LiberTodd Posted October 28, 2008 Report Share Posted October 28, 2008 http://newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_credi.../27/144683.html Apparently Obama's website allows just about anyone to donate money, regardless of whether or not they actually exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted October 28, 2008 Report Share Posted October 28, 2008 (edited) Yeah, I have that policy too. Edited October 28, 2008 by Jake_Ellison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas M. Miovas Jr. Posted October 28, 2008 Report Share Posted October 28, 2008 http://newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_credi.../27/144683.html Apparently Obama's website allows just about anyone to donate money, regardless of whether or not they actually exist. You forgot to mention one of the donations: Johnson describes one test of an enterprising citizen -- who went to the Obama campaign Web site and made a donation under the name "John Galt" (the hero of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged"). He provided the equally fictitious address "1957 Ayn Rand Lane, Galts Gulch, CO 99999. I don't know that there should be limits on donations. I realize it is the law, and Obama might be breaking it; but under a capitalist government, ought there be limits on voluntary contributions? If so, why? There have been at least one billionaire running for President, and his money didn't help him that much; so what is the big deal? Law violations ought to be prosecuted, but should there be limits? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miseleigh Posted October 28, 2008 Report Share Posted October 28, 2008 Does anyone have some familiarity with campaign donation laws? I didn't think Canadian citizens could donate, yet the article says the website accepted a Canadian bank card. And aren't there limits on what an individual can donate to a campaign? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Link Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 (edited) http://newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_credi.../27/144683.html Apparently Obama's website allows just about anyone to donate money, regardless of whether or not they actually exist. I think the gist of the article is that Obama's website doesn't mind if you use someone else's card, thereby engaging in credit-card fraud, to make a donation. On a second reading I see that I was mistaken. The article is concerned only with individuals that use their own cards with various fictitious names in order to contribute more than the legal limit. John Link Edited October 29, 2008 by John Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 Does anyone have some familiarity with campaign donation laws? I didn't think Canadian citizens could donate, yet the article says the website accepted a Canadian bank card. And aren't there limits on what an individual can donate to a campaign? As an individual, you can give $2,300 in a primary and $2,300 more in the general election to a candidate. The candidates are not supposed to accept ANY foreign donations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 This might explain the sizable chunk of cash Obama is sitting on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 I've always thought that campaign finance restrictions should be eliminated. If candidates choose to run for office, they should agree to make their funding transparent with immediate disclosure of donations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas M. Miovas Jr. Posted October 29, 2008 Report Share Posted October 29, 2008 I've always thought that campaign finance restrictions should be eliminated. If candidates choose to run for office, they should agree to make their funding transparent with immediate disclosure of donations. That's basically my view, though I do wonder about foreign donations and whether they should be eliminated. We wouldn't want a foreign power to buy the Presidency, but, then again, we do have checks and balances and if the President was some kind of hidden agent, he still does not have dictatorial powers. That's just not the way our system of government is set up. There are even ways of removing him legally if he is acting against the Constitution, such as impeachment. However, it doesn't surprise me that Obama is acting this way of trying to skirt actual law to get an advantage. That is par for the course with Democrats who think the ends justify the means. Notice that it was Democrats who tried to shut down the Republican National Convention with protests, and that the Republicans didn't do anything like that at all. I still think money in and of itself does not guarantee an election. It looks like Obama is winning at this point, but not by such a huge enough margin to match the money difference in the two campaigns. And besides, McCain would have won by a huge margin if he would have voted against the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. That is, if he had been more for the free market at that moment, he would have won the election that day, because something like 85% of Americans are against that act. I think his bi-partisanship is what is hurting him. Die-hard republicans or even modern Conservatives do not want their guy to be reaching across the isle to those who oppose their principles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.