Obama's Switcheroo

[Peikko 1,575]

They may have a way of verifying that each credit card is only used once, but I don't think that's completely the point. There are two sides to this from my point of view. One, the fact that Barack has pledged to do one thing and is considering doing something else if it is to his advantage to do so - and two that no regulations have been put in place to supervise the incredibly successful pledge via the internet system because this is the first time it's been successfully used. All credit to Barack for his succes but does the fact that one candidates has a financial advantage ensure democratic elections not only now, but going forward into the future?

Add to that the possibility that public funding (my understanding of the article posted) may not be forthcoming for the other candidate and things look decidedly dodgy.

[Dan J 277]

All Donations have to be disclosed as to who donated and how much.

You can look up each donor here: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search_donor.asp and call them to see if they are a legitmate donor.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I guess the point is - there's no mechanism or means to tell. Has to be some sort of accountability.

There is this: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

But that doesn't really answer the point that Gary brought up.

I mean... here's the donation page. The only "protection" there is a brief web disclaimer. All it does is provide a means for plausible deniability if there's a problem.

Clearly the candidates totally underestimated the internet as a funding source - but surely if the vast majority of your donations come from these sources that has to be subject to some sort of accounting oversight.

Do you think a web disclaimer is sufficient protection to receiving, say, the proceeds of money laundering?

[Peikko 1,575]

Now there's an interesting question, money laundering eh? Of course, one can't accuse the candidate of 'knowing' that it was a dodgy source of income - neat!

[Dan J 277]

I guess the point is - there's no mechanism or means to tell. Has to be some sort of accountability.

There is this: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

But that doesn't really answer the point that Gary brought up.

I mean... here's the donation page. The only "protection" there is a brief web disclaimer. All it does is provide a means for plausible deniability if there's a problem.

Clearly the candidates totally underestimated the internet as a funding source - but surely if the vast majority of your donations come from these sources that has to be subject to some sort of accounting oversight.

Do you think a web disclaimer is sufficient protection to receiving, say, the proceeds of money laundering?

All donations are publically disclosed, using that information is not hard to figure out if it is a legitmate donation or not.

But the same basic issue you bring up exisits with or without internet donations.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So what are we saying here: McCain's a bit scared of not being able to keep up with the fund raising?

We are saying that both made a promise and Barak is breaking it.

McCain knows that he can't outraise Obama. That's a good bit of motivation for him to push the issue.

[GaryC 7]

I guess the point is - there's no mechanism or means to tell. Has to be some sort of accountability.

There is this: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

But that doesn't really answer the point that Gary brought up.

I mean... here's the donation page. The only "protection" there is a brief web disclaimer. All it does is provide a means for plausible deniability if there's a problem.

Clearly the candidates totally underestimated the internet as a funding source - but surely if the vast majority of your donations come from these sources that has to be subject to some sort of accounting oversight.

Do you think a web disclaimer is sufficient protection to receiving, say, the proceeds of money laundering?

I look at other forms of donations as a way of seeing the potential abuse on the internet. Rememeber Norman Hsu? There were entire families living on minimum wage donating the maximum each and bundled by Hsu. If someone wants to get around the law it can be done. On the internet you can do it without getting your hands dirty. Now I am not accusing Obama of anything. He may think all his donations are legal. But it doesn't take to much of a immagination to see that someone can find a way of getting around the limits.

So what are we saying here: McCain's a bit scared of not being able to keep up with the fund raising?

We are saying that both made a promise and Barak is breaking it.

McCain knows that he can't outraise Obama. That's a good bit of motivation for him to push the issue.

What about keeping a promise? I guess that isn't an issue for you then. I guess it wouldn't be an issue if he continued to not keep promises once elected either.

[Dan J 277]

I guess the point is - there's no mechanism or means to tell. Has to be some sort of accountability.

There is this: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

But that doesn't really answer the point that Gary brought up.

I mean... here's the donation page. The only "protection" there is a brief web disclaimer. All it does is provide a means for plausible deniability if there's a problem.

Clearly the candidates totally underestimated the internet as a funding source - but surely if the vast majority of your donations come from these sources that has to be subject to some sort of accounting oversight.

Do you think a web disclaimer is sufficient protection to receiving, say, the proceeds of money laundering?

I look at other forms of donations as a way of seeing the potential abuse on the internet. Rememeber Norman Hsu? There were entire families living on minimum wage donating the maximum each and bundled by Hsu. If someone wants to get around the law it can be done. On the internet you can do it without getting your hands dirty. Now I am not accusing Obama of anything. He may think all his donations are legal. But it doesn't take to much of a immagination to see that someone can find a way of getting around the limits.

You can do it with any form of payment. Check and Credit are at least somewhat trackable. Cash is not. This is not a unique issue to internet donations. You can bet there are people on both sides who have tried to bend the rules.

But all donations are publically disclosed. Just look at the open secrets site. They have names of everyone who has donated $200 or more to any candidate.

[GaryC 7]

I guess the point is - there's no mechanism or means to tell. Has to be some sort of accountability.

There is this: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

But that doesn't really answer the point that Gary brought up.

I mean... here's the donation page. The only "protection" there is a brief web disclaimer. All it does is provide a means for plausible deniability if there's a problem.

Clearly the candidates totally underestimated the internet as a funding source - but surely if the vast majority of your donations come from these sources that has to be subject to some sort of accounting oversight.

Do you think a web disclaimer is sufficient protection to receiving, say, the proceeds of money laundering?

I look at other forms of donations as a way of seeing the potential abuse on the internet. Rememeber Norman Hsu? There were entire families living on minimum wage donating the maximum each and bundled by Hsu. If someone wants to get around the law it can be done. On the internet you can do it without getting your hands dirty. Now I am not accusing Obama of anything. He may think all his donations are legal. But it doesn't take to much of a immagination to see that someone can find a way of getting around the limits.

You can do it with any form of payment. Check and Credit are at least somewhat trackable. Cash is not. This is not a unique issue to internet donations. You can bet there are people on both sides who have tried to bend the rules.

But all donations are publically disclosed. Just look at the open secrets site. They have names of everyone who has donated $200 or more to any candidate.

I cannot believe your that trusting. My guess is you want to be that trusting.

I can, without any trouble, set up hundreds of false names. And under those false names I could donate the max. Don't you get it? They have been doing it for a very long time with voter registration.

Edited April 12, 2008 by GaryC

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I guess the point is - there's no mechanism or means to tell. Has to be some sort of accountability.

There is this: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

But that doesn't really answer the point that Gary brought up.

I mean... here's the donation page. The only "protection" there is a brief web disclaimer. All it does is provide a means for plausible deniability if there's a problem.

Clearly the candidates totally underestimated the internet as a funding source - but surely if the vast majority of your donations come from these sources that has to be subject to some sort of accounting oversight.

Do you think a web disclaimer is sufficient protection to receiving, say, the proceeds of money laundering?

All donations are publically disclosed, using that information is not hard to figure out if it is a legitmate donation or not.

But the same basic issue you bring up exisits with or without internet donations.

I think it exists more so with internet donations (and certainly because those donations make up the bulk of his war chest) - not least because Obama's campaign platform is to "take back Washington". With the Federal Election Commission in limbo it represents a clear problem with regards to transparency; especially if you're running on an ideological platform.

What about keeping a promise? I guess that isn't an issue for you then. I guess it wouldn't be an issue if he continued to not keep promises once elected either.

I do think though that if McCain were in Obama's position - he wouldn't be taking the public money either.

[Dan J 277]

I guess the point is - there's no mechanism or means to tell. Has to be some sort of accountability.

There is this: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

But that doesn't really answer the point that Gary brought up.

I mean... here's the donation page. The only "protection" there is a brief web disclaimer. All it does is provide a means for plausible deniability if there's a problem.

Clearly the candidates totally underestimated the internet as a funding source - but surely if the vast majority of your donations come from these sources that has to be subject to some sort of accounting oversight.

Do you think a web disclaimer is sufficient protection to receiving, say, the proceeds of money laundering?

I look at other forms of donations as a way of seeing the potential abuse on the internet. Rememeber Norman Hsu? There were entire families living on minimum wage donating the maximum each and bundled by Hsu. If someone wants to get around the law it can be done. On the internet you can do it without getting your hands dirty. Now I am not accusing Obama of anything. He may think all his donations are legal. But it doesn't take to much of a immagination to see that someone can find a way of getting around the limits.

You can do it with any form of payment. Check and Credit are at least somewhat trackable. Cash is not. This is not a unique issue to internet donations. You can bet there are people on both sides who have tried to bend the rules.

But all donations are publically disclosed. Just look at the open secrets site. They have names of everyone who has donated $200 or more to any candidate.

I cannot believe your that trusting. My guess is you want to be that trusting.

I'm not. I just accept the fact that you cant have a system of donations without the possiblity that some people are going to abuse it. It happens on both sides, most of the time in a small scale. Where someone might get a family member to make a donation on thier behalf. This is why donors are disclosed publically. If there is any widescale abuse, its likely someone will find it.

[GaryC 7]

I guess the point is - there's no mechanism or means to tell. Has to be some sort of accountability.

There is this: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

But that doesn't really answer the point that Gary brought up.

I mean... here's the donation page. The only "protection" there is a brief web disclaimer. All it does is provide a means for plausible deniability if there's a problem.

Clearly the candidates totally underestimated the internet as a funding source - but surely if the vast majority of your donations come from these sources that has to be subject to some sort of accounting oversight.

Do you think a web disclaimer is sufficient protection to receiving, say, the proceeds of money laundering?

All donations are publically disclosed, using that information is not hard to figure out if it is a legitmate donation or not.

But the same basic issue you bring up exisits with or without internet donations.

I think it exists more so with internet donations (and certainly because those donations make up the bulk of his war chest) - not least because Obama's campaign platform is to "take back Washington". With the Federal Election Commission in limbo it represents a clear problem with regards to transparency; especially if you're running on an ideological platform.

What about keeping a promise? I guess that isn't an issue for you then. I guess it wouldn't be an issue if he continued to not keep promises once elected either.

I do think though that if McCain were in Obama's position - he wouldn't be taking the public money either.

When they made that promise they both knew that one or the other would have the advantage in money. It takes personal ethics to live up to a promise made. Obama isn't showing that.

[GaryC 7]

I guess the point is - there's no mechanism or means to tell. Has to be some sort of accountability.

There is this: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

But that doesn't really answer the point that Gary brought up.

I mean... here's the donation page. The only "protection" there is a brief web disclaimer. All it does is provide a means for plausible deniability if there's a problem.

Clearly the candidates totally underestimated the internet as a funding source - but surely if the vast majority of your donations come from these sources that has to be subject to some sort of accounting oversight.

Do you think a web disclaimer is sufficient protection to receiving, say, the proceeds of money laundering?

I look at other forms of donations as a way of seeing the potential abuse on the internet. Rememeber Norman Hsu? There were entire families living on minimum wage donating the maximum each and bundled by Hsu. If someone wants to get around the law it can be done. On the internet you can do it without getting your hands dirty. Now I am not accusing Obama of anything. He may think all his donations are legal. But it doesn't take to much of a immagination to see that someone can find a way of getting around the limits.

You can do it with any form of payment. Check and Credit are at least somewhat trackable. Cash is not. This is not a unique issue to internet donations. You can bet there are people on both sides who have tried to bend the rules.

But all donations are publically disclosed. Just look at the open secrets site. They have names of everyone who has donated $200 or more to any candidate.

I cannot believe your that trusting. My guess is you want to be that trusting.

I'm not. I just accept the fact that you cant have a system of donations without the possiblity that some people are going to abuse it. It happens on both sides, most of the time in a small scale. Where someone might get a family member to make a donation on thier behalf. This is why donors are disclosed publically. If there is any widescale abuse, its likely someone will find it.

All I can say to that is:

:rofl:

You have a lot to learn young man!

[Dan J 277]

I guess the point is - there's no mechanism or means to tell. Has to be some sort of accountability.

There is this: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

But that doesn't really answer the point that Gary brought up.

I mean... here's the donation page. The only "protection" there is a brief web disclaimer. All it does is provide a means for plausible deniability if there's a problem.

Clearly the candidates totally underestimated the internet as a funding source - but surely if the vast majority of your donations come from these sources that has to be subject to some sort of accounting oversight.

Do you think a web disclaimer is sufficient protection to receiving, say, the proceeds of money laundering?

I look at other forms of donations as a way of seeing the potential abuse on the internet. Rememeber Norman Hsu? There were entire families living on minimum wage donating the maximum each and bundled by Hsu. If someone wants to get around the law it can be done. On the internet you can do it without getting your hands dirty. Now I am not accusing Obama of anything. He may think all his donations are legal. But it doesn't take to much of a immagination to see that someone can find a way of getting around the limits.

You can do it with any form of payment. Check and Credit are at least somewhat trackable. Cash is not. This is not a unique issue to internet donations. You can bet there are people on both sides who have tried to bend the rules.

But all donations are publically disclosed. Just look at the open secrets site. They have names of everyone who has donated $200 or more to any candidate.

I cannot believe your that trusting. My guess is you want to be that trusting.

I'm not. I just accept the fact that you cant have a system of donations without the possiblity that some people are going to abuse it. It happens on both sides, most of the time in a small scale. Where someone might get a family member to make a donation on thier behalf. This is why donors are disclosed publically. If there is any widescale abuse, its likely someone will find it.

All I can say to that is:

You have a lot to learn young man!

Attack me when you can't respond?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I guess the point is - there's no mechanism or means to tell. Has to be some sort of accountability.

There is this: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

But that doesn't really answer the point that Gary brought up.

I mean... here's the donation page. The only "protection" there is a brief web disclaimer. All it does is provide a means for plausible deniability if there's a problem.

Clearly the candidates totally underestimated the internet as a funding source - but surely if the vast majority of your donations come from these sources that has to be subject to some sort of accounting oversight.

Do you think a web disclaimer is sufficient protection to receiving, say, the proceeds of money laundering?

All donations are publically disclosed, using that information is not hard to figure out if it is a legitmate donation or not.

But the same basic issue you bring up exisits with or without internet donations.

I think it exists more so with internet donations (and certainly because those donations make up the bulk of his war chest) - not least because Obama's campaign platform is to "take back Washington". With the Federal Election Commission in limbo it represents a clear problem with regards to transparency; especially if you're running on an ideological platform.

What about keeping a promise? I guess that isn't an issue for you then. I guess it wouldn't be an issue if he continued to not keep promises once elected either.

I do think though that if McCain were in Obama's position - he wouldn't be taking the public money either.

When they made that promise they both knew that one or the other would have the advantage in money. It takes personal ethics to live up to a promise made. Obama isn't showing that.

As I say, with the Federal Election Commission in limbo there's a greater onus on the candidates to be up front about stuff like this.

However, I think its easy to stick to an ethical position if you're the one who's behind, as McCain is. Its not as though there's anything to lose. Not justifying it of course - they're all career politicians.