Did Obama Buy The White House With Illegal Money?

Did Obama Buy The White House With Illegal Money?
By Herb Denenberg, The Bulletin

There is now growing evidence that Sen. Barack Obama bought the White House by using illegal and fraudulent fundraising, but that's a story you won't read in the mainstream media. You will read about it here today. While that story of Obama election law violations is still developing, what is the mainstream media reporting on? The New York Times isn't interested in election fraud ... if committed by Sen. Obama and the Democrats. So it is using its resources to investigate the amount of money the McCain campaign spent on hair stylists for Gov. Sarah Palin. (New York Times, Dec. 6, 2008). They've already investigated the amount spent on her wardrobe. Yes, the bias and dishonesty of the New York Times no longer just oozes out, it floods out in epic proportions. The once great paper has become a sad joke, a puppet and propagandist for the Democratic Party that can hardly write an honest word on politics.

The mainstream media paid little attention to ACORN, the organization that is the headquarters for election fraud, and its long-time and close association with Sen. Obama. Nor would it spend time reporting on some of the strange expenditures of the Obama campaign, such as the one for 400,000 temporary Obama tattoos. Of course, the mainstream media doesn't question how Sen. Obama spent his campaign money. In the eyes of the mainstream media, the Messiah, the Savior, the Chosen One, a.k.a. Sen. Obama can do no wrong. But the Times and the mainstream media have endless resources for how the McCain campaign spent its money.

When not trying to smear Gov. Palin or Sen. John McCain, the mainstream media is reporting that Sen. Obama had broken all records for fundraising for a political campaign, hitting $745 million, raising twice as much as his opponent. They reported how effectively he used the Internet and how many small donations he received. Needless to say, the mainstream media did not report on how he encouraged fraud, accepted contributions from obviously fake names, countenanced illegal donations in amounts over the legal limit, and also catered to illegal foreign contributors.

For the full story, you'll have to look to a media outlet such as the excellent magazine Newsmax (December 2008), with a cover story entitled "Bought! [Then with a picture of the White House] Price $608 Million: Special Report: New Questions Emerge Over Barack Obama's Fundraising." Newsmax used an earlier amount, as the $745 million total came out after the December issue of Newsmax went to press.

Newsmax reports the first sign of trouble appeared when a sharp-eyed analyst at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) noticed something was wrong among the tens of thousands of electronic pages of the latest Obama finance report. Someone from Austin, Texas, had donated hundreds of times to the Obama campaign. Most of the donations were $25, totaling $17,000, but the total far exceeded $4,600, the legal limit. There's more. Mr. Good Will's employer was listed as "Loving" and his profession was "You." Mr. Good Will wasn't real.

This took place on June 25, 2008. Newsmax reports there had been one question raised before: "The FEC already had questioned the Obama campaign about curious donations and suspiciously large overseas purchases of pro-Obama merchandise as far back as April. With this latest bland request for explanation, FEC officials pulled another thread in the messy fabric of Obama's massive fundraising apparatus."

It became obvious that serious violations were coming into view. Newsmax reports, "As part of that pursuit [of record-breaking campaign cash], the campaign would ignore, and occasionally encourage obvious attempts to circumvent campaign finance laws by masking identities, dollar amounts, and countries of origin for an estimated 2.5 million donors."

"A subsequent month-long investigation by Newsmax exposed even more discrepancies riddling Obama's campaign ledger."

Newsmax has taken an important first step in revealing the fraud and illegality wrapped around Sen. Obama's fundraising. But there is more in the works. For a long time, the fundraising will be the subject of controversy and investigation. The Heritage Foundation has demanded an in depth audit of the campaign's financing.

The mainstream media should be in the middle of investigations of fraud and illegality in Sen. Obama's campaign. But remember, Sen. Obama twice promised to work with Sen. McCain on an agreement to accept public financing. Sen. McCain accepted public financing and stuck to his word. But Sen. Obama reneged in June, abandoning principle and going for political expediency. The mainstream media gave Sen. Obama a free pass on his broken promise to adhere to public financing, and is likely to give him a free pass on questions about his fundraising.

As soon as Newsmax started its investigation in September 2008, it found donors were not only going over the legal limits on amounts that can be contributed but there were also growing indications that millions of dollars were coming from foreign donors, a violation of campaign finance laws.

A campaign doesn't have to report donors who give less than $200, but merely submit running totals for each donor, and then report them when they go beyond $200. Newsmax encountered a red flag in the number of Obama voters who never broke the $200 threshold. By Sept. 29, the Obama campaign identified $222.7 million coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million came from donors the Obama campaign had to identify. So that $222.7 million became the largest pool of unidentified money that ever came into the election system.

Campaign finance watchdogs were suspicious about the amount of unidentified money. So they asked both campaigns for more information on small donors. As you might guess, Sen. McCain provided the requested information. Sen. Obama stone-walled, as is his custom on all matters, even such fundamental ones as to his birth certificate and whether he is even eligible to be president. (I used to send questions to the Obama campaign, but found they were acknowledged but then ignored; so I gave up.)

The Newsmax investigators started finding other donors such as Mr. Good Will. There was "Pro, Doodad" from Nando, NY," who gave $19,950 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. His employer was listed as "Loving" and his profession as "You," the same as Mr. Good Will.

The Obama campaign then told the FEC that it had refunded $8,425 to "Pro, Doodad." So he was still over the limit. The Obama campaign said it would refund any excess over the legal limit to this obviously fake donor.

In September and October, bogus contributions continued to roll in thanks to Bart Simpson, Family Guy, Daffy Duck and King Kong. There was no attempt by the Obama campaign to screen them out.

These bogus donors could have and should have been caught at the outset. Merchants use a security system that stops those whose name and address don't match their credit card account. The Obama campaign had turned off this security feature, according to industry analysts and a confidential informant that communicated with Newsmax. This suggests that the Obama campaign was knowingly and deliberately committing election fraud.

What's more, these phony contributions were in clear violation of the criminal law. One expert told Newsmax, "Making a contribution in the name of another person is the only part of the federal election law that actually carries a criminal penalty." The campaign is responsible for weeding out phony contributions and clearly did not, according to Newsmax.

Even when there were identified donors, the violations continued by allowing contributions in excess of legal limits. For example, one case involved a woman who contributed over the limit. The campaign claimed it had redesignated the money (sent it to a source that could accept it legally). But the woman claimed she had never been so notified. Another listed donor was also way over the limit. The campaign claimed it had returned the excess. The donor said no money was returned to him and he had no recollection of giving money in the first place.

Many other donors made contributions over the legal limit. Newsmax found that many of these never received refunds or other notification that they were over the limit. If excess contributions are not refunded within 60 days that is a clear violation of federal campaign finance laws.

Even more troubling is a flood of contributions from foreigners. That's illegal. The only exceptions are for permanent residents holding green cards. There were so many questionable donations from foreigners that the FEC made a watch list of them on a database. There were 16,500 of them totaling $5.25 million in contributions. Of these only 2,150 were clearly U.S. diplomats or military personnel, but they totaled up to only $302,131. But some of the contributions came from Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence (Italy) and many towns and cities in France.

In contrast, the McCain campaign required foreign donors to submit proof of citizenship for online contributors. The Obama campaign did not. Newsmax concludes, "With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners."

There was plenty of reason for Sen. Obama's campaign and everyone else to suspect illegal foreign contributions. In fact, Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Sen. Obama and claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign. Mr. Gadhafi said foreign contributions were perfectly legal, despite U.S. law to the contrary. Apparently, the Obama campaign was getting its legal advice from dictator Mr. Gadhafi.

Newsmax found that there were foreign currency donations to Obama ranging from $12.8 million to $63 million. Another red flag was identified, as there were 44,410 unrounded contributions. That's unusual as almost all donors give in dollar amounts (e.g., $25, not $25.13). When there are so many unrounded contributions that suggest they came about through conversion from foreign currency. Campaign finance experts found these unrounded donations suspicious.

The Republican National Committee filed a formal complain against the Obama campaign alleging illegal foreign contributions and contributions over the legal limit. A lawyer for the RNC also said that the Obama responses to FEC inquiries "have often been inadequate and late."

All this enabled Sen. Obama to swamp Sen. McCain by massively outspending him on campaign ads and campaign organization. Did Sen. Obama buy the White House? You decide. He did abandon pubic financing, which Newsmax says was brilliant even if dishonest. He did essentially kill public financing for future elections. Any major candidate now knows that he can't win if he accepts public financing against an opponent who rejects public financing.

So Sen. Obama was not only somewhat dishonest in rejecting public financing but was also dishonest in the way he managed his private financing of his election. Here is the man who promised change and a departure from the old politics. But his new politics is even more problematic and dishonest than the old. But what would you expect from the man who sat in the church of Rev. Jeremy "God Damn America" Wright for 20 years and then claimed he never knew what the Rev. Wright was all about. I concluded (even though I knew I was not being "politically correct") right from the outset that Sen. Obama is a faker, a phony, a fraud, and a liar, and I have seen precious little since the election to change my mind.

The Newsmax investigation made no reference to the close relationship between Obama and his campaign with ACORN, the masters of voter fraud and the most notorious practitioner of voter fraud during the campaign. But it is worth noting that Sen. Obama has a peculiar propensity to associate with organizations dealing in voter fraud just as he has had such propensity to associate with terrorists and America-haters.

One thing you can do is start going to alternative sources of news and information such as the magazine Newsmax or its web site. And you can also boycott the dishonest and biased journalism of the mainstream media. Start by going to the web site www.boycottnyt.com, maintained by the media watchdog, Accuracy in Media (AIM) and signing its petition. Also boycott other mainstream media journalistic disgraces, starting with the Philadelphia Inquirer. Don't let the mainstream media continue to sabotage our democracy. They've already elected a president, and its time we stop the continuing damage.

Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner, and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of the Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@thebulletin.us.

http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=20216018&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8