• ACORN Whistleblower

    Anita spoke at a May 19, 2012 seminar held by Citizen Watchdog & the Franklin Center. Anita is the insider who blew the whistle on ACORN and testified about their internal practices implementing voter fraud and illegal voter registration practices. Video is 34 minutes, but the sound is a little hard to hear.

  • Former Acorn Employee Anita Moncrief on Fox News

  • Anita Moncrief’s speech at C-PAC

    Anita Moncrief’s speech at Americans For Prosperity Foundation’s Suite Tea Breakfast with Andrew Breitbart in Orlando, Florida, September 23, 2011.

    Part 1:

    Part 2:

  • Anita Moncrief on Laura Ingraham Show

    Recorded on 09/17/2009

  • Dubious donations (2012 edition)

    Posted on April 2, 2012 by Scott Johnson in 2012 Presidential Election

    Barack Obama has proved the greatest campaign fund-raiser of all time by a long shot. In 2008 his campaign raised more than $750 million. The Obama campaign even went the extra mile to raise campaign funds by failing to adopt standard protections against fraudulent and illegal giving. Federal law prohibits foreign contributions and requires the disclosure of identifying information for contributions in excess of $200. Campaigns must accordingly keep running totals for each donor and report them once they exceed $200.

    As we and others noted, the 2008 Obama campaign’s records revealed big contributors with names like “Doodad Pro” (employer: “Loving,” profession: “You”) and “Good Will” (same employer and profession). Both donated via credit card. I believe it was Pamela Geller who reported that some donations came from overseas — raising the question of whether Obama was accepting donations from foreigners.

    All of which prompted an enterprising reader to test the controls put in place to enforce compliance with federal campaign law by the Obama and McCain campaigns. He decided to conduct an experiment. He went to the Obama campaign Web site and made a donation under the name “John Galt” (the hero of Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged). He provided the equally fictitious address “1957 Ayn Rand Lane, Galts Gulch, CO 99999.” He checked the box next to $15 and entered his actual credit-card number and expiration date. He was then taken to the next page and notified that his donation had been processed. Others repeated “John Galt’s” experiment, giving to Obama under such fictitious names as Della Ware, Joe Plumber, Idiot Savant, Ima BadDonation (with a Canadian bank card) and Fake Donor.

    The Obama campaign was able to take these donations because it had turned off the standard Address Verification System that screens credit-card charges for matching names and addresses. (It can also screen cards issued by foreign banks.) The McCain campaign used AVS and provided a searchable database of all donors, including those who fell below the $200 threshold. The Obama campaign chose not to use the AVS system to screen donations. (The McCain campaign rejected such donations through the use of the AVS system.) You can find a good description of the AVS and CVV fraud prevention devices here.

    I wrote about this in the New York Post column “Dubious donations.” The Post subhead observed: “Bam’s Web site invites fraud.” The Washington Post reported on the matter two days later in the story “Obama accepting untraceable donations,” by Matthew Mosk. Mosk quotes Obama campaign officials on their practices. According to them, everything was copacetic.

    Urgent Agenda reader Adrian Murray wondered if the Obama campaign has become any more compliant this time around than it was last time. He conducted the necessary experiment and wrote Urgent Agenda proprietor Bill Katz:

    If you go here you will note that credit card donations to the Obama election campaign do not require the credit card security code [i.e., the CVV code]. What they have done is disable the Address Verification System (AVS) which prevents credit card fraud. Yesterday, just to see what would happen, I submitted a donation and filled out the form as follows:

    Name – Adolph Hitler
    Address – 123 Nuremburg Way, Berlin, Germany
    Occupation – Dictator
    Employer – Nazi Party

    After submitting, I received an email that began, “Dear Adolph, thank you for your generous donation….”

    I then went to the Romney and Santorum websites and tried the same thing. Both rejected the donations with a message that the address could not be verified as belonging to the card holder.

    Try it. Make up a name and an address and donate to Obama. Then try it with the other two. Only Obama will accept the donation.

    Why is this important? Federal law prohibits any foreign nationals from financially contributing to any election in the United States. It’s on the FEC website and is one of our most important safeguards against foreign influence in our elections. But anybody in the world can contribute to Obama. Not only that, but they can do so anonymously. Not only that, they can contribute an unlimited amount since there is no record of who made the donation. I could contribute $49 every day for the rest of my life by just changing names every time I reach $2,500 and no one would be the wiser.

    I haven’t repeated Mr. Murray’s experiment, but I believe the situation is as described in the words of the Talking Heads: “Same as it ever was.”

     

    [ Click here: Dubious donations (2012 edition) | Power Line]

  • Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations

    By Matthew Mosk

    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, October 29, 2008

    Sen. Barack Obama‘s presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity, campaign officials confirmed.

    This Story

    Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

    The Obama organization said its extensive review has ensured that the campaign has refunded any improper contributions, and noted that Federal Election Commission rules do not require front-end screening of donations.

    In recent weeks, questionable contributions have created headaches for Obama’s accounting team as it has tried to explain why campaign finance filings have included itemized donations from individuals using fake names, such as Es Esh or Doodad Pro. Those revelations prompted conservative bloggers to further test Obama’s finance vetting by giving money using the kind of prepaid cards that can be bought at a drugstore and cannot be traced to a donor.

    The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions.

    “They have opened the floodgates to all this money coming in,” said Sean Cairncross, chief counsel to the Republican National Committee. “I think they’ve made the determination that whatever money they have to refund on the back end doesn’t outweigh the benefit of taking all this money upfront.”

    The Obama campaign has shattered presidential fundraising records, in part by capitalizing on the ease of online giving. Of the $150 million the senator from Illinois raised in September, nearly $100 million came in over the Internet.

    Lawyers for the Obama operation said yesterday that their “extensive back-end review” has carefully scrubbed contributions to prevent illegal money from entering the operation’s war chest. “I’m pretty sure if I took my error rate and matched it against any other campaign or comparable nonprofit, you’d find we’re doing very well,” said Robert Bauer, a lawyer for the campaign. “I have not seen the McCain compliance staff ascending to heaven on a cloud.”

    The Obama team’s disclosures came in response to questions from The Washington Post about the case of Mary T. Biskup, a retired insurance manager from Manchester, Mo., who turned up on Obama’s FEC reports as having donated $174,800 to the campaign. Contributors are limited to giving $2,300 for the general election.

    Biskup, who had scores of Obama contributions attributed to her, said in an interview that she never donated to the candidate. “That’s an error,” she said. Moreover, she added, her credit card was never billed for the donations, meaning someone appropriated her name and made the contributions with another card.

    When asked whether the campaign takes steps to verify whether a donor’s name matches the name on the credit card used to make a payment, Obama’s campaign replied in an e-mail: “Name-matching is not a standard check conducted or made available in the credit card processing industry. We believe Visa and MasterCard do not even have the ability to do this.

    This StoryInstead, the campaign does a rigorous comprehensive analysis of online contributions on the back end of the transaction to determine whether a contribution is legitimate.”

    Juan Proaño, whose technology firm handled online contributions for John Edwards’s presidential primary campaign, and for John F. Kerry‘s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2004, said it is possible to require donors’ names and addresses to match those on their credit card accounts. But, he said, some campaigns are reluctant to impose that extra layer of security.

    “Honestly, you want to have the least amount of hurdles in processing contributions quickly,” Proaño said.

    Sen. John McCain‘s campaign has also had questionable donations slip through.

    Dan Pfeiffer, Obama’s communication’s director, said that “no organization can fully insulate itself from these problems. The McCain campaign has accepted contributions from fraudulent contributors like ‘A for You,’ ‘Adorable Manabat,’ ‘The Gun Shop,’ and ‘Jesus II’ and hundreds of anonymous donors.”

    But R. Rebecca Donatelli, who handles online contributions for the McCain operation and the RNC, said security measures have been standard in the GOP nominee’s fundraising efforts throughout the campaign. She said she was “flabbergasted” to learn that the Obama campaign accepts prepaid cards.

    “Yes, a gift card would go through the same process as a regular credit card and be subject to our same back-end review,” the Obama campaign said in its response to questions about the use of such cards.

    Campaign finance lawyers said there is a long history of debate within the FEC about how to ensure that donors use their own credit cards.

    Election lawyer Brett Kappel said the FEC has never grappled with the question of cash cards. “The whole system is set up for them to accept the payment, then determine whether it is legal or not. And if it’s not, send it back. That’s what the statute requires,” he said.

     

    [Source: Click here: Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations]

  • Obama’s Foreign Donors: The media averts its eyes; By Pamela Geller

    August 14, 2008

    By Pamela Geller

    I have been researching, documenting and studying thousands upon thousands of Obama’s campaign donations for the past month. Egregious abuse was immediately evident and I published the results of my ongoing investigation. Each subsequent post built a more damning case against Obama’s illegal contribution activity.

    The media took little notice of what I was substantiating. I went so far as to upload the documents so that anyone could do their own research. I asked readers to download the documents and a number of folks pitched in.

    Despite dropping the groundbreaking bombshell story of “Palestinian” brothers from the Rafah refugee camp in Gaza who donated $33,000 to Obama’s campaign, no big media picked up the story. Jihadis donating to Obama from Gaza? Could there be a bigger story? Foreign donations are illegal, but this story was all that and so much more. The “Palestinian” brothers were proud and vocal of their “love” for Obama. Their vocal support on behalf of “Palestinians” spoke volumes to Obama’s campaign.

    And yet still no media.

     

    But Obama pricked up his ears. He smelled trouble and while no media asked, he answered anyway. Sen. Obama’s campaign immediately scrambled and contended they had returned the $33,500 in illegal contributions from Palestinians in Hamas-controlled Gaza, despite the fact that records do not show that it was returned and the brothers said they have not received any money. Having gone through all of Obama’s refunds redesignations etc, no refund was made to Osama, Hossam, or Edwan Monir in the Rafah refugee camp. And still no media.

     

    One of the Gazan brothers, Monir Edwan (identified here), claimed he bought “Obama for President” T-shirts off Obama’s website and then sold the T-shirts in Gaza for a profit. All purchases on the Barack Obama website are considered contributions.

     

    The Palestinians allegedly claimed “they were American citizens”, so said Obama’s people. They listed their address — zip code 972 (ironically the area code for Israel) and they input “GA”the state abbreviation for Georgia (screen shot here) They actually lived in a Hamas controlled refugee camp. So if Obama’s people thought it was “Georgia” why did they ship the tee shirts to the correct address in Gaza? Shipping overseas to a Gaza refugee camp is vastly different than the state next door.

    Still no media.

     

    “Some young men even bought the T-shirts for 60 shekel ($17.29), which is a lot to spend in Gaza on a T-shirt, but that is how much Gazans like Obama,” Edwan claimed in a follow up article in the conservative websiet WorldNetDaily. And Hamas has publicly endorsed Obama.

    And still no media.

     

    Obama’s campaign said the Palestinian brothers in the Middle East made $33,000 in illegal donations to the campaign via the internet.

     

    The donations came in between Sept. 20 and Dec. 6 and virtually all of the money, about $33,500, was returned by December 6. But the refunds weren’t reported to the Federal Election Commission due to a technical error, campaign officials said.

     

    If McCain had been involved with something so dark and nefarious, taking money from Islamic jihad, his candidacy would never withstand the media blowback.

     

    But it was the son of hope, the agent of change, the one we have been waiting for , so the media yawned.

     

    The jihad donations were hardly the only bloody red flags. The first in my series of posts ran July 19th. The documents were so unwieldy, readers like John, Doc, and Cathy (who discovered Rafah) were working furiously to cross check our findings at the FEC site and then mine the data.

     

    Obama’s overseas (foreign) contributors are making multiple small donations, ostensibly in their own names, over a period of a few days, some under maximum donation allowances, but others are aggregating in excess of the maximums when all added up. The countries and major cities from which contributions have been received France, Virgin Islands, Planegg, Vienna, Hague, Madrid, London, AE, IR, Geneva,Tokyo, Bangkok, Turin, Paris, Munich, Madrid, Roma, Zurich, Netherlands, Moscow, Ireland, Milan, Singapore, Bejing, Switzerland, Toronto, Vancouver, La Creche, Pak Chong, Dublin, Panama, Krabi, Berlin, Geneva, Buenos Aires, Prague, Nagoya, Budapest, Barcelona, Sweden, Taipei, Hong Kong, Rio de Janeiro, Sydney, Zurich, Ragusa, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Uganda, Mumbia, Nagoya, Tunis, Zacatecas, St, Croix, Mississauga, Laval, Nadi, Behchoko, Ragusa, DUBIA, Lima, Copenhagen, Quaama, Jeddah, Kabul, Cairo, Nassau(not the county on Long Island,lol), Luxembourg (Auchi’s stomping grounds), etc,etc,etc,

     

    Half a million dollars had been donated from overseas by unidentified people “not employed”.

     

    Digging deeper, all sorts of very bizarre activity jumped at us. Dr and JJ continued to break it down and pull data from various sources. We found Rebecca Kurth contributed $3,137.38 to the Obama Campaign in 112 donations, including 34 separate donations recorded in one day,

     

    How about this gibberish donor on the 30th of April in 2008.

     

    A donor named Hbkjb, jkbkj

     

    City: Jkbjnj Works for: Kuman Bank (doesn’t exist)

     

    Occupation: Balanon Jalalan Amount: $1,077.23

     

    or the donor Doodad, The # of transactions = 1,044

     

    The $ contributed = $10,780.00

     

    This Doodad character works for FDGFDGF and occupation is DFGFDG

     

    The more questions we answered the more questions we discovered.

     

    Thousands of Obama’s foreign donations ended in cents. The “cents” did not make sense. And we compared McCain donation documentss to Obama’s. McCain’s records are nothing like Obama’s. McCain’s are so clean. No cents, all even dollar amounts. But Obama’s contained thousands of strange, odd amounts — evidence of foreign contributors, since Americans living overseas would almost uniformly be able to contribute dollars. Still no media.

     

    Julia Gorin told me a funny story two months ago. Her husband’s co-worker wanted to see what would happen if he tried giving a contribution to the Obama campaign via a credit card. He used his Macy’s card. The system accepted it. He tried the same with McCain’s campaign, and the transaction wouldn’t go through. Now, obviously, down the line, the Obama transaction would fail as well, but it goes to the point that there is no safety system in place — it’ll just accept any and all money, which helps explain how his campaign raised so much more money than everyone else’s.

     

    Despite the evidence of dirty campaign donations, crickets chirped in newsrooms across the country. The moment my Gaza story started to get some chatter on talk radio, the left and their supplicant handmaidens in the media sprang into action and created a McCain illegal campaign contribution “scandal”. The Washington Post published an inaccurate allegation and then retracted not a day later, at the risk of looking stupid. They are jeopardizing the little credibility that they have left.

     

    ….a Washington Post story detailing some suspicious looking contributions to the McCain campaign bundled by Harry Sargeant III. Shortly after posting, a correction appeared in the original report, as follows:

    An earlier version of this story about campaign donations that Florida businessman Harry Sargeant III raised for Sen. John McCain, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton incorrectly identified three individuals as being among the donors Sargeant solicited on behalf of McCain. Those donors — Rite Aid manager Ibrahim Marabeh, and lounge owners Nadia and Shawn Abdalla — wrote checks to Giuliani and Clinton, not McCain. Also, the first name of Faisal Abdullah, a McCain donor, was misspelled in some versions of the story (noted by Amanda Carpenter).

     

    So here an intrepid blogger finds a keg of dynamite of dirty dollar donations to Obama and what does the media do? They ignore it. And when forced to confront it by the sheer newsworthiness of the story, what happens? They go after McCain. They punish McCain.

    And that is meant to be a lesson to all of us, Whatever you find, whatever you discover about the Candidate of Mystery, they will blow it back in your face. And they did. Almost immediately.

     

    The irony and the upshot of all this. John McCain is reviewing contributions. Ain’t that a kick in the head. I can tell him he needn’t bother. Been there, done that. Nothing to see, keep moving.

     

    Obama’s out there raising millions, some in illegal donations and the Washington Post jumps on McCain for a $50k, which hasn’t been shown to be illegal, but merely “inappropriate.” The left and their handmaidens, the mani stream media, were so quick to deflect this hit, it seems we have hit a raw nerve. I intend to keep digging. Stay tuned.,

     

    Pamela Geller is Editor and Publisher of the blog Atlas Shrugs.

    on “Obama’s Foreign Donors: The media averts its eyes

     

    [ Source: Click here: Archived-Articles: Obama’s Foreign Donors: The media averts its eyes ]

  • 10 Questions for ACORN’s ‘Independent’ Investigator

    Posted by Geoff Embler on September 24th, 2009

    The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) this week appointed former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger (D) to conduct an ‘independent’ investigation into recent allegations of potentially criminal activity by employees of the troubled organization.  Those accusations spurred the U.S. Census Bureau and Internal Revenue Service to terminate their relationships with ACORN.  The House of Representatives, led by the efforts of House Republicans, also overwhelmingly passed the Defund ACORN Act as an amendment to legislation providing for a government takeover of student lending.

    As if the news about ACORN in the last few weeks has not been troubling enough, a look back at an October 2008 Pennsylvania injunction hearing against ACORN provides even more reasons why the House must have a stand-alone vote on the Defund ACORN Act so that Democratic leaders sympathetic to ACORN cannot hold the Defund ACORN Act hostage to a government takeover of student loans.

    The injunction hearing included testimony from former ACORN employee Anita Moncrief, who worked in the group’s Washington, DC, office and had first-hand knowledge of its operations and offered a disturbing look at how ACORN works.  Based on testimony from the hearing, here are 10 questions for ACORN’s new ‘independent’ investigator to answer:

    1. IS THERE ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN ACORN AND ITS AFFILIATES, OR ARE THERE DIFFERENCES IN NAME ONLY?

    Moncrief testified that “Project Vote is a sister organization of ACORN.  When I got there, I actually thought I was working for ACORN because that was the only thing I heard about during the interview.  But when I got there, I realized that I was working for Project Vote, and they explained to me the difference between the two organizations.  But as I was there, I learned there wasn’t much of a difference.”  Moncrief also said that “[h]onestly, there really isn’t a difference between Project Vote and ACORN except for the fact that one is a 501 (c) (3) and one is not a (c) (3).  As far as the – who does the voter registration work and how things get done, their – Project Vote is basically considered ACORN political operations.”

    Moncrief also testified when asked if there was active cooperation between ACORN’s political wing and Project Vote that “… we’re considered basically the same staff.  Nathan Henderson James was the strategic writing and research department – he was that director.  And then at the same time, he was research director for Project Vote.  Zach [Polett] was the executive director of Project Vote and the executive director of ACORN political.  All of the organizations shared the same space.  It was only starting in 2007 where I started to see a real division between the organizations where they were like, okay, you’ve got an ACORN address; let’s give you a Project Vote e-mail address.  Try to – they put a door up to keep the D.C. national side – I’m sorry, the D.C. local and the national side separate from Project Vote so it looked like it was two separate offices.”

    Moncrief testified that ACORN entities that are forbidden by law from engaging in political activities because of their tax status do in fact engage in political activities “[b]ecause there’s no separation between the organizations for real.  So when you have the same people that are working, that are – like, I was getting paid through Project Vote’s checkbook, but I was working on ACORN stuff.  I even did PowerPoints during the midterm elections for Jeffrey Robinson where they were like, okay, don’t vote for [then-Rep.] Albert Win (ph) [sic, Wynn (D-MD)] or vote for this person.  And they had doorknob – door hangers that they would go and put on people’s doors, and we turned this into a PowerPoint presentation.  So there was never any division between the staff where you could say, okay, this is [501] (c) (3) stuff and this is (c) (4) stuff.  It was just — I don’t want to say business as usual, but it was a lot of collaboration between the organizations.”

    Moncrief also testified that “[t]hey wanted to keep the – I think the word was keep the 501 (c) (3) pristine and keep that clean and separated from everything else because we needed that.” When asked if ACORN actually did that, Moncrief said “[p]ublicly, yes, they always stated that it was two different organizations” but that they weren’t in actual practice and that she was told “let’s hope we don’t get caught.” (Moncrief testimony, Monica Moyer, et al v. Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al, In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg), Docket No. 497 MD 2008, 10/29/08, pp. 18, 22, 44, 89-91)

    2. DOES ACORN HAVE AN ACCOUNTING SYSTEM THAT ENSURES THAT TAXPAYER DOLLARS ARE NOT WASTED AND ARE NOT INTERMINGLED WITH OTHER FUNDS USED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES?

    When asked how money flows between ACORN affiliates, Moncrief testified that “[t]he money goes into accounts at CCI [Citizens Consulting Incorporated, ACORN’s for-profit accounting arm].  CCI has dozens – dozens and dozens of accounts.  Some of them are Project Vote.  Some of them are ACORN.” Moncrief also said that CCI is “basically the accounting arm for all of the money, the payments, who gets what, the – how the organization operates and flows and makes sure its bill are paid.  All of that goes through CCI.” When asked how ACORN entities receive money, Moncrief testified that “CCI makes disbursements to them either directly into their account or does transfers between I guess the different organizations.”

    In 2007, Moncrief was tasked with reconciling accounts using ACORN’s accounting software called NewVision.  Moncrief testified that “[t]here was, like, a $9 million gap in between what we had in our donor system, Donor Perfect, and what was in the NewVision system.  … There were still some questions because we had a box of stuff we had got from the Ohio office when it closed.  I think it was Ohio.  But there was so many, like, random letters and money and checks that were never cashed that there was – at one point we felt that we had got it as good as it was going to get.”

    Moncrief also testified that “[s]ometimes the accounts will show negative a hundred thousand dollars, and then magically the money is in there the next week.  So there’s really no way at this point without a forensic audit to tell what are the assets of any one of the ACORN entities.” (Moncrief testimony, Monica Moyer, et al v. Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al, In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg), Docket No. 497 MD 2008, 10/29/08, pp. 32, 43, 65)

    3. HAS ACORN EVER MISREPRESENTED INFORMATION TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REGARDING A TAXPAYER-FUNDED GRANT?

    Moncrief testified that “I received an email.  It was called dotting the Is and crossing the Ts, and it was based on an election assistance commission grant that we had just gotten.  And it was from [ACORN Online Communications Coordinator] Nathan Henderson James and to myself and one other person; I can’t remember the name.  But it was basically telling us, okay guys, it’s reporting time again; we need to show them what we did with this EAC money; so I want you to put this on letterhead – on ACORN letterhead and say something like, we had a really great time working with our partner, Project Vote.  And the attitude of the e-mail was quotation marks, you know — … [t] to where we knew that it wasn’t that there was any type of partner organization.  There might have been – on paper there might have been a partnership going on, but really it was ACORN and Project Vote together.  … It was worked on, but it wasn’t this whole nonpartisan thing that it was made out to be to get the money.  It was just, hey, guys, we need to get this done for Delaware because we just got this check; let’s get this done; let’s make this report out.” (Moncrief testimony, Monica Moyer, et al v. Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al, In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg), Docket No. 497 MD 2008, 10/29/08, pp. 92-93)

    4. WILL ACORN IMPROVE THE ACCURACY OF THE VOTER REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS IT SUBMITS AND END THE PRACTICE OF FLOODING ELECTION OFFICES WITH APPLICATIONS AROUND SUBMISSION DEADLINES?

    Moncrief testified that ACORN officials were aware that duplicate voter registrations were being obtained by canvassers hired by ACORN, and said that “… they were striving for at one time 40 percent accuracy rate.  So 40 percent was okay.” Moncrief also described the attitude of ACORN officials regarding the practice of “dumping” large amounts of voter registration cards on election offices: “Well, I was told when I was working on the provisional voting survey that they already had a bad opinion of us because we would send so many cards over to them.  So I was to try to sweet talk them, make – they said, make them feel like they’re really helping you, thank them a lot, and if all else fails, tell them that you’re doing a provisional voting academic survey or something.  So I wouldn’t name myself.”

    Moncrief also testified that national officials with ACORN and Project Vote were aware of fraudulent voter registrations, and that absentee ballots are sometimes fraudulently voted.  (Moncrief testimony, Monica Moyer, et al v. Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al, In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg), Docket No. 497 MD 2008, 10/29/08, pp. 45-47, 70)

    5. WILL ACORN END ITS “MUSCLE FOR MONEY” PROGRAM?

    In her testimony, Moncrief described two ACORN programs that were both known as “Muscle for Money.” Moncrief said that “[t]he first one is the official program, which is where they calculate the number of – the cost for registering voters, the cost for GOTV, and how close the elections were in certain states.  So it’s basically how CSI [Citizens Services Incorporated, ACORN’s for-profit political consulting arm] works, where they say they get this person to vote, to register this person and get them to the polls, it could cost you $17 and whatever cents; if you go through our program, we have proven methodologies; we know how to get this done; it will cost you this amount.  So there’s actually a CSI chart that breaks down how much it would cost to drive voters to the polls.  And they would use – they would say give us the money, we’re the muscle, we’ll get out there and get it done.”

    Moncrief also described a second, “unofficial” ACORN program also known as “Muscle for Money.” Moncrief said that “[t]hey got involved with a group called the Carlyle Group.  They were paid by SCIU [sic, SEIU] to harass a man named [Carlyle Group Managing Director] Mr. [David] Rubenstein, and they wanted me to go out – the D.C. local did, wanted me to go out and break up a banquet dinner, protest out in front of his home.  But the local – D.C. local did not have an invested interest really in messing with the Carlyle Group.  It was because they were paid by SCIU [sic, SEIU] to do this.  And it was always referred to as Muscle for Money because they would go there, intimidate these people, protest.  They did it in front of Sherwin Williams.  They did it at H&R Block, were – H&R Block was a target for years.  And instead of, you know, reforming the way they did the rapid anticipation loans, they ended up giving money to the ACORN tax sites which paid for new computers and money to run these tax filing sites around the country.”

    Moncrief testified that ACORN’s unofficial “Muscle for Money” program was known by another name: “Protection.  We were very – not to be flippant, but we were just always very sarcastic about it in the offices.  We knew what was going on.  And it’s not that we thought it was funny, it was just one of those things that we talked about.”

    Moncrief also testified that ACORN officials tried to use the voter registration program as a foil to divert attention away from the unofficial “Muscle for Money” program.  Moncrief said “… it was one of those things where if they were going to look at something, they would rather look at voter registration because there was – they’re used to fighting voter registration.  We have prepared responses that everyone was given to say that voter registration fraud doesn’t really happen, voter IDs affect people.  It was certain spiels that we were all given to say.  And at the meeting in 2007, there was actually a conversation about how you can make sure everyone was on the same page of how to respond to that because those responses like, oh, you don’t want African Americans to vote or you don’t want minorities to vote or things where it’s very hard to come back at and they were good at fighting that.” (Moncrief testimony, Monica Moyer, et al v. Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al, In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg), Docket No. 497 MD 2008, 10/29/08, pp. 52, 54-56)

    6. WILL ACORN ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACTIONS OF ITS EMPLOYEES?

    Moncrief testified that ACORN employees were given talking points on how to discuss employees accused of voter registration fraud.  Moncrief said that one of those talking points was “… just a lone employee acting alone in doing this and ACORN was going to prosecute them to the fullest.  And most – of anything, it had to do with employee wrongdoing, had something to say in there about how we’re distancing ourselves from them, they did this, let’s get them.” (Moncrief testimony, Monica Moyer, et al v. Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al, In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg), Docket No. 497 MD 2008, 10/29/08, pp. 57-58)

    7. IS THE PURPOSE OF ACORN VOTER REGISTRATION DRIVES TO REGISTER NEW VOTERS OR TO RECRUIT NEW MEMBERS FOR ACORN, AND DOES ACORN USE A QUOTA SYSTEM FOR THESE REGISTRATION DRIVES?

    Moncrief testified that “[a]t ACORN, it was about getting more members, which means more money.  Project Vote, there’s – actually they’d say the more [voter registration] cards you get, the more money you get.  It’s in the – in the way they train the – I’m trying to explain it; the way they train the people for voter registration.  It’s to let them know that the cards are tied to money.  So the more cards you get, the more money you get.  If people aren’t producing cards, they’re wasting your time, get rid of them, get people who are producing.  … They get – the Project Vote side gets money from certain liberal organizations or – to run these voter registration drives.” ACORN Pennsylvania Political Director Krista Holub testified that voter registration applications distributed by ACORN employees include ACORN membership applications.

    Moncrief also testified that ACORN uses a quota system with canvassers during voter registration drives, saying “I’m not exactly sure how many cards per day, but I know that at the minimum, I’ve – I’m aware of at least 20 cards per day” and that if canvassers don’t turn in the minimum amount “[y]ou get fired.” (Moncrief testimony, Monica Moyer, et al v. Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al, In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg), Docket No. 497 MD 2008, 10/29/08, pp. 23, 29, 148, 165)

    8. HOW MANY ACORN AFFILIATES EXIST?

    When asked how many ACORN affiliates exist, Moncrief testified that “[t]he number changes all the time.  To the best of my knowledge, it’s got to be at least over 170.  The last number I heard was 176, but that’s constantly changing.” When asked if Project Vote is a separate corporate entity from, but yet an affiliate of, ACORN, Moncrief said “Correct.  They call it the council of organizations.” (Moncrief testimony, Monica Moyer, et al v. Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al, In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg), Docket No. 497 MD 2008, 10/29/08, p. 26)

    9. WHAT DID POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS AND CAMPAIGNS RECEIVE IN EXCHANGE FOR SHARING DONOR LISTS WITH ACORN?

    When asked from which organizations Project Vote received donor lists, Moncrief answered “Political parties, some of the campaigns.  … Organizations that did the same type of work, like ACT, America Coming Together.  Those – we’d get those types of lists.” When asked from which presidential campaigns Project Vote received donor lists, Moncrief said “Kerry, Clinton, and the Obama campaign.” (Moncrief testimony, Monica Moyer, et al v. Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al, In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg), Docket No. 497 MD 2008, 10/29/08, p. 41)

    10. DO ACORN OFFICIALS BELIEVE THAT ONE OF THE GOOD THINGS ABOUT ACORN IS THAT IT FIGHTS CAPITALISM?

    In her testimony, Moncrief reviewed notes, admitted into evidence, of a regional meeting of ACORN officials.  Included in the notes is a list of reasons the group who met thought that ACORN was “good.” One of the reasons listed was “Fighting capitalism.” (Moncrief testimony, Monica Moyer, et al v. Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al, In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg), Docket No. 497 MD 2008, 10/29/08, p. 76)

     

    [— SOURCE NEEDED —]

  • Fox Hypes Unsubstantiated Claim That Obama May Be Receiving Illegal Foreign Donations

    Research ››› MIKE BURNS

    Fox has seized on a conservative group’s report to suggest President Obama’s reelection campaign is receiving millions of dollars in illegal donations from foreign donors. In fact, the report provides no evidence to support this claim and the group’s co-founder has himself acknowledged that it possesses no such evidence.

    Report Found That Almost Half Of Online Visitors To Obama Campaign Website Were From Outside U.S.

    Government Accountability Institute Used Findings To Suggest Obama Donation Website Could Be Receiving Foreign Donations. On September 26, the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) issued a report showing that 43 percent of online traffic going to the Obama campaign website came from foreign countries. The report stated that both Americans living abroad and foreign nationals interested in the president make up part of the international traffic to the campaign website, but did not claim that the Obama campaign had received any unlawful contributions. From the report:

    The main campaign website BarackObama.com receives approximately 43% of its traffic from foreign IP addresses, according to Markosweb.com. Though Americans living abroad no doubt generate some of this interest, the majority is likely from foreign nationals. Though there is nothing inherently wrong with the President’s international attention, his donation pages’ lack of CVV means that this interest creates significant vulnerabilities for the integrity of the campaign’s donation process. [Government Accountability Institute, 9/26/12]

    Fox Seized On Report To Cast Doubt On Obama Donations

    Steve Doocy: “If Your Number Is Accurate, And It’s 43 Percent Comes From International, We’re Talking Tens Of Millions Of Dollars.” On Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy seized on the GAI report to claim that Obama’s reelection campaign may be receiving tens of millions of dollars from foreign sources in violation of federal law. Interviewing GAI co-founder and conservative activist Stephen Bannon and president and co-founder Peter Schweizer, Doocy said: “If your number is accurate, and it’s 43 percent comes from international, we’re talking tens of millions of dollars.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/8/12, via Media Matters]

    Sean Hannity: Obama Campaign Site “Does Allow For A Foreigner To Make A Contribution Without Proper Disclosure.” Introducing an interview with Bannon and Schweizer, Hannity said, “My next guests say they have a new bombshell report showing how the Obama campaign website makes it possible to receive contributions from foreign nationals in countries all around the world,” adding: “As of now there’s no confirmation that they may be doing this knowingly, but the website does allow for a foreigner to make a contribution without proper disclosure.” [Fox News, Hannity, 10/8/12]

    Monica Crowley: Obama’s Foreign Web Traffic “Makes It Much Easier For Foreign Donations” To Come Into His Campaign. Discussing the GAI report, Fox News contributor Monica Crowley said the fact that 43 percent of online traffic going to the Obama campaign website comes from foreign countries “makes it much easier for foreign donations, which are illegal under our system, to come into” Obama’s campaign:

    CROWLEY: Now, we’re not talking about donations, but we’re talking about the total traffic. But it makes it much easier for foreign donations which are illegal under our system to come into the Barack Obama campaign.

    […]

    CROWLEY: Under the system we have now, if you donate to a campaign and it’s under $200 it doesn’t have to be reported. So you can have all kinds of dummy people mocked up. You can have dummy corporations mocked up. If they’re donating under $200 it doesn’t have to be reported. We saw this problem last time around, 4 years ago, with the Obama campaign. All these investigations showed that so many of his campaign donations, hundreds of millions of dollars, could not be traced. They were untraceable. One of the reasons why is, as you just pointed out, there was no, and there still, on the barackobama.com website, there is no verification firewall, meaning if you on any website and you buy something, usually you have to type in the credit card security number, that three number thing.

    There are all kinds of firewalls so that they can trace you to that credit card, you as an American citizen, you as to a U.S. address. The Obama campaign does not have that firewall in place. They got caught last time around, 4 years ago, not having this in place. They fixed it. But this time around when they ought to have known better, if we give them the benefit of the doubt that they didn’t know what that was. They ought to have known better, and they still don’t have it in place. And here’s the kicker, Eric (Bolling, Your World guest host). The kicker is, on that barackobama.com website, if you want to go on that site and buy campaign merchandise, an Obama t-shirt or a cap, you have to type in all of that information so the firewall exists for all of the swag but not for the actual donations. [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 10/8/12]

    Fox Nation: “Report: Foreign Fundraising Scandal Rocks Obama Campaign.” Fox Nation linked to a Washington Examiner article on the GAI report under the headline “Report: Foreign Fundraising Scandal Rocks Obama Campaign.” The Washington Examiner article was headlined “Report: Obama.com solicits foreign contributions for prez.”

     

    [Fox Nation, 10/8/12]

    In Fact, GAI Has Made Clear Report Alleges No Wrongdoing

    GAI Co-Founder Acknowledged GAI Has No Evidence That Obama’s Campaign Has Received Donations From Foreign Sources. On Fox & Friends, Bannon acknowledged that GAI has no evidence to support the claim that Obama’s reelection campaign has received tens of millions of dollars from foreign sources in violation of federal law. From Fox & Friends:

    DOOCY: If your number is accurate, and it’s 43 percent comes from international, we’re talking tens of millions of dollars.

    BANNON: Forty-three is what goes to their homepage and goes back. We’re not saying that 43 percent comes, but that has to be checked. Without credit card security —

    DOOCY: Because you don’t know.

    BANNON: You don’t know. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/8/12, via Media Matters]

    GAI’s Schweizer Admitted Foreign And Fraudulent Donations Are Just A “Concern.” Writing in the Daily Beast, GAI president and co-founder Peter Schweizer and Newsweek‘s Peter J. Boyer highlighted the GAI report and said that “there has been surprisingly little focus on perhaps the most secretive and influential financial force in politics today: the wide-open coffers of the Internet.” Schweizer and Boyer further wrote that unlike other presidential campaigns, Obama’s “does not use a standard security tool, the card verification value (CVV) system — the three- or four-digit number often imprinted on the back of a credit card, whose purpose is to verify that the person executing the purchase (or, in this case, donation) physically possesses the card.” Schweizer and Boyer noted that fraudulent and foreign donations are a “concern,” but at no point said that the Obama campaign is receiving illegal donations. [Daily Beast, 10/8/12]

    Erick Erickson Fails To Document Evidence That Obama’s Campaign Is Committing Some Sort Of Fraud Through An “Illegal Donor Loophole.” In an October 8 Red State blog post headlined “I Donated to Barack Obama,” CNN contributor Erick Erickson documented his attempt to demonstrate that Obama’s campaign is committing fraud through an “illegal donor loophole” that allows them to accept contributions from overseas. In the 13th paragraph Erickson indicates that after attempting to donate to Obama as a Russian with a made-up passport number, he had his contribution rejected by the campaign. [Media Matters, 10/8/12]

    Slate’s Dave Weigel: GAI Report “Includes A Series Of Blog Posts From Foreigners Talking About The Ease Of Giving, But Not Saying That They’ve Actually Given.” In an October 8 post, Slate’s Dave Weigel wrote that the GAI report is “not conclusive. How could it be?” Weigel added, “You can’t easily determine whether a foreign national has given a donation. This report includes a series of blog posts from foreigners talking about the ease of giving, but not saying that they’ve actually given.” [Slate, 10/8/12]

    Obama Campaign Has Protections In Place To Prevent Illegal Donations

    Obama Campaign: “Credit Card Contributions To Obama For America Are, In Fact, Processed Using” Address Verification System. In a post on the Election Law Blog, election law expert Rick Hasen posted a statement from the Obama campaign rejecting claims that it doesn’t follow certain practices to prevent fraudulent campaign donations:

    “Credit card contributions to Obama for America are, in fact, processed using AVS (Address Verification System).

    “If a billing address is verified via AVS, then the credit card contribution is processed without delay. Some transactions caught by AVS may initially appear to a donor to have been accepted even though this is not the case. Obama for America employs a manual process to review any transaction flagged by AVS, also taking into account other fraud risk factors, and using fraud detection services provided by our credit card processor.

    “As an example, the contribution discussed here http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/dubious-donations-illustrated-illegal-contributor-edition.php may have initially appeared to have gone through when the donor completed the transaction at 10:18 a.m. but it was rejected at 4:51 p.m. under our standard fraud detection procedures.

    “So any claims that Obama for America has disabled AVS are inaccurate; any question about this would have been answered — if the question had been asked.” [Election Law Blog, 10/8/12]

    Obama Campaign Fact Check: “Obama For America Only Accepts Contributions From Eligible Americans.” An Obama campaign blog post explained that the campaign “only accepts contributions from eligible Americans,” and does not accept “donations from foreign nationals or any other ineligible individual.” The post, headlined “Fact check: Obama for America only accepts contributions from eligible Americans,” further explained that the campaign uses the Address Verification System to ensure the legitimacy of all credit card contributions:

    OFA does not accept donations from foreign nationals or any other ineligible individual — and the campaign voluntarily goes above and beyond Federal Election Commitments to ensure the integrity of fundraising efforts.

    Here’s how we do that:

    • All credit card contributions are processed using AN Address Verification System (AVS) to ensure their legitimacy.
    • OFA invests significant resources into a manual process to review any transaction that’s been flagged by the campaign’s credit card processor’s fraud detection services.
    • Though not required by law, OFA requires a copy of a valid passport from any contributor who has been affirmed as eligible but donates with a mailing address outside the U.S. If they do not offer in one in a timely manner, the donation is returned.
    • OFA screens all online credit card contributions that originate from a foreign IP address and, if any questions arise regarding the contributor’s U.S. citizenship, the campaign requests proof of a current and valid U.S. passport in order to be in compliance with the FEC’s safe harbor guidelines.

    OFA has strong and rigorous safeguards in place to ensure our donors are eligible and that our fundraising efforts comply with all U.S. laws and regulations. While no campaign can control who visits their websites, OFA is in no way directing solicitations to foreign nationals nor knowingly seeking foreign contributions — that is the legal standard. [BarackObama.com, 10/8/12, (emphasis original)]

    FEC Audit In 2008 Found No Evidence To Back Up Similar Illegal Donation Claims

    WSJ: In 2008, Republicans Filed FEC Complaint Alleging Obama Campaign Was “Accepting Donations From Foreign Nationals.” In a 2008 article about Republicans’ concerns over whether the Obama campaign was “accepting donations from foreign nationals,” the Wall Street Journal wrote:

    Republican Party officials said they will file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission Monday asking for an audit of Barack Obama’s campaign contributions.

    In announcing the move Sunday, they said they were concerned that the Democratic presidential candidate may be accepting donations from foreign nationals, and may also be taking a large number of donations that exceed federal limits for individuals.

    U.S. law prohibits foreign nationals from contributing to American candidates, but campaigns from both parties have sought money from Americans living abroad.

    The Republican Party cited a large amount of money coming to the Democratic presidential candidate from overseas, and a small amount of money that he has returned from foreigners, in explaining their complaint.

    The party’s lawyers also pointed to news reports of foreigners giving money to Sen. Obama, although the Obama campaign says it has either rejected or returned the money. [The Wall Street Journal, 10/6/08]

    Wash. Post: “FEC Audit … Found No Evidence To Substantiate Those Allegations.” In an article reporting on an audit of Obama’s 2008 campaign by the Federal Election Commission, the Washington Post wrote:

    In 2008, Republicans made an issue out of the millions in small donations that Obama’s campaign raised in the last two months of the campaign, charging that he was accepting money from foreigners or fictitious people.

    The FEC audit, which included an investigation of “contributions from prohibited sources,” found no evidence to substantiate those allegations. [The Washington Post, 4/19/12]

    Former FEC Chief Michael Toner: “The FEC Spent Two Years Picking Over $750 Million In Contributions And Expenses And Found One Violation.” Following the release of the Federal Election Commission’s report, Michael Toner, a former FEC chairman, stated that the FEC report was “a very clean audit report for the Obama campaign,” adding, “The FEC spent two years picking over $750 million in contributions and expenses and found one violation.” From the article:

    U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2008 election campaign failed to properly report nearly $2 million in last-minute donations to the juggernaut that swept him into the White House, but that was the only violation found in a Federal Election Commission audit of Obama’s $778 million campaign.

    The audit, posted online on Thursday, shows Obama’s campaign did not file notifications on time for 1,312 donations totaling $1,972,266, received before the November vote.

    The law requires campaigns to submit notices to the FEC about contributions of $1,000 or more received less than 20 days but more than 48 hours before an election.

    “Overall, this is a very clean audit report for the Obama campaign. The FEC spent two years picking over $750 million in contributions and expenses and found one violation,” said Michael Toner, a former FEC chairman and now a lawyer at Wiley Rein in Washington.

    According to the FEC tally, Obama’s campaign that year raised $778 million. It did ultimately report the donations in question, most of which came through a transfer from the joint fund it shared with the Democratic National Committee, but not on time, according to the audit file. [Reuters, 4/19/12]

     

    [ Source: Click here: Fox Hypes Unsubstantiated Claim That Obama May Be Receiving Illegal Foreign Donations | Research | Media Matters ]

  • Obama’s donation website accepts illegal foreign contributions

    Barack Obama’s electronic contribution site (https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/abroadHP — not hyperlinked for obvious reasons) accepts donations from countries like China, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Somalia — although someone had the sense to remove North Korea from the list. The donor is only required to click a check-box, which attests they are legally allowed to contribute.

    Remember, Federal election law expressly forbids soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals:

    As noted earlier, the Act prohibits knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals. In this context, “knowingly” means that a person:

    * Has actual knowledge that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national;
    * Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are likely to be from a foreign national;
    * Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national…
    No other presidential candidate allows such an easy channel for illegal campaign contributions. For example, John McCain and Hillary Clinton do not accept donations from abroad without a complete, written documentation packet sent via postal mail.

    It would seem to me that Obama’s form is in direct violation of federal law. I think we should demand an accounting of these foreign contributions and his campaign should follow precedent by requiring documentation of legal status for foreign donors.

    [ Source: Click here: Doug Ross @ Journal: Obama’s donation website accepts illegal foreign contributions]