GAI Exposes Possible O Campaign Donor Fraud

During the 2008 campaign, there were rumors of Obama’s campaign accepting millions of dollars in foreign donations, using the Internet and multiple credit cards. There were rumors, but if there were any facts, either no one was publishing them or no one read them.

Here we are in 2012, and this time rumors have turned into facts, initially reported by The Washington Examiner, and ferreted out by Canadian blogger JB Williams and the National Review’s Eliana Johnson.

JB Williams explains, in detail, urging an investigation by the Federal Elections Commission and the Secret Service: 

“The Obama campaign is reporting that it raised a record $181 million in the month of September alone. According to campaign FEC filings for September, the money came from 1.8 million individual donors, many overseas, and over 500,000 of whom had never donated before.

“Did YOU donate to Obama? You might have, just follow the trail… The same thing happened in September of 2008. We later learned that most of that huge cash infusion came from foreign countries, in small denominations, just like September 2012, averaging $53 each from millions of undisclosed donors, most of them abroad.

“There are Federal Laws making it illegal to accept foreign campaign contributions, yet Obama just took in almost $200 million, most of it from overseas donors. The FEC must immediately investigate the source of these overseas funds.

“The neat part is who those first-time donors are: it is YOU.   And it is YOU who must demand that the FEC and Secret Service immediately investigate the massive overseas funds pouring into the Obama campaign.

“The Government Accountability Institute just issued a 109 page report detailing the massive campaign finance fraud taking place in the 2012 campaign.

“From the report –

 “Campaigns are not required to disclose donations from individuals who gave less than $200 in a campaign cycle unless the campaign is audited. Furthermore, campaigns do not even need to keep records of those who gave less than $50. Presidential candidates are raising large amounts of money that fall under the $200 threshold and audits are rare unless a campaign accepts federal matching funds. To this date (September 26, 2012), the Romney campaign has raised $58,456,968 and the Obama campaign has raised $271,327,755 in contributions under $200 for the 2012 campaign cycle. In the 2008 presidential elections, the Obama campaign raised $335,139,233 in donations under $200.”

“A glimpse at campaign finance security –:

“Given the state-of-the art digital sophistication of the President’s re-election campaign—including social media, micro-targeting and data-mining—its online donation system contains at least three major security vulnerabilities:

1. The absence of the industry-standard CVV and unknown use of AVS anti-fraud security for online credit card donations

2. The presence of a branded, major third party-owned website ( redirects its 68% foreign traffic to a campaign donation page

3. Active foreign solicitation using indiscriminate email solicitations and exposure to social media”

“Specifically: Obama Campaign Lacks the Industry-Standard Level Of Credit Card Security For Donations, But Uses It For Merchandise Purchases: To purchase Obama campaign merchandise, the campaign requires buyers to enter their credit card CVV security code, but does not require the credit card security code to be entered when making an online campaign donation (see page 61). By GAI’s estimates, the Obama campaign’s failure to utilize industry-standard protections potentially costs the campaign millions in extra processing fees. (with purpose)

“The BIG Picture is Massive Fraud

 “There are reasons why the Obama campaign would use CVV code security technology for merchandising. In short, the CVV code on the back of your credit or debit card is there to ensure that the individual using the card is you, or someone authorized by you to use the card.

“Most Credit Card fraud does not happen with a stolen card, but rather a stolen card number. Because the fraudster will not have the CVV code on the back of the card in most cases.

“When the campaign is selling and shipping merchandise, they use CVV code technology to secure each transaction before shipping merchandise. But when nothing is being shipped, as in the case of campaign donations, they have CVV code technology turned off. Why? Because, the transactions coming from overseas on stolen card numbers, will not have the CVV code. They also won’t have AVS information, which the Obama campaign also turned off on its donations account. They are stolen card numbers, most of them from Americans.

“Address Verification, (AVS) like CVV code verification, are industry standards for blocking fraudulent online transactions. Why has the Obama campaign turned off both of those security functionsfor donations, but not for merchandise orders?

“With these security functions turned on, the system does not actually possess the card, but only the card number and expiration date for the card, they would decline transactions as fraudulent if they were missing a matching CVV code. So, to allow fraudulent donations on stolen card numbers, they would have to turn off the CVV security function, thereby allowing the fraudulent transactions to approve without any CVV code match.

“This raises three obvious questions:

1. Who are these individual donors? (Including via bundlers?)

2. Why are we allowing foreign donations from overseas?

3. How many of those donations are made on stolen U.S. card numbers?”

“Meanwhile, Obama can take in hundreds of millions in foreign fraudulent transactions billed to stolen U.S. card numbers and use those funds to win re-election. By the time people figure out they donated to Obama when their statement arrives, the election will be over.”

“To raise this issue with Secret Service, contact your closest Field Office.”

Contact the FEC here and demand an immediate investigation into Obama’s foreign campaign.  Only a full scale investigation into the massive donations from September 2012 (and 2008) can answer these and other questions. However, what we already know is this:

  •  Obama is not supposed to accept any foreign campaign donations, but he is.
  •  The Obama campaign is familiar with and using CVV code technology on merchandise, but not on campaign donations.
  •  Without the CVV code, fraudulent donations can be made with stolen card numbers and they are.
  •  The CVV code technology was intentionally turned off for Obama donations only.
  •  The Secret Service is responsible for investigating and prosecuting Credit Card Fraud.”

“The Secret Service must immediately investigate the huge sums pouring into the Obama campaign from overseas donors, looking closely at the campaigns misuse of CVV code technology to open the flood gates for fraudulent transactions.”

“The Obama Campaign used these same tactics in 2008, for more than $200 million in foreign unsecure donations from undisclosed donors.  Because they are committing fraud in small denominations, $25-$50 each, most American cardholders won’t even notice the charge on their statement. Even if they do notice on their next billing statement and issue a chargeback, it won’t be until after the election is over.”

“Whether or not the average reader can grasps the gravity of this fraud or not, I can assure you that the Secret Service and F.B.I. fully understand. They know exactly why someone would turn off these standard security features. They know that it represents an intentional opening of the flood gates for fraudulent online donations.

“What the people need to know is what these Law Enforcement groups are going to do about it and if they are going to do it, before another election is stolen by fraud? Are they loyal to America? Or, to the Commander-in-thief?”

JB Williams Co-Founder

Eliana Johnson of the National Review has done due diligence in following up on GAI’s report.  You can find her full report on National Review Online, a website I highly recommend to all concerned conservatives.

Is the Obama Campaign Being Finance By Foreign Donations?

 In her overview of the report regarding the Obama Campaign, Johnson notes:

  • The Obama campaign lacks ‘the industry standard level” of credit card security for donations
  • The website was purchased by an Obama bundler based in Shanghai, China with questionable ties to state-run enterprises
  • 68% of the traffic to is foreign, and the site was linked to a specific donation page on the official campaign website for ten months.

The entire, non-partisan report, America the Vulnerable, is available online

The report begins with a quote from Obama’s 2010 State of the Union Address:

“I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities.”

Schweizer is quite detailed in his facts:  “In 2008,” the report states, “ was purchased by an Obama fundraiser living in Shanghai, whose business is heavily dependent on relationships with Chinese state-run television and other state-owned entities.”  p.7

“The fact that is not owned or managed by the Obama campaign is a mystery.  Obama for America owns 392 different domain names bearing either the President’s name or the name of campaign initiatives.  It seems logical that would be sought after by the campaign.  In 2008, an Obama bundler with considerable business ties in China purchased the site. It is currently registered anonymously.”

“In the fall of 2000, was a ‘parked’ page owned by a small company that sold domain names  The site was in Japanese, most likely became ‘Obama” means ‘little beach’ in Japanese, and there is also a small town named Obama in the Fukoka province of Japan.

“ changed ownership among several users and was hosted with a major Japanese Internet company specializing in Search Engine Optimization (SEO) and affiliate marketing named Japan Global Media Online. The site remained parked in the Japanese language until the last two weeks of September 2008.

“In the last week of September 2008, was registered to “Roche, Robert.”  Roche is an American citizen (originally from Chicago) who has spent the bulk of his time since the late 1990s developing business interest sites in Shanghai.  He has considerable business interests in Chinese state-run television and ties to several state-owned Chinese companies.

“By Oct. 20, 2008, began redirecting all visitors to specific content on  Upon arrival to, visitors were asked for their name, email, and zip code and presumably were sent solicitation letters, like over other visitor who provides that information to the campaign.

“Following President Obama’s campaign victory in November 2008, redirected visitors to a page selling inauguration merchandise and taking donations for the inauguration celebration.  Throughout 2009, the website redirected to pages on the campaign website advocating various presidential initiatives. Starting in late January 2010, redirected to a page gathering email addresses and continued to do so through 2011.  Sometime during 2012, the webpage began sending visitors to a donation page on the Obama campaign’s website.  The campaign’s donation page loads an affiliate number to track the traffic and donations coming via the website.  It continues to do so today.

“On Oct. 4, 2010,’s site registration was changed from “Roche, Robert” to an anonymous registration with a company called Domains By Proxy, which is owned by GoDaddy.  Later, server hosting was changed from Japan Global Media Online to Hostmonster/, a company based out of Utah.

“Administration of the page was taken over by a small company with only four employees listed on its website.  Wicked Global, of Waterville, Me., registered to a 25 year-old former Harvard student named Derek Dorr.  Another Door, Gregory, is listed as “Lead Marketing” for Wicked Global and lists additional work for himself on LinkedIn:  fundraising and program director for Peace Action Maine and as a “private consultant” with Maine Voices for Palestinian Rights.  Confirming Wicked Global’s association with is simple enough.  First, the Google Analytics account registered to is registered to Wicked Global as well.  Second, when someone forces an error on, they are prompted to contact Wicked Global. Who arranged for Wicked Global to oversee, and that was done is unknown.

“It remains unclear whether or not Roche himself continues to own  Nevertheless, the site continues to aid the Obama campaign, regardless of ownership.”

And that’s just four pages of the report. Thank goodness my toner cartridges arrived a few days ago so I can print this information out and read it properly in full.  I suggest my readers do the same and pass it on to their family and friends.

 Fool us once, shame on you.  Fool us twice, shame on us.




Published in: on October 9, 2012 at 11:41 am  Comments (2)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

2 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. its great stuff. thanks for sharing…waiting for your next update. lista de emails lista de emails lista de emails lista de emails lista de emails

  2. when i come to your blog i always get interested on what you had written. lista de email lista de email lista de email lista de email lista de email

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: