Look-Alike Web Sites Hoodwink Republican Donors 294
Hugh Pickens writes "Shane Goldmacher writes that a network of look-alike campaign websites have netted hundreds of thousands of dollars this year in what some are calling a sophisticated political phishing scheme. The doppelgänger websites have the trappings of official campaign pages: smiling candidate photos and videos, issue pages, and a large red "donate" button at the top and exist for nearly three-dozen prominent GOP figures, including presidential nominee Mitt Romney, House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and donation magnets such as Reps. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Allen West of Florida. The only difference is that proceeds from the shadow sites go not to the candidates pictured, but to an obscure conservative group called CAPE PAC run by activist Jeff Loyd, a former chairman of the Gila County GOP in Arizona. 'The only thing they are doing is lining their pockets and funding their own operation,' says Republican political strategist Chris LaCivita. CAPE PAC has a strong Web presence, with over 100,000 followers on Twitter and 50,000 on Facebook and its business model is to buy Google ads — about $290,000 worth, as of the end of June — to promote its network of candidate sites whenever people search for prominent GOP officials. A search for 'Mitt Romney,' for instance, often leads to two sponsored results: Romney's official site and CAPE PAC's mittromneyin2012.com. Once on a CAPE PAC site, users would have to notice fine print at either the top or bottom of the page revealing that they were not on the official page of their favored politician. A dozen donors, including some experienced Washington hands such as Neusner, had no idea they had contributed to the group before National Journal Daily contacted them. 'It confused me, and I do this for a living,' says Washington lobbyist Patrick Raffaniello. 'That's pretty sophisticated phishing.'"
Gooses in sauce. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet the disclaimer was right there at the bottom of the page.
Why do you hate the free market, Neusner?
--
BMO
Uh, ever seen a national politician's website? (Score:4, Insightful)
They go for smooth and polished, and don't look at all like the cluttered, Times New Roman-laden "stopmrobama.com" -- oh, and the fact that your "mittromneyin2012.com" link redirected to "stopmrobama.com", and the page that comes up is all about Obama, and doesn't have the word "Romney" anywhere on it, should also be big hints.
'It confused me, and I do this for a living,' says Washington lobbyist Patrick Raffaniello. 'That's pretty sophisticated phishing.'
Uh, no. This just proves Washington lobbyists are pretty bad at what they purportedly "do for a living".
Sleaze vs Party (Score:5, Insightful)
Gotta love all the comments so far. Apparently, when it's a sleazeball in your own party, it's just a single sleazeball (or a handful of them, whatever), not representative of the party. But when it's the other party, it's poetic justice.
No, people, fraud is fraud, deception is deception, no matter which politics they put on their front door, and no matter who they defraud.
Re:Just goes to show you... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just goes to show you... (Score:5, Insightful)
When will people look beyond the letter and actually see the candidates? Then maybe will will get some better ones.
Unlikely, if they had vision that good, they'd look beyond the candidates too, and see they have identical donors, so there's not much difference.
What is different is the PR campaigns. One side wants to primarily use the government tactics (which has merged with big business) to destroy the middle class, and the other side wants to primarily use big business tactics (which has merged with the government) to destroy the middle class.
Personally I used to be a fan of having big business destroy my class, but then the bible thumpers and extremists took over and kicked all the normal people out, so now I lean toward having the government destroy my class. Right or wrong, assisted suicide is illegal on an individual medical basis; however on a national basis its not only legal but compulsory. Oh well.
legally, a superpac can have (Score:4, Insightful)
SECRET SOURCES OF MONEY that need not be revealed
does that really feel like something that should be part of your country? democrat, republican, anyone?
where is the outrage about that?
if money from who knows where can influence our politics, i don't know why this story should elicit 1/10th of the concern
if it comes from who knows where, it might as well go who knows where
Re:Sleaze vs Party (Score:4, Insightful)
And regulation would have prevented this how?
How about requiring that the destination of the money is in just as bold print at the top of the page as "obama sux"?
You know, informed consent and all that, which is supposedly the basis of a free market. I know what you're selling and you know what I'm giving you in return.
Only thieves think that's a bad idea.
--
BMO
Re:Here's another old scam for your examination (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't be ridiculous. It's only voter fraud if he's a MINORITY.
Re:Inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
This was inevitable since citizens united.
I'm sorry, but fraud existed long before the Citizen's United case, and will exist long after. Isn't it common knowledge that one should be very certain of the website one is buying things from/giving money to, and didn't that advice come about not because of SCOTUS but because of existing fraud?
Weren't there any look-alike fraud sites before Citizen's United reaffirmed that people who own corporations still have civil and constitutional rights? I think there were.
There is nothing inherently political about this issue, nor is there anything inherently political about the crime. It being Republicans who are being defrauded doesn't excuse it, and Citizen's United has nothing to do with it.
Re:Just goes to show you... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just goes to show you... (Score:5, Insightful)
If by "liberal", you mean "Allen Greenspan", then yes. He famously, privately averred that the government shouldn't prohibit fraud, that the marketplace would sort it out more efficiently.
So, like most who claim to be conservatives, but are actually the furthest thing from it, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
FTFY.
Don't fall into the trap of politically motivated hyperbole - Republicans are just as liberal as Democrats, albeit in a different way. Of course, being a 'liberal' or 'conservative' leaning individual has absolutely nothing to do with economics, although I doubt many of the corporate media viewers realize that.
Ideology aside, there's a slight issue with Republican's claim to support the concept of a 'free market economy' - namely, that they don't.
From Dictionary.com:
free market
noun
an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies.
In layman's terms, no rules, no regulations, no subsidies, no tax breaks - it's survival of the fittest spreadsheet, with absolutely zero interference from the government.
No part of any Republican or Democrat economic plan supports a free market per the definition of the term. Granted, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Re:Just goes to show you... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, no, what happened is The Free Market (blessed be Its holy name) has decided that these fraudst--sorry, intrepid businessmen at CapePac deserve that money in the marketplace of ideas.
After all, that's the decision that these sucke--sorry, customers have unwittingl--I mean willingly made.
I really don't think that anyone has been "hoodwinked", or that these are fraud or phishing sites. These are PAC sites. This is what PACs do, they accept donations and essentially spend that money any way they see fit. Ostensibly, like the fine print says, they use that money to oppose various candidates like the president, or support other candidates (often it seems that supporting a candidate actually means running ads opposing another candidate, rather than ads that highlight why your man should get the job).
Anyway, my point is that this is not malware, or phishing, or an "attack", or fraud. This is American politics. So really the post I'm replying to is right on target, sarcasm or not - this is the system that we have deliberately made for ourselves.
Re:Just goes to show you... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why I find the flaming and ranting and social polarization so flat out ridiculous...
My whore leans to the left... you're an idiot, everyone knows a whore should lean to the right. Guys, the operative word here is "Whore" someone who sells themselves as a function of performing social acts for pay. The fact yours lean in different directions doesn't alter the fundamental economic reality. America has one party, the Republicrats. Some of them talk blue and some talk red, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty, they are all about the green and everything else is just frosting on a cow flop.
Re:Just goes to show you... (Score:4, Insightful)
So much win (Score:2, Insightful)
One word: Awesome.
I love stuff like this - it's doing to the GOP's constituents what the GOP does to the country on a regular basis.
Re:Sleaze vs Party (Score:4, Insightful)
>But are they complaining about it?
Yes, it's called hypocrisy.
It's fine if *you* get fucked over with a credit card contract because of tiny print buried on page 42, but woe be unto the person who deceives a Republican donor. Hell hath no fury.
--
BMO
Re:Just goes to show you... (Score:5, Insightful)
What is different is the PR campaigns. One side wants to primarily use the government tactics (which has merged with big business) to destroy the middle class, and the other side wants to primarily use big business tactics (which has merged with the government) to destroy the middle class.
I guess that's why the Republicans and Democrats have spent the better part of two years fighting over rescinding tax cuts for those making over $250k and extending social spending for those making less than $250k.
Maybe you'd like to explain your "destroy the middle class" comment a little further?
Without any context, it just makes you seem ignorant.
Re:Just goes to show you... (Score:4, Insightful)
So the "famous" statement is a recollection of one person from a lunch in 1996 which Greenspan denies. I don't know why I'm defending Greenspan here because he has certainly not been the free market champion but here is another quote from him from the first Google result:
"An area in which more rather than less government involvement is needed, in my judgment, is the rooting out of fraud. It is the bane of any market system. Indeed, Washington would do well to divert resources from creating new regulations to greatly stepping up the enforcement of anti-fraud and anti-racketeering laws1."
Re:Inevitable (Score:4, Insightful)
Citizens United did not create fraud. But it did make it a lot easier to perpetuate. So many "social advocacy" groups that no one has ever heard of, no one knows who runs, no one knows who funds, no one knows where the money goes.
Just make a Kittens & Puppies for Christ PAC, set up a web page, post a couple partisan screeds on it, add a DONATE button, and presto: money.
Even better if you actually do a tiny bit of whatever qualifies for advocacy these days and roll the rest into "operating expenses". (So much more civilized than "hookers and blow")
Re:Inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
... before Citizen's United reaffirmed that people who own corporations still have civil and constitutional rights?
Too bad those corporate "citizens" don't have any civil or constitutional responsibilities or have to follow all the same rules we regular citizens do. I sure wish I could live here in Virginia, yet declare my home state to be Delaware and avoid paying state taxes or getting sued here in Virginia.
As far as public corporations, the stock-holders own the companies. Hmm... I don't recall getting to vote my shares whether or not to donate to political parties with any of the companies for which I own stock, so how am I being represented here?
Re:Just goes to show you... (Score:4, Insightful)
FWIW:
1) Unrestricted would mean no prohibition on fraud.
2) Unregulated would mean that those who obeyed rules to avoid fraud would be penalized in comparison to those who broke those same rules.
OTOH, I don't trust the government, either. This leaves me sort of betwixt and between. Both the large corporations and the government are essentially powers that I cannot fight. If either is given free reign, then my life will turn into slavery, or possibly just abject poverty. The government is less interested in impoverishing me, and possibly less interested in enslaving me....except as a favor to their corporate supporters.
I find it quite impossible to support either side. For now, all I can hope is that the powers-that-be start feuding. This will keep anything good from getting accomplished, but it also prevents anything bad from getting accomplished. Unfortunately, the last decade has shown that the two sides are able to agree on accomplishing evil, even when they can't agree on doing anything good.
Republicans, the other white meat (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the basic problem that I have with 'free market' proponents. Without the former, how do you prevent the latter? People have demonstrated time and again, that given the chance to acquire and abuse power, they will.
Re:Inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now corporations are getting mostly the good stuff when it comes to being a person, and the few things they have to suffer with (taxes and some pesky laws), they do their best at bribing politicians to fix. Oh, I mean, donating, not bribing.
Re:Gooses in sauce. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure they know full well there will always be first victims. They weigh that against the reality of the government effectively "validating" what is or is not a legitimate PAC or charity.
The fantasy of the free market is pure lessaiz-faire without government at all, but that only worked when you knew everyone and societies were tribes in the jungle with less than 300 people. Because you know for a fact when Timmy caught those 30 bass that he's trying to sell you and that they are his to sell.
We live in a complex society where there are "innovators," to borrow a sociological term, that will exploit the lack of information that would not be tolerated in that 300 person tribe and regulation through government and official standards is the result. Anywhere you see an ineffective government in regards to this you see a hellhole. We need rules so that everyone is on the same page, and that markets are fair along with being as free as possible. Unfair markets are markets where people get tired of being screwed over and eventually say "fuck this" and try to stay out of the market as much as possible. This is what the supposed free-marketers don't get - that in the end, lack of regulation is self-defeating if you want a prosperous market.
They just arenâ(TM)t directly affiliated with the politician whoâ(TM)s picture is on the site.
And that's the problem. If one can't be assured where one's money is going, why donate? Enough of these deceptive PACS and people will simply stop donating even to real PACS. Regulation helps *everyone.*
--
BMO
Oo, let me have a go! (Score:5, Insightful)
People have demonstrated time and again, that given the chance to acquire and abuse power, they will.
Can I play the FTFY game?
Governments^WCorporations have demonstrated time and again, that given the chance to acquire and abuse power, they will.
People are both the antidote, not^Wand the poison.
We could just as well say that " any organization made up of people has demonstrated at some time that, given the chance to acquire and abuse power, they will."
Some people are well-adjusted and will not willingly harm others of their own volition. Other people are sociopathic maladjusted dangers to others, who strive only for their own personal gain.
Many of us exhibit both sets of behaviors, among others, depending on the circumstances and overall context.
That said, when choosing whether to grant power over me to a government that is, at least ostensibly, representative, or to a company that is, at least ostensibly, interested primarily in making a profit while minimizing (and often externalizing) costs, I'll choose the government. At least I have some way of influencing governmental decision-making, even if I'm not a shareholder.
Re:ssssshhh! (Score:2, Insightful)
While you are correct, Democrats also skew dumb.
This is primarily because "independents" tend to be former Democrats and Republicans that have critically thought about the party that they were raised in, which is a group that skews above average in intelligence, making the complementary set (Democrats and Republicans) skew dumb.
Re:Just goes to show you... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like a business plan. I think I would like to start a PAC PalinForPresident2016.com Also the activities would be centered around traveling on a yacht around the world, as a "Good Will Tour".
(Of course I mean Michael Palin, I'm not *that* evil.)
Re:Oo, let me have a go! (Score:2, Insightful)
If you don't like Walmart or its policies, don't shop there. If you don't like Obama's policies, don't pay your taxes and maybe go to jail or have the IRS take the money anyway. One way you choose, the other you don't.
That fails when you get into a captive market. It's not like you can change electricity companies if you don't like the policies of your current one, and for most people in the USA, its not like you can choose a different internet/cable/telephone company if your current one is gouging you.
Or how about if your local Walmart drives the rest of the competing businesses out of business? What do you do then? What if your local grocery store gets driven out of business by a monopolistic national chain and the only options are buy from them at their prices or starve?
TBH, people in the USA need to get their government into line rather then bitching that you don't want one at all. If you think your government can screw you, just wait and see what a corporation without regulations can do...