Identity Theft Credit Card Fraud for Obama?

[Evilmav2]

Just as an interesting point, I recently heard some anecdotal complaints about credit card fraud and the Obama campaign as well. Last week I was talking to a contractor I know who has had to deal with repeated problems with unapproved charges being made for the Obama campaign. This fella supports Obama, and had previously donated a total of $150 to the Obama campaign in two separate donations, but in his last month's bill he discovered that he was being charged an additional $400 on his statement, all charged in four weekly sets of four $25 charges.

Of course he wasn't very happy to find that he was being charged $100 a week in Obama donations, but when he tried to get the matter cleared up by calling his credit card company, they gave him a very hard time about the charges because he had previously donated to Obama, and even though he canceled that card, he told me that he is probably going to have to eat those Obama charges. He said that the credit card company told him that the Obama campaign was extremely unhelpful and disorganized in addressing the problem, and that even though he wants Obama to win the race, he'll probably never contribute money to a political campaign again because he believes the Obama campaign made the repeat charges on purpose using his previously filed credit card information. I told him he should complain to the FEC or call a local news station, but he said he doesn't want any trouble, and he does want Obama to win the presidency, so even though he's p*ssed, he's going to pay those bad charges if the credit card company won't forgive them.

Personally, I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear that stories like that of my contractor friend, and the one relayed by the article below are much more common than general news coverage might lead us to believe...


Northland Couple Warns of Political Credit Card Fraud

Last Edited: Tuesday, 07 Oct 2008, 10:23 PM CDT
Created: Tuesday, 07 Oct 2008, 8:58 PM CDT

NORTH KANSAS CITY, MO. -- A North Kansas City couple has been left scratching their heads after they became the victims of a political scam.

Steve and Rachel Larman say a strange credit card charge appeared on their statement this month -- a $2300 donation to Barack Obama's presidential campaign. The Larman's say they don't want this to be about their political affiliation, but they say they're not about to give the Obama campaign any help from their pocketbook.

They said they notified Chase, their credit card bank, to report the fraud.

"(They) said that they had seen-they were familiar with this," said Steve Larman. "It was fraud, they believe through telemarketing but they were going to be doing some more investigations."

The Larman's don't want their politics to enter into what is essentially just a fraudulent charge. But they say that the charge involves the Obama campaign adds insult to injury for the registered Republicans.

"They (Chase) kept on asking me 'are you sure you wouldnt have gone to a site in support of Obama'," said Rachel Larman. "And I repeatedly said 'Im voting for McCain - I would not be going to an Obama site'."

Chase dropped the charge from the Larman's card. The couple is thankful thay they caught the charge on the card, but worried that others may not see that type of fraud on their own credit cards before it's too late.

"You always get emails saying be on the lookout," said Rachel. "So I just wanted to get the word out, that there's someone out there perpetrating this against people, and to pay attention."

The Obama campaign said they were aware of the Larman's story, but did not have any comment.

Megan Cloherty, FOX 4 News

http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/N...Y&pageId=3.2.1

[Usually Lurkin]

Your friend needs to get used to it. Spread the wealth around, you know.

[Murphy3]

I've always had a sneaky suspicion that Obama was for identity theft.. As it is, he's already all about robbing the rich....

[dude1394]

I really don't understand what your friend is bitching about. Obama knows how to spend his money better that he does anyway.

[Evilmav2]

Actually, the dude's not really my friend, only a fella I've BSed with a couple of times, but that said, I'm still trying to figure out how a campaign that looked like it was running out of money 6 or 7 weeks ago is able to saturate the airwaves with nationally televised ad time the way the Obama campaign has done for the last couple of weeks.

It's ridiculous that for two Sunday's now, I haven't been able to watch an NFL game that doesn't have a national Obama ad on every commercial break. I can't watch Survivor or Heroes without seeing a nationally televised Obama ad aired on every commercial break, and again, it wasn't that many weeks ago that the Obama campaign was in danger of going into the red and Obama's decision to forgo the federal campaign finance matching system was looking like it was a real mistake.

I think something really stinks here, and smatterings of talk about credit card fraud contributing to Obama's coffers, along with unwanted 'subscription' style donations being levied on previous contributors by the Obama fundraising wing fits right along with the things I've been reading about fleets of suspicious $25 donations being made in batches to campaign Obama (so they don't have to report the donors names), and the possibility that great heaping, stinking chunks of those funds are ultimately coming from overseas and/or from deeply moneyed interests who have very real things to gain by circumventing the law and the public electoral finance system of these United States, and getting the One elected. This this stinks like a barrel filled with half-rotten fish, arugula, and human feces, but I guess ultimately, none of that is really going to matter if an Obama regency ascends to power this November. The ends justify the means, and history is written by the winners, etc...

[Usually Lurkin]

This will be how things are run for the next few years.

From Powerlineblog:

We've previously noted the gusher of illegal campaign contributions flowing into the Obama campaign from contributors such as "Doodad Pro" and "Good Will." More recently, incidents have been reported in which people have seen credit card charges surface suggesting they donated to Barack Obama when they did not. Matthew Mosk and Sarah Cohen noted one such incident earlier this week:

Now comes the story of Mary T. Biskup, of Manchester, Missouri. Biskup got a call recently from the Obama campaign, which was trying to figure out why she donated $174,800 to the campaign -- well over the contribution limit of $2,300.

The answer she gave them was simple. "That's an error."

Is the Obama campaign knowingly receiving illegal contributions? Yesterday one of our readers reported the results of an experiment he conducted:

I've read recent reports of the Obama campaign receiving donations from dubious names and foreign locales and it got me wondering: How is this possible?

I run a small Internet business and when I process credit cards I'm required to make sure the name on the card exactly matches the name of the customer making the purchase. Also, the purchaser's address must match that of the cardholders. If these don't match, then the payment isn't approved. Period. So how is it possible that the Obama campaign could receive donations from fictional people and places? Well, I decided to do a little experiment. I went to the Obama campaign website and entered the following:

Name: John Galt
Address: 1957 Ayn Rand Lane
City: Galts Gulch
State: CO
Zip: 99999

Then I checked the box next to $15 and entered my actual credit card number and expiration date (it didn't ask for the 3-didgit code on the back of the card) and it took me to the next page and... "Your donation has been processed. Thank you for your generous gift."

This simply should not, and could not, happen in any business or any campaign that is honestly trying to vet it's donors. Also, I don't see how this could possibly happen without the collusion of the credit card companies. They simply wouldn't allow any business to process, potentially, hundreds of millions in credit card transactions where the name on the card doesn't match the purchasers name.

In short, with the system set up as it is by the Obama camp, an individual could donate unlimited amounts of money by simply making up fake names and addresses. And Obama is doing his best to facilitate this fraud. This is truly scandalous.



Our reader was not yet done. He tried the experiment on the McCain site: "I tried the exact same thing at the McCain site and it didn't allow the transaction." He then repeated the experiment at the Obama site:

I went back to the Obama site and made three additional donations using the names Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Bill Ayers, all with different addresses. All the transactions went through using the same credit card. I saved screenshots of the transactions.

Our reader reports, incidentally, that he was using his MasterCard for the contributions. We submit this report in the spirit of inquiry and would especially appreciate hearing from readers who can illuminate how credit card procedures might (or might not) allow this to happen.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

This will be how things are run for the next few years.

I'd like to hear anyone defend this. Even Mavdog Colmes would have a tough time making something up on this one.

[Flacolaco]

Credit card transactions can be processed in a variety of different ways. Some gas station machines will as you for your zip code to go along with it, online you have to provide a variety of information. But when you buy a beer at the AAC you don't provide anything, they just swipe the card and that's it. The fact that the Obama web site is asking for the name and zip and all of that doesn't necessarily mean they're sending it to get the approval. It's just for show, and some shoddy record keeping. The card companies do not always require that stuff to give an authorization.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Credit card transactions can be processed in a variety of different ways. Some gas station machines will as you for your zip code to go along with it, online you have to provide a variety of information. But when you buy a beer at the AAC you don't provide anything, they just swipe the card and that's it. The fact that the Obama web site is asking for the name and zip and all of that doesn't necessarily mean they're sending it to get the approval. It's just for show, and some shoddy record keeping. The card companies do not always require that stuff to give an authorization.

All true, but given the federal campaign finance laws at play here, it seems that any prudent campaign that was trying to comply with the law would require the names and addresses to match. McCain's website apparently does.

[purplefrog]

$150 million in donations for one month makes a lot more sense now. Thanks UL.

[jthig32]

Online credit transactions are a completely different animal than in person though, Flac. At least in person you have to have the physical card. That's the entire reason that online sites do things like requring the security code, verifying name matching, and if it's a purchase, only shipping to the billing address on the card. It's to coutner the fact that people can literally just memorize credit card numbers in order to use them online.

I would never, ever trust a site that was as lax on the credit authorization as that compaign site.

[Flacolaco]

I think the rules are definitely different for any online purchases. Transactions typically go through a 3rd party processor (I know the company I work for uses another company called "Merchant Sevices" for Visa and Mastercard transactions, Amex is different) before they get to Visa or whatever it is. I am sure they're required to verify the information...something is broken somewhere along the chain there.

edit: Oh hey thig, yes I agree.

[u2sarajevo]

I am so tempted to go test that.... but I don't want to donate to Obama.

Could a pro-Obama person go try and give a donation with their CC and make up a name..... like maybe use my screen name:

U2 Sarajevo
122 Awesome Drive
Coolness, Texas, 70777

Thanks in advance!

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

I am so tempted to go test that.... but I don't want to donate to Obama.

Could a pro-Obama person go try and give a donation with their CC and make up a name..... like maybe use my screen name:

U2 Sarajevo
122 Awesome Drive
Coolness, Texas, 70777

Thanks in advance!

Why hasn't 20/20 or Dateline or 60 Minutes done an investigative piece on this? It would be simple to do.

Oh wait...forget that I asked.

[Flacolaco]

The Media says:



"These aren't the crooked politicians you're looking for"

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

The Media says:



"These aren't the crooked politicians you're looking for"

Genius.

I really need this election to be over. My cynicism is reaching new highs...

[92bDad]

This being linked to Obama...are any of us surprised?

*Credit Card Fraud
*Plan to redistribute wealth - he should know how, he's already doing it by redistributing to himself
*ACORN Fraud
*Connections with Reverand Wright - Anti-American
*Connections to Bill Ayers - Anti-American (With lies about his connections)
*Removes Flag from his campaing (Airplane, Suit) then flip flops and wears it again after pressure
*Doesn't put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem
*Refers to the 57 States when talking about the USA (notice the 57 states is the Nation of Islam)
*Advocates a Federal "Community" Group (ACORN) the size equal to or greater than our Military (Is he planning to stage a war against America?)
*Makes promises in campaings but once elected takes -0- actions to fulfill those promises, doesn't even attempt to work towards those promises (Go back and review his campaign for senate and his promises to his constituents - then check not only his voting record, but look at any ideas for legislation that he has brought to the floor in favor of his campaign promises)


This guy and his party will say and do ANYTHING just to get elected.

They have proven that they have a separate agenda once elected after all, don't actions speak louder than words. Then again, in Obama's case, his leftist media friends are silent about his actions, but they sure love to echo his words.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

The Media says:



"These aren't the crooked politicians you're looking for"

That is freaking hilarious - absolute Genius!!!

[Mavdog]

this is a major issue that is a consequence of the rise in online contributions. the amount of money that has been given and spent by the two campaigns is absurd, and imo a disgrace.

unfortunately it is clearly happening in a couple of ways: fraud, where a person's card is used without their consent, and also in contributions from foreign sources that are illegal.

should the obama campaign be more aggressive in finding these situations? absolutely, but it is a case of reacting more than anything else. they find the problem after the case instead of rooting it out before it happens.

part of the problem is that for a lot of the transactions the amount id below the approval threshold, under $25.

I'm not an expert in how to provide a mechanism to identify when a fraud contribution happens, but this will need to be incorporated.

let's be sure in this however, it is not a case of the obama campaign committing fraud, it is a case of individuals committing fraud. it is up to the campaign to do what they can to prevent it, and clearly the obama campaign can do more.

[Flacolaco]

Yeah my star wars quip wasn't meant to imply that the Obama campaign is committing fraud. At worst they're turning their heads the other way.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

this is a major issue that is a consequence of the rise in online contributions. the amount of money that has been given and spent by the two campaigns....

this problem is not shared by both campaigns.

should the obama campaign be more aggressive in finding these situations? absolutely, but it is a case of reacting more than anything else.

I'm not an expert, either, if this poster at theCorner (who deals with online credit card contributiosn) is correct, then the Obama campaign has been proactive in this, not reactive:

In order to accept financial donations from "John Galt" and "Saddam Hussein", whoever runs the Obama website would have to modify the default security checks required by their merchant processor.

[kg_veteran]

I don't see any evidence that they are committing fraud, but they certainly aren't taking appropriate steps to require their donors to comply with campaign finance laws.

It would have been nice if Obama had simply lived up to his promise of accepting public financing, but...

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I don't see any evidence that they are committing fraud, but they certainly aren't taking appropriate steps to require their donors to comply with campaign finance laws.

It would have been nice if Obama had simply lived up to his promise of accepting public financing, but...

yes, I agree, the decision by obama to forego the public finance structure was very disappointing.

[jthig32]

They may not be committing fraud, but the website that is accepting donations does not have even the most basic of credit card approval restrictions.

I've set up donation buttons for tiny, tiny sites that has better security than that, because it's required.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

this problem is not shared by both campaigns.

the problem of the amount of money spent by the two campaigns is shared. this race will have more than $1 billion...say that again, ONE BILLION...spent.

it's obscene.

I'm not an expert, either, if this poster at theCorner (who deals with online credit card contributiosn) is correct, then the Obama campaign has been proactive in this, not reactive:

typically the business gets approval for a transaction if the amount is greater than x. there have been a majority of contributions less than that amount. no approval equals reactive.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the problem of the amount of money spent by the two campaigns is shared. this race will have more than $1 billion...say that again, ONE BILLION...spent.

it's obscene.

yes, but one campaign is undeniably more obscene even in that respect. But we are talking about credit card fraud in this thread, and Obama's campaign seems to have a problem where McCain does not.

typically the business gets approval for a transaction if the amount is greater than x. there have been a majority of contributions less than that amount.

great. If that poster is correct, then Obama's campaign had to remove security - presumably knowing that they would be facilitating fraud. They acted. Before money came in. That is pro-active.They acted on the principle that more money is more important than more security. I don't see why a candidate that campaigns according to this principle wouldn't also collect taxes under that principle.

[kappasigma]

its cause obama is gonna make us all muslims and take all our money! give it back so we can be taxed and it can be given to Bush's friends!

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

yes, but one campaign is undeniably more obscene even in that respect. But we are talking about credit card fraud in this thread, and Obama's campaign seems to have a problem where McCain does not.

so the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by mccain is not obscene? yes, it is, just as the hundreds of billions of dollars spent by obama on the campaign is obscene too.

so far we don't have any instance of fraud in campaign donations to mccain, but that could emerge just like it has in obama's campaign.

great. If that poster is correct, then Obama's campaign had to remove security - presumably knowing that they would be facilitating fraud. They acted. Before money came in. That is pro-active.They acted on the principle that more money is more important than more security. I don't see why a candidate that campaigns according to this principle wouldn't also collect taxes under that principle.

no, they didn't have to "remove security", they just didn't place as much security as could be incorporated. you're speculating as for the motivation, pure speculation. I could do the same and speculate that the fraud is by opponents of obama who are trying to embarass the obama campaign and be just as well based as you are.

but I'm not, just as you shouldn't either....

imo the campaigns are on a cutting edge of the new frontier in broad based fund raising. the number of contributors has been way greater in pure numbers than every experienced before by any campaign, which is not surprising due to the new voters and such in this election. we're seeing it result in a huge turnout of early voters as well.

how this has anything to do with tax collection is a mystery...

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by mccain is not obscene? yes, it is, just as the hundreds of billions of dollars spent by obama on the campaign is obscene too.

First, I would refer you to the word "more." Second, most people would call your use of "millions" and "billions" a freudian slip - meaning it comes from what you are really thinking. Freud was particularly keen on the appearance of these things in moments of dishonesty.

so far we don't have any instance of fraud in campaign donations to mccain, but that could emerge just like it has in obama's campaign.

It's really funny how right after you say this, you use the term "pure speculation" as an accusation.

no, they didn't have to "remove security", they just didn't place as much security as could be incorporated. you're speculating as for the motivation, pure speculation.

according to the poster at theCorner, they did have to remove security. His experience is that the default setting is more stringent than what they are practicing. Because my "speculation" is someones testimony, it's not right to call it "speculation."

imo the campaigns are on a cutting edge of the new frontier in broad based fund raising. the number of contributors has been way greater in pure numbers than every experienced before by any campaign, which is not surprising due to the new voters and such in this election. we're seeing it result in a huge turnout of early voters as well.

how this has anything to do with tax collection is a mystery...

Everyone who has ever collected money has had to deal with the same options that these campaigns have to deal with today. Obama chose more money over more security. McCain chose more security over more money. Though Obama has said some things that suggest that we, the American people are more important to him than himself, his campaign, or his politics, he has rarely done anything that would suggest that. When predicting how Obama will govern - how he will handle the money he takes from me, I will rely on what he has done as significant of his principles.

[chumdawg]

No, they wouldn't "remove" any security. Credit card processors do two things. They get an authorization to charge the amount of purchase, and (if you provide them this information) they verify the numbers in the billing address and ZIP code, as well as the CVV code.

In the case of U2's example, they would test the "122" and the "70777" to see if they get a match. Same with the CVV code, if provided. They do not verify names. Only numbers.

They give this information back to the merchant (authorization code, as well as "match" or "no match" on the numbers), and it is up to the merchant what to do with the information. If the merchant wants to settle the transaction, the merchant will get paid whether the numbers match or not.

Of course, there are indeed rules that the merchant agrees to abide by. But in practice, hardly any large merchant does.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

No, they wouldn't "remove" any security. Credit card processors do two things. They get an authorization to charge the amount of purchase, and (if you provide them this information) they verify the numbers in the billing address and ZIP code, as well as the CVV code.

In the case of U2's example, they would test the "122" and the "70777" to see if they get a match. Same with the CVV code, if provided. They do not verify names. Only numbers.

They give this information back to the merchant (authorization code, as well as "match" or "no match" on the numbers), and it is up to the merchant what to do with the information. If the merchant wants to settle the transaction, the merchant will get paid whether the numbers match or not.

Of course, there are indeed rules that the merchant agrees to abide by. But in practice, hardly any large merchant does.

so how does this go through?

Name: John Galt
Address: 1957 Ayn Rand Lane
City: Galts Gulch
State: CO
Zip: 99999

Are you saying that large merchant Obama does not abide by these rules of security, but large merchant McCain does?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Are you saying that large merchant Obama does not abide by these rules of security, but large merchant McCain does?

If the stories are true, then yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

[Flacolaco]

I'd think that use of the AVS (address verification system) would be required for all online transactions, but I can't find anything on the internet saying it is or isn't.

actually the more I read, the more I see that a AVS request on a card can come back negative, and it is still up to the merchant to decline the transaction at their own risk of charge-backs. Presumably these people are giving fake names with cards under their control, and so they're wouldn't challenge the charge on their statements.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

If the stories are true, then yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

So if the stories are true, then Obama's campaign is choosing to take the money in spite of knowledge that the credit card payments aren't legitimate.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

If the stories are true, then yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

fair enough. As for the obviously fake address, I'm still not sure how it gets through. Are you saying the credit card just flags it and sends the flag back to the merchant?

If I read your description correctly, the Obama campaign is notified of a possibly (probably) fraudulent charge, and then has to choose to ignore it.

If this is how it happens, how does the John Galt thing get rejected at the website level of the McCain site? There must be some security there. Do you know what gets included as the "default settings" for these kinds of software packages?

[jthig32]

The idea that the credit card companies had to remove security is not true. The guy says he runs a small internet business. Based on that and how he describes his online transaction process, my guess is he uses a third-party online payment provider, rather than having a direct account with the credit card companies whose cards he accepts.

In those instances, there are VERY strict rules placed by the third party, because they're ultimately responsible for charge backs and such.

Larger customers, as I'm sure this campaign is, have direct accounts with Visa, Mastercard, etc. They probably don't really care if it's online or not. You send in card info, maybe an address, maybe not, and put the transaction through. As Flac said, in this case the online vendor themselves is on the hook for charge-back and such, because it's their direct account. Conveniantly for the campaign, they're not providing any kind of service or selling in product that costs them overhead. So having charge-backs is no skin off their back.

So no, I don't think there's anything shady with the credit transaction itself (although I wouldn't mind seeing the payment screens just to make sure it doesn't go through some kind of gateway) but I'm not exaggerating when I say that my end-of-semester project for my sophomore ecommerce programming class had better credit verification checks.

It's absolutely impossible that this is an accident. Period.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

If this is how it happens, how does the John Galt thing get rejected at the website level of the McCain site? There must be some security there. Do you know what gets included as the "default settings" for these kinds of software packages?

I can't speak for all the processing gateways, of course, but I do believe this sort of thing is fairly standard. The merchant chooses what level of security to employ. At our business, we will allow orders to go through if either the street address or the ZIP matches. If neither matches, the customer will see an "order declined" page and be asked to correct the billing address and try again. (You would be surprised how often this happens.)

If we wanted to, we could decline orders if even one piece of information didn't match. Or, we could let them all sail through even if nothing matches. (In fact, as long as the dollars authorize, we do receive authorization codes on our end, and can still charge the card if for some reason we accept the order manually.) We wouldn't do this, because we ship actual products, but we don't even have to take addresses if we don't want to.

See, the bank doesn't care. If we take a fraudulent transaction, they just charge it back to us. If we do it enough times, they raise our rates. The Address Verification System is there for our benefit, not theirs. It exists to help us weed out bad transactions.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

First, I would refer you to the word "more." Second, most people would call your use of "millions" and "billions" a freudian slip - meaning it comes from what you are really thinking. Freud was particularly keen on the appearance of these things in moments of dishonesty.

uh, it was a mistake in typing B instead of M. freud? nope.

It's really funny how right after you say this, you use the term "pure speculation" as an accusation.

yep, you are prone to gross speculation, with a subsequent conclusion based on the gross speculation. that means that your conclusions are very suspect to say the least.

according to the poster at theCorner, they did have to remove security. His experience is that the default setting is more stringent than what they are practicing. Because my "speculation" is someones testimony, it's not right to call it "speculation."

unless that poster was involved in setting up the system, than yes he is speculating too.

Everyone who has ever collected money has had to deal with the same options that these campaigns have to deal with today. Obama chose more money over more security. McCain chose more security over more money. Though Obama has said some things that suggest that we, the American people are more important to him than himself, his campaign, or his politics, he has rarely done anything that would suggest that. When predicting how Obama will govern - how he will handle the money he takes from me, I will rely on what he has done as significant of his principles.

no, totally wrong. when donations are collected with hard forms it is easy to have systems to visually spot any of these type of submittals. that is how campaign donations were done in the past.

with a virtual system it is much different. that is how donations are beiong made today in unprecedented numbers to the obaama campaign.

the vast majority of these contributions were done virtually.

funny, but I missed how "mccain chose more security over more money", as we can't say that the very same acts couldn't be done with mccain's online system.

as for your impressions of what obama would or would not do, again thet's mere speculation on your part.

and we do see how you like speculation....

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

funny, but I missed how "mccain chose more security over more money", as we can't say that the very same acts couldn't be done with mccain's online system.

They tried the same thing on McCain's site, didn't work.

There's not anything legally shady here, but they knew what they were doing when they didn't even check for valid zip codes, much less anything more stringent.

[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.