Karl Marx Donates to Obama, Just Like Saddam Hussein, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, John Galt and Osama bin Laden
By SusanUnPC on October 30, 2008 at 10:45 AM in Barack Obama, Campaigns & Campaign Financing
First, I must warn readers that the “C” word is used below. “C” as in “crime.”
Lest the #1 item come as a shock to you, I suggest reading these two fine stories by NoQuarter writers who owe much to a fellow we know as “Curious Craig”:
- “My Contributions To The Obama Campaign Under Fictitious Names” by Uppity Woman
- “Campaign Contribution Limits? No Problem, Just Contribute Online” by Matthew Weaver
It is with a heavy heart that I must inform you that Mr. Obama has yet to fix his, um, porous donation page, and that is the point where “Curious Craig” dropped the “C” word bomb. It was “Curious Craig” who, early last week, gave Mr. Obama’s donation page a test by using a single credit card, but donating under several names, all with fictitious addresses, and without being asked for that three-digit number on the back of credit cards.
“Curious Craig” had no problem using the same credit card number to donate to Obama under the names John Galt, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Bill Ayers, and Tony Rezko, with fictitious addresses.
Given the growing questions and news stories, Curious Craig anticipated Obama would implement the AVS system. He wrote to me:
Just to cover their butts; don’t you think they would have turned those features back on? So they can claim “yes, we discovered the issue and have rectified it several days ago…blah, blah, blah….”
So, I tested the system, yet again, this morning with the same credit card – this time with Karl Marx as the donor – and sure enough, it went thru.
But Why? Why would they continue to expose themselves to this potential scandal?
We join Curious Craig in our befuddlement, beginning with why this system wasn’t in place throughout, as every other presidential candidate has done. This is where Curious Craig drops the “C” word bomb:
My bet is (in spite of their claims that it’s too difficult to make the info available) they know down to the penny the exact details of all their under $200 donors and the serial-CC-fraudsters and the simply can’t afford to give up the money. Also, as reported here, it’s actually costing them more per transaction to process all their online donations. Even the ones that aren’t fraudulent.
So they know this is a PR issue, and it’s more expensive on a per transaction basis, yet the AVS remains disabled.
I can only conclude; they know this is such a significant percentage of their overall revenue, that it spite of the publicity they have to continue to allow the fraud in order to meet their budget goals. They must know just how many of those small donations are coming from fraudulent sources, and if they turn the security on it could drastically impact those $150-million donation months?
Also, if they did publically announce that they restored the security features and a big drop in the fundraising figures ensued, it would only confirm all the fraud up to that point. Meaning, if the fundraising reports show a big drop in CC transactions after they turned the AVS back on, it would be evidence of the crime.
And let that be the last word in this story.

















