Obama's infomercial

[furt]

@Driver8

This simply isn’t true. Not only will the name not be checked by your credit or debit card issuer, but it very likely isn’t even sent all the way to them in the card transaction data, assuming you donated from a web form.

They can, and often will, verify that the numerical details of your address that you entered match what is on file.

This is the blog post that started things:

"I’ve read recent reports of the Obama campaign receiving donations from dubious names and foreign locales and it got me wondering: How is this possible?

“**I run a small Internet business and when I process credit cards I’m required to make sure the name on the card exactly matches the name of the customer making the purchase. Also, the purchaser’s address must match that of the cardholders. If these don’t match, then the payment isn’t approved. **Period. So how is it possible that the Obama campaign could receive donations from fictional people and places? Well, I decided to do a little experiment.”

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021856.php

Other internet vendors have said the same thing. If a blog post isn’t reliable, here are other media articles touching on it:

“Juan Proaño, whose technology firm handled online contributions for John Edwards’s presidential primary campaign, and for John F. Kerry’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2004, said it is possible to require donors’ names and addresses to match those on their credit card accounts. But, he said, some campaigns are reluctant to impose that extra layer of security.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803413_pf.html

“Most merchants selling goods and services use the basic Address Verification System that screens credit-card charges for matching names and addresses. (It can also screen cards issued by foreign banks.) The McCain campaign uses AVS and provides a searchable database of all donors, including those who fall below the $200 threshold. The Obama campaign apparently has chosen not to use the AVS system to screen donations.”

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10272008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/dubious_donations_135428.htm?page=0

A related issue is the use of prepaid gift cards, which are untraceable:

"To test the campaigns’ practices, this author bought two pre-paid American Express gift cards worth $25 each to donate to the Obama and McCain campaigns online. As required by law, the campaigns’ Web sites asked for, and National Journal provided, the donor’s correct name, location and employment. The cards were purchased with cash at a Washington, D.C., drugstore, and the campaigns’ Web sites were accessed through a public computer at a library in Fairfax County, Virginia.

The Obama campaign’s Web site accepted the $25 donation, but the McCain campaign’s Web site rejected it."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20081024_9865.php

The Obama campaign, AFAIK, hasn’t acknowledged the issue, but they have changed their settings after several days of the issue bouncing around the blogosphere; people doing the experiment now are getting turned down:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzlmYjAxODY5OTgyZGQ5OTNhYWMzYzBiZmEwM2Q2OTE=

[Fish]

@Lantern

Joe the Plumber and Tito the Builder OTOH feel like prolonged election gimmicks.

“Joe the Plumber” is a symbol. He is not an actual person to the McCain campaign, he is symbolic of Middle America: a white male blue-collar worker.

Obama put real people up on the screen, with real issues. To me, that makes all the difference.

[quixotic78]

@magellan01

I am, too, but it’s not the same thing. He actually met Obama and asked him a legitimate question and got a response that is being scrutinized.

I’m not sure there’s much left to scrutinize. Joe the Plumber will currently get a larger tax cut under Obama’s plan than McCain. If he succeeds in buying out his partner (or whatever, I was always somewhat foggy on the details) and ends up making more than $250,000 a year, the situation will be reversed, although IIRC correctly the difference between the two plans is negligible until you get a lot farther away from $250,000.

Joe the Plumber’s problem is that the McCain camp has transformed a simple question into some sort of “phenomenon” (and I’ll use the word in quotes because polling has shown that he’s had a negligible effect, even though most poll respondents know who he is). He is, as has already been pointed out, a symbol. It’s gone way, way past putting a face to a question.

[Fear_Itself]

@quixotic78

It’s gone way, way past putting a face to a question.

No kidding. Joe the Plumber now thinks he wants to beJoe the Congressman.

[Crotalus]

I’m a member of the choir, of course, so my judgment is not unbiased, but I thought the infomercial was very well done. I also believe that many undecided voters who have only seen debates and speeches may be swayed by Obama’s demeanor and presentation in the parts where he was talking in non-public settings. I think that the parts about his mother and his family were very effective as well.

One aspect of the production that seemed almost miraculous to me was the segue from the taped portion of the presentation to the live speech. The taped part ended and we joined his speech at the exact moment that he was beginning his rousing wrap-up. Does anyone else think that this was difficult to achieve in terms of timing? I thought it was the most impressive thing about the whole show, and it is also the point where I got somewhat emotional.

[Slacker]

@Lantern

I have no doubt the McCain campaign could produce a good biographical video about McCain’s POW experience; what I doubt they could do is integrate that into McCain’s policy positions and overall campaign message nearly as effectively.

It’s tough to work yourself in between clips of Americans and their problems when your economic plan boils down to “Barack is a socialist” and your foriegn policy plan is “Barack is a terrorist.”

[Mighty_Girl]

@furt

People have been making donations to Obama under names like “Adolf Hitler” and “Ima Madeup.” The donations have been processed and the funds removed. No flags. Under the default settings for CC-processing software, this isn’t possible (as far as I’ve heard, and it seems common sense); if the name given doesn’t match the name on the CC file, the transaction is automatically nullified. Thus, it would appear that someone with the Obama campaign deliberately set it up to accept cards with bogus names.

I believe this is not so. The only thing AVS checks is that both the zip code and the numeric part in the address agrees with what your bank has on record. It also check the numeric code in the back of your card. There is no way to automatically check names against that on the credit card.

[Mighty_Girl]

FWIW, I am the owner of an internet retail business and have tested this myself.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@magellan01

I am, too, but it’s not the same thing. He actually met Obama and asked him a legitimate question and got a response that is being scrutinized. But the notion of just finding someone that illustrates the problem you want to solve is annoying. You can support ANY position or idea by pointing to someone.

But, I’ve had enough of Joe the Plumber, too.

It wasn’t a legitimate quesion. He lied and misrepresented himself.

[Lantern]

@Crotalus

One aspect of the production that seemed almost miraculous to me was the segue from the taped portion of the presentation to the live speech. The taped part ended and we joined his speech at the exact moment that he was beginning his rousing wrap-up. Does anyone else think that this was difficult to achieve in terms of timing? I thought it was the most impressive thing about the whole show, and it is also the point where I got somewhat emotional.

Yes this was the one truly innovative touch in the whole video which was otherwise excellent but quite conventional. I saw the whole thing on the Internet later so it didn’t quite have the full effect but I bet it worked really well for those who saw it live. It would have required quite a bit of planning so that Obama knew exactly what point he had to reach in his stump speech when he went live.

Incidentally the ad was produced by Mark Putnam who also produced Bill Richardson’s job-interview ads in the primary and is apparently one of the best political ad-makers around.

[Sinaijon]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

It wasn’t a legitimate quesion. He lied and misrepresented himself.

Whether or not he misrepresented himself is completely irrelevant to the legitimacy of the question.

[AuntiePam]

@Lantern

Incidentally the ad was produced by Mark Putnam who also produced Bill Richardson’s job-interview ads in the primary and is apparently one of the best political ad-makers around.

On MSNBC somebody (Olbermann or Maddow) said that Davis Guggenheim directed. He’s worked on Deadwood, The Shield and other TV shows, and won an Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth. So it should have been pretty good.

[Skammer]

I didn’t get to watch it last night because I was on line for over two hours to cast my early vote. And that was to avoid standing in line for the predicted four hours on Tuesday.

But I already voted for Obama, so I guess even if he got on national TV and personally insulted my mother there’s not much I could do about it now!

[jayjay]

@Skammer

But I already voted for Obama, so I guess even if he got on national TV and personally insulted my mother there’s not much I could do about it now!

“Skammer’s mother’s so fat, when she sits around the house, she REALLY sits around the house! And I’m talking about the House of Representatives here!”

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Sinaijon

Whether or not he misrepresented himself is completely irrelevant to the legitimacy of the question.

The question itself was still illegitimate, because he would have gotten a tax cut even if everything he said was true.

[Driver8]

@Mighty_Girl

I believe this is not so. The only thing AVS checks is that both the zip code and the numeric part in the address agrees with what your bank has on record. It also check the numeric code in the back of your card. There is no way to automatically check names against that on the credit card.

This is a true statement. AVS only verifies the numeric part of an address. If people are checking names as well, it is outside of the standard AVS and transaction messaging sent through the major networks, and is almost certainly not the standard by any stretch of the imagination.

[Slacker]

@Sinaijon

Whether or not he misrepresented himself is completely irrelevant to the legitimacy of the question.

I think I’m with Dio on this one. A legitimate would have been, “Can you explain to me how raising taxes on those making over $250,000 per year is going to help the economy?” Instead Joe the Country Music Singing Novelist Congressman said, “I’m going to buy a business (not true), and I’ll be making $280,000 (also not true), why are you going to tax me more?”

[SanibelMan]

@jayjay

“Skammer’s mother’s so fat, when she sits around the house, she REALLY sits around the house! And I’m talking about the House of Representatives here!”

And Joe Biden chimed in: “Literally!”

[Ensign_Edison]

@Driver8

This simply isn’t true. Not only will the name not be checked by your credit or debit card issuer, but it very likely isn’t even sent all the way to them in the card transaction data, assuming you donated from a web form.

They can, and often will, verify that the numerical details of your address that you entered match what is on file.

Exactly. No credit card verification system I’ve ever worked with has any way to check any part of the information but the numbers. Not only the name, but also the name of the street and city are irrelevant. It checks the card number, zip code and digits of the address only.

[IClaudius]

@Sinaijon

Whether or not he misrepresented himself is completely irrelevant to the legitimacy of the question.

If the point was solely the question being addressed, then surely that was settled when he received an extensive and polite answer right on the spot - even after being impliedly accused of not believing in the American dream of prosperity.

But the point is Joe’s entire line was based on a set of sweeping misrepresentations - he lied about his earnings, his capacity to buy the business in question, the business’s net profits, and his belief in flat taxes - all to simply get media mileage for his faux-independent concerns. How can this complete lack of credibility not be at issue here - when his entire contribution has been to disingenuously act as a gimmick of working class scepticism.

In contrast, I would bet that every single one of those four swing-state families were actually real people with real concerns as depicted in the infomercial.