×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Look-Alike Web Sites Hoodwink Republican Donors

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the more-than-meets-the-eye dept.

Republicans 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.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

294 comments

Just goes to show you... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292257)

Idiots and their money are soon parted.
But hey, at least this way, they weren't going to as horrible of a cause.

Re:Just goes to show you... (-1, Redundant)

dclozier (1002772) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292295)

Exactly - the money could have been going to the actual GOP candidates!

Re:Just goes to show you... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292391)

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.

Re:Just goes to show you... (-1, Troll)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292845)

Liberals and free market is like the evangelicals and evolution. They don't understand it and yet they are obsessed with it.

No, fraud is not ok, free market or not, but try getting a liberal or a chimp (which might be easier) to understand that.

Re:Just goes to show you... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292869)

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 conservatives, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Re:Just goes to show you... (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#41293093)

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... (1)

jpmorgan (517966) | about a year and a half ago | (#41293221)

Alan Greenspan. If you're going to accuse somebody of not knowing what they're talking about, it behoves you to avoid such simple errors.

Re:Just goes to show you... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292877)

Down with big government! Legalize fraud!

Re:Just goes to show you... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292917)

hey, they built it, LOL.

Re:Just goes to show you... (4, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about a year and a half ago | (#41293167)

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... (3, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292523)

No one would ever do this to a democrat... Sigh. When will people look beyond the letter and actually see the candidates? Then maybe will will get some better ones.

Re:Just goes to show you... (4, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292669)

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.

Re:Just goes to show you... (4, Insightful)

OverkillTASF (670675) | about a year and a half ago | (#41293077)

Republicans want to try to keep you from doing evil, Democrats want to force you to do good.

Re:Just goes to show you... (3, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | about a year and a half ago | (#41293205)

Both sides want you to do nothing. Republics will make it illegal, and democrats will tax you until you can't afford it.

Re:Just goes to show you... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41293139)

Blind skepticism is little better than blind faith.

Since your name suggest you chose the right editor, I'll assume there is hope for you.

When you say "they have identical donors" that simlply isn't true. The billionaires that make up Crossroads GPS are not donating to Obama's campaign or PACs, and LGBT PAC is not spending money saying nice things about Romney. There is a choice. If you're in the 1%, or an ultra-conservative religious enthusiast, Romney will undoubtedly have your back. If if you're.. well... everyone who doesn't care to see the desires of the ultra-conservatives and the wealthy prioritized above the rest of us, then it would seem Obama is a clear choice.

If you want to cut out all the bullshit, take two good examples. Read the 2010 Affordable Care Act (as passed)

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/ [healthcare.gov]

And then Read the Paul Ryan budget (which Romney claims is very similar (if not identical) to his):

http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf [house.gov]

These are outstanding examples of what each camp would like to do with your money. You can read into the past versions if you like. The orignal Obama Care included the highly controversial Public Option, and the original Ryan plan turned Medicare into Vouchercare. Both were bad ideas if you ask me, but they have since adapted their plans.

If your argument could be amended to: "Both sides are far too influenced by money and special interests." Then I would wholeheartedly agree and highly recommend this book by Lawrence Lessig on how we should go about fixing this problem:

http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress--/dp/0446576433/ [amazon.com]

Re:Just goes to show you... (4, Insightful)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#41293201)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41293255)

Idiots and their money are soon parted.

But hey, at least this way, they weren't going to as horrible of a cause.

Yeah, they could have donated to someone who invites JACK Ryan to speeches.

Held in OIHO, no less.

Who's an idiot again?

Dang! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292273)

Looks like capepac.org is slashdotted, so I can't donate!

Must have used GoDaddy as their registrar :) (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292283)

:)

Inevitable (4, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292315)

This was inevitable since citizens united. Money=speech and does not necessarily need to relate to a campaign to be used with respect to a campaign. Fraud(is it fraud?) was a completely logical consequence.

Re:Inevitable (4, Insightful)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year and a half ago | (#41293001)

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.

ssssshhh! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292327)

The dirty little secret is that there is less money in fishing for Democrats

Re:ssssshhh! (0)

Linkreincarnate (840046) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292395)

Because fewer of them are dumb enough to fall for it?

Re:ssssshhh! (3, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292445)

More likely age and familiarity with technology.
Republicans tend to skew old.

Re:ssssshhh! (1, Funny)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292501)

More likely age and familiarity with technology.
Republicans tend to skew old.

Its more a faith based thing. "I have faith that a website with a picture of Rmoney on it must give its money to Rmoney, just like money sent to my televangelist goes straight to Jesus"

Re:ssssshhh! (1)

rickb928 (945187) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292925)

Because they still do it the old-fashioned way. In bags.

Re:ssssshhh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41293231)

I thought the democrats did it by docking my pay.

Re:ssssshhh! (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41293237)

No D presidential primary fight this year.

This is hardly the first political look alike/typosquatter. Remember whitehouse.com?

Question (2)

dtmos (447842) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292341)

This leads to something that has always puzzled me about American political parties -- their legal status. Are they non-profit corporations, or something? Other than the brownshirts, what keeps me from opening up a storefront down the street from the local Republican Party headquarters, and call my place the local Republican Party headquarters, instead -- complete with candidates that I support, fundraisers, etc.?

Re:Question (3, Informative)

tilante (2547392) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292439)

Yes, they are non-profit corporations, and as such, hold trademarks on their logos, company names, etc. So the Republican Party would be able to sue you for trademark infringement.

Re:Question (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#41293049)

but "friends of the local republican politicians org" would be totally fine?

that's to say, a lot of the pr on stations etc in usa seems to be bought by these support organizations(and not bought by the parties or candidates directly, like over here) - so is it fraud to create one, gather money for it and then just use the money very, very sparingly for the cause?

Re:Question (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292451)

Well, the only thing that prevents it is you can't really say you are *The* official RNC HQ, since you are not, they are a defined organization.

However you can say you are *AN* "Official" HQ of your own R or D SuperPac.

Re:Question (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292539)

This leads to something that has always puzzled me about American political parties -- their legal status. Are they non-profit corporations, or something?

I think the official status of US political parties is that they exist as "shut the fuck up and stop asking inconvenient questions, citizen, unless you want to wake up tomorrow to find your family and friends 'disappeared' and your freedoms 'inconvenienced'" entities. I think that sort of entity is defined in the tax code under section Go-Fuck-Yourself.9934-EZ.

Re:Question (1)

fm6 (162816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292697)

Not sure exactly where political parties fit in the maze of U.S. corporate entity classification. But the network of state and local parties that calls itself "The Republican Party" is affiliated with the Republican National Committee, which owns all the IP relating to the GOP "brand". If you start calling your organization "The Republican Party", expect to Hear from their lawyers [politico.com].

The GOP doesn't, to my knowledge, have a Sturmabteilung. If they did, it would presumably wear Red, not Brown.

Re:Question (2)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292941)

I find this a bit amazing. The idea seems to be that a private organisation can hijack the terms "Republican" or "Democratic", when we know that only the most dubious third world hellholes have the words in their country names or one party political organisations. The People's Republic of China and the Democratic Republic of North Korea, spring to mind. Perhaps there's a rule here: the names of countries mean exactly the opposite of what they say, so that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (to give it its full title) is disunited, in practice an elective dictatorship, not at all great, and the bit to the West is really more about Southern Scots that Northern Irish.

Re:Question (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | about a year and a half ago | (#41293249)

... and the Democratic Republic of North Korea, spring to mind.

To be precise, the country is called the People's Democratic Republic of Korea. That's a bonus second "aren't we nice" adjective (for extra craziness multiplier), and no North (because they maintain that the South is rightfully theirs too).

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41293207)

"The GOP doesn't, to my knowledge, have a Sturmabteilung. If they did, it would presumably wear Red, not Brown."

Nonsense. They wear baggy white garments. Looks sort of like a burqa and covers the face too, but adds a pointy hoody.

Except that they are down due to Godaddy outage! (5, Funny)

beltsbear (2489652) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292345)

Funny how one slashdot article follows another sometimes.

Re:Except that they are down due to Godaddy outage (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292513)

That's my guess too. But the fake Romney site points to "stopmrobama.com" when I mouse-over, not the site in the link's text.

Surely it's deregulation in action (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292381)

are they advocating more government regulation? Maybe they are just pissed off because its not money in Their pockets

Perfect timing (4, Funny)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292415)

Perhaps some campaign finance reform is in order?

Re:Perfect timing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292625)

But it was already reformed. Corporations are now people, my friend. Isn't that good enough? Or are you saying they should be given more rights than people?

Re:Perfect timing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292735)

That's BRILLIANT! Make corporations "Super-Citizens". Make their dollars count for twice as much by guaranteeing government-dollar-matches for each dollar a business spends. Just think of the money that will pump back into the economy. IT'S FUCKING BRILLIANT!!!

Re:Perfect timing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292739)

Or are you saying they should be given more rights than people?

they already have.

Re:Perfect timing (2)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about a year and a half ago | (#41293203)

Perhaps some campaign finance reform is in order?

It already has been reformed. This is the reform.

Gooses in sauce. (2, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292435)

"Clearly, it's deceptive and it's wrong and it's hurting good, Republican conservative candidates," Neusner said. He has since asked for a refund, which he said the group is processing.

Yet the disclaimer was right there at the bottom of the page.

Why do you hate the free market, Neusner?

--
BMO

Re:Gooses in sauce. (1)

jd.schmidt (919212) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292687)

As much as I see the irony, so long as Neusner is just telling people about the site and why it should not be used, he really isn't be inconsistent. No one believes it is wrong to inform people of scams, or what you believe is a scam. The real test is keeping that attitude if this becomes common. Also ironically the person running the PAC may well not view what he is doing as a scam, any more than a marketer using an American flag on their product even when it has no government endorsement.

Re:Gooses in sauce. (2)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292825)

so long as Neusner is just telling people about the site and why it should not be used, he really isn't be inconsistent.

As long as he supports a political platform that embraces absolute "caveat emptor" as a matter of faith, he is being completely inconsistent.

The Republicans constantly rail against consumer information and, well, anything that gives the customer (in this case a donor) even a smidge of informed consent.

"There's another old saying, Senator: Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining." - Fletcher "The Oulaw Josey Wales."

--
BMO

Re:Gooses in sauce. (1)

jd.schmidt (919212) | about a year and a half ago | (#41293003)

I don't agree with them, but you have misunderstood their point of view. Word of mouth is very much a valid market force. Like I said, I see the irony and kind of hope they get why many people don't like wholly unregulated markets. But as I understand it, an individual complaining about a web site being deceptive isn’t a problem, they are more concerned with how much the Government should be allowed to enforce this opinion.

Re:Gooses in sauce. (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#41293157)

but you have misunderstood their point of view.

I completely understand their point of view. It is market anarchism requiring social network effects so that there are always "first victims" before word gets around, but there is no recourse for those "first victims who should have known better." A kind of vicious market Calvinism. That somehow the "invisible hand of the free market" by itself solves things is a point of view based in fantasy logic, troll physics, and feline engineering.

They are all about putting a person who robs you of your wallet in jail, but heaven forfend putting a corporation or PAC in "jail" for the equivalent.

--
BMO

Here's another old scam for your examination (4, Funny)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292455)

Hey just a quick reminder, election day this year for 3rd party candidates has been moved up to Tuesday November 6th so they have extra time to count handwritten "Ron Paul" write in votes and stuff like that... so if you're voting libertarian party, or really any 3rd party, anyone other than -R or -D, PLEASE show up at the polls on Tuesday November 6th, mkay? And if you're voting for a -R or -D then DO NOT show up at the polls until Wednesday November 7th this year. I'd really appreciate your help and if you could copy this to your facebook and G+ and twitter and all that, I'd really appreciate it as a personal favor. Please make sure that any -D or -R voters you know, won't show up at the polls until the 7th, OK?

TLDR is the voting commission has split presidential voting by party to reduce crowds, all 3rd party voters = vote on Tuesday Nov 6th, and D/R voters please don't arrive at the polls until Wednesday Nov 7th!

Re:Here's another old scam for your examination (1, Informative)

jpapon (1877296) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292511)

Careful son, that's voter fraud, and could earn you a nice vacation in your local Federal penitentiary.

Re:Here's another old scam for your examination (1, Insightful)

tekrat (242117) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292881)

Don't be ridiculous. It's only voter fraud if he's a MINORITY.

Re:Here's another old scam for your examination (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#41293111)

Thus, "Here's another old scam for your examination". There's a million old scams... merely running them online is not very interesting.

I wonder what the internet equivalent is of "stealing neighbors yard signs" and "standing withing 500 feet of the polling place and campaigning" for internet voting and internet fraud.... I haven't figured that one out yet. Fake donation collection and fake voting information is almost too obvious/simple.

Uh, ever seen a national politician's website? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292479)

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".

regulations would help (2)

ffflala (793437) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292483)

It's interesting that this is hitting Republican donors. Republicans tend to claim to see regulations as something to be avoided, as big-government, anti-free-market, babysitting when people and/or the free market should take responsibility.

However, this is exactly the sort of "there ought to be a law" technically-legal-but-unethical business practice that regulations, at their best, can and do address. Right now this guy is probably protected from a solid fraud case because he puts the disclaimer, albeit in tiny print and in an unlikely place to read it. But regulations could be promulgated that would require any page site that accepts political donations to post disclaimers of proper level of font size, prominence, and in clear language.

Such regulations already exist for, for example, the credit card "box" that clearly, states terms of credit card offers, including the APR, fees, etc. Before the "box" regulations, this info used to be squirreled away, in fine print, obscure language, if it was to be found at all. And like the donors, people often found themselves unwittingly fooled out of real money because they were duped.

Re:regulations would help (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292741)

It's interesting that this is hitting Republican donors. Republicans tend to claim to see regulations as something to be avoided, as big-government, anti-free-market, babysitting when people and/or the free market should take responsibility.

You clearly don't understand Republicans nor the difference in reasonable regulation and the type that smothers business. The world is not what you've been told to believe.

Re:regulations would help (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292815)

Republicans / Conservatives do want less regulation in general, but that doesn't mean they want NO regulation. It isn't one or the other, it's a sliding scale. Too much regulation on one end, too little on the other, and minimal, but sensible regulation in the middle.

Regulation is a good thing when it makes sense, is necessary, and is well written. The problem is that a lot of regulation doesn't pass one or more of those requirements.

For example, I don't think anyone (even the hardcore so-called "anarchists") would be against a regulation that says, "Don't dump radioactive waste into the rivers. Punishment: Life in prison and all of your assets."

It makes sense, we definitely need it, and it's easy to understand.

Re:regulations would help (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292947)

You do realize that coal mining companies dump all sorts of fun waste in the rivers every day, right?

And coal power plants put out more radioactivity than nuclear plants, into everybody's air, right?

Re:regulations would help (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41293169)

You do realize that coal mining companies dump all sorts of fun waste in the rivers every day, right?

If they do, and it is harmful, then they should be stopped.

And coal power plants put out more radioactivity than nuclear plants, into everybody's air, right?

I also emit more carbon dioxide than the chair I'm sitting on, but that doesn't mean that I produce a dangerous amount. But, if this is a major issue, then yeah. Make sure it is fixed.

I'm not sure what your point is. You think that because I don't want excessive and/or bad regulation that I don't want regulation at all, and that I want to give your children cancer? Maybe your reading comprehension is lacking, but you sound more like yet another political muppet that only sees a D or and R in front of names.

I'll give you the benefit of a doubt, though. Try your feeble reading comprehension skills again:

Regulation is a good thing when it makes sense, is necessary, and is well written.

Re:regulations would help (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#41293039)

For example, I don't think anyone (even the hardcore so-called "anarchists") would be against a regulation that says, "Don't dump radioactive waste into the rivers. Punishment: Life in prison and all of your assets."

But the clean air and clean water acts, both passed by Nixon(R) are what Republicans have been trying to repeal for 30 years.

--
BMO

Re:regulations would help (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | about a year and a half ago | (#41293271)

I don't think anyone (even the hardcore so-called "anarchists") would be against a regulation that says, "Don't dump radioactive waste into the rivers. Punishment: Life in prison and all of your assets."

Anarchists, like myself, would not be in favor of such "regulation" as it would be codified in a set of rules and enforced by a government agency. We would rather leave it to the individual to intercede in the case of such destructive behavior, by whatever means may be necessary (ranging from discussing the matter if the person can be reasoned with to shooting him if he can not).

Sleaze vs Party (5, Insightful)

Tanktalus (794810) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292503)

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:Sleaze vs Party (4, Informative)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292573)

What you don't understand is that the party that rails against regulations is now the victim of fraud.

Which makes the schadenfreude especially sweet.

Why do you hate the free market?

--
BMO

Re:Sleaze vs Party (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292833)

And regulation would have prevented this how? You're not exactly making a clearly defined argument for, well, anything except for partisan bigotry.

Re:Sleaze vs Party (3, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292873)

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:Sleaze vs Party (1)

poity (465672) | about a year and a half ago | (#41293173)

I'm pretty sure even with strict regulation of campaign finance, fraudsters would still use phishing scams like this.

Re:Sleaze vs Party (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#41293185)

What you don't understand is that the party that rails against regulations is now the victim of fraud.

But are they complaining about it?

For the record, I did not RTFA.

Re:Sleaze vs Party (1)

gatfirls (1315141) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292615)

If it's fraud so be it, if it's deception then he's just playing the same game the actual politicians do to make people part with their money. At least his deceptions deprive a relatively small amount of people of money they are ok with parting with (probably to someone else deceiving them) anyway., instead of, ya know, ones that bankrupt a country.

Meh (0, Flamebait)

iYk6 (1425255) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292633)

Defrauding Republicans, or their supporters, is like stealing from a thief, giving a lethal injection to a murderer, or raping a rapist. Of course it's bad, but it's hard to feel bad.

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292689)

giving a lethal injection to a murderer

Democrats endorsing the death penalty?

Oh, only when they disagree with you. Okay, got it. Carry on.

is this... good? or is it bad? (0)

amoeba1911 (978485) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292527)

I'm having mixed feelings about this. On one hand, phishing and defrauding is bad. On the other hand, this is money that would otherwise have gone to the already thickly lined pockets of the Taliban-Embracing-Americans party (aka TEA Party).

Yes, I said Taliban-Embracing-Americans party, because TEA party stands for religious fundamentalism - the same motivator that the Taliban uses. Religious fundamentalism must not be allowed to exist because it is harmful to human existence. Yet these people want religious fundamentalism to be the ruling style of the government. They would be happy with the equivalent of the Ayatollah ruling this country, making laws based religious principles.

Re:is this... good? or is it bad? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292621)

Look, it completely undermines any point you make, no matter how valid, if you equate people whose only crime is being uninformed with enemies of the state. Don't do that.

Re:is this... good? or is it bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292657)

I'm sure you'd be Aspie-raging if someone did this to Obama donors. I take it you're only offended by wrongful acts that hurt YOUR side, but could give fuck-all if a person you disagree with got defrauded.

How about you ignore which side of the aisle it affects and instead look at it as a shameful (and hopefully illegal) bait-and-switch scheme?

Re:is this... good? or is it bad? (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about a year and a half ago | (#41293187)

I would seriously suggest that you check your mental health. Whether you agree with them or not, Tea Party has nothing whatsoever to do with any religious fundamentalism or installing Ayatollahs to run this country so your whole post is a rant of an insane person.

Hah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292531)

And Obama donations just go to Hezbollah, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, and any group which claims to be socialist.

Another good reason for a reform of web security (1)

Freestyling (997523) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292535)

Yet again, we see how it is currently impossible to verify identities on the internet. I personally don't find it too hard to envisage a system wherein it is actually possibly to identify a person via the certificate they present.

At some point we were always going to need to have personal digital certificates, surely in the age we live in, with the extent to which the internet is integrated into our lives, some form of GPG-alike certificate ought to be part of our national ID-card/whatever.

Anyone else feel we are getting to the point where that needs to happen?

Re:Another good reason for a reform of web securit (1)

profplump (309017) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292631)

Is it somehow easier to verify identities outside the Internet? Do you have an in-person identity verification system? Why are you sharing it?

Re:Another good reason for a reform of web securit (1)

Freestyling (997523) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292891)

A great many countries require their citizens to carry ID cards, and many that don't still issue them. All countries issue passports. There's your physical "outside the internet" ID verification system. All I'm suggesting is the logical extensional step.

Free market capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292643)

Isn't free market capitalism all about Profit? It ain't illegal till you get caught. I never expected any less from the Right.

legally, a superpac can have (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292703)

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:legally, a superpac can have (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292789)

To halfquote from Iron Man; "We have successfully capitalized corruption".

My first instinct was 'hey, at least this money is not going to the real criminals' (and I'm not even anti-government, but the US system is beyond insane).

Re:legally, a superpac can have (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about a year and a half ago | (#41293179)

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?

They also have secret sources of votes that need not be revealed. Why should my donations to candidates be made a public record when my vote is not? What's to stop a prospective employee from pulling my donation records up when they are going through the hiring process and saying "Oh, he donated to a Democrat/Republican/Libertarian/Green Party candidate, we don't want to hire one of those people."

Re:legally, a superpac can have (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41293229)

Does this mean that the super pac doesn't have to tell you that you are donating to them?
Because it sounds to me like having people secretly donating money without their knowledge is perfectly legal.

A good scam idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292721)

I could see some group outside the country doing something like this soon: Set up a bunch of websites pretending to be candidates, take charge cards for payments, but then keep the money instead of spending it. I would consider doing this, but something tells me if I did, I would end up in federal prison. Of course, if I was on good terms with a few major candidates and helped them get re-elected, nothing would probably happen.

Reading between the lines on that lobbyist quote (1)

ddd0004 (1984672) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292757)

"This is a really crooked tactic, and boy howdy do I know crooked"

Shocking news on Slashdot (0)

operagost (62405) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292791)

A fool and his money are soon parted. In other news, people who are just as stupid are donating money to the actual Obama 2012 campaign site.

Not Phishing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41292935)

It's not Phishing. At all.

If you go to Google, search for something, then navigate from there to a fraudulent site, that's totally on you. You're an idiot. Stop blaming it on some security term that you don't understand in order to throw blame off of yourself, especially if the site /explains/ to you that you're doing something stupid.

In other news (2)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year and a half ago | (#41292997)

Republican politicians hoodwink Republican donors (and the rest of us) every day of the week. Nothing to see here, move along.

So much win (1, Insightful)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about a year and a half ago | (#41293209)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...