In the primaries, despite being the underdog, Barrack Obama raised more money in campaign contributions than Hillary Clinton, a much more seasoned veteran with a much more household name. Hillary was forced to contribute monies of her own in the millions to just keep up, but consequently lost both the race for cash, and eventually, for the Democratic nomination itself.
Obama has repeated this feat and will now be in the Guinness World Book of Records for the Presidential candidate that raised the most during a Presidential campaign. According to Newsweek, “The Obama campaign has shattered all fund-raising records, raking in $458 million so far, with about half the bounty coming from donors who contribute $200 or less.” That is an old quote. More recent statistics show this number to be an astounding 600 million dollars.
Statistically, it is difficult to determine if fund raising has been the direct determination of the outcome of past Presidential elections. We have not been able to find a definitive study that makes the statistical correlation between campaign contributions and victory. But it is apparent in Indiana that money talks. Indiana has primarily been a Republican state. The difference. Obama, with his seemingly infinite reserves, has been able to make 48 appearances in Indiana to McCain’s 2 or 3. This has brought that state into contention. In some states, due to money issues, McCain has had to back away from states, leaving them to Palin to stump for him or severely limiting his campaign in those states. Money is exposure. Exposure translates into votes. It is that simple.
This year, the numbers are significant not only because of the extreme amount of money received, but because of the large number of contributions under $200, the sources of which do not have to be disclosed. Candidates are not required to reveal those contribution sources, and Obama has chosen to not let the American people know where his money is coming from. McCain, on the other hand, has fully disclosed the sources of his contributions.
What is it that Obama is hiding? We cannot get the statistics or demographics of the contributions because Obama won’t tell. Certainly, the average contributor that would send in $100 would not demand nondisclosure. It also is certainly not a constitutional right. Apparently, some contributors to Obama’s campaign have such ridiculous names as Adolfe Hitler.
Where is the money coming from?
These huge sums of money beg the question, could Obama’s contributions be coming from sources other than US citizens? Obama is receiving a huge number of international contributions. Major sources are said to include Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran certainly has a lot to gain if Obama can force an Iraq withdrawal of our troops so Iran can take control of the country. The Shiites love to kill their brethren with weapons provided by Iran.
In some cases contributions have been made as though they come from contributors that have no knowledge of the source of the contribution. One abused individual used by a fraudulent donor or donors, Diane Beardsley, was quoted as saying, “I have never heard of such an individual”. She worked for Doodad’s Boutique and is the mother of one of the owners. She further stated, “Nobody at this store has that much money to contribute.” As it turns out, Doodad’s Boutique had closed a year ago before the fraudulent donations were made.
In another case of fraud, according again to Newsweek, “the campaign returned $33,000 to two Palestinian brothers in the Gaza Strip who had bought T shirts in bulk from the campaign’s online store.” The Obama camp tried to claim the men were American citizens, but research later showed the men lived in a Hamas-controlled refugee camp. Once exposed, the campaign returned the funds, but who is to say how many undisclosed funds, undisclosed at Obama’s request, are from such possible terrorist sources?
The Presidential Election is not the first time; Obama has been associated with questionable campaign contributions in his past. According to the Chicago Sun Times, Obama accepted a $10,000 donation from a friend with whom he had executed real estate transactions. That friend was facing a trial for fraud regarding the acquisition of those contributed funds. According to the Times, Tony Rezko who “was part of Obama’s senatorial finance committee, also is accused of directing ‘at least one other individual’ to donate money to Obama and then reimbursing that individual, in possible violation of federal election law.” Apparently, Obama is familiar with laundering money to hide the sources of his political contributions. The following articles clearly demonstrate a criminal fund raising policy from untraceable sources. One from the Washington Post and the other.
In another contradiction of the Obama group’s lying claims that McCain’s camp has been dishonest, when watchdog groups asked both campaigns to share more information about their small donors, the McCain camp agreed; the Obama campaign did not. “They could’ve done themselves a service” said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics. In all due respect, if such contributions are coming from Iran, Palestinians and Muslim terrorists, it would not have done Obama a service. It would have disclosed Obama for what he is. It does not comfort us that Hamas has publicly endorsed Obama.
How is it the man that speaks of only taxing the rich to distribute it to the poor can raise well over $600 million dollars, when the supposedly richer and well connected McCain with vastly more experience can only raise a bit more than half that amount? And how did he also accomplish this same feat against Hillary? Some say it is Obama’s ability to exploit the Internet, but the Internet is also an excellent way to facilitate fraud.