Posted by Jim Lindgren:
Response to Adler on Corruption.
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_02-2008_11_08.shtml#1225873033
I would like to join my fellow VC posters in congratulating Barack
Obama on his historic victory. I have always thought him to be (as
[1]I described him before) �the most reasonable, thoughtful, moderate
person on either national ticket.� My problem is with his (statist)
politics. But then, after the most socialist administration since LBJ
or FDR (the second Bush administration), the statist trend is already
somewhat entrenched.
Unfortunately, Jonathan Adler�s [2]disagreement with me in a post
yesterday requires that I support my original claim, which would seem
rather obvious. In return, I hope that Jonathan will support his.
Jonathan takes issue with this statement of mine in an [3]earlier
post:
It is ironic that in 2008 we probably have two of the most honest
and decent men running for president that we have had in a long
time, and yet this has easily been the most corrupt election in my
lifetime.
To support this claim, I pointed to three things:
1. tens or hundreds of thousands of illegal voter registrations,
2. illegal campaign contributions, including illegal foreign
contributions,
3. the press�s performance.
I concluded by hoping that �the voting today is not so close that it
was likely determined by voter fraud or tens of millions of dollars in
illegal campaign contributions,� a hope that was borne out by the
substantial margin for President-elect Obama.
Jonathan disagrees with my conclusion, but the only arguments that he
raises in response are that:
(1) �it does not look like corrupt election practices actually
affected the outcome in any national races,� and
(2) �it might appear to some [because of more press and internet
coverage] that there is more bad stuff going on, but I haven't seen
any solid evidence that this is in fact the case.�
Jonathan�s first point essentially agrees with my assertion in my
original post, so that�s not grounds for disagreeing. I would dispute
Jonathan�s second point quite vigorously and would ask him which year
since 1952 was more corrupt and what arguments or evidence he has for
such a claim. In some of the early elections (eg, 1952, 1956, and
1960), African-American voters were suppressed quite substantially by
poll taxes and the like, but that is not the sort of "corruption" I
was talking about. As I made clear, I pointed to the extent of phony
registrations, illegal contributions, and press bias.
FRAUDULENT VOTER REGISTRATION
In my post, I linked as evidence to John Fund�s [4]piece at Politico:
Anita MonCrief [is] an ACORN whistle-blower who worked for both it
and its Project Vote registration affiliate from 2005 until early
this year . . . . MonCrief, a 29-year old University of Alabama
graduate who wanted to become part of the civil rights movement,
worked as a strategic consultant for ACORN as well as a development
associate with Project Vote and sat in on meetings with the
national staffs of both groups. She has given me documents that
back up many of her statements, including one that indicates that
the goal of ACORN's New Mexico affiliate was that only 40 percent
of its submitted registrations had to be valid.
MonCrief also told me that some ACORN affiliates had a conscious
strategy of flooding voter registration offices with suspect
last-minute forms in part to create confusion and chaos that would
make it more likely suspect voters would be allowed to cast ballots
by overworked officials. Nate Toller, who worked on ACORN
registration drives and headed an ACORN campaign against Wal-Mart
in California until 2006, agrees.
Here is a [5]small sampling of the fraud that has been uncovered so
far:
Indiana � More than 2,000 voter registration forms filed in
northern Indiana�s Lake County filled out by ACORN employees turned
out to be bogus. Officials also stopped processing a stack of about
5,000 applications delivered just before the October 6 registration
deadline after the first 2,100 turned out to be phony.
Connecticut � Officials are looking into a complaint alleging ACORN
submitted fraudulent voter registration cards in Bridgeport. In one
instance, an official said a card was filled out for a 7-year-old
girl, whose age was listed as 27. 8,000 cards were submitted in
Bridgeport.
Missouri � The Kansas City election board is reporting 100
duplicate applications and 280 with fake information. Acorn
officials agreed that at least 4% of their registrations were
bogus. Governor Matt Blunt condemned the attempts by ACORN to
commit voter fraud.
Pennsylvania � Officials are investigating suspicious or incomplete
registration forms submitted by ACORN. 252,595 voter registrations
were submitted in Philadelphia. Remarkably, 57,435 were rejected �
most of them submitted by ACORN. . . .
Texas � Of the 30,000 registration cards ACORN turned in, Harris
County tax assessor Paul Bettencourt says just more than 20,000 are
valid. And just look at some of the places ACORN was finding those
voters. A church just next door is the address for around 150
people. More than 250 people claim a homeless outreach center as
their home address. Some listed a county mental health facility as
their home and one person even wrote down the Harris County jail at
the sheriff�s office. . . .
That�s not all. So far this year at least 14 states have started
investigations against ACORN. Talk about a culture of corruption.
It is so bad that Representatives of Congress have asked for the
Justice Department to investigate.
ACORN has registered over 1.3 million voters this year. If their GOAL
is only to have 40% of them legitimate, then there probably are
hundreds of thousands of illegal registrations. Indeed, just the short
list above includes over 70,000 fraudulent registrations. Jonathan,
I've never heard of national registration fraud on such a grand scale.
In Indianapolis, over 105% of adults eligible to register are[6]
registered. That�s more registered voters than there are adults
(national rates of registration are only 72%).
Jonathan, if you have any reason to think that any other election in
my lifetime had a similar level of phony registrations, please explain
the basis for your claim. Before ACORN, we never had a national
organization that was set up to promote so much voter registration
fraud, so I can�t see how you would defend that claim. Organizations
such as the League of Women Voters were never engaged in systematic
registration fraud like this.
ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
There are at least seven reasons to believe that illegal campaign
contributions are more widespread in 2008 than in any election since
at least 1952:
1. Computer use is higher and online contributions are easier to make
than they have ever been before. Just a few years ago, most
contributions were made by check, which left a paper trail.
2. The incentive and [7]desire by foreign nationals to contribute to
Obama is higher than in any prior election. (Before this year, I don�t
remember any foreign [8]public officials publicly admitting that
[9]foreign nationals were raising money for American presidential
candidates.)
3. The Obama campaign disabled the normal credit card address
verification feature on their website so that making illegal foreign
and excess US donations was made much easier.
4. According to foreign newspaper and internet reports, the Obama
campaign has [10]repeatedly sent requests for money [11]to foreign
nationals who are prohibited from contributing.
5. There are many false names and occupations on the released lists of
donors.
6. There are many suspicious patterns and amounts of donations just in
the incomplete data that was reported.
7. The Obama campaign has refused to release the list of donors under
$200 as the McCain has done.
Because illegal contributions are so much easier to make than ever
before, it would be strange if there weren�t more illegal
contributions. Why wouldn�t there be more illegal foreign
contributions this year when the Obama campaign is the first to send
frequent emails to foreign nationals asking for money? Jonathan, do
you know of any reports that Kerry, Gore, or Bush did this in prior
years?
There are many reports of illegal fundraising and illegal
contributions. Here is just [12]one summary:
Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who
give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does
require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and
report them once they go beyond the $200 mark. Surprisingly, the
great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.
The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering
$222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only
$39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign
has identified. . . .
It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded
into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold
campaign finance reforms of 2002. . . .
�[CRP] and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for
more information on small donors,� [Massie Ritsch] said. �The Obama
campaign never responded,� whereas the McCain campaign �makes all
its donor information, including the small donors, available
online.�
The rise of the Internet as a campaign funding tool raises new
questions about the adequacy of FEC requirements on disclosure. In
pre-Internet fundraising, almost all political donations, even
small ones, were made by bank check, leaving a paper trail and
limiting the amount of fraud.
But credit cards used to make donations on the Internet have
allowed for far more abuse. �While FEC practice is to do a
post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their
sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years,� said
Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and
Policy Center.
Already, the FEC has noted unusual patterns in Obama campaign
donations among donors who have been disclosed because they have
gone beyond the $200 minimum.
FEC and Mr. Doodad Pro
When FEC auditors have questions about contributions, they send
letters to the campaign�s finance committee requesting additional
information, such as the complete address or employment status of
the donor.
Many of the FEC letters that Newsmax reviewed instructed the Obama
campaign to �redesignate� contributions in excess of the finance
limits.
Under campaign finance laws, an individual can donate $2,300 to a
candidate for federal office in both the primary and general
election, for a total of $4,600. If a donor has topped the limit in
the primary, the campaign can �redesignate� the contribution to the
general election on its books.
In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign
to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified
as �Will, Good� from Austin, Texas. Mr. Good Will listed his
employer as �Loving� and his profession as �You.� A Newsmax
analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest
master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate
entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25. In total, Mr. Good
Will gave $17,375.
Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show
that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a
credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed
a net cumulative balance of $8,950, still well over the $4,600
limit.
There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these
contributions, since Obama�s Sept. 20 report specified that Good
Will�s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign
were $9,375. . . .
Similarly, a donor identified as �Pro, Doodad,� from �Nando, NY,�
gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For
most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as
�Loving� and his profession as �You,� just as Good Will had done.
But in some of them, he didn�t even go this far, apparently picking
letters at random to fill in the blanks on the credit card donation
form. In these cases, he said he was employed by �VCX� and that his
profession was �VCVC.� . . .
Just as with Mr. Good Will, there can be no doubt that the Obama
campaign noticed the contributions, since its Sept. 20 report
specified that Doodad�s cumulative contributions since the
beginning of the campaign were $10,965.
Foreign Donations
And then there are the overseas donations -- at least, the ones
that we know about. The FEC has compiled a separate database of
potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than
11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. . . .
More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats
or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their
total contributions came to just $201,680 [out of $33.8 million]. .
. .
Unlike McCain�s or Sen. Hillary Clinton�s online donation pages,
the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just
recently. Clinton�s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens
living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a
donation would be accepted.
With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign
may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by
foreigners. In July and August, the head of the Nigeria�s stock
market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigeria�s
largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners.
At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for
$16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an
estimated $900,000.
The sponsors said the fundraisers were held to help Nigerians
attend the Democratic convention in Denver. But the Nigerian press
expressed skepticism of that claim, and the Nigerian public
anti-fraud commission is now investigating the matter.
Concerns about foreign fundraising have been raised by other
anecdotal accounts of illegal activities.
In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech
praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his
campaign.
�All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa
applauded this man,� the Libyan leader said. �They welcomed him and
prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been
involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win
the American presidency..."
Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African
nations were �legitimate,� the fact is that U.S. federal law bans
any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign.
The rise of the Internet and use of credit cards have made it
easier for foreign nationals to donate to American campaigns,
especially if they claim their donation is less than $200.
Gadhafi is not the only foreign official to talk about foreigners
making donations. According to one internet account, a prominent
Spanish [13]official admitted on TV that he had donated to Obama�s
campaign.
More accounts of registration, voting, and contribution irregularities
are [14]here, [15]here, [16]here, [17]here, [18]here, and [19]here.
CONCLUSION
In my original post, I gave three reasons why in my opinion 2008 was
the most corrupt election in my lifetime (even if, as I expected, it
probably didn�t affect the outcome):
1. illegal voter registrations,
2. illegal campaign contributions, and
3. the press�s performance.
I was quite specific about the three facets of this year's corruption.
I have supported the first two with arguments and evidence. Given the
massive illegal voter registrations this year, I find it hard to see
how Jonathan could disagree on my first point.
On my second point, I don�t see how there couldn�t be more illegal
donations this year, given the switch from donations by check to
donations by computer, the lax controls, and the frequent fundraising
emails to foreign nationals. There is absolutely no reason to suppose
that the greatly increased press reports of illegal donations are just
the result of better reporting (as both Jonathan and Orin seem to
imply).
The third type of corruption � press bias -- is so obvious and so
widely recognized by the public and by many elites that I doubt that
Jonathan would challenge me on that, so I won�t waste his time on that
point in an already very long post.
I gave three reasons why this election was the most corrupt since
1952. Jonathan, please indicate which election since 1952 was more
corrupt than this one, and why? You never say (nor does Orin in his
post).
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/
135718.html
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/
135718.html
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-complete-guide-to-acorn-voter-fraud/
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/more_voter_registration_shenanigans_i
ndianapolis_has_105_of_its_population/
105% of eligible voters are registered in Indianapolis (national rates
are 72%)
Anita MonCrief, an ACORN whistle-blower who worked for both it and its
Project Vote registration affiliate from 2005 until early this year,
agrees. "It's ludicrous to say that fake registrations can't become
fraudulent votes," she told me. "I assure you that if you can get them
on the rolls you can get them to vote, especially using absentee
ballots." MonCrief, a 29-year old University of Alabama graduate who
wanted to become part of the civil rights movement, worked as a
strategic consultant for ACORN as well as a development associate with
Project Vote and sat in on meetings with the national staffs of both
groups. She has given me documents that back up many of her
statements, including one that indicates that the goal of ACORN's New
Mexico affiliate was that only 40 percent of its submitted
registrations had to be valid.
MonCrief also told me that some ACORN affiliates had a conscious
strategy of flooding voter registration offices with suspect
last-minute forms in part to create confusion and chaos that would
make it more likely suspect voters would be allowed to cast ballots by
overworked officials. Nate Toller, who worked on ACORN registration
drives and headed an ACORN campaign against Wal-Mart in California
until 2006, agrees.
References
1.
http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_08_31-2008_09_06.shtml#1220664290
2. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_02-2008_11_08.shtml#1225854614
3. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_02-2008_11_08.shtml#1225822791
4. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15189.html
5. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-complete-guide-to-acorn-voter-fraud/
6.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/more_voter_registration_shenanigans_indianapolis_has_105_of_its_population/
7. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/has-foreign-money-bolstered-obama/
8. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/has-foreign-money-bolstered-obama/#comment-5
9.
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html
10. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/has-foreign-money-bolstered-obama/
11. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/has-foreign-money-bolstered-obama/#comment-19
12.
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html
13. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/has-foreign-money-bolstered-obama/#comment-5
14.
http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/klein-palestinians-donate-29500-to-obama-gazan-brothers-illegal-contributions-listed-in-government-election-filings/
15.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/obamas-gazan-co.html
16. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-obama-campaigns-credit-card-crack-up/
17. http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_donor_contributions_sil.html
18. http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403
19.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/05/rnc_to_file_fec_complaint_on_o.html
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
