Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
What does Malkin call it? The "Waaaahhhhmbulance"? That applies here.
President shutting off verification on his site to take donations? "No big deal"Gov Walker abiding by state law? Scandal.
(the other kev)'It's not over until we win!'Laws are irrelevant to unions and their lackeys.
"...that's so unfair"Where have I heard that before? Oh, that right. When my kids were in high school. About right.
Actually, that's a pretty good analysis. But, if this is true: "First off, there’s nothing illegal about Walker’s actions -- they are expressly permitted under a 1987 change in state campaign finance law."Then, I'm surprised PolitiFact doesn't have to state that "It’s an 'outrageous loophole' and 'unfair advantage' that lets Walker -- in the words of state Rep. Kelda Helen Roys, D-Madison -- 'operate in lawless fashion,'" is whatever the worst not true rating they have is.Something like "false, but you have to understand the context," I would imagine.
President shutting off verification on his site to take donations? "No big deal"What has to be kept in mind with the Obama campaigns doing this, is that it isn't, in itself, illegal, but rather, facilitates and encourages illegal behavior on the part of others. For those who don't remember this in 2008, the Obama campaign turned off verification for credit cards. That is the feature that matches the name and address, and sometimes secret three digit code, to the credit card number when making a credit card purchase. If they had bothered to justify it, they might have claimed that it was more efficient, or something like that.What it does, is allow contributions from anyone in any place in the world in any name and address those donating wish to provide. So, I don't think that anyone was surprised when the Obama Campaign received contributions from entire NFL teams giving the address of their stadium, or casts of Disney characters. There was some evidence turned up a bit later that a lot of the illegal contributions were from unions. No surprise there. But do we know that the rest of the illegal contributions were even from this country? What better way to sway the U.S. government to your country's benefit than to give a couple of million dollars to the President's election campaign? Is that why Obama has been so conciliatory towards Arabs, Russians, and Chinese? We really don't know how much of the billion or so that Obama raised and spent during his last campaign was illegal, but likely at least in the tens of millions of dollars. Hundreds of millions? We just don't know. But, who is going to investigate that fraud? Eric Holder? To the victor go the spoils, and that includes here the Department of Justice.
"They can raise the jumbo gifts as well for that limited period, though elections officials say they have seen no evidence they did so."-- Oh. So the whining is because they weren't able to raise money as effectively. I really doubt that there'd be any complaining if both sides were rolling in cash. Why? Because about some things, I am a cynic. A rose-colored cynic, but cynic none-the-less.
"If they had bothered to justify it, they might have claimed that it was more efficient, or something like that."-- I believe they said their default program started with it off, but I may be misremembering.
I can hear the stamping feet.
Matthew, what they use is a very coming pay acceptance software...and everybody else who uses it says that the ID is on by default. You have to manually disable it.
-- I believe they said their default program started with it off, but I may be misremembering.I do seem to remember this too, but it made little sense then, and less today. Almost every vendor out there gets this right. Pretty much the only time that you don't see the verification turned on, is with small transactions. Or, in cases where the cashier is supposed to eyeball the card and maybe match it to your ID. Why would the Obama campaign be pretty much the only acceptor of credit cards that got this wrong, out of the millions who do so in this country.But, the giveaway that this was done intentionally, was first that they apparently turned it off sometime in the late summer or so. Worse, after the publicity last time around, they started this election campaign with credit card verification turned off.
Loopholes can be closed if there is political will to do so.Let me guess: Democrats don't want to close the loophole that might in the future be beneficial to them.It's always okay to complain about the other guy's money and its sources.
-- I believe they said their default program started with it off, but I may be misremembering.I think that damikesc has a good point - why would the credit card system default to no verification? They do that, and they get themselves sued for fraudulent credit card purchases by vendors who didn't understand that they needed to turn this on. Or, understood, took the risk, and lost.
It does sound stupid.But, hey, when you win the election, no one's going to check out your finances.
This is the Garage Loophole:It says that all acts by GOP candidates and office holders are presumed to be criminal acts until proven otherwise after 10 to 20 years of headlines run about their Crimes being under investigation. It's Wisconsin, Jake.
The Default setting for both AVS and security code = ONTool developers have a normal incentive to provide the pre-configured tool in a fashion that is:- most commonly used- provides the least chance of having somebody sue you for fraud- reduces your support callsthat's why these tools, like firewalls, gateways, routers, and other security software start with the switches = ONIt is and was a purposeful decision by the Obama campaign to defraud both individual card holders and the American people to maximize revenue
It is and was a purposeful decision by the Obama campaign to defraud both individual card holders and the American people to maximize revenue.Knew about defrauding the American people - but was there really some defrauding of individuals last time around? I would think that that if that sort of thing was going on, that the card holders would have had a cause of action against the Obama campaign for the fraudulent credit card usage, or, if they got their money back, maybe the credit card companies. Not so much, the American people.
Bruce: Only if they noticed. Most people won't notice $5 or $10 charges.
In 2008 the Obama campaign said that they were carefully checking the donations and would return any that were suspicious. That was enough for the MSM, as one might expect.
Interesting that Democrats passed the law that Walker is taking advantage of.They never quite grasp that someday the laws they pass can be used against them, do they?
Post a Comment