“Stored Value” Credit Cards: How $100mil in Foreign Money Bought Barack Obama
Most folks have little idea what a “stored value credit card” really is — but most Democratic fundraising operatives do.
In fact, Barack Obama benefited personally from such donations online… to the tune of $100 million dollars.
Don’t worry. It gets worse.
Most folks familiar with online fundraising have known about the Obama mashup for quite some time… $174,800 in donations coming from one Mary T. Biskup in Manchester, Missouri for instance.
That’s way beyond the FEC’s $2,300 cap, and yet the MSM allowed the cancer to fester.
So what is a “stored value credit card” anyway? Simply put, any pre-paid VISA qualifies.
So here’s the scam: Let’s say an overseas client wants to give a domestic payer some cash? Take out 50 pre-paid VISAs, put $2,300 each on them, and then make 50 independent donations. Hugh Hewitt has more on the scam that takes Obama and the MSM (the WaPo buried the story on A02) to task.
Now obviously, if you were a domestic client barred by law from receiving such gifts, you could filter them out. Provided — that is — you actually had your filters on:
The Obama campaign confirmed Tuesday that it is allowing supporters to make contributions using prepaid, and therefore untraceable, donations to the Illinois senator’s presidential bid, which could potentially be used to evade campaign contribution limits, the Washington Post reported Wednesday.The paper said the technique could also be used to mask a contributor’s identity, a problem if non-qualified or foreign contributors illegally give money to the Democrat’s campaign.
“Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited,” the Post reported.
The response from the Obama camp? “Did I Do Thaaat?”
Currently, the only recourse so far is to turn to the lawbooks and fix it from outside. Delegate Bob Marshall’s HB 1658 offers the prescription for this new cancer in the body politic by banning all “stored value” credit card transactions.
That helps for Virginia, but doesn’t do much for the national scene.
Obviously, a bunch of people deserve to go to jail for this. $100 million of overseas money used to influence American elections is an absurdity not seen since the Jefferson-Adams races in 1796 and 1800. In Obama’s zeal to win the presidency, there was and remains an alarming tendency to bend or simply ignore rules.
The problem may be fixed in Virginia politics. Let’s hope a national spotlight can be shined on this dirty trick as well.
Category: Campaigns and Elections
Loading ...
But this begs the question (boy, does it feel good to use that expression properly!) as to whether there is a problem to be solved in Virginia campaign finance through this proposed legislation.
Virginia already has one of the most liberal campaign finance regimes in the nation. There are no contribution limits. Businesses are free to give corporate contributions. (There is, of course, a ban on foreign nationals or foreign corporations making contributions to Virginia candidates.) All contributions over $100 must be fully reported, however, and are subject to scrutiny by press and public (and political opponents).
Virginia’s law should be a model for the rest of the states, and for the federal government, as well.
It seems to me that this bill is a solution looking for a problem. If, however, you can show me large numbers of questionable contributions from foreign addresses adding to the coffers of candidates for the House of Delegates, I will be more willing to concede the propriety of such a restriction on Virginia citizens.
As lax as Virginia’s laws may be, they still require tranparancy in reporting. These cards are a potentially huge loophole in that requirement. All this bill does is limit abuse, not the ability to contribute.
Virginia’s lax campaign financing laws have been described as being like Illinois’s laws.
Illinois’s laws have been blamed for allowing the abuses we have all heard about by Blagojivech.
While Virginia does not have the history of political corruption like Illinois does, I do not think we need to tempt politicians into corruption.
I understand the argument that limiting campaign contributions limits free speech. However not limiting contributions allows inequality in speech. “My right to free speech is bigger then yours because I have more money.”
Whilst it is wise for us to learn from mistakes made by the Obama campaign and try to correct them, such wisdom should extend into learning from Illinois and Blagojevich as well.
[...] Frankly, we’d be happy if Moran would challenge his opponents to show their President-Elect how to run without taking foreign money. See Bearing Drift: “Stored Value” Credit Cards: How $100mil in Foreign Money Bought Barack Obama [...]
Classy as ever. Shaun, with his usual gift for BS, somehow turns online donations into SCARY FOREIGN MONEY donations (maybe he should ask those kids over at RedStorm PAC what they think about that). And that $175k donor? The campaign contacted Biskup and refunded the contributions when they saw the flood of obviously fraudulent activity. (You would think Shaun what have the time to add that little fact, since he’s reaching back into all these pre-election heated reports for evidence of his ridiculous allegations.)
Sure, there are problems with campaign contributions, but Shaun and Sideshow Bob aren’t actually concerned about that. They’re just playing their roles as jesters.
Shaun,
the Obama campaign’s finance corruption was much more sophisticated and plausibly deniable than Clinton’s.
This issue never got much attention in the MSM. But a conversation Palin had with a former librarian when she was a mayor got barrels of ink.
That said, I think Marshall’s bill is a very good idea. It is in the spirit of Virginia’s disclosure standard for campaign finance.
MB —
I’d respond… but it’s like a leftist Tasmanian Devil came in, made a comment, then left.
Regards,
MB – Well, we kids at RedStormPAC think that online donations using fraudulent means is entirely unethical and in some cases, let’s say Federal, illegal. That is why we keep our security requirements strong to ensure not only that the information provided to us matches the card for filing purposes but also to limit theft or fraud, something the Obama campaign did not feel the need to secure against in either case.
Del. Marshall’s bill correctly recognizes the potential for abuse stored valued credit cards create because of the inability to accurately verify information related to the card, such as the name and address of the user, information necessary for filing not just through the FEC but Virginia SBE as well.
Transparency in campaign finance is a good thing and I’m happy to see Virginia thinking ahead in this regard.
Sorry, Shaun. I’ll type slower next time.
~
Jason, if I wanted to contribute $100 to McDonnell’s campaign, and I wanted to use a $100 to do so, could I? (It’s my understanding that I can, but I presume you know more about it than I do.)
Do we have any evidence that the McCain campaign actively did not accept “stored value credit card” contributions? Did either campaign really care where the money was coming from, as long as the contribution filled out the form certifying that they were a US citizen?
As a side note, I love the edit comment feature!
MB – If you had $100 that you wanted to give to any candidate, you are more than welcome to cut them a check or use a card that can be validated as being your card to not only protect you from theft and fraud but also to ensure that any information provided is accurate for the purposes of filing with the SBE.
The problem with stored value cards is that it is hard to verify the information behind them, allows people to anonymously contribution when they technically and legally should not be doing so.
The issue is transparency in campaign finance and we have no problem with keeping the system open and honest.
Sorry, I just realized that I left out an essential word – “cash”. I’m with you (as best I can tell) on wanting to keep an open and honest political contribution system. However, I’m also interested in making political contributions low-dollar/many contributor affairs. And given the shift of contributions from dinners where people hand over (big) checks to internet-based systems that only accept plastic, I’m not too keen on locking out an entire population (i.e., those that can’t get credit cards). Esp. if you can already circumvent it just as well by sending cash. (Finally, I should admit some sympathy to those who have very little interest in sharing their actual contact details when contributing low dollar amounts. The crush of political junk mail that arrives from the original candidate is big enough – but the wave that comes after they’ve won/lost and rented out their lists? Crazy. Put me down as MB/1 Main St., ThisCity, Anystate, USA, Please.)
~
Joel – McCain had to refund buckets of money to phony/ineligible donors, too. He did, if I recall correctly, pay for a slightly higher level of card verification via his website (I think it was address matching. Could be wrong.)
MB – Under $100 there’s no reporting needed, though information still needs to be recorded internally because it’s a matter of aggregate contributions through a certain cycle.
But I agree that low dollar/many contributor affairs are a good thing. But there are still ways to give if you do not have a credit or debit card, whether it be mailing a check or handing someone cash, both of which are cheaper than the fees associated with buying a stored value card.
And on the last part of your last comment – a higher level of security isn’t necessarily paid for. There are certain features that come default with the use of an online transaction system, address and security code verification are part of that (I would assume, I’m going with the service we use as an example). We can choose to turn off any of those security features but opt not to for security purposes.
[...] I may, I’d like to direct you over to Bearing Drift’s year-old post about Obama and his relationship with stored-value [...]