Written by JB Williams
The Obama campaign is reporting that it raised a record $181 million in the month of September alone. According to campaign FEC filings for September, the money came from 1.8 million individual donors, many overseas, and over 500,000 of whom had never donated before.
Did YOU donate to Obama? You might have, just follow the trail… The same thing happened in September of 2008. We later learned that most of that huge cash infusion came from foreign countries, in small denominations, just like September 2012, averaging $53 each from millions of undisclosed donors, most of them abroad.
There are Federal Laws making it “illegal” to accept “foreign campaign contributions,” yet Obama just took in almost $200 million, most of it from overseas donors. The FEC must immediately investigate the source of these overseas funds.
The neat part is who those “first time donors” are… it is YOU. And it is YOU who must demand that the FEC and Secret Service immediately investigate the massive overseas funds pouring into the Obama campaign.
From the report –
“Campaigns are not required to disclose donations from individuals who gave less than $200 in a campaign cycle unless the campaign is audited. Furthermore, campaigns do not even need to keep records of those who gave less than $50. Presidential candidates are raising large amounts of money that fall under the $200 threshold and audits are rare unless a campaign accepts federal matching funds. To this date (September 26, 2012), the Romney campaign has raised $58,456,968 and the Obama campaign has raised $271,327,755 in contributions under $200 for the 2012 campaign cycle. In the 2008 presidential elections, the Obama campaign raised $335,139,233 in donations under $200.”
A glimpse at campaign finance security –
Given the state-of-the art digital sophistication of the President’s re-election campaign—including social media, micro-targeting and data-mining—its online donation system contains at least three major security vulnerabilities:
1. The absence of the industry-standard CVV and unknown use of AVS anti-fraud security for online credit card donations
2. The presence of a branded, major third party-owned website (Obama.com) redirects its 68% foreign traffic to a campaign donation page
3. Active foreign solicitation using indiscriminate email solicitations and exposure to social media
Specifically: Obama Campaign Lacks the Industry-Standard Level Of Credit Card Security For Donations, But Uses It For Merchandise Purchases: To purchase Obama campaign merchandise, the campaign requires buyers to enter their credit card CVV security code, but does not require the credit card security code to be entered when making an online campaign donation (see page 61). By GAI’s estimates, the Obama campaign’s failure to utilize industry-standard protections potentially costs the campaign millions in extra processing fees. (with purpose)
The BIG Picture is Massive Fraud
There are reasons why the Obama campaign would use CVV code security technology for merchandising. In short, the CVV code on the back of your credit or debit card is there to ensure that the individual using the card is you, or someone authorized by you to use the card.
Most Credit Card fraud does not happen with a stolen card, but rather a stolen card number. Because the fraudster does not actually possess the card, but only the card number and expiration date for the card, they will not have the CVV code on the back of the card in most cases.
When the campaign is selling and shipping merchandise, they use CVV code technology to secure each transaction before shipping merchandise.
But when nothing is being shipped, as in the case of campaign donations, they have CVV code technology turned off. Why? Because, the transactions coming from overseas on stolen card numbers, will not have the CVV code. They also won’t have AVS information, which the Obama campaign also turned off on its donations account. They are stolen card numbers, most of them from Americans.
Address Verification, (AVS) like CVV code verification, are industry standards for blocking fraudulent online transactions. Why has the Obama campaign turned off both of those security functions for donations, but not for merchandise orders?
With these security functions turned on, the system would DECLINE transactions as “fraudulent” if they were missing a matching CVV code. So, to allow “fraudulent” donations on stolen card numbers, they would have to turn off the CVV security function, thereby allowing the “fraudulent” transactions to APPROVE without any CVV code match.
This raises three obvious questions?
Only a full scale investigation into the massive donations from September 2012 (and 2008) can answer these and other questions. However, what we already know is this…
The Secret Service must immediately investigate the huge sums pouring into the Obama campaign from overseas donors, looking closely at the campaigns misuse of CVV code technology to open the flood gates for fraudulent transactions.
The Obama Campaign used these same tactics in 2008, for more than $200 million in foreign unsecure donations from undisclosed donors.
Because they are committing fraud in small denominations, $25-$50 each, most American cardholders won’t even notice the charge on their statement. Even if they do notice on their next billing statement and issue a chargeback, it won’t be until after the election is over.
Meanwhile, Obama can take in hundreds of millions in foreign fraudulent transactions billed to stolen U.S. card numbers and use those funds to win re-election. By the time people figure out they donated to Obama when their statement arrives, the election will be over.
To raise this issue with Secret Service, contact your closest Field Office.
Contact the FEC here and demand an immediate investigation into Obama’s foreign campaign contributions.
Whether or not the average reader can grasps the gravity of this fraud or not, I can assure you that the Secret Service and F.B.I. fully understand. They know exactly why someone would turn off these standard security features. They know that it represents an intentional opening of the flood gates for fraudulent online donations.
What the people need to know is what these Law Enforcement groups are going to do about it and if they are going to do it, before another election is stolen by fraud?
Are they loyal to America? – Or, to the Commander-in-thief?