The RNC announced it will file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against the Obama campaign. (Source)
The complaint centers around all those small donors that have given nearly half a billion dollars to the campaign. The RNC asserts that there’s no way to prove these donors are legit, because they fall under the $200 disclosure limit.
According to the FEC website:
The FECA requires candidate committees, party committees and PACs to file periodic reports disclosing the money they raise and spend. Candidates must identify, for example, all PACs and party committees that give them contributions, and they must identify individuals who give them more than $200 in an election cycle. Additionally, they must disclose expenditures exceeding $200 per election cycle to any individual or vendor.
In essence, any donor that contributes a total of $200 over the course of the campaign must be disclosed. This rule seems to refute part of the claim by the RNC that “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 small donor explosion started back in December of 2007. From Q4 2007 to his disclosure covering the month of January, Obama’s fundraising jumped dramatically. The Q4 disclosure shows $23.5m for the months of Oct.-Dec. Obama’s January disclosure shows $36.7m in one month, a huge explosion of donations. This trend has continued since. His last disclosure reports some $57m of donations. (Source)
Newsweek reported on Saturday about two donors that donated more than the federal limit allows, and under false names. The money from both donors has been returned. “While no organization is completely protected from Internet fraud, we will continue to review our fund-raising procedures,” said Ben Lablot an Obama Spokesman.
McCain has had his own fundraising problems. Back in August the Washington Post reported that bundlers may have used names of people who, in fact, did not donate any money to the campaign. The McCain campaign returned the money.
The RNC is well within their rights to raise questions about Obama’s donors, but in doing so, they also raise questions about themselves. Considering the Republican Party’s history of voter suppression tactics and Tom DeLay style attacks based on unsubstantiated rumors (I don’ know if candidate x is a {list of rumors}, but I can’t prove he/she’s not.) this attack on small donors seems to fit their modus operandi nicely. Of course, when you’re getting your ass kicked in the polls I guess anything goes.
I need some help here.
I travel around spreading support for McCain, but lately I’m getting asked some things that are difficult to answer:
1: They understand that Obama is certainly guilty of associating with a known terrorist whose bad behaviour occurred BEFORE Obama was 8, even though the terrorist was never arrested, tried or convicted of anything and the work they did together was in trying to rebuild Chicago’s inner city schools, but
they don’t understand that John’s support of and from Keating WHILE Keating was committing fraudulent activities that fleeced his customers and investors of their life savings was not at all unseemly. That even though Keating ended up as a convicted felon and John was investigated for trying to help his friend during the investigation and was censured by the senate for “exercising bad judgment”, he was really showing support for a constituent.
I have to admit the hardest part is explaining why Walter Annenberg financed the opportunity that brought Obama and Ayers together. They remember Bush’s statement that those who finance terrorist activities are as dangerous as the terrorists themselves.
2. The other set of concerns has to do with the unamerican speeches by Rev. Wright. What supporters are wondering is how this compares to John’s actions in Vietnam. They don’t understand that John’s decision to cooperate with the Viet Cong and, seemingly, betray his country and fellow soldiers,while a prisoner of war is not at all unamerican.
I think someone needs to have a press conference to clarify this confusing set of issues.