So, the Global Model looks just like the Chicago Model, but with the money trail even murkier? Pray for the Republic.

Gateway Pundit post from Saturday (yesterday) afternoon: Obama Camp Continues Mega-Million$$$ Campaign Donation Fraud--Door Still Open!

The Obama campaign website has disabled AVS anti-fraud credit-card-payment software at its donations page. This permits supporters to supply phony or erroneous information about their contributions, at will.

This makes a mockery of open-government campaign finance reform initiatives. For post-mortems on the 2008 election, databases and database search engines (e.g. at OpenSecrets.org) will be rendered worthless.

My understanding is that anonymous donations are allowed if under $50. Perhaps Gateway Pundit just needs to make larger Obama donations to test things out.

I hope he realizes that his misuse of the credit card is certainly against campaign finance laws.

Actually, I'm kind of glad that Obama has decided to appoint his horse to the Senate show the utter irrelevance of the campaign finance laws. It would be nice if this would lead to removing limits on contributions altogether, but requiring reporting all contributions within 24 hours of their being made. That would be, I think, a good balance between letting the people know the money influences on the candidate, while not at the same time removing our ability to support the candidate of our choice to the extent we can and wish to do. Much as I hope Obama loses, there is a delicious irony in McCain being hoist on his own law.

Please make your case. The Corner claims that one guy put through four donations on the same card using different names for under fifty dollars. AS Mr Lazarus points out $50. is the differential for investigation. Is it your contention and do you have proof that $100 million dollars or more of donations have come through this way?
This isn't the same as turning mortgages into bonds by placing different qualities of mortgages into bonds at different quantities and paying off the regulator.
As to your claims of the media ignoring it what is FOX news doing. Don't you think their silence is a little damning to your case.

Sometimes the warning of what is to come has been in plain sight all along. Nearly six years ago "anti-imperialist theorist" Michael Hardt published an article entitled Folly of Our Masters of the Universe in the "Guardian," the UK's major left-wing newspaper. Hardt called not for the uprising of oppressed peoples against the United States, but rather an uprising of global elites whose power and influence were threatened by a United States which appeared to be successful as a nation state rather than governed by a supranational class through transnational organizations, most of them unaccountable to electorates.

Folly of our masters of the universe

Global elites must realise that US imperialism isn't in their interest

...What are most significant, however, are not the conflicting interests that separate US elites from others, but rather their common interests.

However, there is an alternative to US imperialism: global power can be organised in a decentred form, which Toni Negri and I call "empire". This is not merely a multilateral coalition of leading nation states. Think of it as multilateralism squared. Empire is a network composed of different kinds of powers, including the dominant nation states, supranational organisations, such as the United Nations and the IMF, multinational corporations, NGOs, the media, and others. There are hierarchies among the powers that constitute empire but despite their differences they function together in the network. This decentred network power of empire corresponds to the interests of global elites because it both facilitates the potential profits of capitalist globalisation and displaces or defuses potential security threats.

We can be confident that in the long run their real interests will lead global elites to support empire and refuse any project of US imperialism. In the coming months, and perhaps years, we may face a tragedy that we read about in the darkest periods of human history, when elites are incapable of acting in their own interest.

The list of the elites making up Professor Hardt's "empire" appears very close to the international and domestic forces driving "The Big Steal". Whether "The Big Steal" succeeds or fails, the next President, whoever he may be, will take office with something close to half of the electorate unable to accept him as "their" President, precisely because the outlines of the theft are emerging and will continue to emerge. "The Big Steal, whether it succeeds or fails, thus portends an American politics more corrupt, manipulative, virulent, and possibly violent than anything we have seen in our lifetimes; perhaps in our history.

Massive foreign contributions is a revolutionary game-changer.

Just as the Legions-Loyal-To-Their-General was Marius' revolutionary game-changer that meant that any General with loyal legions could beat the Republic silly, and the First Triumvirate with Governor-for-five-years-instead-of-one meant that Caesar could outbribe any opponents unless they went extralegal on him. Or unless Crassus went and got himself killed. Oops.

I predict that Obama will be unable to put down this powerful new force that he has called up. After all, he is far to right-wing to be acceptable to the world.

I'm not concerned with how Americans will feel during the Presidency of Barack Obama (or John McCain) and whoever comes next after him, but with how the new Global Model works and how the parties will have to adapt to thrive in a new arena where your donor pool has no money trail and is any size and of any national or transnational composition you can achieve, and where big media domination provides virtual immunity from the laws governing elections and financial corruption.

When internationalist candidates can appeal over the heads of parochial Americans for the funds they need to win supreme executive and perhaps legislative power in America (only under the ultimate power of the Supreme Court, which can function as a super-legislature), policies that trans-nationalists in the mainstream media strongly favor need not be held up by what Americans are willing to pay for, politically.

If both parties, to compete effectively, need foreign "hinterlands" to draw funds from (and if one party has such an "ace in the hole" both parties need one or more "hidden aces"), what will American politicians sell - or what will they not sell - to prevail? Who will they sell to, on what terms? How big a difference does it make, in who they sell to, on what terms, and what they sell to get the campaign finances they need, when they expect their foreign supporters to stay secret?

This is what makes the new, Global Model (the Big Steal), potentially very different from the Chicago Model or for that matter the Texas Style Gerrymander Model (the Small Steal).

Bidding for anything the United States President can get his hands on in the new model is completely opened up. It's a global auction with hidden bidders.

At the same time, these foreign bidders will often be betrayed, as the same policy "property" will be sold many times to different bidders, including domestic interests who may be better connected.

It's clear the Obama campaign wants the money more than they want either the legitimacy of complying with the laws or the legitimacy of assuring Americans that only Americans are players in this election. That's already a shift of values due to the new system. The money must be big, and the American audience is not all-important any more, and can be presumed to be tolerant of foreign influence.

At the same time, Americans are going to remain the dominant players in their own elections indefinitely.

Football fans lost control of the game as the revenues from advertising approached and then exceeded revenues from ticket sales. If you think of the domestic American audience for elections as the fans with the tickets and the foreign contributors as the advertisers, it's clear the Americans, with their huge economy, will outweigh all foreign investors as far ahead as we can reasonably imagine.

My friend, you are an idiot.

My friend, you are an idiot.

What's clear is that Obama, with the media on his side, thinks there's no end to what he can get away with. Unfortunately, he may be right about that. If he can stretch this out for even a few more days, he's effectively untouchable until the inauguration, and owns the Justice department afterwards. And with the media in the tank, there's just no way this is going to become a big deal before the election is over.

Voting has already begun in places, after all.

So, what are we going to do if he wins, and shortly afterwards it turns out he did it by virtue of massive campaign finance fraud? I don't think they can take the victory away from him, (Well, the electors could, but they wouldn't.) or make him serve from jail, and he could just pardon himself once in office.

Right. So this won't be reversed. It will stand.

We all need to think about the new rules, since it's been demonstrated the old ones are no longer in force.

The first new rule is: "You don't rely on the media to get stories out."

This has been a rule for some years, and it's one Republicans persistently do not learn: If you want the public to hear of something detrimental to a Democrat, you're wasting your time holding a press conference, and expecting the news media to pick up the story. You're going to have to BUY airtime to cover it.

Makes you proud to be an Amerikkan, doesn't it?

American liberty depends upon three boxes: the ballot box, the soap box, and the ammo box. Not at all original to me.

The ballot box ... ACORN

The soap box ... "fairness doctrine"

The ammo box ... Please, Lord, do not let it come to this.

I'm raising in this thread the issues surrounding a new method of winning federal elections. That's all. It has nothing to do with violence.

Good post, Mr. Blue. We're all scratching our heads over this issue.

The Clinton camp alleged systematic fraud in Nevada, and there's a documentary being made about the Obama camp's "best practices" in Texas. We're looking at investigations into ACORN around the country, and now this illegal donations issue.

This is pretty ruthless stuff. Of course, Sen. Obama got his job in the State Senate by having all of his opponents removed from the ballot, including the incumbent(!), so as to avoid the need for an election. We shouldn't be surprised.

Yet it is shocking, all the same.

Mr Blue's comments are intriguing. Let's assume that foreign 'investors' spend enormous sums to shape the outcome of the US presidential election. They desire a winner who is at least sympathetic, if not compliant, with their intentions. Let's further assume that that candidate wins. Will this outcome not generate something of a sense of entitlement on their part? What will they do if 'their' candidate, once having taken the oath of office, doesn't perform as a satisfactory employee--or, if you like, as a compatriot?

Remember, these people are not in the habit of waiting until the next election to have their wishes obeyed. What will they do? They can't sue. They can't very well have the chucklehead impeached. And they can't risk trying to throw another election: it's already cost them more money than they wanted to spend. What next?

Well, they could come clean on what they'd done, that would be pretty damaging. But I wouldn't expect that. Might threaten it, though.

Having a huge financial advantage over your opponent doesn't necessarily translate into an electoral victory - it merely makes the election a referendum on you, with your opponent as an afterthought.

That, in spite of Obama's huge and probably ill-gotten financial advantage in this race - not to mention his superior performance in the general-election campaign, the MSM in the tank for him, an unpopular incumbent and a troubled economy - McCain still has an outside shot to win this thing speaks volumes about the strength, or lack thereof, of Obama as presidential material. The worst thing a weak candidate can do in a campaign is to turn the election into a referendum on himself.

Even if David is right and the rules have effectively changed for presidential campaigns, at the end of the day elections are still decided by American voters and not by contributors, foreign or domestic. Unless and until that changes, the order of the day for any would-be foreign donors remains caveat emptor.

Once again we are confronted w/ Grim's ignorance. Obama ran as state senator after the current holder ran in the primary for another elected position and LOST. The Sen then wanted Obama to leave the ballot so the current holder could run for the position. Obama refused. The former Sen then began a write in candidacy and failed to come up w/ the proper number petitioners for the position. Republicans rarely file for positions in the city of Chicago and that is why there was not one on the ballot. This is why there was no one else on the ballot.

This is in Sundays WaPo. It is by Bradley Smith, a Republican and former head of the FEC. He has found nothing wrong w/ Obama's fund raising (link)

It is a delicious irony

[Link as fixed as it can be - it still leads to information behind a registration wall - David Blue]

You know, I'd pay more attention to this latest revelation except for the Boy who Cried Wolf problem. The Berg lawsuit that Obama isn't a citizen for ten different reasons (including the patently-idiotic claim that his stepfather stripped him of US citizenship on a school enrollment form) got tossed out of court, but not before the morons at National Review gave it a thorough airing. And we still have the claim that Bill Ayres is not only the secret eminence behind the throne, ready to bomb the Pentagon from the inside, but he even ghost-wrote Obama's memoirs as part of the plot. Oh, and 9/11-truther Jerome Corsi extensive and completely unsubstantiated riff on Obama's drug use.

My guess is in a few days the Obama campaign will refund Gateway Pundit's contributions when their own fraud checks bounce them. I also guess GP will "forget" to mention this.

Face it, the reason Obama raised a gazillion dollars is so many Americans want the Republicans out of office—including many Republicans themselves.

Robert,

If I'm ignorant, it's only because I read the newspaper.

In the end, Mr. Obama disqualified all four opponents -- including the incumbent state senator, Alice Palmer, and three minor candidates. Ms. Palmer, a former ally of Mr. Obama, had gathered 1,580 signatures, more than twice the 757 required to appear on the ballot. A minor, perennial candidate had gathered 1,899 signatures, suggesting the Obama team invested much time working even against him.

The act of throwing an incumbent off the ballot in such a fashion does not fit neatly into the narrative of a public-spirited reformer who seeks to make people less cynical about politics.

#21 from Joshua:

"Even if David is right and the rules have effectively changed for presidential campaigns, at the end of the day elections are still decided by American voters and not by contributors, foreign or domestic. Unless and until that changes, the order of the day for any would-be foreign donors remains caveat emptor."

That's oh so true.

I'm not confident about this part though:

#21 from Joshua:

"Having a huge financial advantage over your opponent doesn't necessarily translate into an electoral victory - it merely makes the election a referendum on you, with your opponent as an afterthought."

... combined with this:

#21 from Joshua:

"The worst thing a weak candidate can do in a campaign is to turn the election into a referendum on himself."

All that having a huge financial advantage over your opponent does is ... the worst thing a weak candidate can do.

That seems to point to the conclusion that it's harmful to the cause of a weak candidate to have a huge financial advantage over his or her opponent.

I don't think so.

Ugh.

You forgot to mention that one key element in this strategy is the presumption that down ticket politics will follow suit. Were that not the case the legislature would close the door on this possibility, and might even be persuaded to execute an impeachment procedure. All it would take is the transmission of a database that's probably less then a gigabyte in size.

It was naive beyond imagining to think that small anonymous contributions wouldn't threaten the legitimacy of the electoral system. But if the data exists in any form then the counter-threat of defection and exposure also exists.

"My guess is in a few days the Obama campaign will refund Gateway Pundit's contributions when their own fraud checks bounce them. I also guess GP will "forget" to mention this."

Why pay for your own fraud checks when the card processor will do it for free?

Oh, I know. There are some you don't want to check.

If Axelrod is being good in his due diligence, I'm sure Gateway Pundit will get his money back. That doesn't mean the system isn't set up to enable massive fraud.

#24 from Andrew J. Lazarus:

"My guess is in a few days the Obama campaign will refund Gateway Pundit's contributions when their own fraud checks bounce them. I also guess GP will "forget" to mention this."

This is your prediction, is it?

And all the other bogus donations? We'll never know how many illegal donations of what size the Obama campaign kept, because the Obama campaign has made it impossible to determine that.

Apparently they are being well enough rewarded, financially, to decide that that's a good trade-off.

#24 from Andrew J. Lazarus:

"Face it, the reason Obama raised a gazillion dollars is so many Americans want the Republicans out of office—including many Republicans themselves."

"Face it," the Obama campaign has engaged in facilitation of the election laws on a huge basis. Through their actions, we can't know how huge the fraud is. In doing this, the Obama campaign has placed the extra, illegal money gained over the legitimacy of obeying the laws and the political / tribal taboo against inviting foreigners in to participate in fights over who rules the tribe. That's a lot to give up, and the reasonable assumption is that these values weren't sacrificed for pennies.

Of course, we can't tell how big the fraud going in is, and we never will be able to, so maybe the Obama campaign has sold those values cheaply. If they hold those values lightly enough, it's possible.

It remains the case that a barrier to political participation has been removed, and both parties now have to learn to operate in a global environment, where the pool of potential donors may be untraceable.

Also, since I did my dissertation on campaign spending I have some familiarity with the advantage it gives. It's a logistic function, so you take the log of the spending ratio to obtain the instrumental variable. Using a beta regression that standardizes the variable relative to other variables such as experience, incumbency, and ideological advantage, it's about the same order of magnitude. In other words a standard deviation in "spending advantage" is approximately equivalent to running as an incumbent, or about 10% in the vote margin. Also, money tends to make a difference in elections where ideology isn't a determinative factor. It's far more important in races where the ideological balance is about equal.

Campaign spending at the national level has become something of a dead issue, but this may rekindle the topic. It could even inspire some Republican donor to finance a panel study in order to resolve one of the outstanding issues: whether whether expected vote drives contributions or contributions drive voting. The fact that we don't really know the "causal direction" with any certainty has led to another important question: whether the marginal utility of contributions is really lower for incumbents than challengers. These issues are only resolvable at great expense, and so far no one has been willing to put up the money to resolve them.

#27 from Demosophist:

"Ugh."

"You forgot to mention that one key element in this strategy is the presumption that down ticket politics will follow suit. Were that not the case the legislature would close the door on this possibility, and might even be persuaded to execute an impeachment procedure. All it would take is the transmission of a database that's probably less then a gigabyte in size."

"It was naive beyond imagining to think that small anonymous contributions wouldn't threaten the legitimacy of the electoral system. But if the data exists in any form then the counter-threat of defection and exposure also exists."

Demosophist, I hadn't just forgotten to mention the extra implications you pointed to, I hadn't thought of that at all.

Thank you. Your contributions in this thread are great.

There's something else being missed: timing.

Let's say that Obama uses his money to cruise to victory, and then has to refund some absurd amount — since we're being absurd, let's say 50%. He would do so as the President elect, and lots of people would want to be on his good side, and would be willing to contribute (note that by this time the contribution limits have elapsed) heavily to do so.

Or let's say that Obama fails to win the election, and has to refund the same percentage. Now, IIRC, the candidate is on the hook for his campaign, and would have to retire the debt. And I would assume that he doesn't want to simply default on the debt. Does anyone doubt that, given all the time he wants and an absence of limits on funding, and given that he'd still be a sitting Senator with favors to hand out, that he wouldn't retire the debt and run again in 4 years?

The timing issue is the same in both cases: he can spend the money now, and pay it back later (if it's claimed) essentially with impunity.

There are documented cases of the Obama campaign returning surplus contributions from people who didn't realize they had "maxed out". That makes me suspect that the "credit card fraud" stories are just another baseless accusation.

Found that Kenya birth certificate yet?

Yes, Jeff Medcalf. At worst, from the point of view of the Obama campaign, all illegal contributions are interest-free loans at a most convenient time.

And you thought domestic pork-barrel vote buying was bad...

Wait until Obama has to appease the Saudis, Russians, or Chinese in order to get another round of donations.

The Republican Party is not "the patriotic party," as opposed to "the unpatriotic party" alias the Democratic Party. Rather, both parties will field candidates shaped by a Darwinian necessity to meet the requirements of a globalized and anonymized fund-raising arena.

The Democratic Party can easily raise extra funds without deviation from its playbook. It'll ratify and perhaps internationally legalize grievances against the United States of America, and present itself, likely falsely, as the remedy for these grievances. (If you're a foreigner and you donated money to Barack Obama this year because you think that it's only due to the "unilateralist" George W. Bush that the United States of America doesn't sign onto Kyoto and conform to all its requirement - sucker!)

What the Republican Party may do to raise black funds overseas is more of a worry.

"There are documented cases of the Obama campaign returning surplus contributions from people who didn't realize they had "maxed out". That makes me suspect that the "credit card fraud" stories are just another baseless accusation."

See, officer, I returned all these poor folks mistaken contributions to them.

Smile, you bastards!

So gosh darn, so sorry for the misunderstandings. Here's a little something for your trouble.

The likely outcome of a successful Obama attempt to steal the election through vote fraud and illegal foreign donations is ..

A Republican Response along the lines of pure racial identity, that trumps trans-national elites.

Think about it. The Obama model assumes total hard-left, transnational control of the Media, fawning to worshipping coverage of himself, all criticism of him as "racist" and using that to have massive vote fraud (Mickey Mouse and Superman are voting) and of course, massive amounts of illegal money POURING in from Europe, from the Saudis, from IRAN, from Russia, from North Korea, and of course Cuba.

So, the response is to "Nationalize" the election, by pointing out, AS OUTRAGEOUSLY AS POSSIBLE:

Obama "hates White people" using his own words and writings and interviews and associates. Like Wright, Farrakhan, etc, and to use any and every decision Obama makes that can be construed as favoring Blacks over Whites, as evidence of his racial hatred for Whites.

Obama and Dems are "traitors" taking foreign money from enemies of the nation, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, and say, Pakistan.

Obama "favors" Muslims, and so do Dems, with various Muslim terror apologists like Khalidi and Ayers, along with money coming from say, Hamas and Hezbollah, and any decision that Obama and Dems take painted as "treason" to their "Muslim Masters."

Now, you can't beat the money advantage, and you can't beat the Media in the Tank. But outrageously un-PC and anti-Multiculturalism arguments, painting Republicans as both the "White People" party and Dems/Obama as "traitors" in hock to their foreign, mostly Muslim masters and pandering to anti-White racism by Blacks.

It's just like the West Coast Offense, which was supposed to be unbeatable, created lots of stunting defenses to attack it. Yes, the Media/Money advantage is a game changer, and one that is likely to provoke it's OWN game changer ...

Overt, explicit, White Identity and populist politics. Simple math -- Whites are 75% of the population, though they split their votes. Convince the majority of Whites, to get to 50% +, that Dems are the foreign-owned, treasonous, anti-populist, elitist, pandering to anti-White Black racism Party, and you get a counter-reaction, the counter-game changer. The transnational yuppies of course will always stick with their own, but there's not a lot of them.

Moreover, a lingering or lasting recession and/or depression makes this even better -- hard times means a fight over who gets what out of the pie, and Obama cannot help himself pandering to anti-White sentiment, redistribution of wealth from Whites to Blacks is a confirmation to voters of all of the above, particularly given how distrusted the Media really is.

What we are seeing is the death of the "respectable" Republican like McCain, Bush, Huckabee, Romney, Rudy, Fred, etc., and I would argue, Palin as well. In the stead, the counter-reaction is:

Populist, and angry Nationalist.
Explicitly White Identity politics
Identifying with anti-PC zeal, "traitors" who take "foreign money" from "Muslim Terrorists."

Given that terrorism is not going away, and Iran setting off nukes and the inevitable next AQ attack will make Americans angry, afraid, and unhappy with an Obama "let's understand why they are angry" this represents an end-run around the money and media power.

It is inevitable.

Whiskey, get a grip. I'm not nearly as complacent as Armed Liberal about an Obama win, but I think our system can survive a stealth Glorious Leader.

I just really don't want to see those checks-and-balances put to a stress test. Whether I think they'll work or not.

Whiskey, I agree that a new offense begets either imitation or a counter, but I don't think your counter is at all realistic.

As I understand it, less than half the children in America are white, and it's dropping all the time. Whites are being outnumbered across the nation, and fleeing over and over to different areas where they can carry on as if their culture was going to be tolerated indefinitely. It won't be. As they say, what can't go on forever won't.

This, therefore, is not a support base that has a good future. And a white oriented Republican party also has no good future.

Consequently, instead of trying to seal off the global funding pool, Republicans will need to develop their own regular clients within it.

People like Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia may be far more influential in the future than they were in years past.

""My guess is in a few days the Obama campaign will refund Gateway Pundit's contributions when their own fraud checks bounce them. I also guess GP will "forget" to mention this.""

"There are documented cases of the Obama campaign returning surplus contributions from people who didn't realize they had "maxed out"."

Here's the key point as I understand it: Obama does not require the name or address to be correct, (Is not passing them on to the credit card company, IOW.) and does not collect the security code at all. And, as is standard, he only retains the last 4 digits of the card number. After the transaction goes through, he has a name, which may be fake, an address, which may be fake, and four digits.

In the case of somebody who gave their correct name and address, this is more than sufficient for the credit card companies to identify who gets the refund.

In the case of somebody who used a fake name and address, this isn't sufficient to identify which card was used, because numerous cards will have the same four last digits, and that's all you have to go by.

So, no, Obama is NOT going to be refunding the fraud money, because there's no way to determine who the refund would be owed to.

Now, I suppose that if Obama were recording the precise moment the transaction went through, the card companies might be able to reconstruct who was who, assuming that anonymously purchased cash cards aren't involved. But, that would require that Obama is going out of his way to collect information, when we know he went out of his way to NOT collect it! So I rather doubt he's got those time stamps.

Bug or feature? The latter, I'd say.

It's totally unfair that foreigners might be able to donate to US election campaigns, when the US has so scrupulously avoided any partisan involvement in foreign elections, whether in Iraq, Ukraine, Italy, Iran, Palestine or any of the dozens of other countries where a government less respectful of the principle of non-interference might have seen an advantage in aiding one side or hindering another.

Mark, you heard the Obama radio interview that just surfaced where he expounds on redistribution? I don't think our nation will come crashing down either, but i do think Obama can do some damage it will be almost impossible to undue. And he clearly intends to do it, for anyone that bothers listening.

Video of liberal media person interviewing paid McCain volunteers. McCain story: only people who pick up absentee ballots are paid. Real story: paid volunteers are doing outreach and canvassing.

I suppose the simplest explanation is there aren't enough McCain unpaid volunteers (is that like acoustic guitar?) in Orlando, but it does make the McCain lieutenant's criticism of Acorn a little hollow.

More right-wing Moosepuckey, relying on self-referential sources (National Review)and attempting to conflate minor discrepancies into major violations in their paranoid pattern. Sometimes, as with "Obama is a Muslim" or "swiftboating" John Kerry, they simply lie outright.
It constantly amazes me how those who like to claim the moral high ground will grovel in the dirt for any advantage, especially when they see their self-righteous claims to power being challenged.
And what does it get you? Bush and Iraq. Global financial crisis with even Mr. Greenspan acknowledging that the financial sector may not have engaged in appropriate self regulation. The biggest budget deficits in history. Compassionate conservatism at work in New Orleans.
I hope you are feeling better off and more secure than you were under President Clinton 8 years ago. I certainly do not.

[ Duplicate deleted. -- M.F. ]

And, as is standard, he only retains the last 4 digits of the card number. After the transaction goes through, he has a name, which may be fake, an address, which may be fake, and four digits.

[ Duplicate deleted. -- M.F. ]

I suspect Obama is using a credit card processor similar to the one i use for my business. We only have access to the last 4 digits of the card, but the company that conducts the transactions (obviously) has all the relevant details. It there were an investigation somebody has access to those credit card numbers and the names attached to them. And likely IP addys, etc.

The valid criticism is that using that sort of system you can tailor what requirements you ask for- ie, the billing address has to match or the order wont process. Or you can turn that off. It would seem Obama's campaign hasnt gone through the minimal efforts to verify people are who they say they are and that they are using their own credit cards.

Thats a valid criticicm just based on the credit card fraud possibilities. Most reputable companies require AVS verification these days out of sheer self protection.

As suggested above, are anonymous campaign contributions legal if under $50, but otherwise legal? Does "$50" refer to the size of a particular contribution, or to the aggregate contributed by an individual to a candidate in a primary or general election?

The latter would seem more likely. But if so, a campaign would only be in compliance with the spirit of the law if it could be ascertained that, say, 100 credit-card web donations of $50 actually represented $5,000 worth of support from a certain person.

Under the Obama campaign's method of not verifying, one is left only with a credit card number. If Brett Billmore is correct in #41, the Obama campaign doesn't hold onto the cc number, either.

Did (does) the Obama campaign disable AVS anti-fraud software for all cc transactions, or only those under $50?

I've read that not retaining customers' cc numbers is now being touted as a Best Practice, given the thefts of millions of cc numbers from merchants.

Credit card companies also don't want retailers to keep customer financial data on file. Once sales transactions clear, typically within a few days, there's no reason to store customer credit card numbers. link

Any links to hand that confirm or dispute these points?

Amac, that is exactly right. There are definate downsides to AVS matching (the customer's card has funds put on hold for several days if they botch their address) but its almost a no-brainer in this day and age.

This link is to the credit card processor i use (and recommend) with their suggestions for best practices.

The credit card laws regarding IDs were created to protect valid account holders from being ripped off by thieves. They were not designed to prevent people from ripping themselves off by contributing under assumed names. In theory they could appeal to the credit card companies for a refund of these contributions, since they aren't exactly "straight up," but in practice most will recognize that if they do that it would give the card companies an incentive to launch investigations, which could uncover some pretty wormy material.

Of course, it might also happen that thieves actually are stealing identities, but although thieves appear to vote for the more licentious party their incentive to use their trade for something other than their own gain is rather doubtful. There might, however, be a new generation of altruistic thieves... the consequences of which would be interesting to watch since those ripped off would have an incentive to report fraud.

But my credit card company would notice if someone other than myself were using my card, or if I were using it under an assumed name (they both look like fraud to the cc company). I believe they'd offer me a refund in most cases... which might actually tempt a certain percentage of the stealth donors to take the refund.

BTW, I'm still not clear why it wouldn't be possible to pass legislation that makes small donations verifiable... preventing most foreign and multiple contributions. A Democrat super-majority would block such legislation unless the evidence and scale of fraud were overwhelming.

And it's ultimately in the interests of both parties to maintain social legitimacy of their elected candidates, at least in the long run. This sort of mutual recognition is what has kept the political system from becoming "centrifugal" since the time when political parties first emerged as "reputation pools." And that's still their chief function. I think they'll be compelled to either dilute the only thing that entices voters to partisanship, or they'll dissolve like a sugar cube in a cup of hot coffee. This must ultimately dawn on party leaders who still have the capacity to think forward and reason back.

Scott Johnson of Power Line Blog explains the problem. (link). It is a fact that Barack Obama's campaign has facilitated vast fraud. It benefits from this even if it returns all the dubious donations later - and there is no reason to think that it will. There is no plausible explanation for the campaign's actions except a corrupt one. And this is new.

"No presidential campaign has ever before received such a gargantuan sum of money from unidentified contributors."

In the face of all this, denial is no good. The old rules of campaign financing are not really in force any more, even though they remain on the books for now. Barack Obama's campaign has proved it, by calling the law's bluff.

Consequently we see new rules for winning American federal elections. A campaign that does not play by the new rules will be at a terrific disadvantage in money, and all things equal it will lose. Therefore both parties will adapt to the new rules.

The new style of campaign financing is only one element, though a key one, in the new technique of winning supreme executive power in America that Barack Obama has demonstrated. Both parties must and will respond with a model - likely unstated and even denied, since Obama's method makes use of criminality and intimidation, Chicago style - that take fully into account the proven superiority of the new model.

That's worth thinking about.

To attempt to cloud this conversation with irrelevancies is not worthwhile.

It's irrelevant whether it's "fair" or "unfair" that in the new model foreigners can donate to the candidate. It's simply the case that the money channel is open. From the point of view of understanding the new Global Model, that's what matters.

American interventions in other countries' elections may be worthwhile if they illustrate likely, plausible patterns of foreign intervention in American elections under the new model; otherwise not. Unless there is a serious argument that foreigners can "dominate" American elections in the new model (and somehow circumvent the "buyer beware" problem?) it's pointless to discuss that scenario.

For the most part it's irrelevant whether Barack Obama's policies will be good or bad. (His policies might be relevant in this discussion if they impact on how future election campaigns will be fought.)

Discussion of Barack Obama's birth certificate would be off-topic, so there's no point in raising it.

And I'd like to ask everyone not to respond to off-topic chatter, or baiting or distraction tactics.

The Scott Johnson editorial cited in #51 says,

federal law only requires the disclosure of identifying information for contributions in excess of $200. Campaigns must keep running totals for each donor and report them once they exceed $200.

The Federal Election Commission says the Obama campaign has reported well over $200 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only a small portion of that sum is attributable to donors the Obama campaign has disclosed.

What if anything does a $50 threshold trigger in election law, or in the Obama campaign's procedures?

If a campaign accepts anonymous donations up to $(# under 200), how would it be possible to "keep running totals for each donor and report them once they exceed $200"?

This seems to be either blatantly illegal, or artfully designed to accomplish illegal ends through a series of actions, each of which is not, taken individually, indisputably illegal.

Probably the latter.

Either way, we can rely on the Obama Justice Department to promptly and thoroughly investigate these activities and file the appropriate charges.

Warning: 244 page PDF. (link) Check page 13. I can't see what gets triggered at $50, but I am not a lawyer.

Federal Election Campaign Laws Compiled By The Federal Election Commission, printed April 2008.

Page 13 (PDF page 27):

§ 432. Organization of political committees

(a) Treasurer... Every political committee shall have a treasurer. [snip]

(1) Every person who receives a contribution for an authorized political committee shall, no later than 10 days after receiving such contribution, forward to the treasurer such contribution, and if the amount of the contribution is in excess of $50 the name and address of the person making the contribution and the date of receipt.

(2) Every person who receives a contribution for a political committee which is not an authorized committee shall—

(A) if the amount of the contribution is $50 or less, forward to the treasurer such contribution no later than 30 days after receiving the contribution; and

(B) if the amount of the contribution is in excess of $50, forward to the treasurer such contribution, the name and address of the person making the contribution, and the date of receipt of the contribution, no later than 10 days after receiving the contribution.

(3) All funds of a political committee shall be segregated from, and may not be commingled with, the personal funds of any individual.

(1) all contributions received by or on behalf of such political committee;

(2) the name and address of any person who makes any contribution in excess of $50, together with the date and amount of such contribution by any person;

(3) the identification 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;

[ (4) and (5) aren’t relevant to topics discussed here. ]

Credit card companies may have liability if they have access to enough knowledge about the transaction that they would know that the transaction vioates the law. There have been lawuits involving online g@mbling that have pressed this theory.

A lot of background at this National Journal article from 10/24/08 by Neal Munro, FEC Rules Leave Loopholes For Online Donation Data, which is in turns informative and darkly amusing.

Obama campaign spokesman Nick Shapiro said, "We review our contributions to ensure that the information donors provide is complete and verifiable. We would only accept a contribution from a pre-paid credit card if the donor provides complete and verifiable information, consistent with FEC guidelines."

Followed by

FEC spokesman Robert Biersack said, "The committees are responsible for providing accurate information about the identifying characteristics of their donors.... The precise mechanisms of that are not necessarily written into the regulations."

Had he chosen to, Shapiro could have spoken more plainly.

"In order to avoid violating the letter of FEC guidelines, which are too vague to mandate much in the way of particular procedures or outcomes, we ask ourselves whether the information donors provide is complete and verifiable. Happily, our answer is almost always 'yes'."

Last month, "almost always 'yes'" translated to "'yes,' 99.76% of the time."

In September, for example, the Obama campaign's system flagged about 1.5 percent of its $150 million in donations as questionable and inadequately verified, and officials decided to return $353,000 in donations.

Obama campaign General Counsel Robert Bauer humorously added, "We do a very strong job, both with the technology we use and with this very heavy commitment to comprehensive back-end review."

Near the article's end:

there is no requirement to track donations by credit card numbers, said [FEC spokesman] Biersack.

"The [Obama] campaign does not store credit card information for verification purposes because it can subject individual accounts to being compromised," Shapiro said in an e-mail. "We track contribution history by an individual's name, address, and other information provided," he said.

Emphasis added.

I don't like the word "loophole" here.

First, a lot of regulations have de minimis regulatory thresholds under which the public judgment is that costs outweigh the benefits or regulation. Perhaps this judgment didn't fully anticipate technological advances that would (a) make it easier for a campaign to track small donations or (b) make it easier for de minims contributors to thwart the law. But these judgment calls are often made.

Second, the campaign appears to be responding normally to regulatory incentives. If there is no obligation to keep track of the identity of contributors, but if voluntarily doing so gives rise to additional obligations, the regulatory incentive is to not keep track of the identity.

This is interesting.

I just tried making a $60 donation with my credit card, but using my dad's name and address. I think it didn't go through. After clicking on the "Support the Ticket" button, I did not get a Thank You screen acknowledging my contribution. Instead, I got a screen that says "Vote for Change." Nothing about the donation going through, or not going through.

I'll see if anything posts to my account tomorrow.

Thus, it looks like AVS or something similar kicks in above $50. Or perhaps bad publicity led to a change in online procedures over the weekend.

David:

I just don't think logic is suspended simply because lack of virtue provides rewards. The potential cost of such a "victory" could be devastating to Democrats, over a 4 to 8 year period. One might argue that they were foolish to take such risks, but whether it's rational depends on how hungry they are. (And they are very very hungry.)

They may be sufficiently hungry to take the risk, but that doesn't mean it's a wise choice. In 1864 the Democrats doubled down on all their bets by backing compromise with slavery and opposing Soldier suffrage. Four years later they opposed the 14th Amendment giving blacks suffrage. The Black Swan in those races was Sherman's Burning of Atlanta and the organizational expertise of the Grand Army of the Republic. Democrats placed their bets on the Copperheads and opposition to the "black vote" and lost. And they never occupied the Presidency again (with the exception of Cleveland) until Wilson, almost 50 years later.

One can't just suspend reality, unless you're willing to kill a lot of innocent people. And I just don't think that's in the cards.

That's a lot of nerve to feel like you don't have to campaign as hard because you've won. All of the Ivy-League Illuminati politicians need to go around and speak to the people. So if the liberals win, they'll just stop thinking of us.

David Blue --

The answer is really obvious. Fight money with identity politics. The money is part of the identity politics of the trans-national group.

Playing by the Obama rules: whoever raises the most money, from trans-national groups, with media air-cover so to speak, means a permanent Democratic Majority.

IMHO, this is going to cause after a Rep wipe-out, a re-assessment and new way of Republican campaigning -- in response to this money/media advantage.

Already, the Philly Inquirer is running a serious, not joking article, about revoking the right to vote to White people because they are "racist." While news is breaking about Obama's 2001 radio interview about how he wants to redistribute wealth (reparations).

The comeback for the money/media advantage is neutralizing that outside the media -- identity politics pure and simple. This is particularly effective in a recession. Trans-national politics in Europe buys elections, because there is a patronage element to it ... money flows from winning electoral coalitions to enough voters to get constantly re-elected.

The problem with Obama's model is that after winning, he has to deliver the goods, in terms of money and services. There is only so much, and the anti-populist bent of the trans-national elites plus Blacks = money and services denied to the White majority, on an explicit "No Whites Need Apply" basis, though doubtless the wording will be different.

If Obama can provide the majority of voters with goodies he will get re-elected and form a permanent governing coalition. But his strength, i.e. the trans-national money and media adulation, is a weakness since he has to keep both happy with good gobs of anti-populism and anti-White majority politics, as in places like Sweden, Norway, etc. where there are serious efforts by anti-populists to "replace Whiteness" with a "glorious multicultural future" etc.

Bush/Rove thought they had a winning model for 50+% -- exurban families. See how that turned out. Obama's model is no better, and is likely to provoke a money/media end-run by some form of Jacksonian Populism linked to White Identity. Not the skinhead kind, but that of small-town Joe the Plumber kind. The continuation of Nixon's Southern Strategy.

Given that Obama's advisors are now talking about taxing/seizing 401K's because they are "racist" (ala Pfleger) to fund reparations/redistribution, that's bound to happen IMHO.

Hey, folks.

I'm thinking about redacting every use of the word "illuminati" for a while. Does anyone object?

To me the word is no more useful than "dogwhistle" or "wingnut" or other such cant.

But maybe that means I'm part of the i-word conspiracy. Ooooh.

Let me add that Italy is a good example of this process in motion:

The Italian state was too weak and corrupt to deliver trans-national goodies to the populace. Attempts by trans-national forces to buy elections were only partly successful, and did not make the populace happy.

Explicit populist-nativist organizations such as the Lega Nord have won convincingly, pandering to well, nationalism and populism. This is also underway in Austria, which has a similar weak state unable to deliver goodies from trans-nationals.

Berlusconi rules by appealing to well, nationalism. And populism. It's identity politics and as Italians feel more threatened by an influx of North African immigrants, nearly all of them illegal, and the Roma from the Balkans, they respond to that appeal.

Salon reader makes a small donation to Obama with a fake name. It is accepted. He attempts, three times, to make the same donation to the McCain campaign. The web site returns that there is a problem with the information every time—but the card gets charged all three times anyway!

For what it's worth.

Andrew- since im not a member of Salon i can't send a message. Would you consider forwarding something to the writer of that post:

When a credit card is denied do to an address verification mismatch, the funds are put on hold in an 'escrow' like state. This actually happens every time you pump your gas or reserve a hotel room too, although its usually invisible. The hold is removed and the funds made available within a certain length of time (which varies by bank). Usually a couple of days. The transaction hasn't actually occured, and the vendor NEVER has access to those funds.

I deal with that one every day.

Just wanted to set the record straight on that. To the credit card holder there is no way to tell the transaction wasnt completed (and the bank customer service people are almost always clueless, you have to get ahold of a manager to have the hold lifted prematurely most of the time... a lot of times the employee wont even know what you are talking about).

"But my credit card company would notice if someone other than myself were using my card, or if I were using it under an assumed name (they both look like fraud to the cc company)."

But if I understand the implications of shutting off name and address checking, the credit card companies might not even KNOW that an assumed name had been provided, if no name was passed on to them for checking.

I'm thinking about redacting every use of the word "illuminati" for a while. Does anyone object?

In doing so you will give the illuminati even more power -- the power of fear and uncertainty.

The words never bothered me, but my mental associations drift to Playboy

In doing so you will give the illuminati even more power -- the power of fear and uncertainty.

NOBODY expects the Illuminati! Our chief weapon is uncertainty...uncertainty and fear...fear and uncertainty.... Our two weapons are fear and uncertainty...and doubt.... Our three weapons are fear, uncertainty, and doubt...

Can I interest you in a friendly card game?(game)

Mr Oren: The format for that URL got busted by Movable Type. So here's a working TinyURL. (link) And I don't see what's friendly about it. So in answer to your question, no/yes. :)

PS: you guysssss... (#67, 68) One of these days, pow, right in the kisser!

PPS: I just got an email about a presentation on Baboon Metaphysics. Coincidence? Hah! No such thing!

But "let us return to our muttons", gentlemen.

Brett #66:

But if I understand the implications of shutting off name and address checking, the credit card companies might not even KNOW that an assumed name had been provided, if no name was passed on to them for checking.

Details. I really have no idea what is actually passed to banks, but since they've oftimes contacted me about suspicious-looking transactions that involved discrepancies in the ID I'm assuming that even if Obama accepts the contributions the ID info gets passed to the bank. If not, I'd think the bank would be sitting in a pretty deep hole.

But I don't really know, and defer to anyone with knowledge.

You can force your transactions to automatically cancel if name or address is not provided. Or you can accept them blind. I've completed transactions with no name or address on several occasions (accidentally I assure you, its really easy to hit enter instead of tab). I've never had a transaction bounced back in such a case. They clear just fine with just number and expiration.

Think back to the old school card swipers, no name, no address. You dont need to swipe for that matter, you can type in the number and exp date if the strip wont read. Its all based on the same transaction process.

You have to understand, the process is that the merchant decides and is responsible for authenticating the card user on the front end (different fraud detecting algorithms can flag transactions later by your bank). The banks dont care all that much because they can reverse the charges any time they like. The credit card always has the upper hand- in a case of fraud the merchant ends up eating the cash. Thats why its in their interest to authenticate. The credit card could really care less, they don't get stuck with a charge unless the merchant is the fraudulent entity.

Soliciting foreign donations (link), hat tip Ace of Spades HQ (link).

Both sides will get much more sophisticated than that.

Look closely at Obama's halo-encircled visage. Damn if he doesn't seem to be looking more and more like this guy with each passing day....

link

[ Naked link clothed; duplicate comment deleted. -- M.F. ]

Just to confirm that what's going on is similar to money laundering, fully strategic and intentional: (link), (link). And that the door is all the way open for foreign contributions (link).

The conservative blogsphere has fully registered and flagged all of this (link).

Results - or the lack of them - suggest that nobody with decisive influence at the Obama campaign cares. What's happening is the application of a method, not a glitch.

This method implies that the coming government won't just be corrupt, it will be indifferent to its legitimacy in the eyes of the defeated. What matters is: we win, you lose. Yes we can! And this will apply to all future governments of both parties adhering to the new Global Model.

That's why the title of a new site covering the quasi-money-laundering that's going on is correct for now but will date badly: Obama Shrugged (link). In time, everybody who uses the new and more effective election-winning method will shrug at legality and legitimacy. It's not personal, it's just business.

And again (link). The point is to obtain all the money that may be available to the Obama campaign, including foreign donations, and facilitating criminality (and Visa/Master Card rules) is an acceptable means to that end. This positively, certainly, definitely is what the Obama campaign is doing.

The Big Empty, by Five ThirtyEight: (link).

This is what has happened to the Republican ground game in consequence of Obama's huge money superiority: the Republican get out the vote machine has ceased to exist, cannibalized for ads to stay not too far behind in the polls. This sets a seal on the shattering defeat of the old electioneering model by the Obama campaign's new Global Model.

No future Republican candidate can risk being in the position John McCain is in. Therefore adoption of the Global Model by both parties is mandatory. The way we see Barack Obama playing this game is the way it has to be played from now on. It's a true revolution.

[ 'Big Empty' link fixed. -- M.F. ]

Thanks, M. F.

I now add to the model, fully in the spirit of "The Chicago Way" writ global, widespread utilization of the disabled, as flagged by Michelle Malkin: (link).

Overwhelming money power at work: (link).

People who don't live in the battleground states simply don't realize how Team Obama has buried McCain in TV ads. Here are the totals for Oct. 21-28 with ratios for each state:

VIRGINIA (3.8 to 1)
Obama $2,450,000, McCain $637,000

INDIANA (3.7 to 1)
Obama $1,248,000, McCain $336,000

COLORADO (3.6 to 1)
Obama $858,000, McCain $237,000

FLORIDA (3.3 t0 1)
Obama $4,615,000, McCain $1,441,000

OHIO (2.6 to 1)
Obama $1,984,000, McCain $753,000

MISSOURI (2.5 to 1)
Obama $1,105,000, McCain $437,000

NEVADA (2.4 to 1)
Obama $850,000, McCain $357,000

NORTH CAROLINA (2 to 1)
Obama $1,094,000, McCain $537,000

PENNSYLVANIA (2 to 1)
Obama $2,742,000, McCain $1,388,000

Even if McCain could match Obama dollar-for-dollar in Colorado, it would have been a nail-biter, but when he's getting buried 3.6-to-1 on TV ads? There is zero hope McCain will win there. Zero. And once you put Colorado in the Democratic column (along with Iowa), the Electoral College math just doesn't work for the Republican. You can sit and conjure up hypothetical miracle scenarios, but without Colorado, you can't realistically figure how McCain gets to 270.

Democratic politics is a numbers game. If the numbers add up for you, you win. If they add up against you, you lose. Money power is a big advantage, and the overwhelming money power the Barack Obama campaign is bringing to bear is a decisive advantage.

Both sides will adopt the Global Model. As Margaret Thatcher said:

"There is no alternative."

International Google searches for Donate Obama and Donate McCain come mostly from Canada and the UK, which are about the least frightening places they could be coming from, and which is consistent with left-voting American expatriate populations. (link)

Whatever the Global Model may mean in the long term, it has not started with a river of Donate Obama Google searches from Riyadh, Tehran and Beijing.

From The Next Right, focus on other, technical aspects of the new model that highlight just how right Barack Obama got it, strategically. (link)

Timing is different now. The Rove style 72 hour get out the vote plan died of early voting. You have to treat the whole last six weeks as the big day. And voters are making up their minds earlier.

Also, the fifty state campaign works now, and Barack Obama proved it.

I would add: if you don't have the money to play the moves that a wider field of struggle and longer campaigning time frames require, you're not ready to compete for the presidency.

The Steal is sealed: Surprise: FEC plans to audit McCain’s campaign funds — but probably not Obama’s (link).

The Global Model puts you above the law, in effect. The more money you rake in, the higher the barrier to legal scrutiny of your actions.

Both sides need to play by these rules. There is no alternative.

This is interesting.

13 business days after reporting my effort to donate to the Obama campaign with my valid Master Card number but a phony name and address, I balanced my account. And there it is.

Sale Date 10/27 - OBAMA FOR AMERICA 3128192416 IL - $60.00

When I'd logged in on the 28th and the 29th to check, somehow it hadn't posted, or I missed it.

So there's a strong if belated piece of evidence about the implementation of the Distributed Campaign Finance Fraud piece of the Global Model. It was not necessary to size online submissions below $50. Since $60 worked, there's no reason why $199.99 would not have. Maybe the system would have accepted yet bigger donations; that was too rich for me to try. See comment #54 for the relevance of the $50 and $200 levels in the FEC's regulations.

So all anyone wishing to make an illegal donation of, say, $20,000 would have needed was:

• a credit, debit, or cash card,
• a phone book or other source of names and addresses, and
• the patience to run through the exercise 101 times.

No offers from the campaign to return the money, yet. At the end of the month, I'll see if my dad's name appears on the Obama donor list. ("Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark. Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold." (link)

Here is the series of comments that led me to make this test.

AJL #3 from AJL --

My understanding is that anonymous donations are allowed if under $50. Perhaps Gateway Pundit just needs to make larger Obama donations to test things out.

AJL # 24 --

My guess is in a few days the Obama campaign will refund Gateway Pundit's contributions when their own fraud checks bounce them. I also guess GP will "forget" to mention this.

AJL # 33 --

There are documented cases of the Obama campaign returning surplus contributions from people who didn't realize they had "maxed out". That makes me suspect that the "credit card fraud" stories are just another baseless accusation.

AMac #58 --

This is interesting.

I just [10/27/08] tried making a $60 donation with my credit card, but using my dad's name and address. I think it didn't go through. After clicking on the "Support the Ticket" button, I did not get a Thank You screen acknowledging my contribution. Instead, I got a screen that says "Vote for Change." Nothing about the donation going through, or not going through.

I'll see if anything posts to my account tomorrow.

Thus, it looks like AVS or something similar kicks in above $50. Or perhaps bad publicity led to a change in online procedures over the weekend.

It's fairly trivial to design an exploit that would allow donation of a lot of untraceable money into a campaign:

How to Donate Millions to the Obama Campaign.

Don't expect Democrats to close this loophole (or the press to explore the possibilities) until someone like Palin starts to get a zillion online dollars....

Re: #82 from AMac: thanks for the new evidence, AMac. You donated, so everybody else doesn't have to. The result is known.

Re: #83 from Mark Poling: thanks for the links. This also confirms what kind of system we're looking at. It's set up to facilitate a river of illegal cash. And it works.

On the other hand there are some genuinely good aspects to the new model the Barack Obama campaign used. This interesting post at The Next Right (link) addresses the Obama campaign's overwhelming superiority in organization and networking.

Only, I can't agree with the title: It's not the money; it's the bodies. When it's that much money - an unlimited flow of untraceable funds - it has to be the money and the bodies.

If you assume that the donors all came from maxed out donors and that the new limit is $2,500, that would mean that the candidate would need to find 200,000 donors. More likely, the average donation size would be much smaller and the number of donors much larger. Barack Obama had over 3.1 million donors by October, averaging about $200/donor.

Consultants, who get paid by campaigns, tend to focus on the dollars. But that's not what we should be focusing on when we look at the Obama campaign. We should be looking at the numbers of bodies. It is the size and scope of Obama's grassroots organization that is really the phenomonal innovation that could transform our politics. That, not the money, is what we need to figure out how to match.

Let's put it slightly differently. Obama got about 3m donors. He got about 6m cell phone numbers. And about 10m on his email list. Turning that around, about 1 in 3 of the people who signed up to his email list gave him money. That's earth-shattering.

It is indeed. But ... about $200 a donor? I wonder how that happens. :/

The new Global Model, that is the Chicago Way on a vast scale, isn't just criminality. Its genius is that it combines massive lawbreaking, immunity to the law, and genuinely efficient and effective democratic politics to make a machine that's more than the sum of its parts.