Report: Obama.com Vulnerable to Illegal Foreign Campaign Donations

by Tony Lee 8 Oct 2012,
5:14 AM PDT


The Internet and social media sites like Facebook and Twitter have democratized elections, made the world more interconnected, and allowed the velocity of information to be faster than ever before.

But an extensive eight-month investigation by the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) released on Monday found these same forces can also be the greatest threat to America’s sovereignty (visit campaignfundingrisks.com to download the full report). These technologies allow foreign donors to anonymously circumvent U.S. campaign finance laws and directly influence elections by donating repeatedly to candidates.

The 108-page GAI report found nearly half of Congress, both political parties and presidential candidates, and third-party fundraising groups that funnel money to political parties and candidates were vulnerable to fraudulent and foreign donations. This is a bipartisan problem potentially impacting all levels of government, as those whose organizations were found to have been vulnerable include President Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Republican National Committee (RNC), and third-party groups like ActBlue, which funnels money to progressive politicians.

And the report found that the website Obama.com, which is not owned by President Barack Obama's campaign but redirects to the campaign's official donation page, may make the Obama campaign the most susceptible to illicit foreign donations. Obama.com is connected to an Obama campaign bundler, Robert Roche, who is from Chicago but now lives and co-founded a corporation in China. Roche has direct ties to China's state-owned banking industry.

Peter Schweizer, president of GAI, told Breitbart News the ease with which foreigners could donate to American candidates puts America’s sovereignty in peril.

“Foreign donations mean that we no longer make our election decisions anymore,” Schweizer told Breitbart News.

Schweizer said he had initially thought “we would find some bloggers overseas with motivation to support a presidential candidate encouraging people to make donations,” but he was “very surprised” by the study’s findings, including how easy it was for foreigners to use "robo-donation" programs that allow foreigners to potentially make thousands of small-dollar, fraudulent and automated donations to candidates.

Schweizer said he “never thought” the GAI would find mysterious redirect sites like Obama.com and was “surprised how little security is required to receive online donations.”

“We are basically trusting political consultants and fundraisers to do the right thing when no one is looking,” Schweizer said.

The report found nearly half of Congress was vulnerable to fraudulent and foreign directions. Of the 446 House and Senate members who have an online donation page, 47.3% do not require the Card Verification Value (CVV), which is the three or four-digit security code on the back of credit cards, for internet donations. Those in Congress who are vulnerable to foreign donations can be seen at www.CampaignFundingRisks.com.

“Candidates appear content with lax security, negligently inviting foreign or fraudulent cash into their campaign,” the report notes.

And the Obama campaign seems to be the most content with the "lax security."

The FEC requires campaigns to make their “best efforts” to collect identifying information on all contributors who donate more than $50.30 and even more specific information, such as the donor’s occupation and employer, for donations over $200.

As the report notes, donations less than $50, though, fall under the “Pass-the-Hat” rule, which means campaigns can report all such donations under a lump sum and do not have to make their “best efforts” to collecting information on these small-dollar donors.

Because foreigners can exploit the “Pass-the-Hat” rule, the report found that “any campaign not using these industry-standard security tools is increasing its costs and unnecessarily increasing the risk of at least two types of potential fraud":


The Fraudulent High Dollar Donor(s): –the fraudulent high dollar donor is politically motivated and is seeking to avoid detection by making numerous donations below the $200 dollar threshold, over which their donation must be identified; they may seek to exceed campaign donation limits.

The Unintentional Fraudster –a foreign national who is unaware of U.S. election laws but sympathetic to the campaign. Such an individual can easily end up on a campaign donation page. Given that a number of campaigns list the U.S. donation laws in an inconspicuous place on the “donate” page, it is easy to see how illegal donations can be made with no malicious intent.



And the Obama campaign is most vulnerable to both types of fraudsters.

For example, the study found “the Obama campaign regularly and aggressively posts solicitations for donations and campaign memorabilia on Facebook,” and “the campaign does not make clear in these postings that only U.S. citizens or permanent residents are allowed to contribute.” Fundraising solicitations from the Obama campaign have gone out to foreigners, asking them to contribute in amounts of less than $200. Similar solicitations have been posted in Arabic, Taiwanese, and Chinese on Facebook and on Middle Eastern and Asian websites.

Even though the Obama campaign is touted for its technological sophistication and sites run by top Obama technology advisers use the “CVV” feature, the Obama campaign itself does not use the “CVV” feature on its donation pages -- even though it does use the feature on the merchandise pages where it sells campaign merchandise.

This means someone who donates $2,500 to the campaign online has to go through less security than someone who goes online to buy an Obama campaign mug.

“This creates a security risk that is compounded by the considerable foreign interest in President Obama’s political history, personal story, and views,” the report notes.

And according to the study, BarackObama.com, the campaign’s main website, receives approximately 43% of its traffic from foreign IP addresses.

In addition, popular websites touting Obama’s campaign and linking to its donation page have been found in places like China, Azerbaijan, Vietnam, the Netherlands, Italy, Japan, Norway, Egypt, Hong Kong, and South Korea.

The report notes that not using the CVV feature “is quite possibly costing the campaign millions of dollars in additional fees,” but the campaign is still not using it. Perhaps this is so because the Obama campaign has benefited from donations slipping through the cracks in the past.

In 2008, the report discovered that an individual using the name “Doodad Pro” made at least 791 contributions totaling $19,065 to the Obama campaign while others named “Good Will,” “Test Person” from “Some Place, UT,” “gjtjtjtjtjtjr, AP,” and “QWERTTYYU” also contributed to the campaign.

The most interesting -- or suspicious -- site is Obama.com, which the campaign strangely does not own. According to the report, nearly 68% of internet traffic to Obama.com comes from foreign locations. And the website is connected to Robert Roche, who lives in China and co-founded a Chinese company called Acorn International. Roche, the report found, made 19 visits to the White House since 2009, including being seated at the head table during a State dinner with Chinese president Hu Jintao in 2011.

Unlike the Obama campaign, the Romney campaign website uses the "CVV" feature but it is not without vulnerabilities.

For instance, Romney's campaign also has Facebook and Twitter accounts in Arabic that give off the impression they are associated with the R...

Read more...
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/08/Report-Illegal-Foreign-Campaign-Donations-Assault-on-American-Sovereignty

Oh what balderdash!

I have yet to see a piece of currency voting in a voting booth.

“Foreign donations mean that we no longer make our election decisions anymore,”



Study cites security flaws in Obama online donation system


Published October 08, 2012
FoxNews.com



The Obama campaign's online donation system contains "major security vulnerabilities," a watchdog group reported Monday, suggesting the flaws could open the door to illicit foreign contributions.

The study by the Government Accountability Institute flagged security problems with a host of political websites, including the online donation pages for nearly half the members of Congress. The report, though, homed in on what it described as three major flaws in the Obama campaign's system for soliciting contributions -- claims the campaign later rejected as unfounded.

For one, the report said, the third-party owned Obama.com -- which redirects users to an official Obama campaign donation page -- has 68 percent foreign traffic, which would suggest a large amount of foreign traffic likewise heading to the Obama campaign donation page.. The site, according to the watchdog group, was bought by an Obama bundler in Shanghai, China.

"It's very clear the Obama campaign is the most successful and aggressive at online fundraising and they on a regular basis are submitting contributions or asking for contributions from people around the world," Peter Schweizer, president of Government Accountability Institute, told Fox News on Monday. "At the same time (they) have the basic lack of security on the back end."

The study also flagged the "absence of the industry standard" CVV requirement -- the requirement that users punch in the security code on their credit cards before purchases -- and it said it's unclear whether the campaign uses a separate anti-fraud system to check where donors live. The study also claimed the campaign used "active foreign solicitation" with email solicitations that go around the world.

The report raised concerns that small-dollar donations could be trickling in with little accounting of where they come from. Information on donations under $200 does not have to be disclosed.

An Obama campaign official, though, told Fox News the claims were "baseless," pointing to "robust safeguards" in place to prevent improper donations.

A campaign blog post further explained that the campaign does not accept donations from foreign nations, using an "address verification system" to confirm their legitimacy and manually reviewing any transaction flagged as potentially fraudulent. The campaign said it also requires a passport copy from anyone eligible to donate but listed with an address outside the U.S.

The campaign said the GAI claims "are more reflective of the group's politics than any grain of truth," citing the conservative background of the group's leaders.

According to the GAI report, Mitt Romney has raised $58 million in donations under $200 apiece, while Obama has raised $271 million.

Government Accountability Institute said that Romney's website, unlike Obama's, does require donors to enter in their CVV information. However, the study questioned Romney's use of foreign bundlers, noting the "full extent" of the Romney bundling network is not known because the Romney campaign has not disclosed that information.

The report showed 47.3 percent of House and Senate members with online donation pages also do not use the CVV requirement.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/08/study-cites-security-flaws-in-obama-online-donation-system/#ixzz28lCnSHhB

There is a difference between something being illegal and something threatening national sovereignty.

Money buys advertising and ads win elections. A foreign country can funnel thousands of small donations which add up to enough ad money to tilt the election one way or another.

I have yet to see an advertisement voting in a voting booth.

Apparently you have yet to see how our election process works.

I have been in a voting booth plenty of times. Not once I have seen an advertisement vote.

You are assuming that voters are mindless robots who make a voting decision on who runs the most ads.

I am not assuming anything. I am aware of the statistical impact of advertising.

Look it up.

The sovereignty of the USA doesn't depend on who wins the presidential election. The title of this thread presents a false dilemma.

Refusing to look at the implications and spouting out accusations presents false dilema.

Outsiders/foreigners have the ability to determine the outcome of our elections.

The integrity and security of our election procedures is being breached!

This could at some point be a setup for terrorism.

Wow! What leaps in logic.