RNC to file fundraising complaint against the Obama campaign

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

It’s about time:

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Republican National Committee plans to file a fundraising complaint against Democrat Barack Obama’s presidential campaign Monday, alleging it has accepted donations that exceed federal limits as well as illegal contributions from foreigners.

RNC officials acknowledged Sunday that they do not have a list of foreign donors to Obama’s campaign. Instead, the complaint is based largely on media reports, including one from a conservative Web site.

The complaint asks the Federal Elections Commission to audit Obama’s campaign fund, RNC chief counsel Sean Cairncross said in a conference call with reporters.

Cairncross said little is known about many of Obama’s donors because the campaign is not required to disclose detailed information about people who give less than $200.

The Obama campaign, which is not accepting public funds, has raised more than $468 million. About half has come from small donors, a point of pride for the Obama campaign.

The AP article didn’t mention it (of course), but one of the reasons the RNC decided to go forward with preparing to file the complaint was what was reported in this Newsweek article, published online yesterday, on some of Obama’s questionable campaign donations. Via the WaPo:

The RNC is alleging that the Obama campaign was so hungry for donations it “looked the other way” as contributions piled up from suspicious, and possibly even illegal foreign donors.

“We believe that the American people should know first and foremost if foreign money is pouring into a presidential election,” said RNC Chief Counsel Sean Cairncross.

Cairncross alleged there was mounting evidence of this, and cited a report in the current issue of Newsweek magazine that documents a handful of instances where donors made repeated small donations using fake names, such as “Good Will” and “Doodad Pro.”

The Newsweek report says that earlier this year the Obama 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 — purchases that count as campaign contributions. The brothers had listed their address as “Ga.,” which the campaign took to mean Georgia rather than Gaza.

“While no organization is completely protected from Internet fraud, we will continue to review our fundraising procedures,” Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told the magazine.

At the heart of the RNC complaint is a federal fundraising rule that lets campaigns accept donations under $200 without itemizing the names and addresses of the donors on its campaign finance reports. The rule was intended as a matter of practicality — it did not seem reasonable to ask a campaign to gather that information from every five-dollar donor.

But the Obama campaign has raised more than $200 million this way, a staggering sum for donations that will not be subjected to outside scrutiny.

Jake Tapper notes:

In June, a host of good government groups wrote to the McCain and Obama campaigns asking them to provide more details about their small donors. The McCain campaign agreed to do so, but the Obama campaign rejected the request.

So much for “transparency,” eh?

Predictably, Obama is calling this complaint a meaningless distraction. Sound familiar?

This is a troubling pattern with Barack Obama. From attempting to silence the free speech of others, falsely accusing his opponents of racism on more than one occasion, to playing down – and in some cases refusing to fully answer for – his close ties with radicals like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers, to his campaign and the Dem party pushing to have felons and the homeless registered to vote, and the questionable campaign donations (not to mention the ACORN issue) well, I’ll say it again: If this were John McCain, he’d never even have made it to the primaries because the mediots would have scrutinized and hounded him to the point he’d have had no choice but to drop out. But because it’s Barack Obama – a guy the mediots are clearly enamored with– he gets a pass. And anyone who dares to question his record is accused of being a sell-out if they are black, and is accused of racism (more here) if they are white.

This isn’t just troubling; it’s disturbing. This man is on the verge of being elected president of the United States. If he can get by with this stuff before he’s even elected to the WH, just what will he try to get away with after?

Attention NC conservatives: Gov. Palin coming to NC

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

She’ll be in Greenville, NC on Tuesday. The details of where and what time are here.

Wish I could go, but that’s too long of a drive for me (4 hours), especially on such short notice.

If anyone attends and takes pix and/or video, please email me and I’ll post it on the blog. Have fun!

BTW, I hope this isn’t the only visit she and/or McCain makes to NC, considering how competitive it has become (with help from the changing demographics of the state over the last 15 or so years – more on that here).

AP provides us with a preview of how all Obama criticism will be characterized under an Obama adminstration

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Gov. Palin’s linkage of Barack Obama to unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers? Racist. Here is, in part, what AP editor Douglass Daniel wrote:

Palin’s words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee “palling around” with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn’t see their America?

In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers’ day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.

Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as “not like us” is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.

Most troubling, however, is how allowing racism to creep into the discussion serves McCain’s purpose so well. As the fallout from Wright’s sermons showed earlier this year, forcing Obama to abandon issues to talk about race leads to unresolved arguments about America’s promise to treat all people equally.

John McCain occasionally looks back on decisions with regret. He has apologized for opposing a holiday to honor Martin Luther King Jr. He has apologized for refusing to call for the removal of a Confederate flag from South Carolina’s Capitol.

When the 2008 campaign is over McCain might regret appeals such as Palin’s perhaps more so if he wins.

Kim Priestap responds:

She called him a radical and a socialist who doesn’t agree with our view of American exceptionalism, but of course they don’t hear that in her comments. Because she dares to question his judgment in who he chooses to associate with, the Associated (with Obama) Press to goes out of its way to paint her and anyone else who does the same as a racist. Yes, 2008 is the year journalism died.

I think it’s been dead. But the campaign of Barack Obama for president has seen enough nails put in the “media objectivity” coffin to actually make the age of impartial journalism at most news outlets officially dead – and buried.

Update: Jeff Goldstein unloads.

KC Chiefs at the Panthers (UPDATE: PANTHERS WIN 34-0)

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Panthers logoThe 1-3 Chiefs are visiting the 3-1 Panthers today – the game started at 1pm and is being broadcast on CBS.

The first drive saw the Panthers not go far with the ball, thanks, in part, to stupid penalties (we lead the league in penalties, unfortunately). The Panthers defense seems to be doing a lot better, though, intimidating the Chief’s offense to the point they went nowhere on their opening drive.

Update: It was no contest today, so boring that I fell asleep early on in the 4th Q. Panthers win 34-0, and go to 4-1.