A proven reformer
If any one thing can highlight the difference between the two campaigns, it’s this: one campaign blocks anonymous donations and provides a list of not only the above $200 donors they’re required to by law but also the below $200 donors that they don’t have to. The other has deliberately disabled address and name verification on their web site so that anyone can donate as often as they want under as many names as they want; and does not provide the under $200 donor list that might highlight illegal donors.
Senator McCain acts in accordance with the campaign finance reform he’s championed for so long; his campaign has designed his web site to be open and honest. Senator Obama treats hope and change with lip service; his campaign has changed his web site to deliberately disable the basic checks that hinder illegal donations.
I can understand that McCain doesn’t get credit for maintaining a web site that doesn’t enable fraud, and that lists even the donations he isn’t required to list. That’s what we expect of a reformer. But did we really expect the hope and change campaign to work so hard and pay so much to enable illegal donations?
I’m actually not a huge fan of these laws, but I do expect public officials to follow the law. If Senator Obama believes that donors should be able to remain anonymous, and if he believes that foreign donations should be legal, he should introduce a bill to congress rather than deliberately configure his web site to look the other way.
In response to Obama campaign skirts campaign finance law: I expected the New York Times to be silent on the illegal donations that the Obama 2008 campaign encourages. I should have known better: they’re trying to cover for the campaign. But the bigger issue is that laws that don’t get enforced are counterproductive; they encourage dishonesty and lawlessness.
- Obama Campaign Paid More to Turn AVS Off
- “You don’t lose hundreds of thousands of dollars on an ‘innocent mistake’ that you had to work hard to get done.” That’s enough to pay for at least one of Senator Obama’s rich people.
- Dubious Donations: Bam’s Web Site Invites Fraud
- “Federal law only requires the disclosure of identifying information for contributions in excess of $200. The Federal Election Commission says the Obama campaign has received over $200 million from contributions of $200 or less. No presidential campaign has ever before received such a gargantuan sum of money from unidentified contributors.”
- Credit-card experts explain the extent of Obama’s deception: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air
- “The value of ignoring the AVS responses is that multiple invalid transactions may be made without fear of being rejected by the authorization systems. This means that the real owner of the credit card account is willing to allow multiple transactions to be made on the account using different names and addresses that under normal conditions would be denied.”
More presidential elections
- Nothing to fear but a brokered convention
- The reason someone smart would want a brokered convention is that it’s exciting, and it means media coverage, and even more, it means unfiltered media coverage.
- If I were running for president…
- I’d make heavy use of short videos, and I’d record everything I did with the media.
- Fighting for the American Dream
- Joe the Plumber writes about his experiences at the center of one of the most vicious smear campaigns in recent memory.
- McCain sees the light: campaign finance reform dead
- Now, will he introduce bills to repeal those laws?
- Vote on performance, not promises
- If you’re disappointed that President Obama is the same wheeler-dealer he was when he was a Senator, take it as a lesson for future elections: vote performance and record, not promises.
- 21 more pages with the topic presidential elections, and other related pages