Dirty Tricks? Look-Alike Websites Lure Congressional Donors 157
First time accepted submitter AdamnSelene writes "Forbes reports on a National Republican Congressional Committee sanctioned campaign worthy of the NSA: fake candidate websites that use identical or similar pictures and color schemes to solicit donations to defeat the Democratic candidate. The Tampa Bay Times reports that the NRCC initially refused to refund the contribution from a Tampa Bay doctor who caught onto the scam, and he had to contact his credit card company to challenge the charges. The National Journal reports that the NRCC-sponsored effort may run afoul of Federal Election Commission regulations, though it expects that the bipartisan FEC will be toothless when it comes to enforcement. However, I have to wonder whether this is finally a good enough reason to use the DMCA and file take-down notices against the faux websites. Perhaps the candidates could solve this themselves, and get a judgement for copyright infringement so absurdly large that it puts the NRCC out of business?" Some sites along these lines might be dirtier than the ones here illustrated, which seem to fit pretty well into the broad world of snarky and cutting political ads; Dr. Ray Bellamy, the Tampa Bay donor mentioned above, intended to give money to candidate Alex Sink, but evidently didn't notice this line in bold print, just above the "Donate" button: "Make a contribution today to help defeat Alex Sink and candidates like her." Note that, as the Tampa Bay Times' article mentions, this kind of site isn't limited to Republicans, either.
There's one born every minute (Score:4, Insightful)
At least the Slashdot beta site fooled no-one.
Re: (Score:1)
oh beta-disaster. the fact that this article has little to do with general slashdot topics is minor compared to beta...
Slashdot Alternative (Score:3, Interesting)
Has anyone created a website like the classic version of Slashdot that people are migrating to? I keep getting forced into the beta version when I come here. Where will everyone be going once this beta goes live?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
People will know the fake site by virtue of having more informative stories and less click-bait articles, along with fewer articles being thinly-veiled advertisements for Dice.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
altslashdot.org is where there is some planning going on...
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:1)
Try loading it on a slow connection.
"this kind of site isn't limited to Republicans" (Score:5, Informative)
The "jollyforcongress.com" site: (a) doesn't ask for money, (b) immediately redirects to a page that has "floridadems" in the URL, and (c) looks nothing like Jolly's actual campaign site [davidjolly.com]. So please stop pretending there's some kind of equivalence here. There isn't.
Re: (Score:1)
Not only that, it's got DISHONEST, LOBBYIST, etc written all over the guy's pics.
Oh wait, that's what's confusing the Republicans.
It seems we have two parties in America right now: the Socialist party and the Hypocrite party.
Re:"this kind of site isn't limited to Republicans (Score:5, Informative)
Democrats have used fake websites, and their functionality depended on the purpose. Of course they have done more than that too, including running fake candidates.
Dems who created fake Tea Party candidates arraigned in Michigan [nationalreview.com]
Reid Campaign Targets Angle Supporters With Phishing Website [legalinsurrection.com]
Harry Reid’s campaign, however, took the code from the prior Angle website and launched a website called “TheRealSharronAngle.com.” The fake website was what, in internet terminology, is called spoofing, where a seemingly real website is created, usually to obtain information under false pretenses (frequently referred to as “phishing”). ...
But the reality is that by creating a spoofed website with the contact and volunteer functions operable, the Reid campaign sought to obtain personally identifiable information about Angle supporters. At a minimum, such information about Angle supporters would have been gathered under false pretenses.
The phishing function also would have been disruptive to the Angle campaign because people who thought they had volunteered for the Angle campaign never would have been contacted to help out because they had, in fact, been tricked.
Regardless of whether the Reid campaign’s spoofing and phishing attempt was criminal, it was sleazy.
Is Reid Campaign Hiding Its Activities To Evade Campaign Finance Laws? [hotair.com]
More false equivalence (Score:5, Informative)
Funny how you didn't note that Reid's campaign turned off the donate function. And there is no evidence that Reid's fake site actually collected any PII. The author just assumed it did because the form submit button worked. As a slashdotter, you should know better than to accept that as proof. Terrible, untrustworthy links you got there too. Please learn to link to at least semi-neutral sources.
Let's see what actually following your evidence of equivalency provides:
1) First link, National Review. Terribly partisan but OK, will verify what it says. And truly looks like election fraud. Fair enough there were other sources on this incident -- many more recent ones too. The people responsible have been arrested, gone to trial and have been been sentenced. (Google is your friend). Regardless this is off-topic. You are comparing local election fraud to national. Local and national politics have little to do with each other and the national parties that local politicians identify with have no bearing to local issues. Doesn't matter if someone is pro choice or pro life when their job is to make sure the garbage is picked up and the roads are plowed when it snows. Or perhaps you were saying we should arrest the chairman of the NRCC? Sounds good.
2) What the crap is this blog? The story says he didnt collect money, and has no proof of collecintg PII. No other sources. The story you link also shows technical ignorance about HTML forms. The site has a clear political slant (right in it's header).
3 HotAir, what a waste. Many of the links go back to your second blog link. But at least HotAir links to Politico. Which, despite originally being started by the GOP, is good enough as a source.
Politico states: http://www.politico.com/news/s... [politico.com]
After she won the June 8 primary, Angle gave her actual website a well-publicized facelift and reworded many of her positions on issues including Social Security and Second Amendment rights — statements that as written might have aided Angle in the primary, but would likely be a liability in the general election.
Funny. That actually sounds like what Reid's campaign was saying.
Hall said the website did not have any mechanism to collect the e-mail addresses, adding: “If someone entered data, it did not go anywhere.”
Oops.
Let's check the score:
Election fraud unrelated to fake websites: 1 (to be fair will give your this one)
Democrat funded sites that collect information: 0
Number of NRCC sites that actually collect information: 16
Number of NRCC sites that actually collect donations: 16
Number of on-topic and credible links you provided: 0/3
Re: (Score:1)
I have to give you credit, you took a bad position and did the best you could with it. Anyone that didn't read the material closely would likely to sucked into the focusing on the wrong points and be taken in by your distortions and misleading presentation. I made it quite clear up front what I was demonstrating: "Democrats have used fake websites, and their functionality depended on the purpose." Do you claim that I didn't show a Democrat using a fake website? No, because I did. You set up the straw m
A Michigan Voice (Score:1)
That's odd. I remember it the other way around in my State of Michigan. Republicans running fake democrats.
http://wincountry.com/news/articles/2012/jul/18/prosecutor-says-roy-schmidt-and-jace-bolger-schemed-to-undermine-election/
Or news reporters running sound alike candidates:
http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/detroit/dugeon-vs-duggan-did-leduff-encourage-write-in-candidate-with-confusing-name-to-run-for-mayor
If we took the politicians' power away or diluted it, they wouldn't spend so much time fighting
Not dirty enough (Score:1)
Next time they'll just disguise as opposite party members and get elected.
Ah, politics (Score:3, Insightful)
Another poster points out that there's a sucker born every minute. The ultimate object in politics is to WIN. Stop acting surprised if one party or another engages in devious activity to reach that goal. It's been happening for thousands of years. It's never going to stop. Wash away your political views and you'll see they all do it, to one degree or another. Our perceptions of who's doing it 'more' are a major part of how we see the world, politically.
Re: (Score:2)
Another poster points out that there's a sucker born every minute. The ultimate object in politics is to WIN. Stop acting surprised if one party or another engages in devious activity to reach that goal. It's been happening for thousands of years. It's never going to stop. Wash away your political views and you'll see they all do it, to one degree or another. Our perceptions of who's doing it 'more' are a major part of how we see the world, politically.
Ah yes, the But teach!?! Everyone is doing it! defence. That is always so convincing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Ah, politics (Score:4, Insightful)
A liar is a liar is a liar, and we don't need him/her/it ("it" in the case of an organization or website). There's too much real shit at stake in the world for people to be making bad decisions based on lies. These fuckers are doing a disservice to society.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not fraud, it is someone not reading the damn website.
You go look at one, it is clearly NOT supporting the candidate, it is full of anti-candidate messages.
"If Nancy Pelosi is to become Speaker of the House in 2014, she is going to need loyal liberal foot soldiers like Carol Shea-Porter by her side in Congress. Since her return to Congress in 2012, Shea-Porter has voted along partisan lines 95% of the time."
Re:Ah, politics (Score:4, Informative)
They are hoping to steal from the gullible, not to deal honestly. What's the word for that? Oh yeah, "dishonest". I further assert "fraudulent".
The world has no need of bottom-feeding, dishonest frauds like those jackasses.
Re: (Score:2)
But so are the organizations running the websites that we are discussing.
Re:Ah, politics (Score:5, Interesting)
The ultimate object in politics is to WIN.
And in the end, what does that get you? What do you "Win"? When you are dead and gone, what difference will any of it make?
The world today sees "enemies" in far too many places. Our enemies are across the field in a football stadium, applying for the same job we want, working at a competing company, immigrating to our towns or just members of a different political party.
And the truth is that real enemies, those that want to see you dead, benefit from you seeing everyone as an enemy. When you see most everyone as an enemy you have far fewer friends. You fail to see what that you have far more in common with your perceived enemy than those things that make you see a Democrat or Republican or Libertarian as an enemy.
The truth is that there is a difference between an enemy and an opponent, between those that want to destroy you and those that you will have to live with and cooperate with once the football game, job interview, work day, naturalization ceremony or political campaign is over. This country was founded on the idea that we could disagree, put it to a vote and still live peaceably with each other once the decision has been made.
Stop acting surprised if one party or another engages in devious activity to reach that goal. It's been happening for thousands of years. It's never going to stop.
No one is really surprised by this, but we can be disappointed. And we can demand better, that those that want our votes show us that they can be trusted to act in a decent and ethical manner most of the time. We can't expect perfection but we can ask that the ultimate object in politics is to govern well and honorably.
Re:Ah, politics (Score:5, Interesting)
No. It was founded on the idea that if you couldn't live with it, you could go west and start a new place (or even live by yourself in a cabin somewhere). But the West is full now, and America is running into the same problems as everyone else: people actually have to reach a livable compromise. And it's failing economically, politically and culturally, as that same never give up -spirit that once inspired pioneers against the elements now fuels petty tribalism by sending people against other equally determined people.
America can't even pass a budget without turning it into a ridiculous drama, and a lot of people actually encourage it precisely for the harm it causes ("starve the beast"). The end result will be another civil war, collapse or a total cultural reform. Something's gotta give.
Re:Ah, politics (Score:4, Insightful)
"No. It was founded on the idea that if you couldn't live with it, you could go west and start a new place (or even live by yourself in a cabin somewhere)."
Not really. When this country was founded "the West" was unexplored, and ungoverned. You "went" there under great peril of life and limb.
You still have exactly the same option. Go live in the wildlands of Alaska, or Canada's Yukon. All by yourself and (for all practical purposes) ungoverned. Have fun and I wish you luck.
Seriously: nothing has changed in that respect. You have options. If you don't choose to exercise them, that's your problem. The problem with government today is that it's bigger; it is no worse in other respects.
Re: (Score:1)
Not really. When this country was founded "the West" was unexplored, and ungoverned. You "went" there under great peril of life and limb.
This argument is complete bullshit. When this country was founded, "the land" was already populated by people living there. It was unexplored and ungoverned by the people invading it.
The attitude was: fuck you people already here, move or die, or resist our superior firepower. If you really wanted to have shit done the way it was back then, when the army rolls up with their tanks, drones, 50 calibers, tactical nukes, bioweapons, flamethowers, and airstrikes, then yeah, I suppose you have the same choice as
Re: (Score:2)
"This argument is complete bullshit. When this country was founded, "the land" was already populated by people living there. It was unexplored and ungoverned by the people invading it."
This is true enough. But to the people who were invading it (of which GP apparently is one), what I said was still true.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you actually don't have the same option. People settle easier places first, so what's left are Alaska or Yukon - or, rather, the nastiest reaches of both. Your ancestors, on the other hand, had Midwest.
And once people decide that no, they can't actually move to Alaskan wildlands but must
Re: (Score:2)
"No, you actually don't have the same option. People settle easier places first, so what's left are Alaska or Yukon - or, rather, the nastiest reaches of both."
Yes, you DO have the same option, though I admit on average it's somewhat harder. People settled there even then... just not as many of them. And it's most of both, not just the "nastiest reaches".
"And once people decide that no, they can't actually move to Alaskan wildlands"
They can.
"but must win dominance here and now, them having a problem becomes a problem for everyone."
Ah... now we get to the crux of the problem: the people who need to "win dominance", regardless of how much of a problem they cause for everyone.
These are the kind of people who usually stayed in cities anyway. It's pretty hard to lord it over the whole town if you're living in the wilderness 10 miles
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Myth of Guns and the Libertarian Wild West [thepinkflamingoblog.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And in the end, what does that get you? What do you "Win"?
I'm hoping for a /. Beta tote bag signed by Dice Holdings CEO Scot Melland.
Re: (Score:2)
The ultimate object in politics is to WIN.
Errrm. no .. that was the object in football.
In politics it is to get someone in charge who is trustworthy.
Re: (Score:1)
I find I must strongly disagree. I'd love to live in a world where trustworthy people are in positions of power. That's one thing; politics is entirely about winning. We can all wish it weren't so, but the reality is that politics is a very dirty game.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Easy to Follow (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
5. Lather, rinse, repeat
Re: (Score:2)
1. Massively under-fund education
2. Take advantage of the under-educated masses
3. Profit
The person mentioned in the story above is named, "Dr. Ray Bellamy." Do you really think anyone that uses the honorific "Dr." as in doctor, is suffering from a lack of education? This isn't the result of a conspiracy, or under education, it is simply people not reading or using what brain they have.
Deception? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are going to whip out the credit card to spend a little money, take a little time to read all the text on the page. It was in large type that it was a donation to defeat the candidate. How many times in the past have we seen cute, cleaver and obscene assaults on congressional candidates on the Internet? Just google Santorum.
If you like your fake congressional candidate website, you can keep your fake congressional candidate website. Its political speech.
Re:Deception? (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be good for people to be careful, but in our capitalist society it is more important to make transactions as fluid as possible. For instance, can you imagine what it would be like if you went to the store and had to read every can of beef soup because some company might have put rat in it to save money. Sure, this is an extreme example but we have laws about transparency in commerce not to protect consumers, but to maximize the velocity of money through high consumer confidence.
There are certain transactions that have such a high fraud rate and are are of little economic value that the common sense approach is just to avoid them. Door to door magazine sales, services that claim to give you your credit rating every month, donations over the phone, most extended warranties, have so much find print or or just outright fraudulent that they have killed what could have been a reasonable market model.
For instance, I liked Best Buy but stopped shopping there because of the stories of employees losing their job because of not selling extended warranties. I don't buy them most of the time, and did not want the guild. Likewise, I no longer give donations over the phone because of substantiated reports that in the some cases the firm doing the collecting takes a majority cut, leaving little for the charity. I know many who do the same. These firms are put in danger because some are not on the up and up.
So here the problem. For an individual point of view, selling an selling an iPad box for $200 is a great profit margin. From the point of view of an economy that needs to push tablets to grow, it is not so great. From the point of view of a narcissistic committee who sees their donations plummeting, setting up a misleading, though totaly legal, and the idiots who donate deserve to be robbed website, is a good idea. But from the point of view of nation who wants to make donating to public candidates as easy and painless as possible it is bad.
Like donations to the fire department fund that do not benefit the firefighters, this kind of misdirection is going to hurt the entire political donation industry. Already if one is going to be so foolish as to make a donation over the phone, one has a checklist of 20 items to go through. Pretty soon making a donation over the internet is going to be same hassle, which means it will not happen. Of couse, when most of your contributions come from a few rich corporations and not the grass root this does not matte.
NSA? (Score:4, Insightful)
Forbes reports on a National Republican Congressional Committee sanctioned campaign worthy of the NSA
I get that we don't like the NSA around here, but why are we bringing it up when discussing an article that has nothing to do with anything the NSA does? What's the thinking process? "Hrm, this scam is slimy. Oh hey! The NSA is slimy too!"
Am I missing something?
Re: (Score:2)
For the same reason the article hides that democrats do this same thing as well at the bottom. Political agenda.
Slashdot is known to be hostile towards certain groups: Christians, republicans, anyone in government who passes laws or regulations about computers, and the NSA. They're easy to pick on, very few of us are members of those groups (I belong to the first two groups) and any post that mentions them in a negative light is good for your karma here.
why is there no auto-subject in beta (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, you poor, poor Christians. Whatever will you do when we win the war on Christmas, and conifers are entirely outlawed, and you can't decorate your pagan trees anymore?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Doesn't He Read? (Score:4, Insightful)
From the summary: 'Dr. Ray Bellamy, the Tampa Bay donor mentioned above, intended to give money to candidate Alex Sink, but evidently didn't notice this line in bold print, just above the "Donate" button: "Make a contribution today to help defeat Alex Sink and candidates like her."'
Is this how you want your doctor reading the physicians desk reference?
If you look at the web site or the photos in the article it's pretty hard to miss that one is contributing to "help defeat Alex Sink."
Yep, let's start protecting ourselves from more than just the fine print. Let's protect ourselves from the bolded headlines also. A little reading comprehension may have helped the good doctor realize just what he was doing.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Or to ask another question, is that how you would want your Physician's Desk Reference to be written? Would you want them to make a page describing a toxin look just like a page describing a medicine?
Let's stop excusing people who are engaging in scumbag behavior, let's hold them accountable, and refuse to let them continue to exploit our sense of virtue and morality that leads to us being willing to hesitate while they have no such compunctions.
Let's have the courage to say no. Let's have the courage to
Re:Doesn't He Read? (Score:4, Insightful)
You should read part of the PDR sometime; many medicines are quite toxic and their pages look exactly like the ones that are less toxic. Sometimes, the result of taking a toxin is better than not taking it for a particular patient.
But, more to your point, you seem to suggest that because someone doesn't take the time to read the FUCKING BOLD PRINT that we should then hold the author accountable for mistakes the reader makes in comprehension. Your "courage to say no" sounds an awful lot like infringing someone's free speech because some idiot reader couldn't comprehend the plain language of the document or simply decided not to read it.
I'll go ahead and judge who actually did wrong - it was a presumably well-educated man who made a mistake and sought to place the blame elsewhere.
Perhaps we really do need a take-it-back button. We did this with the airlines who are now required to offer refunds on non-refundable tickets for 24 hours after purchase. If we extend the idea far enough then perhaps all those poor saps who contributed to Obama expecting him to close Gitmo, or who really thought they could keep their health insurance should be entitled to refunds as well.
Do you blame victims of telefraud too? (Score:4, Informative)
How about phishing victims?
Let's look at the original site in the screenshot because they have changed it since this story broke.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/... [tampabay.com]
1) It uses the exact same color scheme as the real site
2) There is really just one word that reveals the true intention: "defeat" in large type that is under the main headline. Skim-reading could easily miss this word.
3) If you miss that word, most all the other text on the site is written to be confusing and ambiguous. It doesn't say "Stop Alex Sink" it says "Alex Sink, Congress". Why do you think they did that?
4)TFS is wrong, that word "defeat" is in a subtitle below the header and off to the right, nowhere near any button.
Sure this guy was dumb, or maybe going to fast and not paying attention to who he was donating to. But the NRCC clearly intended it to be confused with the real site. This is no different than posting an Ebay phishing site. Dont be quick to judge when your mom or grandpa or some other person could have made the same mistake.
Was this guy an idiot? Yes.
Is the NRCC committing fraud? Yes.
Re:Do you blame victims of telefraud too? (Score:4, Informative)
Also this is clearly intentional, systemic behavior:
http://swampland.time.com/2014... [time.com]
Look at the domain names and other sites, they are even more deceptive than this one. Still spottable? Sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Listening to their audience (Score:2)
copyright unlikely to help (Score:2)
First, the candidate is a public figure, so that closes a lot of avenues.
Second, the sites were only copied once, and were lookalikes; it's not clear they were actually copied. Not copied means it's not a copyright violation.
Third, it's unlikely that it's registered at the copyright office, which limits the liability.
It might be able to be used, but I have doubts it can recover the money fraudulently received. If the candidates had trademarked their names, it might be a possible avenue, but I don't think th
Intent (Score:1)
Fraud with clear intent: Time for the state DA offices to do their work. Federal agencies should be on this like flies on fresh horse shit.
There's a sucker born every minute (Score:2)
Ok, the real question is, should be have laws to protect suckers? Or are they not worth protecting due to their inferior brain activity?
Actual Website Comparison (Score:1)
This [alexforcongress.com] is Alex Sink's actual website. This [sinkforcongress2014.com], as near as I can tell, is the "fake" website referenced. They do have similar color schemes, but apart from the domain name, all of the text and media on the website is calling for Alex Sink's defeat. It says: "DONATE: Help us stop Alex Sink from bankrupting us in Congress." If you click "DONATE" it takes you to a form which prominently says "Make a Contribution Today to Help Defeat Alex Sink and candidates like her." At the bottom of every page there is a foot
Re:Actual Website Comparison (Score:4, Informative)
They have changed it since the story broke (looks like they added more disclaimers). You need to go by the screenshots or try the wayback machine maybe.
Also this isnt the only site: http://swampland.time.com/2014... [time.com] There are at least 15 others.
The candidates are nothing but putzes (Score:2)
How can you tell a real one from a fake one? Donating to one or the other will give the same results. You're gonna get screwed either way.
a "fun" way to fix this (Score:2)
When it has been found that a PAC has used any type of fraud or trickery to get a donation said PAC will be subject to a Full Forensic Level IRS Audit (since they did this what else have they done with the "books").
Oh and for the duration of the Audit they are bared from doing any funding transfers/transactions.
Gitmo ain't got nothing on the Pain and Suffering the Infernal Revenue Service can cause even without using the horror of BETA SLASHDOT.
Talk about dirty tricks, Fuck Beta! (Score:1)
The Beta interface for Slashdot is a ditry trick as bad as what the GOP might be doing. It has the effect of changing a discussion into a blog wit all the opinion suppression attributes of a blog and of social media generally. Compare it to Google Groups and Google+ and Facebook and you will get that the change is for the benefit of the marketers and business spys and not for our conversation and debate.
Fuck Beta, Fuck Dice!
Re: (Score:3)
If it can be shown that was your intent, you are committing fraud too. Enjoy your stay in club-fed.
Re: (Score:1)
If it can be shown that was your intent,
Not a trivial task, IMO. Posted AC because ...
Re:Easy fix (Score:4, Insightful)
If it can be shown that was your intent, you are committing fraud too. Enjoy your stay in club-fed.
Except that the final decision on a charge back is made by the bank issuing the card. They have EVERY reason to keep their customer happy, and NO reason to give a crap about the merchant. The merchant has little recourse unless the card was either physically swiped and a signature provided, or they can show confirmation of delivery of goods at the customer's billing address. In this case, they have neither.
Re: (Score:3)
I speaking from a purely legal standpoint, not the likely outcome. you intended to commit fraud, just as the people managing the webpage are. This is 2014. Is the '2 wrongs make a right' mandate now in effect and i missed the memo that somehow justifiable wrong is ok now?
Re: (Score:2)
But this is not a merchant, this is a politician. The bank has every reason to keep politicians happy to keep those bailouts and deregulation coming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The merchant can initiate the fraud complaint. The site clearly says help defeat $name and candidates like her/him right before entering the dollar amount. So the only way to make a charge back would be to claim your card use was not authorized by you.
https://www.nrcc.org/alex-sink... [nrcc.org]
Re: Easy fix (Score:2)
Lesson learned; don't expect better if you live in Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm unclear how that is fraud. The intent is to get people to recoup a donation made in error. Am I misunderstanding?
Re: (Score:2)
What was described was to give said donation with premeditated intent to remove it, so as to cost the receiver money.
That is fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it probably wouldn't even go that far because it clearly states "to Help Defeat Alex Sink and candidates like her" in large prin
Re: (Score:2)
I'm unclear how that is fraud.
You have stated the intent is to impose a cost to the "charity" under the guise of a donation. What's worse you are conspiring with others in an effort to amplify the damages. The key moral here is the "charity" is innocent until proven guilty, and even if proven guilty, it's not your place to orchestrate financial punishment via deceit.
Hahaha. Scam? Hardly. (Score:2)
"Make a contribution then ask for it back. When they refuse, make a credit card chargeback. Will cost the NRCC $30 for each chargeback, and if they get too many, they get bumped up to a worse level merchant account."
What I think is funny is that a headline at the top of the page which says in bold letters Make a Contribution Today to Help Defeat Alex Sink and Candidates Like Her [tampabay.com] is somehow "misleading".
Caling that "small print at the bottom of the screen" as Forbes did is just plain bullshit. It's big, bold, in your face print, right there at the top.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you think THIS [postimg.org] is "misleading" (from right there, plain as day, on the front page of the site, actual size), then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Re: (Score:2)
How about this: http://www.domenic-recchia.com... [domenic-recchia.com]
Re: (Score:1)
"Make a contribution then ask for it back. When they refuse, make a credit card chargeback. Will cost the NRCC $30 for each chargeback, and if they get too many, they get bumped up to a worse level merchant account."
What I think is funny is that a headline at the top of the page which says in bold letters Make a Contribution Today to Help Defeat Alex Sink and Candidates Like Her [tampabay.com] is somehow "misleading".
The screenshot that I saw with TFA that I read wasn't the Alex Sink site, for whatever that particular site was worth.
The screenshot held up for example was such that when reduced to article size gave no indication at all that it was anything other than a legitimate pro-candidate site where your contribution would go towards the candidate named. And TFA itself said that the domain name it was retrieved from was one that would be legitimate for the candidate if the GOP anti-candidate people hadn't scarfed it up instead.
It wasn't even a tiny bit confusing. It was blatant in-your-face FRAUD.
Caling that "small print at the bottom of the screen" as Forbes did is just plain bullshit. It's big, bold, in your face print, right there at the top.
Re: (Score:2)
"The screenshot held up for example was such that when reduced to article size gave no indication at all that it was anything other than a legitimate pro-candidate site where your contribution would go towards the candidate named. "
The screenshot in the Forbes article (the first link in OP) was the same one I referred to in my first comment above. It says in bold print that the donation is to DEFEAT Sink. If you can't read, maybe you should not be making political donations.
The other link I gave above is the front page of the site, where it also says, in BIG BOLD PRINT "Help Stop Alex Sink". That is even harder to NOT see, and it's on the front page.
"It wasn't even a tiny bit confusing. It was blatant in-your-face FRAUD."
Not by any legal or ethical standard of which I am aware. Yes, it might have been a
Re: (Score:2)
Someone hand me my snow blower...
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Isn't this the libertarian dream? (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't you freedom-loving libertarians love this kind of shit?
No, fraud is typically near the top of the list of the things libertarians don't like. I would wager in fact that a lot of spittle has been hurled on the subject of fraud and how to prevent it in a libertarian society.
What I think is particularly interesting about this example is not that it is outright fraud, but that the people perpetrating it think they can do so because they are Republicans and the victims are Democrats. If they had instead been "parodying" a big non-profit like Red Cross or World Wildlife Fund, I don't think there would be any doubt that it was intentional fraud.
Re: Isn't this the libertarian dream? (Score:4, Insightful)
What I think is particularly interesting is that people think this is the behavior of just one political party.
Re: (Score:3)
False Equivalency Anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
There are equivalencies to be made across the parties. This is not one of them.
Re: Isn't this the libertarian dream? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here in Canada we seem to be going to the American system of elections and it is the right wing Conservative Party that is leading the way with attack ads, dirty tricks, now gutting the election officials because they feel being called out every time they break the law is partisan even though it is them breaking or skimming the edge of the law.
So far the center and left have resisted dropping to the same level but as it has been shown that attack ads do work. even if total lies as it seems to be human to pay more attention to bad stuff I'm sure the center and left will be doing the same.
Re: (Score:2)
What I think is interesting is that this is yet another Florida voter who doesn't pay attention to what he is doing and decided he did it wrongly after the fact.
The site clearly says "Make a Contribution Today to Help Defeat Alex Sink and candidates like her" in large print right above the denomination amounts and claims "Contributions to the National Republican Congressional Committee are not deductible as charitable contributions for Federal income tax purposes." as well as "Paid for by the Nation
Re: (Score:2)
The Dems have plenty of their own failings, but the Republicans do actually lead by a large margin in outright fraud. It's the Rs that robocall registered Democrats to tell them the wrong day or place to vote. It's the Rs that put up sites that are clearly meant to capture donations intended for Ds.
The Canadian right seems to be developing the same bad habits from what I have seen of the news up there.
Something about leaning right seems to make fraud and other dirty tactics seem OK.
Re: Isn't this the libertarian dream? (Score:2)
Ignoring Democrat history if registering the dead, voting early and often, and helping their elderly etc fill out their absentee ballots, the Left does seem to lag the right in dirty tricks. But you do have to ignore their history.
We could go on and on. This shouldn't be a tit-for-tat exchange if both parties are unacceptably guilty of such.
Re: (Score:2)
The Chicago Dems of the past were certainly no paragons of virtue. However, current behavior is a bigger problem today.
Re: Isn't this the libertarian dream? (Score:2)
I wasn't referring to Chicago or the past.
Re: (Score:2)
or the past
Erm, history implies past, yes?
Re: Isn't this the libertarian dream? (Score:2)
Recent past v long ago. Even the news is the past.
Re: (Score:2)
But we don't call the News 'history' when it is first broadcast. The History channel never shows breaking news.
Re: (Score:2)
None of the victims are "stupid", they are human and all humans have imperfect bullshit detectors.
Re: (Score:2)
having said that, I see nothing wrong with what is being done. If someone is too stupid to read who they are giving money to, then its better spent on the other party, regardless of who it is anyway
Re: (Score:2)
And yet if you followed that link, you would find that there was no place on the page to donate. It was just a page full of quoted from Republicans against a particular Republican. Pointing out that a candidate isn't well supported by his own party is fair game.
I can only guess it was either an ediitor in denial or a very lame attempt at 'balance'.
Re: Isn't this the libertarian dream? (Score:2)
If you put your name on it, you would have honor.
Being an AC, you're not very proud I think.
Re:Dangerous precident (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a not so small difference between parody and impersonation. The illegal practice here is not to imitate what someone else did. What's illegal about it is the intent. It's not meant as a parody, to showcase some fallacies or shortcomings of the person or organization parodied, or to make fun of them. It's meant as impersonation to make people believe that they are who they are impersonating.
The "basic" intent may be the same in both, parody and impersonation. The intent may in both cases be to harm the reputation of a person or organization, or to impede their ability to gather supporters. The difference is that the parody tries to convince, the impersonation tries to trick.
Convincing people with arguments, i.e. a parody, that someone is a "bad person" is a good thing, because it leaves the decision whether they want to believe the parodist to the person being addressed. Impersonating does the same by tricking people who want to support someone into doing the opposite. I guess it ain't hard to see why this is not a "morally ok" (and hopefully not legally ok, either) practice.
Re:Dangerous precident (Score:5, Insightful)
For the record i do think what they were doing wrong and should be slapped down for it. I am just disagreeing with using the 'copyright angle' to deal with it, as its a bad direction to take, with long term bad consequences for the concept of free-speech.
Also i didn't mean to say they were engaging in parody, just that political parody will be one of the casualties if we go down this road. My fault if i didn't make that clear enough.
Re: (Score:2)
"What's illegal about it is the intent. It's not meant as a parody, to showcase some fallacies or shortcomings of the person or organization parodied, or to make fun of them. It's meant as impersonation to make people believe that they are who they are impersonating."
Where is the "impersonation" taking place?
If I walk around wearing a Ronald Reagan mask, carrying a sign in big letters saying "IMPEACH REAGAN", is that "impersonation"? Or is it legitimate political speech? (Never mind that Reagan is no longer in office. Replace him with any other elected official.)
The picture of her on the website? Well, if you want someone to help defeat a candidate, don't you want them to know what candidate it is?
I admit that the way they used the colors was pretty low, but no
Re: (Score:2)
The line between impersonation and parody is drawn at the point of being obvious. You will notice that everyone who does a parody of something will make painstakingly SURE that everyone knows that it's a parody and not the "real deal", and most certainly they will steer clear of anything like collecting donations. If collecting donations is a hallmark or a key point of the parodied person/organization's (like, say, televangelists), they will usually make sure that it is very, very obvious that they are NOT