The $150 Million Dollar Man

[BeAChooser]

So, not one shred of evidence supporting a grand conspiracy?

http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html

The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.

It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.

This should concern you folks, but obviously it doesn't. Obviously, the ONLY thing you care about is Obama winning, regardless of consequences.

More from the above link:

Ritsch acknowledges that there is skepticism about all the unreported money, especially in the Obama campaign coffers.

“We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors,” he said. “The Obama campaign never responded,” whereas the McCain campaign “makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online.”

And Obama keeps claiming his campaign is about "transparency"?

Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”

A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.

In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.

Try to convince us, Ben, that Good Will really has *good will* as his motivation.

Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 — still well over the $4,600 limit.

So even after being told, the Obama campaign is still allowing this illegality.

There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama’s Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375.

Yep ... Obama is no different than the Clinton's were. Just as dishonest and self serving.

Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You,” just as Good Will had done.

So obviously, Good Will and Pro, Doodad were related to one another. Doesn't this suggest some form of conspiracy, Ben?

Following FEC requests, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro in February 2008. In all, about $8,425 was charged back to a credit card. But that still left a net total of $11,165 as of Sept. 20, way over the individual limit of $4,600.

So again, we find that even after the Obama campaign was informed of this illegality, they allowed it to continue. Where's the oversight, folks?

Someone out there gave over $35,000 dollars to Obama's campaign and Obama doesn't seem to care enough to correct it. Nor do Obama's supporters on this forum, evidently.

And note that these credit cards to which the donations are being refunded must have names on them ... legitimate names ... traceable names. Otherwise, a fraud has been committed against the credit card companies. The Obama campaign should immediately release the names on these cards to the FBI and the public so that we know who it is that is trying to violate election laws. If Obama's campaign won't do this, that tells us something very important about Obama. That he doesn't care. Just like these JREF supporters. Just like none of them cared when Clinton was violating campaign funding laws, too.

In February, after just 93 donations, Doodad Pro had already gone over the $2,300 limit for the primary. He was over the $4,600 limit for the general election one month later.

Clearly, Obama's campaign has had plenty of time to detect and refund these illegal donations. That they haven't, speaks volumes about their lack of interest in obeying and upholding the law. This should be a warning to everyone who plans to put this group in the Whitehouse. Don't claim you didn't know, when this turns out to have been a warning of what's to come.

The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million.

Over 33 MILLION DOLLARS from unknown foreign sources. And the Obama campaign doesn't care because that money can buy them more TV time before the election. The ONLY thing that matter is getting elected. Right?

In July and August, the head of the Nigeria’s stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigeria’s largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners.

At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000.

Shall we guess how much of that ended up in Obama's coffers?

In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign.

It's even looks like Gadhafi is an Obama fan, Ben. So you are in good company.

 

[BeAChooser]

How dare those Dutch SOCIALISTS with their affordable health care and cheap education visit ARE country.

Visit?

http://poligazette.com/2008/10/10/young-dutch-socialists-to-campaign-for-barack-obama/

And far as Dutch health care and education being affordable or cheap, the Dutch pay among the highest tax rates in the world.

See http://www.expatax.nl/tax_rates_2008.htm

According to that, those in the lowest tax bracket are taxed at a 33% rate (if you call the National Insurance a tax, which it is). In other words, they hand over a third of their meager income to the government for that affordable, cheap socialized medicine and education. Those who make more than the US equivalent of only $23,000 must pay at a 42 rate. And if you make more than the equivalent of only $70,000 US dollars then at current exchange rates, you are in the 52% tax bracket. And the tax rate on income from savings and investments is 30% (versus our capital gains tax, which is currently very low).

Cheap? Hardly.

 

[BenBurch]

He cites Newsmax!

 

[Peephole]

18% with no health care at all, among the highest health care costs in the world, students having to take on loans to go to college,...

Ah, the American dream.

But, wait. What's the sound? OH NO, IT'S TAXES AND DUTCH SOCIALISTS!!!

OOGA BOOGA

 

[Grizzly Bear]

18% with no health care at all, among the highest health care costs in the world, students having to take on loans to go to college,...

Don't worry... "free" just means you pay upfront rather than when you go into the the doctor's office. "Free" just means you pay for college upfront, rather than at the registrar

I get it now, just say "free" to redefine "expense"

Oooga Booga!

 

[Peephole]

Yes, which is tons cheaper and spreads the burden.

 

[gdnp]

Mark my words.

No need. We can track them by the smell.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Yes, which is tons cheaper and spreads the burden.

I hope you don't have too much faith in Obama's 3x tax savings then, since when you include his health care policy the 3x as much tax relief doesn't hold much water any more

The independent study that Sen. Obama is referring to comes from the Tax Policy Center, which does indeed verify this fact for middle-income tax units when you exclude the effects of the two candidates' health care plans. What Sen. Obama doesn't tell us is that Sen. McCain's health care tax plan (which he criticizes on many occasions, and in his ubiquitous TV ads) would actually provide more savings to middle-income tax units (as a group) than Sen. Obama's health care plan. And when you include the effects of these health care plans, the "three-times as much tax relief" claim no longer holds. When TPC ran the tax plans, they analyzed the health care plans separately from the other parts of the candidates' tax plans.

Speaking of Sen. McCain's health care plan, Sen. Obama once again made this invalid comparison:

By the way, the average policy costs about $12,000. So if you've got $5,000 and it's going to cost you $12,000, that's a loss for you.

Sen. Obama's saying outright that Sen. McCain's plan is a loss for you is nonsense.

The $12,000 cost and $5,000 credit are not comparable unless one assumes two facts for McCain's health care tax plan: (1) the worker will be dropped by his employer, and (2) the worker's wages will not increase to offset the lost health care. For most workers, this isn't going to happen. If somebody is receiving $12,000 in health insurance that is now taxed as ordinary income (and there is no dropping of coverage), a $5,000 credit is going to more than offset the additional tax a person must pay on his/her employer-provided health insurance. Eventually, since the credit is indexed for inflation and not health-care costs, the credit's value would diminish. But over the next ten years, the Tax Policy Center has estimated that McCain's health care tax plan is a $1.3 trillion tax cut for American taxpayers, and they have shown that the average middle-income tax unit would be better off under McCain's health care tax plan than Obama's in that time period. Now it is true that the average doesn't hold for everyone in the middle, and some will gain a lot in the middle and some could lose a lot in the middle (such as those whose coverage is dropped), but the reality is that the health care tax plan is the most progressive part of Sen. McCain's plan. It would make the federal income tax more progressive.

Cheaper? Sounds more like the tab is being shifted from one medium to another...

 

[Phaedrus74]

Visit?

http://poligazette.com/2008/10/10/young-dutch-socialists-to-campaign-for-barack-obama/

And far as Dutch health care and education being affordable or cheap, the Dutch pay among the highest tax rates in the world.

See http://www.expatax.nl/tax_rates_2008.htm

According to that, those in the lowest tax bracket are taxed at a 33% rate (if you call the National Insurance a tax, which it is). In other words, they hand over a third of their meager income to the government for that affordable, cheap socialized medicine and education. Those who make more than the US equivalent of only $23,000 must pay at a 42 rate. And if you make more than the equivalent of only $70,000 US dollars then at current exchange rates, you are in the 52% tax bracket. And the tax rate on income from savings and investments is 30% (versus our capital gains tax, which is currently very low).

Cheap? Hardly.

And yet our living standards at least on par with those in the U.S. and our unemploymentrate at the moment stands at 2.6% against 6.1% for the U.S.

Also, if you were to look around on the internet you would find that the per capita costs of healthcare are significantly lower see for instance: Over here.

Yes, very cheap....

Also, I love paying taxes....

[/Derail]

 

[Peephole]

Anywho, back on topic:

The share of donors who have donated less than $200 to Obama is now 61% (compared to McCain's 37%):

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.php?cycle=2008

 

[BeAChooser]

As I remember it, McCain announced that he was going to accept public funding (after announcing that he would accept, then that he was going to reject public funding for the primary campaign) before any agreement was reached with Obama.

Do you have any actual quotes by him?

Or must we depend on your *memory*?

Because I find your memory lacking on many levels.

Kinda like his unilateral announcement that he was going to "suspend" his campaign due to the financial crisis.

Not at all like that. In fact, McCain did suspend campaigning for a time and if not for that, the first vote for bailout wouldn't even have been close since it was his voice that caused numerous republicans who weren't initially going to vote for the bailout to do so. In contrast, Obama made the decision to put party over country ... which is what democrat leaders seem to do ALL THE TIME.

It would have been idiotic for Obama to simply accept public financing without negotiating the terms given the Republican advantages in soft money.

Why do you think there's a republican advantage in soft money?

And regardless, you are still avoiding the central issue ... that the Obama campaign doesn't seem to care that tens of millions of dollars of illegal money are flowing into it's coffers. That the Obama campaign has made little or no effort to vet the legality of its funding when it clearly had months and months to do so ... had it cared one iota about that legality. That the Obama campaign which claims it will bring transparency to government is doing just the opposite in the campaign funding arena ... hiding the names of its contributors.

Yeah, that they could get more money through public financing than they could raise on their own.

Nonsense. These rules passed and were adhered to over many years for reasons that democrats claimed they fully supported ... until one democrat suddenly finds them inconvenient. Ever notice, folks, how when democrats find a rule or law inconvenient they generally violate it?

That being said, I think that a campaign financed by over 3 million contributions averaging under $86 is a remarkable thing.

It would be, if there really were 3 million contributors and all of them were Americans. But there aren't and they aren't ... which is the problem.

Certainly people might get around donation limits by giving under multiple false names, but it is hard to believe that they are buying influence by doing so.

As I've already noted, they are buying influence if Obama wins because he's already stated his agenda is to spread the wealth. And as I noted, you don't know that Obama doesn't know the real names of many of those contributors. They may simply be using this money to illegally deliver the money to Obama. How else do you explain $35,000 dollars in contributions from someone who used the identities "Good Will" and "Doodad"? Why else would Obama not reveal the names on the credit cards that "Good Will" and "Doodad" used?

A billion dollars is a lot of money to spend on a presidential campaign. Then again, a trillion dollars is a lot of money to spend on a wall street bailout plan, and the next president is going to be making decisions that affect many trillions of dollars. So a billion is not all that unreasonable an investment.

You just proved my point. It's why foreign governments and foreigners may have violated our laws in order to stuff Obama's coffers with money. And many of the Americans who are giving may also be looking at this as an "investment". Afterall, Obama has promised to take from those who worked to make their fortunes and give it to those who didn't. It's Beggars and Choosers. Are you a beggar, gdnp?

 

[BeAChooser]

Oh really? Remember the primary, when he said he was going to accept public financing and used the expected federal dollars as collateral for a loan when his campaign was broke? Then, after he had all but secured the nomination, and thus had no real need for campaigning in the primary battle but now had more cash coming in, he changed his mind and declined public financing.

As usual, you don't have your facts right.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=213&sid=1349054

August 14, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican presidential hopeful John McCain won a round against Democrats on Thursday when the Federal Election Commission rejected their contention that he violated campaign finance laws during the GOP primary. ... snip ... That was a rejection of the Democratic National Committee's complaint asserting that McCain's campaign had wrongly received loans based on his participation in public financing before later withdrawing from that system. ... snip ... Lawyers for the FEC concluded that McCain did not pledge to use public financing as collateral for the loans and did not violate the law.

 

[BenBurch]

Nearly nobody at all has donated to Cynthia McKinney???

Color me surprised.

I thought she would have support in the 10,000s at least.

 

[gdnp]

Nonsense. These rules passed and were adhered to over many years for reasons that democrats claimed they fully supported ... until one democrat suddenly finds them inconvenient. Ever notice, folks, how when democrats find a rule or law inconvenient they generally violate it?

Last I heard public financing was not mandatory. You seem to think that Obama opting out of public financing for the general election is a violation of the law, yet McCain opted out of public financing in the primaries and this does not merit any criticism at all. Why is this, BAC?

Why do you think there's a republican advantage in soft money?

Because there are a lot of rich Republicans. NPR reported yesterday that the average fortune 500 CEO made 40 times the salary of the average worker in the 80's and now makes 600 times the average salary, with lower income and capital gains taxes and bupkis in trickle-down. Donations to the Republican party are an attempt to perpetuate that system. Thus they violate the spirit of the McCain-Feingold law by donating soft money.

 

[jberryhill]

I think one of the explanations is that they are so rich, that if they lose some of it, it does not matter. That they value the Democrat for other reasons. What are those reasons? What is in it for THEM?

I'll bite. I make more than $250K per year and would probably pay a 3% higher marginal rate under the Obama plan as I understand it. I had never thought that the United States of America was all about "ME", but I do understand there are other high-income individuals who believe in no allegiance to anything other than their bank accounts.

I am able to earn a high income as an attorney due in part to the fact that I received a quality education in public schools, went to a publicly funded university, worked on publicly funded projects in grad school, and lucked out on a scholarship to law school. Both of my parents grew up poor, and had it not been for ROTC and the GI Bill, they would not have been able to provide the environment in which I did well and have prospered thus far.

Maybe other people grew up in some Robinson Crusoe situation, where they fashioned everything they have out of seashells and vines, but I grew up in the United States of America, which has been to my great advantage and which I support with more than words.

Something that certainly has affected me are the consequences of the irresponsible economic policies of the Republicans, which don't seem to consider that demand for goods and services is driven by a population able to afford them.

On the contribution thing, BAC, I have no idea why you believe the Obama campaign is not complying with all relevant FEC regulations.

Of course, when you accept online donations, some people will knowingly or not make contributions that are not qualified. These are found and refunded. What is it that you believe the Obama campaign is not doing adequately?

More directly, how is it that you came to know about the t-shirt guy, if the campaign is somehow "hiding" its sources of funds?

Now, you referred to "tens of millions" in foreign contributions. Aside from gotcha games being intentionally played by making small change bad donations for the purpose of "exposing" them, where do you get this figure?

It's as silly as the "McCain soliciting foreign contributors" due to the immediately apparent fact that the address of the Russian ambassador was on a bulk mailing list they bought.

When I run my name through opensecrets.org and other FEC database gateways, I certainly see the donations I and my wife have made, with the exception of the most recent reporting period. What is it that you believe is not being reported?

 

[Jimbo07]

I am able to earn a high income as an attorney due in part to the fact that I received a quality education in public schools, went to a publicly funded university, worked on publicly funded projects in grad school, and lucked out on a scholarship to law school. Both of my parents grew up poor, and had it not been for ROTC and the GI Bill, they would not have been able to provide the environment in which I did well and have prospered thus far.

There is no such thing as the true "self-made" man (No True Scotsman? ). We are all products of our environment. Be it the police for keeping the small business owner's store safe, to parents investing in our future, we have all received help from someone, somewhere. What is at stake is the level of government involvement in that help.

My income is finally starting to grow and I fully expect to particpate with my share of the tax burden. I'm tired of complaints of a 3% tax increase for those making over $250,000 as being excessively burdensome, or socialist! Obama should be credited with giving clearly defined numbers, like them or not.

Obama has re-written the rules on campaign finance, not by limiting spending (which was the public option, and the previous model), but by mobilising a grass-roots base to take back democracy from smaller, powerful, centralized, special-interests. Americans should be proud!

 

[jberryhill]

My income is finally starting to grow and I fully expect to particpate with my share of the tax burden. I'm tired of complaints of a 3% tax increase for those making over $250,000 as being excessively burdensome, or socialist! Obama should be credited with giving clearly defined numbers, like them or not.

I'll tell you what has bothered me since my tax course in law school - this notion that the worst thing that can happen to you is to make any taxable income.

"But you are taking away the incentive for success"

I just don't understand that. Would you rather make $10,000 a year and pay no tax, or would you rather make $150,000 and pay a net rate of around 30%?

Republicans in general strike me as opting for the ten grand in that scenario.

Instead, it's always "OMG, I have no incentive to work, since I'd rather make 100% of nothing versus 70% of something."

It's just perverse.

 

[BenBurch]

I wish I made a million a year, and that the government took HALF.

 

[BeAChooser]

He cites Newsmax!

Are you claiming that Newsmax was not accurate in the facts I quoted from it? I'd say "prove it", Ben, but I know you wouldn't even try. You'd rather attempt an unsourced, unproven smear because that's the democrat way. And knowing that you won't try and that still some readers may walk away thinking you actually scored a point here by attacking Newsmax in this manner, I'll now cite other sources besides Newsmax to verify what Newsmax published. Just to show everyone reading this thread how lame your defense of Obama has become at this point ... that your attack on Newsmax is nothing more than red herring and distraction ... that as often is the case, Newsmax is a very good source. (You see folks, democrats haven't like Newsmax ever since Newsmax helped exposed the true scope of the criminality during the Clinton administration.)

So let's go through the quotes I cited one by one:

The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.

It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.

The FEC website:

http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do?cand_id=P80003338

indicates that more than $259 million of Obama's contributions are $200 or less.

And how much of those are unidentified? Almost all of it.

Ritsch acknowledges that there is skepticism about all the unreported money, especially in the Obama campaign coffers.

“We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors,” he said. “The Obama campaign never responded,” whereas the McCain campaign “makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online.”

Why don't you contact Massie Ritsch at CRP and ask if the above quote is false, Ben. Here is a way you can reach him, according to the CRP website: http://www.opensecrets.org/about/index.php .

Media Contact:
Massie Ritsch, Communications Director
Office: (202) 354-0111
[email protected]

So here's your chance to prove Newsmax was untruthful, Ben. Anyone out there want to bet me their continued presence on this forum that Ben will take me up on this challenge and come back with a report from Massie that he didn't say that?

Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”

A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.

In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.

These are the same numbers that a Newsweek article gave in an earlier link that was posted.

Here's a New York Times article that seems to confirm those numbers: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/u...aper&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin " Doodad Pro and Good Will, who made more than 1,000 contributions each and whose totals far exceeded the $4,600 that individuals can legally give to the primary and general elections, were flagged by the F.E.C. in standard letters regarding excess contributions sent to the Obama campaign. The commission alerted the campaign about Good Will as early as June, giving it 30 days to respond. The Obama campaign refunded several thousand dollars in contributions to the two donors, even before receiving the letters from the F.E.C. But its campaign finance filing in September showed it had failed to refund more than $10,000 in donations from each of them, although Obama officials say all of the money has now been returned."

And if you don't believe, Newsweek, then check it out yourself using the FEC database:

http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch...001&searchType=&searchSQLType=&searchKeyword=

And from the above NYTimes article you might want to add the name "Fornari Usa" to the list:

Another donor apparently connected to Good Will and Doodad Pro, “Fornari Usa,” listed the same “Loving” and “You” under employer and occupation, and made a series of $25 donations to Mr. Obama in May, totaling $1,050.

The address leads to a women’s clothing store, Fornari U.S.A., in Milpitas, Calif. Levi Lazo, a sales associate, said she and her manager were mystified by the donations.

“None of us,” Ms. Lazo said, “have made any contributions.”

It's beginning to look like some form of conspiracy, Ben.

Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 — still well over the $4,600 limit.

Don't believe Newsmax, Ben? Check it out yourself:

http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch...001&searchType=&searchSQLType=&searchKeyword=

Just plug in the donor name "Will, Good". You will find 1541 transactions of $25 each. And since most of the refunds didn't occur until September 26, I'll bet you that the numbers indicated in the Newsmax article above are correct. The wager? How about your continued presence on this skeptics forum?

There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama’s Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375.

If you don't believe Newsmax, check it out yourself:

http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch...001&searchType=&searchSQLType=&searchKeyword=

Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You,” just as Good Will had done.

Again, most of this information was in the Newsweek article that was linked earlier. And if you don't believe Newsmax, check it out yourself:

http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch...001&searchType=&searchSQLType=&searchKeyword=

You'll find 1470 transactions involving "Pro, Doodad" with the same result as "Will, Good". Aren't you at all interested in knowing who this person is, Ben? How about joining me in demanding Obama release the name or names they used on their credit cards? Why is Obama keeping it secret? I thought his administration was going to be *transparent*.

Following FEC requests, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro in February 2008. In all, about $8,425 was charged back to a credit card. But that still left a net total of $11,165 as of Sept. 20, way over the individual limit of $4,600.

Don't believe Newsmax? Check it out yourself:

http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch...001&searchType=&searchSQLType=&searchKeyword=

In February, after just 93 donations, Doodad Pro had already gone over the $2,300 limit for the primary. He was over the $4,600 limit for the general election one month later.

Don't believe Newsmax? Check it out yourself:

http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch...001&searchType=&searchSQLType=&searchKeyword=

The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million.

From CNSNews:

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=36996

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

... snip ...

The RNC filed the 49-page complaint Monday with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in light of reports of questionable contributions coming into Obama’s campaign.

The complaint says Obama has received 11,500 questionable contributions from foreign nationals, totaling about $33.8 million. It is illegal for foreign nationals to donate to U.S. political campaigns.

In July and August, the head of the Nigeria’s stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigeria’s largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners.

At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000.

From Reuters:

http://africa.reuters.com/top/news/usnBAN225720.html

Fri 22 Aug 2008

LAGOS (Reuters) - Nigeria's anti-corruption police were questioning the head of the stock exchange after she organised a gala dinner in support of Barack Obama's U.S. presidential campaign which raised hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Ndi Okereke-Onyiuke, chairwoman of the "Africans for Obama" campaign group, organised the fundraising dinner in the commercial capital Lagos on August 11. A "platinum" ticket for a table of eight cost 2.5 million naira.

From a Thai/Indian media outlet:

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal...dy-seizes-obama-fundraiser-cash_10091475.html

Nigerian anti-corruption body seizes Obama fundraiser cash

September 2nd, 2008

Nairobi, Sep 2 (DPA) Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has seized over half a million dollars raised to support US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Ndidi Okereke-Onyuike, the director-general of the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE) and head of the Africa for Obama campaign, raised 74.1 million Naira ($630,000) at a fundraising dinner in early August.

Guests paid up to $20,000 for a table at the event, while individual tickets went for around $3,000.

Ok, so it's not $900,000 but I bet if I really looked ...

In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign.

From the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI):

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP196008

Following are excerpts from a public address by Libyan Leader Mu'ammar Al-Qaddafi marking the anniversary of the U.S. air raid on Libya. The address aired on Al-Jazeera TV on June 11, 2008:

... snip ...

"All The People In The Arab And Islamic World And In Africa Applauded This Man [Obama]... [And] May Have Even Been Involved In Legitimate Contribution Campaigns"

So you see folks, every statement that I cited from that Newsmax article can be verified by other independent sources. As usual, the attempt by democrats like Ben to smear Newsmax is baseless and a distraction from the facts. The fact is something smells in the Obama campaign.

 

[BeAChooser]

Now for some more goodies.

http://www.indianagazette.com/articles/2008/08/27/news/presidential_election_200/10000400.txt

Questions arise over foreign donations

... snip ...

One donor, Tom Sanderson of Canada, made clear his $500 contribution came from a foreign source. He included a note that said, ``I am not a American citizen!'' Obama's campaign took the money anyway, even publishing Sanderson's cautionary statement about his citizenship in its official finance reports.