Skip to content
14 Comments leave one →
  1. tpt/ny permalink
    10 January, 2009 21:15

    Great Job….PUMA-PAC!!

  2. Jenny permalink
    10 January, 2009 21:15

    Why do you think the CQ article was headed “Next Time, Seek Counsel from Within”?

    Maybe because of the paragraphs you conveniently omitted from your quote above.

    Some comments were tinged with racism. “What the heck is going on here?” wrote one woman from Obama’s home state of Illinois. She accused the president-elect of not disclosing enough information about his family, employment, health and education backgrounds.

    Another woman from Los Angeles demanded an audit of Obama’s campaign spending.

    “President-elect Barack Obama spent a record $741 million on his campaign but has disclosed donors for only $485 million of his windfall,” she wrote.

    While the letters challenging Obama’s election made up the lion’s share of comments to the FEC, the agency also received approximately two dozen submissions from former government employees and those who work in the campaign finance community. Some of the letters offering substantive recommendations came from the Center for Competitive Politics, the Department of Justice and the Sunlight Foundation. Three former FEC commissioners , David M. Mason, Scott Thomas and Hans A. von Spakovsky, also weighed in with their ideas.

    • 10 January, 2009 21:15

      It wasn’t a matter of “convenience,” Jenny, it was a matter of leaving out the unnecessary. Some comments may have been tinged with racism, but that was not the reason for the PUMApac audit, nor was it the reason for the former government employees and former commissioners to respond to the FEC question. If I’d wanted to “hide” the information from you, I would have linked to the CQ post. I’ve heard “racism” used too often during the last year as an attempt to deflect from a serious issue. Do you know where all that money came from? Do you know why Disney characters were allowed to donate? Or, perhaps you can explain all the 4160 foreign donations. I’s be happy to hear a legitimate explanation.

  3. 10 January, 2009 21:15

    I wonder if the article cited the 6 million obama campaign contributions, by state, and foreign country, the PUMA PAC “Feck oBAMA” team auditted? The findings of illicit contributions would /should knock their socks off.

    Good job, Mega FECkas!!

  4. dad gum mad permalink
    10 January, 2009 21:15

    Why don’t some of those that sent in the letters to the FEC show up for the hearing on the 14th with their audit in hand? That would get any of the press that is there as well, attention when they can see it first hand.

    • 10 January, 2009 21:15

      dad gum mad:

      The “letters” sent by PUMApac team were following the formal process for Complaints established by the FEC, with all the audits attached. If you have followed the link in my post you will have seen how thorough the team was. The audits were posted in the hope that someone will notice and give them the attention they deserve.

  5. dad gum mad permalink
    10 January, 2009 21:15

    catsden- that is why I say someone that performed the audit should show up to the hearing and ask questions with the audit in hand why there has not been one with what they have found. Maybe the press would take notice if they can see the documentation with their own eyes.

  6. DemNoMore permalink
    10 January, 2009 21:15

    Unfortunately, the tone of the CQ article was pretty much, “Routine Request for Public Input Sparks Flying Saucer Frenzy.”

    The information used in the “audit” is publicly available, and easily gathered. That no anti-Obama organization with greater credibility and firepower (and there are many) has elected to mount a challenge to the FEC speaks volumes regarding the likelihood that any action will be taken.

    I admire the effort and dedication that went into documenting the many irregularities in the Obama campaign’s financial filings. Sadly, though, this seems to be another instance where a crucial argument is weakened because it’s the PUMAs — rather than a political group with real “establishment” bona fides — that is raising it.

  7. dad gum mad permalink
    10 January, 2009 21:15

    that should say – why there has not been an audit with what has already been submitted.

    • 10 January, 2009 21:15

      dad gum mad: Okay, I understand you now. Sorry for the misreading.

  8. Lu4Puma permalink
    10 January, 2009 21:15

    dad gum mad,

    The Hearing is on the FEC compliance and enforcement processes, the audit is a bit off topic. We did submit public comments that relate the audit issue to the process issue. The FEC has an open complaint on the matters and will likely refuse to comment on an open investigation. This is actually a very valid point for them. You know BO would have 10 lawyers on them in a heartbeat.

    We are doing our best to make sure the FEC has all the info they need to audit BO. The information is posted and the media has been notified. We will not be silent. And we may have someone show up at the meeting.

  9. Lu4Puma permalink
    10 January, 2009 21:15


    Even though the information is readily available, BO submitted over 2.5 million donor transactions for a net of $485 million. That is less than $200 net for each transaction. There were so many +/- and junk that the information management was prohibitive. I think that was intentional. Just flood them with junk so that by the time they could get through it all, BO would be well established in office and could squelch the findings.

    With that many transactions, you have to know how to handle software like Access to even get the data into managable sets to export to Excel. Doable, but alot of work. We had a team of about 6 working on it to get the preliminary studies done.

    Once we had the preliminary studies done, they identified areas to target. But I am still working on the last of the updates.

  10. dad gum mad permalink
    10 January, 2009 21:15

    I would do it even if it is off topic. Bring it to the front of the people and press at the hearing. That is how you get things done. Make waves when they are least expected!

  11. show-watchr permalink
    11 January, 2009 21:15

    Maybe you should read it from the source. Read it at CQ.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: