August 12, 2008

Obama’s Creative Campaign Financing Adds Misuse of Tax Exempt Church Resources
by Bill Levinson

At a time when money from Washington lobbyists and special interests is polluting the political process more than ever, the question for campaigns isn’t just whether they can compete financially — it’s how they do it.

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, E-mail of June 12 2007

We should indeed look at “how they do it” because this E-mail itself may have been an illegal lottery. Furthermore, one of last year’s “Dinner with Barack” lotteries announced a winner before the entry deadline, which suggests that not all participants had an equal chance to win. Meanwhile, Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs reports that Obama’s campaign accepted illegal contributions from foreign sources. We finally have the matter of Obama’s deliberate and willful misuse of the United Church of Christ’s tax exempt resources to promote his candidacy. Yes, Mr. Plouffe, “how they do it” should indeed be foremost in voters’ minds this year.

Obama’s Arguably Illegal and Possibly Rigged Fundraising Lotteries
The following is not legal advice, but it is easily understandable. A lottery consists of the following three elements:

(1) Payment of consideration (a donation to the Obama campaign)
(2) an element of chance (randomly determined winner)
(3) a prize (dinner with Barack Obama)

In most jurisdictions, lotteries are an illegal form of gambling, although there are sometimes exceptions for raffles for nonprofit organizations, churches, and the like. The Obama campaign, in fact, modified a similar lottery this year to allow entry without a donation after complaints from an Minnesota law enforcement agency. David Plouffe’s E-mail of June 12 2007 said,

At a time when money from Washington lobbyists and special interests is polluting the political process more than ever, the question for campaigns isn’t just whether they can compete financially — it’s how they do it.

Thousands of people have given whatever they could afford — even $5 — to be part of something big.

If you make a donation in any amount by 11:59 pm EDT tomorrow, June 13, you could be one of four people chosen to dine with Barack. In about a month, you could sit down and share your reasons for joining this campaign and your ideas for how to keep the momentum building.

Right, Dave, “how they do it” in Obama’s case consists of (1) payment of consideration (”If you make a donation in any amount”), (2) an element of chance (”you could be one of four people chosen”) and (3) a prize (”dine with Barack”)–that is, a lottery that was quite possibly illegal in most parts of the country, noting that this one did not offer a means of entering without making a donation. In addition, Barack Obama signed his own name to another such lottery solicitation, whose content suggests that it might even have been rigged.

Last week we started planning our second dinner, and on Friday evening at 6:42 pm, a woman named Dorothy Unruh of Lakewood, Colorado made a donation.

I’m pleased to announce that Dorothy will be one of my guests for the second dinner. You could join us if you make a small donation before 11:59 pm tonight, July 31st:

–Barack Obama, E-mail of July 31 2007

Is it usual to announce a lottery winner before the entry deadline? The fact that Dorothy Unruh was selected before the entry deadline suggests that not all donors had an equal chance to win.

Illegal Foreign Contributions

At a time when money from Washington lobbyists and special interests is polluting the political process more than ever, the question for campaigns isn’t just whether they can compete financially — it’s how they do it.

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, E-mail of June 12 2007

“How they do it” in Obama’s case also involves acceptance of campaign contributions from foreign nationals (illegal) in excess of the $2300 individual contribution limit (also illegal) per this brilliant article from Atlas Shrugs.

Not only did Obama not report this jihad cash to the FEC, despite what they’ve claimed, the “Pali” brothers have not received their jihad cash back.

In digging deeper into the illegal foreign campaign contributions from Palestinians, Cathy came across these FEC letters. Obama knew these contributions were illegal and “Palestinian”. He didn’t report them. He took a page from his days as a “commnity organizer” for the most corrupt political machine in America. It’s what they do.

Bringing the worst in American politics to the national level.

It seems the FEC actually did their job. But the chosen One-bama is special and above the law……. he is a citizen of the world.

The article adds that the contributions came from “Rafah GA,” with a zip code of “972.” There is no “Rafah, Georgia,” but there is a Rafah in the Gaza Strip, whose country telephone code is 972. In addition, 972 cannot be the first three digits of Georgia’s zip code, because the 90000 series is on the United States’ West Coast. It seems that Obama’s money came from Palestinians, who are also manning phone banks to help his campaign.

Misuse of Tax Exempt Church Resources for Electioneering

At a time when money from Washington lobbyists and special interests is polluting the political process more than ever, the question for campaigns isn’t just whether they can compete financially — it’s how they do it.

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, E-mail of June 12 2007

SAY it, David! Say it loud, and keep saying it! “The question for campaigns isn’t just whether they can compete financially — it’s how they do it,” and your candidate’s creativity extends to the willful misuse of tax exempt church resources to support his campaign.

The Internal Revenue Service has, and rightly in our opinion, cleared the United Church of Christ of accusations that it violated its tax exempt status by hosting Barack Obama’s “A Politics of Conscience.” The IRS’s letter to the United Church of Christ cites the same points that we did: even though Barack Obama’s “A Politics of Conscience” contained campaign-related content, the UCC did everything possible to prevent the Obama campaign from misusing its resources for electioneering. It would therefore be hardly fair to hold the United Church of Christ accountable for Barack Obama’s decision to break his word to his own church by giving a speech that described what he will do if he is elected President, as shown by the transcript of “A Politics of Conscience,” and the IRS apparently came to the same conclusion.

For those unfamiliar with what happened, Barack Obama was to give a speech at the United Church of Christ’s annual Synod in June 2007. Per UCC minister Davida Foy Crabtree in the Hartford Courant

Our purpose in inviting Sen. Obama in the spring of 2006 — long before he was a candidate for the presidency — was to ask him to address the connection between his Christian faith and his public service, to speak to us of the challenges for people of faith in the public square today. And he did so with eloquence. As a prominent member of our church, his was a natural invitation, just as the others were. To avoid any hint of endorsement or promotion, our national officers and our denominational attorney established clear understandings with Sen. Obama’s office in Washington. He readily agreed to all of them. We made it clear not only to his campaign staff but also to our own synod delegates and visitors that no advocacy or promotion of his candidacy would be permitted.

In other words, the church told Obama explicitly that no advocacy or promotion of his campaign would be permitted, and he and his staff said they understood and agreed to this. Obama then wrote a speech (thus demonstrating premeditation and malice aforethought) that contained numerous campaign promises, which he proceeded to deliver at the tax exempt event. This promoted an IRS investigation of the church, and doubtless trauma for church officials who feared disciplinary action against the church itself. As a narcissist who cares for no one but himself, Barry did not even bother to tell the IRS that the fault was his and not that of his church. He left it to the IRS to reach this conclusion itself.

At a time when money from Washington lobbyists and special interests is polluting the political process more than ever, the question for campaigns isn’t just whether they can compete financially — it’s how they do it.

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, E-mail of June 12 2007

That’s right, Dave, “it’s how they do it:” probably illegal and possibly rigged lotteries, illegal contributions from foreign sources, and misuse of tax-exempt church resources. “How they do it” should tell voters everything they need to know about Barack Obama’s personal character, integrity, ethics, and maturity.