No. (theirs), in one day. Man, what a fluke of coincidence THAT was.
10.26.2008 9:20pm
Dr. Weevil (mail) (www):
Aleks:
Many credit-card issuing banks are headquartered in Delaware, because of its friendly regulatory environment. The U.S. senator generally considered most friendly to such banks is, not surprisingly, Joe Biden. Try Googling "senator from MBNA". Then think again about your laugh test.
10.26.2008 9:20pm
just me (mail):
Are you seriously claiming that the credit card banks are conspiring with the Obama campaign in this matter?

No.

The Obama campaign disabled the security program, not the actual banks that issue the cards.

It is possible some banks may refuse to process the payments, but the security checks are there to make sure the person using the card is actually the card owner and to keep the merchant from being the victim of fraud.

My guess is that the Obama campaign isn't sending out any merchandise, so it doesn't matter if the credit card is fake, they just refund the money. But it also provides some plausible deniability when it comes to proving where the money is coming from. There are rules regarding how much an individual can donate, and on who can donate (non citizens are prohibited). Turning off the security checks provides a route to skirting those rules.

I do wonder if they have the same lack of security check on their store-although I am not going to use my bank account to test it.
10.26.2008 9:22pm
cboldt (mail):
-- Turning off the security checks provides a route to skirting those rules. --
.
Willful blindness is not illegal, ergo it is ethical.
.
See too, the reporting rules relating to donations under $200.
10.26.2008 9:25pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
It sure is amusing watching a bunch of lawyers arguing about what intention means.

In my county, the gummint lawyers have opined that an intention to reside in an electoral district at some unspecified time in the future is the same as actually residing there. I guess you cannot do that in Ohio.
10.26.2008 9:41pm
cboldt (mail):
-- In my county, the gummint lawyers have opined that an intention to reside in an electoral district at some unspecified time in the future is the same as actually residing there. I guess you cannot do that in Ohio. --
.
How do you conclude that it's "your" county? Somehow you have an attachment, and that attachment includes physical presence at various points in time.
.
The gummint lawyers who have opined in your county, have done so against certain fact patterns. Perhaps you could describe those fact patterns as to time and duration of physical presence. Those details, coupled with intention to return to and reside in the county at some time in the future, qualify for receipt of an election ballot.
.
I know of no county where a person can obtain a ballot before/without setting foot in that county.
10.26.2008 9:54pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
Not an election ballot in this case. The qualification to run for office in a district where one of the requirements is to reside in the district.

One of the candidates -- who got the most votes in the primary, as it happens -- has not lived in that district for at least nine years, works and sleeps in another district, but said he intends to return to the district he is running from sometime.

Good enough for a residency challenge to have been overturned -- twice.

Voting is countywide for county offices, not by districts, so his eligibility to vote is not in question. He does live in the county.
10.27.2008 1:12am
Ryan Waxx (mail):
So, I assume all the defenders of the Obama site's system would be OK if McCain went to a party full of miilionares and said "Well, I can't knowingly take more than a certain amount from you people, so I'm going to leave this open bag in the room and a sign-in list and go for a walk. If I come back and there's all kinds of money in there and enough names on the list to account for it, I'll just assume it was contributed through ethical standards, and anyone who says different is obviously unhinged."

You'd stand up to defend that, right?
10.27.2008 10:03am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
if McCain went to a party full of miilionares


Hmm, let's see. What if McCain became close personal friends with a millionaire, and made nine trips with his family at that person's expense, including vacations in the Bahamas? And didn't disclose this, as the rules required? And didn't pay reimbursement until after the scandal broke?

Oh, wait…
10.27.2008 12:39pm