Well, only, apparently, for Obama.

The Obama re-election campaign has accepted at least one foreign donation in violation of the law — and does nothing to check on the provenance of millions of dollars in other contributions, a watchdog group alleges.

Chris Walker, a British citizen who lives outside London, told The Post he was able to make two $5 donations to President Obama’s campaign this month through its Web site while a similar attempt to give Mitt Romney cash was rejected. It is illegal to knowingly solicit or accept money from foreign citizens.

Walker said he used his actual street address in England but entered Arkansas as his state with the Schenectady, NY, ZIP code of 12345.

“When I did Romney’s, the payment got rejected on the grounds that the address on the card did not match the address that I entered,” he said. “Romney’s Web site wanted the code from the back of card. Barack Obama’s didn’t.”

In September, Obama’s campaign took in more than $2 million from donors who provided no ZIP code or incomplete ZIP codes, according to data posted on the Federal Election Commission Web site.

The Obama campaign said the FEC data was the result of “a minor technical error.”

Hmmm . . .

Surely Citizens United means it's almost impossible to know if political campaigns are being paid for from foreign funds, from multinational companies (eg: BP).

This (not validating payment zip codes against addresses) looks like poor validation, rather than a deliberate act, and there should be a way to close the loophole pretty quickly. Let's see if they do. The article does conflate two different problems, though - an incorrect zip code is not the same thing as a missing/incomplete one. It would not surprise me if quite a few people didn't really know theirs or bother to fill in all the fields.

danivon wrote: It would not surprise me if quite a few people didn't really know their [zip code].

No. If you have a credit card and use it to pay online the chances of not knowing your zip code are tiny. You're basically saying people might not know their street address. Sure, it's possible, but not at all common. And BTW that Brit who gave the $ to Obama committed credit card fraud by using a false zip code.

Other than that, your post is on point. As opposed to Obama receiving $10, HERE is a story about a Romney superpac getting $1,000,000 from a Canadian-owned insurance company. It's legal, but the subject isn't "Illegal Funding of Campaigns" it's "Foreign Funding of Campaigns".

I'm against foreign funding of campaigns, but I imagine it's got to be tough to police it 100% and bound to get tougher over time. For instance, what if I were to solicit contributions from my foreign friends, who use Paypal to send me $$$. I then, as a citizen, make the combined contribution to a campaign? Or what about the American citizen who owns a business, then to get a contract in China brings in a 10% Chinese partner? Does that make the business ineligible to contribute to a campaign? What about a 50% partner? A 51% partner? Or what if one spouse is a citizen and the other is not, and they have a joint checking account?

Of course, when it comes to funding of political campaigns, foreign money is a mouse in the garage compared to the elephant in the livingroom represented by the facts that the cost to win a congressional seat has doubled in the last 20 years and Presidential campaign spending has been increasing exponentially. [But don't let me change the subject from Dr. F's "outrage of the day"!]

Purple, the article is ambiguous as to whether the Zipcode-less donations were by credit card or not. Cash or cheque donations at a drive or by post may make up many of them. It may just be that there was an error in passing data from one system to another. Given that the system used by the above British donor required a zipcode, forcing him to input one, it seems likely that this is from two separate issues.

I'm not sure if he was committing credit card fraud either. If it was his own card and he acknowledges the payment (and thus agrees to the liability on his own bill), then how can it be fraud? I work at a credit card company, and they would not see it as fraud, although they would be wary of a system that did not check for full security details on a credit card purchase transaction (it may not need the CVV, but have used Verify by Visa or similar).

What it is, however, is providing incorrect information on a legal declaration, and so is against US laws on political donations. The question is, who broke the law, the guy who knowingly lied or the people who did not check that he lied? It shouldn't be simply on the honour system, but the ultimate responsibility for lying usually falls on the liar, right?

On your main point, I do agree that the real issue is the massive costs of running. Not only is it becoming a problem in terms of candidates at least giving the impression of a quid pro quo, it's also another way in which incumbents, and the 'hegemony' of the two party system have things cast in their favour - because it creates another hurdle for challengers and third-party / independent candidates.

If it were cheaper to run, you would have fewer issues about 'bought interests' whether foreign or domestic, and perhaps a more open field. However, I can't see how you could restrict spending without falling foul of many interpretations of the First Amendment.

Isn't it true for donations under $100 a candidate doesn't need to collect any information about the giver? At least that's how it used to be. In 2000 I attended an event for Ralph Nader at Madison Square Garden and they passed around collection plates like it was church and told people they were limited to less than $100 because that was the limit for anonymous donations.

Purple wrote:
Other than that, your post is on point. As opposed to Obama receiving $10, HERE is a story about a Romney superpac getting $1,000,000 from a Canadian-owned insurance company. It's legal, but the subject isn't "Illegal Funding of Campaigns" it's "Foreign Funding of Campaigns".

Um, gee, if you're going to pick nits--maybe YOU ought to get it right?

A "superpac" is not a "campaign."

If you're going to be a donkey, make sure to bray on key, won't you?

I'm against foreign funding of campaigns, but I imagine it's got to be tough to police it 100% and bound to get tougher over time.

True, but if a campaign is not willing to take minimal steps, doesn't that say something, anything?

For instance, what if I were to solicit contributions from my foreign friends, who use Paypal to send me $$$. I then, as a citizen, make the combined contribution to a campaign?

Is it legal?

geojanes wrote:Isn't it true for donations under $100 a candidate doesn't need to collect any information about the giver? At least that's how it used to be. In 2000 I attended an event for Ralph Nader at Madison Square Garden and they passed around collection plates like it was church and told people they were limited to less than $100 because that was the limit for anonymous donations.

No, that's not true. I've given multiple gifts under $100 and have had to provide everything--including my employer.

Steve, Superpacs largely exist to fund political campaigns. They may not be a part of a candidate's official campaign, or run by the party, but they can still be supportive of a candidate, a party or their policies, and they can still fund advertising in furtherance of their campaign.

No need for the personal jibe against Purple, either.

Nothing personal. He strained at gnats and I did the same.

A superpac does not have the same restrictions as a campaign and is not permitted to coordinate with it.

According to wikipedia the reporting limit is $200 per individual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States

Federal candidate committees must identify, for example, all PACs and party committees that give them contributions, and they must provide the names, occupations, employers and addresses of all individuals who give them more than $200 in an election cycle.

Well then, Romney is over and above the requirements.

Prolly just covering his bases so when they hit you up for that extra contribution for the final surge they have all your info.

geojanes wrote:Prolly just covering his bases so when they hit you up for that extra contribution for the final surge they have all your info.

Did someone say "surge?"