Examiner Editorial: Disclosing Obama’s sketchy campaign donations
Examiner Editorial 10/3/08
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Talking heads in the mainstream media have been trumpeting the fact that Sen. Barack Obama raised much of his campaign funds from 12 million small donors via the Internet, implying that the Harvard-educated lawyer is tapping a deep well of popular support on Main Street. But there is mounting evidence that many of Obama’s supporters may not be small or even legal.Kenneth Timmerman reports on NewsMax that the Obama campaign refuses to identify individual donors who funded nearly half of the Illinois Democrat’s $454 million war chest. These unknown supporters include a “Good Will” from Austin, Texas, who listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.” Mr. Good Will donated $17,375 in more than 1,000 separate credit card transactions, most for $25 a pop. One of Mr. Good Will’s colleagues at Loving, a “Doodad Pro” from “Nando, N.Y.,” who coincidentally also works as a “You” at “Loving” donated $19,500 in 786 separate credit card transactions.
Federal election law, which limits an individual donor’s total contribution to $2,300 per general election, also requires campaign treasurers to report “the name and address of any person who makes a contribution, or contributions aggregating more than $200 during a calendar year, together with the date and amount of any such contribution.” So the Obama camp’s refusal to identify “Good Will” and “Doodad Pro” appears to be illegal.
Even more troubling are some 11,500 Obama contributions, totalling nearly $34 million, that may have come from overseas. Atlas Shrugs blogger Pamela Geller first reported that two Palestinian brothers living in a refugee camp controlled by Hamas somehow managed to come up with more than $31,300 to buy Obama T-shirts in bulk from the candidate’s online store.
The FEC has reportedly asked Obama’s campaign to “redesignate” or refund some 53,828 questionable donations including those that may have come from foreigners, in violation of federal law.
Sorry, that’s not good enough. The Illinois Democrat has flooded the presidential race with the largest amount of unsourced cash ever seen in a U.S. election. Only a fool would trust that it’s all legitimate. John McCain has already posted his complete donor database online, including supporters’ full names, addresses and occupations. Obama should immediately do the same. In the most expensive and perhaps most important election in U.S. history, voters have the right to a full financial disclosure from both presidential candidates before Election Day.
3 Comments
Reader Comments:
POSTED Oct 5, 2008
John White - Honolulu: "More of the pot calling the kettle black. I wouldn't want my contributions to a candidate with my personal data uploaded for all the world to see. Mr. McCain has accepted the $84M from the US and over $220M from the republican party and millions more from many other sources that are questionable. Your bias in favor McCain is very evident. Mr. Obama had to spend a great deal of his funds for the primary race. No one in their right mind would refund legitimate contributions. Next you'll be trying to make us believe Mr. Obama is responsible because his mother and father were of different cultures, or that he was fortunate to work hard to make something of himself."POSTED Oct 5, 2008
SFReader: "Between the unregulated questionable contributions from overseas AND the Ayers' connection AND not wearing the American Flag, THEN wearing it, AND the questionable Harvard Law years, papers that are kept from the public, AND, the Muslim friends who helped him get to Harvard in the first place, AND let's not forget the Rev. Wright, all these points build to an untrustworthy candidate who is hiding his real beliefs about America. I applaud that you are at least reporting on one of them."POSTED Oct 5, 2008
Jamie: "This newspaper's editorial page needs to go back to school and learn what a responsible journalist does. Your editorial page endorsed the McCain/Palin ticket, and the American people (and YOU) have no idea what Palin believes because she's been kept away from the media. Your newspaper's credibility is deteriorating as you continue publishing irresponsible and asinine hack propaganda pieces from the Republican party. Tell the owner of your paper to stop muddying the pride of The Examiner editorial staff and reporters with his crazy ideological bologna."