Skip to main content

Secret "Small Donors" Raise $200 Million, Obama Won't Disclose Names

http://community.mccainspace.com/kickapps/_SECRETSLIESFOREIGN-MONEY-FLOODS-OBAMAS-CAMP/BLOG/110759/41158.html

SECRETS...LIES..FOREIGN MONEY FLOODS OBAMA'S CAMP!!!
More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose.


And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.


Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report.

But because of Obama’s high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage — at least, not yet.



The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).



The McCain camp and the Republican National Committee had $94 million, because of an influx of $84 million in public money.



But Obama easily could outpace McCain by $50 million to $100 million or more in new donations before Election Day, thanks to a legion of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret.



Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).



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.



Biersack would not comment on whether the FEC was investigating the huge amount of cash that has come into Obama’s coffers with no public reporting.



But Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for CRP, a campaign-finance watchdog group, dismissed the scale of the unreported money.



“We feel comfortable that it isn’t the $20 donations that are corrupting a campaign,” he told Newsmax.



But those small donations have added up to more than $200 million, all of it from unknown and unreported donors.



Ritsch acknowledges that there is skepticism about all the unreported money, especially in the Obama campaign coffers.



“We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors,” he said. “The Obama campaign never responded,” whereas the McCain campaign “makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online.”



The rise of the Internet as a campaign funding tool raises new questions about the adequacy of FEC requirements on disclosure. In pre-Internet fundraising, almost all political donations, even small ones, were made by bank check, leaving a paper trail and limiting the amount of fraud.



But credit cards used to make donations on the Internet have allowed for far more abuse.



“While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center.



Already, the FEC has noted unusual patterns in Obama campaign donations among donors who have been disclosed because they have gone beyond the $200 minimum.



FEC and Mr. Doodad Pro



When FEC auditors have questions about contributions, they send letters to the campaign’s finance committee requesting additional information, such as the complete address or employment status of the donor.



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.

TO READ FULL ARTICLE BY KENNETH TIMMERMAN VISIT: WWW.NEWSMAX.COM

GOD BLESS,

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"The West Does Not Understand the Extreme Danger from Its Arming of Ukraine The Idiot Biden Regime and Insane Neoconservatives Have the World on the Path to Armegeddon"

Paul Craig Roberts wrote: How Many More Red Lines Can Be Crossed Before Armageddon Arrives? Paul Craig Roberts The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe published on April 15, 2016, more than six years ago, a report on the torture of Donbass Russians by the Ukrainian military and police forces.   The report documents horrendous torture and it was done out of racial hatred of Russians. You can read the report here:   https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/e/7/233896.pdf     Few Westerners, being so poorly educated, are aware that Western Ukraine fought for Nazi Germany during World War II.   When Washington overthrew the Ukrainian government in 2014, Washington installed a Nazi government. The Nazi government in Ukraine shelled the Russian residents of the two break-away Donbass republics for 8 years while Washington and NATO trained and equipped a Ukrainian army to retake the breakaway republics. .. ... These statements from Russian leaders indicate that the I

Vox Cantoris vs. Aqua

The Catholic Monitor commenter Aqua had this to say to the Vox Cantoris website: Aqua said… Fred, your topic here reminds me of a dust-up, a few days ago, on Vox Cantoris. He asserted that it is our duty as Christians to wear masks to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass if the government tells us we must, or they will close our Churches. My response to him was that I find it inconceivable that an orthodox Catholic, such as himself, would ever submit to unjust dictates from secular government over how we approach Our Lord in Holy Mass. My response to him was that the Mass belongs to Catholics and we decide, within the bounds of Tradition, and in accord with the Word of Jesus, how we conduct ourselves in Holy Mass. Only one authority prevails over Mass and that is our God and the Sacred Tradition given by Him to guide us in all times and places. Understand, there is nothing inherently wrong with wearing a mask to Mass. But there is EVERYTHING wrong with wearing a symbol

Mainstream Media: "Is America the Real Victim of Anti-Russia Sanctions?" & "Biden's arrogant anti-Russian sanctions have amounted to a price hike on working class Americans that have so far failed to weaken the Russian economy"

  Mainstream Media Acknowledges Biden’s “Arrogant” Sanctions On Russia Are Damning Americans:     @MaxBlumenthal Biden's arrogant anti-Russian sanctions have amounted to a price hike on working class Americans that have so far failed to weaken the Russian economy. His neocon policy accelerates the process of de-dollarization, diplomatic isolation & imperial decline. The mainstream new outlet asked "Is America the Real Victim of Anti-Russia Sanctions?": Remember the claims that Russia’s economy was more or less irrelevant, merely the equivalent of a small, not very impressive European country? “Putin, who has an economy the size of Italy,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in 2014 after the invasion of Crimea, “[is] playing a poker game with a pair of twos and winning.” Of increasing Russian diplomatic and geopolitical influence in Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia, The Economist asked in 2019, “How did a country with an economy the size of Spain … ach