Obama Donor Scandal Continued – 68% of Obama.com traffic originates from foreign sites

The GAI issued a damning report on campaign contributions yesterday.  At the heart of it, Obama’s $1B record breaking fundraising activities.  Now, given he grovels for money more than he plays golf, we would expect his donations to be sizable but this report blows the lid off his shady, Chicago tactics.  Team Obama PURPOSEFULLY avoids the security that would help prevent foreign donations.  Curious, when 68% of their site traffic – as site owned by a bundler, living in China, with ties to Chinese business, come from foreign locations.

How did Obama react?  By attacking the reporters that broke the story.  The same President who rudely and incorrectly lectured the Supreme Court over the ‘corruption’ he saw in Citizens United has no comment on his own campaigns potential (how long do we need to use that word?) activities.  Maybe he simply views this as borrowing more money from China.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/08/Obama-Campaign-Scrambles-To-Kill-Illegal-Online-Fundraising-Story

The GAI report also revealed that Obama.com is not owned by the president’s campaign but rather by Robert Roche, an American businessman and top Obama fundraiser living in Shanghai, China, whose company has ties to the Chinese government.

Within hours of a Newsweek article on the report’s release, the Obama campaign issued a dismissive response. The Obama campaign’s rapid-fire attack against the report did not mention Robert Roche, Obama.com, the Obama campaign’s failure to require donors to enter their CVV code, or the report’s finding that 68% of the traffic going to Obama.com originates from foreign locations.  

More from Breitbart

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/08/obama-campaign-has-no-security-to-limit-illegal-foreign-donations

The most revealing finding in the report is that the Obama campaign has chosen not to use industry-standard verification methods for its on-line contributions. In fact, the campaign has to pay higher fees to credit card companies because they don’t use these methods. So, the campaign is paying millions of dollars for the privilege of not utilizing basic security procedures. Why would they do this?

The clear implication is that they will reap more money without these security procedures than they would with them. Democrats are only wasteful with other people’s money. To some extent, then, they are knowingly collecting on-line donations that would otherwise be rejected by basic security protocols. Hmm.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: