Identity Theft Credit Card Fraud for Obama?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I can't speak for all the processing gateways, of course, but I do believe this sort of thing is fairly standard. .

what is the standard? The poster at theCorner said that the Obama campaign had to, in effect, deselect security options that were probably set when they bought the software. For the stuff you use, what would be the default response to bad address?

If we take a fraudulent transaction, they just charge it back to us. If we do it enough times, they raise our rates.

So it's a simple business decision - how much are you willing to pay (in terms of rates to the credit card company, and in terms of hassle for your customers) in order to process more transactions?

What if it were illegal for you to process these transactions that are, in effect, anonymous? (this is illegal for the campaign contributions, right?) Would the decision still be a simple business decision?

The Address Verification System is there for our benefit, not theirs.

what about the credit card holder?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

To be fair, I agree thig, but it could have just been lazy programming...I doubt the Senator or the campaign managers know the particulars of how their system processes credit cards....or maybe there was an edict issued to the web site people "Do whatever you have to do, just make it as easy as possible for people to donate money"

I don't know. But you're right, someone, somewhere down the line had to have known what they were doing when they enabled this kind of activity.

without question, there needs to be a better system set up.

my expectation is that in future campaigns there will be.

I also expect that there will be quite a few charge backs to the obama campaign.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

what is the standard? The poster at theCorner said that the Obama campaign had to, in effect, deselect security options that were probably set when they bought the software. For the stuff you use, what would be the default response to bad address?hat about the credit card holder?

They probably didn't "buy" any software

And yeah, Flac, I'm not saying it was an ulimatum sent down from the very top. I just doubt very seriously that this got down to some web developer and he said "screw it, I'm not doing any validation". Someone, somewhere said "make this so that anyone with a valid credit card number can donate".

what about the credit card holder?

This is a good point. Address verification doesn't just protect the vendor, it protects all credit card holders from identify theft and fraud.

[Flacolaco]

What is the rule on campaign donations?

An individual can only update up to a certain dollar amount to a certain candidate per election cycle or some such?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

What is the rule on campaign donations?

An individual can only update up to a certain dollar amount to a certain candidate per election cycle or some such?

$2300/candiate/election cycle

plus $20,000 (?) to each party

[kg_veteran]

Accepting anonymous donations and donations from non-matching cards IS shady, because it willfully turns a blind eye to multiple smaller donations which exceed the individual limits mentioned by Mavdog.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I also expect that there will be quite a few charge backs to the obama campaign.

pretty cheap loan if it helps buy the presidency

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

what is the standard? The poster at theCorner said that the Obama campaign had to, in effect, deselect security options that were probably set when they bought the software. For the stuff you use, what would be the default response to bad address?

For the gateway we use (USAEpay), the default would be no address verification at all. AVS is an add-on module. Once you do add the module, there are indeed suggested settings. I do not recall what they were, though, and there is no "restore defaults" option, so I can't answer that.

There are a number of other modules as well. For example, you can restrict which countries you accept orders from. I wonder what happens when someone from another country tries to donate on the Obama site.

So it's a simple business decision - how much are you willing to pay (in terms of rates to the credit card company, and in terms of hassle for your customers) in order to process more transactions?

Exactly right. And remember, we aren't talking about tangible goods here. A merchant is out the goods if it ships a fraudulent order. A campaign is more like a porn site in this regard.

But, I don't think we are talking about identity theft fraud in this case. We are talking about circumventing campaign finance laws.

What if it were illegal for you to process these transactions that are, in effect, anonymous? (this is illegal for the campaign contributions, right?) Would the decision still be a simple business decision?

My guess is that this issue will be addressed in the not too distant future.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

But, I don't think we are talking about identity theft fraud in this case. We are talking about circumventing campaign finance laws.

Um, there's two specific instances cited in this thread of people's cards being charged for campaign contributions without their knowledge. One of them over $100,000.

You're nuts if you don't think people are donating with other peopel's cards.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

For the gateway we use (USAEpay), the default would be no address verification at all. AVS is an add-on module. Once you do add the module, there are indeed suggested settings. I do not recall what they were, though, and there is no "restore defaults" option, so I can't answer that.

Thanks. That helps fill out the picture. Whether Obama's people actively reset security options to make this stuff possible, or didn't take a step to make sure it wouldn't happen makes a bit of a difference to me. They are the same in the end, but come with a different level of nastiness associated. It sounds like it depends on what they have.

I wonder what happens when someone from another country tries to donate on the Obama site.

very good question

But, I don't think we are talking about identity theft fraud in this case. We are talking about circumventing campaign finance laws.

there are complaints about charges that went through that were either much higher than the person intended, or existed without the persons intention.

My guess is that this issue will be addressed in the not too distant future.

but probably not before Obama buys a big chunk of primetime tv.

[chumdawg]

I just gave Obama some money at his site. I tried leaving the address fields blank, but it wouldn't allow that. However, it did thank me for my donation in the name of:

Joe Plumber
123 Plumber Place
Plumbersville, CA 90210
employer: Joe the Plumber
occupation: plumber

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

$2300/candiate/election cycle

plus $20,000 (?) to each party

If this is indeed happening, then I really suspect people trying to donate more money by using the same credit card, but changing the name so that they can donate more. On the backside, they dont dispute the alias name and transaction and inturn just pay the bill because they did actually authorized it.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I just gave Obama some money at his site. I tried leaving the address fields blank, but it wouldn't allow that. However, it did thank me for my donation in the name of:

Joe Plumber
123 Plumber Place
Plumbersville, CA 90210
employer: Joe the Plumber
occupation: plumber

that's funny. At sites where they've been doing this, people are reporting that security is increasing.
Someone suggested that conservatives should make a bunch of donations in the name of William Ayers and Osama Bin Laden and Vlad Putin and Kobe Bryant and all sorts of other nasty people, then McCain should make a commercial out of the published list of donors. "If Obama's donors lie to him about who they are, then who else is lying to him?"

[chumdawg]

I just gave Mac some money, too. At first I used all the same info as on the Obama site. (Except that Mac asked for the CVV code, which Obama did not.) I got an error message that said "invalid data" but did not say which fields were invalid. I changed the city, state, and ZIP to the real things, and Mac thanked me for my donation.

I am not Joe Plumber, though, and I don't live at 123 Plumber Place.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I just gave Mac some money, too. At first I used all the same info as on the Obama site. (Except that Mac asked for the CVV code, which Obama did not.) I got an error message that said "invalid data" but did not say which fields were invalid. I changed the city, state, and ZIP to the real things, and Mac thanked me for my donation.

I am not Joe Plumber, though, and I don't live at 123 Plumber Place.

Thanks for being a guinea pig to confirm all of this.

Could you go to work for 20/20 and do their jobs?

[Usually Lurkin]

Obama's reaction - lie about it.

This is from the guy that put through the John Galt donation:

Last night on Sheppard Smith’s 3pm-ET show this issue was brought up briefly and they cited the Obama campaign falsely claiming that this sort of thing happens at the McCain site and that they catch these errors later in the processing. Well, it took three days to process my donations and they all skated through their rigorous screening.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...Y0MTQzODZiYWM=

What do you do when you get caught? Obama lies in an accusation of the McCain campaign (accuse someone else to divert attention), and he lies when he minimizes the issue at his own site (deny wrongdoing). He has to know these things are lies when he says them. Either that or he knows that he doesn't know the truth of the matter, but he says it anyway. And it would be easy enough to just admit fault and move on - say it's being fixed or something.

With Obama in office, this is how things will be run.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Obama's reaction - lie about it.

This is from the guy that put through the John Galt donation:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...Y0MTQzODZiYWM=

What do you do when you get caught? Obama lies in an accusation of the McCain campaign (accuse someone else to divert attention), and he lies when he minimizes the issue at his own site (deny wrongdoing). He has to know these things are lies when he says them. Either that or he knows that he doesn't know the truth of the matter, but he says it anyway. And it would be easy enough to just admit fault and move on - say it's being fixed or something.

With Obama in office, this is how things will be run.

No doubt about it. Dodge, deflect, blame somebody else.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I just gave Obama some money at his site. I tried leaving the address fields blank, but it wouldn't allow that. However, it did thank me for my donation in the name of:

Joe Plumber
123 Plumber Place
Plumbersville, CA 90210
employer: Joe the Plumber
occupation: plumber

Ho Hum...move on....nothing to report here...what is important about whether theMessiahs fund-raising is fraudulent. Glad he's gained so much valuable executive experience running his campaign.

What's Palin wearing?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

What's Palin wearing?

Whatever it is, it probably includes leather and a short skirt.

[Usually Lurkin]

From Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2203421/

Yes, He CanBarack Obama should be able to disclose his small-dollar donors pretty easily.
By John Dickerson and Chris WilsonPosted Thursday, Oct. 30, 2008, at 6:50 PM ET

Barack Obama refuses to release the names of the 2 million-plus people who have given his campaign less than $200. According to campaign officials, it would be too difficult and time-consuming to extract this information from its database.

So how come we were able to do it in a couple hours? Not literally—we don't have access to the campaign's list of donors—but we created a database of similar size and format in a Web-ready file and posted it online. (You can view a sample text version of it here. The full version is 824 MB.)

But before we get into the technical details (though, if you're with the Obama campaign and want to skip ahead, please do), it's worth dwelling on the reasons for the Obama campaign's reluctance to disclose this information. It can't be legal: No law prevents Obama from releasing these names.

Politically, there would be several advantages in releasing the names. Obama has campaigned (effectively) on a platform of making government more transparent, citing his efforts to do so in Chicago and Washington as signature achievements. He has also disclosed the bundlers who raise large amounts of money for his campaign. Finally, making the list public would rebut McCain's broad and unsubstantiated claims that the list (and the huge sums of money it represents) is shot through with fraud.

[Flacolaco]

Barack Obama refuses to release the names of the 2 million-plus people who have given his campaign less than $200. According to campaign officials, it would be too difficult and time-consuming to extract this information from its database.

Technological-fun-fact-side-note: Databases are designed to make things like that extremely time efficient and easy.

[Underdog]

Voters are allowed anonymity so that their politics can't be held against them for any reason...

Seems like "small dollar" contributors should be afforded the same anonymity, but I can certainly see the potential for foul-play... I'm split on this issue - "right to privacy" vs. "right to disclosure" is a slippery slope either way...

[Mavdog]

the list should be made available. it isn't too hard to do, and (sorry underdog) campaign contributions are not secret, they are and should be public information.

[92bDad]

Why not have some regulatory agency oversee the contributions process?

Something like one "Campaign Fundraiser . com" All those who want to contribute must go through this site, donate their funds, provide who they are and then earmark which candidate they are donating to.

The site could be run more like McCains where it actually has a bit more security in matching the donor to the credit card being used.

This would help keep candidates a bit more honest...but truth be known, if someone wants to cheat, they will find a way...

Perhaps this is yet another flag that goes up regarding Obama.

I hope to see this type of stuff exposed, but I have not heard a drop on the major news channels...suprise surprise surprise.

[Usually Lurkin]

At some point in the next few years, expect a letter from the US Government:

Dear Mr/Mrs taxpayer,

We won't be able to investigate the claim that we have over-withdrawn from your account.
It's just too hard.

With much love and Hope,
Pres. Obama's IRS

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the list should be made available. it isn't too hard to do, and (sorry underdog) campaign contributions are not secret, they are and should be public information.

Then I'll shift my argument the other direction - wouldn't making everyone's vote public eliminate voter fraud the same way making everyone's donations public eliminates donation fraud?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Then I'll shift my argument the other direction - wouldn't making everyone's vote public eliminate voter fraud the same way making everyone's donations public eliminates donation fraud?

the information of who votes is public information, just not which candidate(s) the vote was cast for.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the information of who votes is public information, just not which candidate(s) the vote was cast for.

Don't you think that's the most important part?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Voters are allowed anonymity so that their politics can't be held against them for any reason...

Seems like "small dollar" contributors should be afforded the same anonymity, but I can certainly see the potential for foul-play... I'm split on this issue - "right to privacy" vs. "right to disclosure" is a slippery slope either way...

on this specific issue, contribution limits make the anonymity a legal issue. I'm all for unlimited contributions and anonymity in contributing - but only if it's for all political parties. I am not for unlimited contributions and anonymity when someone's breaking the law to do it, and I am especially not for it when one side seems to be breaking the laws a lot more then the other side.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

on this specific issue, contribution limits make the anonymity a legal issue. I'm all for unlimited contributions and anonymity in contributing - but only if it's for all political parties. I am not for unlimited contributions and anonymity when someone's breaking the law to do it, and I am especially not for it when one side seems to be breaking the laws a lot more then the other side.

"A lot more than" shouldn't even come into the conversation - both sides are guilty of it, which makes neither candidate credible (but keep picking the "lesser of two evils" America - eventually you'll find yourself having to choose between Hitler or Stalin....... Oh, wait!)

My main point is that voters and contributors should both have the same rights - either full disclosure or full anonymity (because people ALWAYS vote for the guy they give money to - full donation disclosure eliminates our right to anonymity when donors names are made public...)

This isn't a partisan issue - it's a Constitutional one...

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Underdog

"A lot more than" shouldn't even come into the conversation -

yes, it should.

This isn't a partisan issue - it's a Constitutional one...

when both the candidates are treating the law with equal respect, then it won't be a partisan issue. Right now, one candidate is buying the election with who knows how many donations that are illegal for this fuzzy issue, and who knows how many donations that are outright fraudulent.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

yes, it should.


when both the candidates are treating the law with equal respect, then it won't be a partisan issue. Right now, one candidate is buying the election with who knows how many donations that are illegal for this fuzzy issue, and who knows how many donations that are outright fraudulent.

And our media doesn't give a s***. And neither do our obama fans. Nothing to see, move on.

[purplefrog]

Let's see...
Obama campaign = fraudulent donations
Obama campaign = fraudulent voter registrations

What do we conclude????
Probably just reasonable mistakes.....

[Mavdog]

I must have missed the news reports that the obama campaign submitted fraudulent campaign donations, I thought that individuals did that.

missed the news reports that the obama campaign submitted fraudulent voter registrations, I thought that individuals were responsible for that as well.

what can we conclude?
the obama campaign isn't responsible for either.

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I must have missed the news reports that the obama campaign submitted fraudulent campaign donations, I thought that individuals did that.

missed the news reports that the obama campaign submitted fraudulent voter registrations, I thought that individuals were responsible for that as well.

what can we conclude?
the obama campaign isn't responsible for either.

I guess it's just a coincidence.....
Just like it's a coincidence that he launched his political career in a domestic terrorist's living room...
Just like it's a coincidence that he sat in Rev Wright's church for 20 years
Just like it's a coincidence that he boots three newspapers off his plane... all of which support McCain
Just like it's a coincidence that Obama supporters do background checks on Joe the Plumber and then try to smear the poor guy
Just like it's a coincidence that there are/have been coins, presidential seals, etc with Barack's image on them
Just like it's a coincidence that Obama bought a mansion on land next door to land purchased by Tony Rezko's wife
Just like it's a coincidence there was a video of small children singing to "their leader" that was taken off youtube once it started receiving some bad press

Let's not critically evaluate any of these "coincidences" because after all he is BARACK OBAMA.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

I guess it's just a coincidence.....
Just like it's a coincidence that he launched his political career in a domestic terrorist's living room...
Just like it's a coincidence that he sat in Rev Wright's church for 20 years
Just like it's a coincidence that he boots three newspapers off his plane... all of which support McCain
Just like it's a coincidence that Obama supporters do background checks on Joe the Plumber and then try to smear the poor guy
Just like it's a coincidence that there are/have been coins, presidential seals, etc with Barack's image on them
Just like it's a coincidence that Obama bought a mansion on land next door to land purchased by Tony Rezko's wife
Just like it's a coincidence there was a video of small children singing to "their leader" that was taken off youtube once it started receiving some bad press

Let's not critically evaluate any of these "coincidences" because after all he is BARACK OBAMA.

You sound bitter.

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You sound bitter.

Not bitter. Just very confused. Why are otherwise very smart people unwilling to critically evaluate this candidate? I don't know what an Obama presidency will be like because imo the media has not sufficiently provoked the candidate to answer questions regarding his history and how his early experiences have shaped his present views. Some, like you and Mavdog ( I have a lot of respect for both of you), seem to just accept Obama's deflections. Are you just partisan Democrats? Republican haters? Craving for leadership to the point where you don't want to ask anymore questions? Or is it the kool-aid? Sometimes I wish I could find the kool-aid because then I could at least rest easier at night.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

Not bitter. Just very confused. Why are otherwise very smart people unwilling to critically evaluate this candidate? I don't know what an Obama presidency will be like because imo the media has not sufficiently provoked the candidate to answer questions regarding his history and how his early experiences have shaped his present views. Some, like you and Mavdog ( I have a lot of respect for both of you), seem to just accept Obama's deflections. Are you just partisan Democrats? Republican haters? Craving for leadership to the point where you don't want to ask anymore questions? Or is it the kool-aid? Sometimes I wish I could find the kool-aid because then I could at least rest easier at night.

Another interesting coincidence, because I also find myself asking "Why are otherwise very smart people unwilling to critically evaluate this candidate?" I think there is more than plenty information available to evaluate him on. I've had my head in the news all year long. I see the things that are drawbacks (dealbreakers, to some), but I see all the positive things, too.

There is a fantastic article in Time this week about what the two different presidencies would like. It is a very even-handed and insightful piece. I highly recommend you giving it a read. I would also recommend checking out the ABC/Politico piece in recent days about who would surround Obama in his administration. We are talking about very qualified, very accomplished, and very respected people...on both sides of the aisle.

The idea that Obama is going to single-handedly wreck this country with some sort of terrorist-leaning shenanigans or communist tendencies is laughable to me. THAT is the stuff that I can not comprehend coming from otherwise intelligent people.

Politics will do that to you, though. Makes it hard to see straight.

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

The idea that Obama is going to single-handedly wreck this country with some sort of terrorist-leaning shenanigans or communist tendencies is laughable to me. THAT is the stuff that I can not comprehend coming from otherwise intelligent people.

Politics will do that to you, though. Makes it hard to see straight.

Wanting a critical evaluation of a candidate is much different then saying he is a terrorist or has terrorist leaning tendencies. I don't fear Obama is a terrorist. I fear he has bad ideas, a huge ego, and a blank check to do as he pleases.

Tell me about Bill Ayers' education policy and how it compares to Obama's stated positions. Tell me about Rev. Wright's views of America and how it might shape Obama's economic policies. Tell me about Obama's law school professors and how they might shape his decisions when it comes to filling vacancies on the Supreme Court. Is anyone talking about these things? Not really. It seems to me that whenever Obama's quirky associations or whatever you want to call them are brought up we go right back to "C'mon you don't really think he's a terrorist do you"? That's not the question. But it is the question that the Dems (and some Republicans) want you to focus on.

[chumdawg]

There have been several articles out this week talking about what kind of person Obama would appoint to the Supreme Court. His words, even. So, that has been discovered, as you wished.

As to Wright or Ayers shaping Obama's policies on education or the economy...frankly, I can't imagine why anyone would even think there should be a connection there.

Have a look at the article on Politico about the people Obama would surround himself with. Good people. Why aren't we talking about those associations? Why aren't we talking about Volcker or Rubin or Buffet or a number of other people when we talk about Obama's economic policies? Instead we are talking about Rev Wright. Let's get real, already!