Obama's Foreign Contributions: Who is Ronald Hickel?

John and I, in continuing to pour  over these documents in the old fashion way, tedious line by tedious line, have found dozens, literally dozens of instances in which people have clearly made contributions over the applicable $2300 per individual limit, without consequence or direction to the Obama campaign to disgorge such illegally gotten funds. The documentation is on adjacent lines right before the F.E.C. staff ......

The F.E.C. has simply been  trampled by the Obama campaign.

This first and primary issue concerns “bundling,” the aggregation of small individual contributions,  submitted for verification for legality by the Obama campaign to the F.E.C.  John and I touched on this issue in my previous post, “Obama's Foreign Contributions: Who is Jeanne McCurdy,” in which the bundling tactics of an Obama fund raiser named Jeanne McCurdy was disclosed.

We documented almost $800 worth of campaign contributions which simply cannot  be documented by anybody as to where they came from, or from whom, or whether the persons were American citizens or perhaps from person with interests violently opposed to American interests.

  Atlas reader Gadget doc upped us by a significant margin, and documented that a Rebecca Kurth contributed $3,137.38 to the Obama Campaign in 112 donations, including 34 separate donations recorded on 30-April-2008. Gadget doc said another $500,000 came into the campaign via “not employed” people, an estimate John and I can attest to, after looking over the records we have.

Look at this history of anonymous donors from April of 2008, over just 3 pages of F.E.C. records.  In contributions from $1 to $250 --over $800 came into the Obama coffers completely without attribution, and in a manner in which the sources can never be verified.  The F.E.C. did absolutely nothing to regulate this.

We continue to analyze Obama's foreign contributions by 

a.) payments by contributors way over the limits, and

b.) lack of oversight on the part of the F.E.C. There is no indication the F.E.C ever did anything about it: the entries go from pp. 89-90.Tabulations first, and then the entries from the FEC document are at the bottom of the post.  

Here, for example  are the tabulations for how much a Karen Olsen, a free lance interpreter from Geneva contributed to Obama's campaign, and how much a Canadian management consultant from Toronto named Ronald Hickel got away with.  In a way, Mr. Hickel's misdeeds were even more brazen, as he did it in a number of days and it is listed on contiguous entries on the FEC files.  Amazing.  Wildly amazing that it would not attract any attention: one would think the goverment would have computers that would sound alarms on stuff like this.

Karen Olson, geneva, switzerland

 

date.        amount.

 

02-feb-08   $  500.00

17-jan-08   $  100.00  (minus)(-)  redesignation from

02-feb-08   $  500.00

30-apr-08   $  437.38  (minus)(-)  a refund ***  (the distinction between "redesignation" & "refund" is important)

17-jan-08   $  100.00

17-jan-08   $  100.00

02-feb-08   $  500.00

02-apr-07   $  115.79

16-apr-07   $    50.00

16-may-07 $    50.00

18-sep-07  $1,000.00

17-nov-07  $   100.00

12-nov-07  $2,300.00

16-dec-07  $  180.49

12-dec-07  $  106.12  (minus)(-)  redesignation from

17-dec-07  $  100.00

17-nov-07  $   100.00  (minus)(-)  redesignation from

17-oct-07  $   100.00

12-nov-07  $1,285.10  redesignation to

12-dec-07 $   106.12  redesignation to

26-sep-07 $   185.10

17-oct-07  $   100.00

12-dec-07  $  106.00

12-nov-07  $1,285.00  (minus)(-)  redesignation from

total         $7,041.22

 

Now, there may be some quibble on this, but I did not subtract the $100 from 17 Jan-08, nor the 106.12 from 12-Dec-07, nor the 1,285.00 from the total, as it appears to me that these are not really subtractions but switching the accounts.  I did subtract the 437.38 from the total, as it was refunded to the contributor, the Barrack Obama campaign.  I suppose they found a use for it somewhere.  Quibble with my methods if you will, and I am not a bookkeeper nor an accountant, nor familiar with how the F.E.C.. views these minuses (-), but this account is seriously over the #2,300 spending limit, any way you look at it.  For an F.E.C.. accountant or bookkeeper, I suppose the first clue that something was amiss might have been the $2,300 contribution received on 12-Nov-07, but perhaps I am mistaken.

 

Ronald Hickel, Toronto, Canada

 

01-apr-08   $  250.00  (minus)(-)  redesignation from

01-apr-08   $  250.00  redesignation to ***

01-apr-08   $  250.00

09-jan-08   $  100.00

29-feb-08   $   550.00  (minus)(-)  redesignation from

29-feb-08   $   550.00  redesignated to ***

25-feb-08   $   250.00

29-feb-08   $2,300.00

total          $3,700.00

 

 

John Jay explains, I do not view these transactions as yielding $00.00.  Money was taken from one account, where it had previously been placed available to the campaign fund, and transferred to another count.  (minus)(-) When taken from one account and when put in another, the upshot is that the campaign, after the switching of accounts, still had $250 at its disposal.  This is why I do not subtract the "redesignated from" entries from the amounts available to the campaign, because they have not left the campaign.  There has been no "refund," as in the Karen Olson "account." 

 

Even if I do not understand how the F.E.C. adds and substracts, and without seeing the entire books, Mr. Hickel's activity, taking place mainly between 25-Feb-08 and 01-Apr-08 net  the Obama campaign a tidy sum over and above the $2,300 limit.

 

There is another aspect of all of this, and is is vaguely reminiscent of a ponzi scheme.  The federal government is never actually in possession of this money.  It stays with the campaigns.  In effect, from the day of receipt until the day the money is spent, it is in control of the Obama campaign, totally without interest.  And, if it is refunded, it is without interest.  And, if the money is directed from one accounting scheme to another, there is no loss to the campaign.  Only if the money is directed to be refunded or if the campaign indicates that it has refunded the money,  its use has been for free, and it has been replaced at that point anyway by further "ponzi" type contributions.

 

It would appear  the ineptness of the  F.E.C. and the slyness of  the Obama campaign has rendered  BO awash in so much money. And having found the sheer weight of keeping track of it has buried the government, the Obama campaign may have nearly unlimited freedom in how it describes the money received, and appears untrammeled in how it accounts for or spends it. 

 

There are very many more examples of this, available for subsequent posts.

 

The raw data is below, and all tabs are derived from it, and accurately reflect the information in the data, taken from the file.    

Page 94

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","OLSON, KAREN","GENEVA","GE","1203","FREELANCE","INTERPRETER",500,02-FEB-08,"","","ORIGINAL TRANSACTION","SA17A",328366

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","OLSON, KAREN","GENEVA","GE","01203","FREELANCE","INTERPRETER",-100,17-JAN-08,"REDESIGNATION FROM","","REDESIGNATION FROM","SA17A",344001

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","OLSON, KAREN","GENEVA","GE","1203","FREELANCE","INTERPRETER",500,02-FEB-08,"","","ORIGINAL TRANSACTION","SA17A",328366

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","OLSON, KAREN","GENEVA","GE","1203","","",-437.38,30-APR-08,"Refund","","","SB28A",341078

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","OLSON, KAREN","GENEVA","GE","01203","FREELANCE","INTERPRETER",100,17-JAN-08,"REDESIGNATION TO","","REDESIGNATION TO","SA17A",344001

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","OLSON, KAREN","GENEVA","GE","01203","FREELANCE","INTERPRETER",100,17-JAN-08,"","","ORIGINAL TRANSACTION","SA17A",344001

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","OLSON, KAREN","GENEVA","GE","1203","FREELANCE","INTERPRETER",500,02-FEB-08,"REDESIGNATION TO","","REDESIGNATION TO","SA17A",328366

Page 139

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","OLSON, KAREN","GENEVA","NA","1203","FREELANCE","INTERPRETER",115.79,02-APR-07,"","","","SA17A",319100

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","OLSON, KAREN","GENEVA","NA","1203","FREELANCE","INTERPRETER",50,16-APR-07,"","","","SA17A",319100

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","OLSON, KAREN","GENEVA","NA","1203","FREELANCE","INTERPRETER",50,16-MAY-07,"","","","SA17A",319100

Page 142

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","OLSON, KAREN","GENEVA, SWITZERLAN","NA","01203","SELF EMPLOYED","FREELANCE SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETER",1000,18-SEP-07,"","","","SA17A",325774

Page 180

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","OLSON, KAREN","GENEVA, SWITZERLAN","NA","01203","SELF EMPLOYED","FREELANCE SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETER",100,17-NOV-07,"","","ORIGINAL TRANSACTION","SA17A",338948

p. 187 bingo, seen you before karen olson, just as maureen dowd said. over the limit. 

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","OLSON, KAREN","GENEVA, SWITZERLAN","NA","01203","SELF EMPLOYED","FREELANCE SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETER",2300,12-NOV-07,"","","ORIGINAL TRANSACTION","SA17A",338948

p. 188

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","OLSON, KAREN","GENEVA","NA","1203","FREELANCE","INTERPRETER",180.49,16-DEC-07,"","","","SA17A",338948

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","OLSON, KAREN","GENEVA, SWITZERLAN","NA","01203","SELF EMPLOYED","FREELANCE SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETER",-106,12-DEC-07,"REDESIGNATION FROM","","REDESIGNATION FROM","SA17A",338948

Page 212.

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","OLSON, KAREN","GENEVA","NA","1203","FREELANCE","INTERPRETER",100,17-DEC-07,"","","","SA17A",338948

Page 243

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","OLSON, KAREN","GENEVA, SWITZERLAN","NA","01203","SELF EMPLOYED","FREELANCE SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETER",-100,17-NOV-07,"REDESIGNATION FROM","","REDESIGNATION FROM","SA17A",338948

p. 248

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","OLSON, KAREN","GENEVA, SWITZERLAN","NA","01203","SELF EMPLOYED","FREELANCE SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETER",100,17-OCT-07,"","","","SA17A",338948

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","OLSON, KAREN","GENEVA, SWITZERLAN","NA","01203","SELF EMPLOYED","FREELANCE SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETER",1285.1,12-NOV-07,"REDESIGNATION TO","","REDESIGNATION TO","SA17A",338948

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","OLSON, KAREN","GENEVA, SWITZERLAN","NA","01203","SELF EMPLOYED","FREELANCE SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETER",106,12-DEC-07,"REDESIGNATION TO","","REDESIGNATION TO","SA17A",338948

Page 255

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","OLSON, KAREN","GENEVA, SWITZERLAN","NA","01203","SELF EMPLOYED","FREELANCE SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETER",185.1,26-SEP-07,"","","","SA17A",325774

page 366

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","OLSON, KAREN","GENEVA","NA","1203","FREELANCE","INTERPRETER",100,17-OCT-07,"","","","SA17A",338948

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","OLSON, KAREN","GENEVA, SWITZERLAN","NA","01203","SELF EMPLOYED","FREELANCE SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETER",106,12-DEC-07,"","","ORIGINAL TRANSACTION","SA17A",338948

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","OLSON, KAREN","GENEVA, SWITZERLAN","NA","01203","SELF EMPLOYED","FREELANCE SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETER",-1285.1,12-NOV-07,"REDESIGNATION FROM","","REDESIGNATION FROM","SA17A",338948

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","OLSON, KAREN","GENEVA, SWITZERLAN","NA","01203","SELF EMPLOYED","FREELANCE SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETER",100,17-NOV-07,"REDESIGNATION TO","","REDESIGNATION TO","SA17A",338948

Ronald Hickel

Page 89

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","HIKEL, RONALD","TORONTO","CN","","SELF EMPLOYED","MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT",-250,01-APR-08,"REDESIGNATION FROM","","REDESIGNATION FROM","SA17A",341078

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","HIKEL, RONALD","TORONTO","CN","","SELF EMPLOYED","MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT",250,01-APR-08,"REDESIGNATION TO","","REDESIGNATION TO","SA17A",341078

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","HIKEL, RONALD","TORONTO","CN","","SELF EMPLOYED","MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT",250,01-APR-08,"","","ORIGINAL TRANSACTION","SA17A",341078

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","HIKEL, RONALD","TORONTO","CN","","SELF EMPLOYED","MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT",100,09-JAN-08,"","","","SA17A",344001

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","HIKEL, RONALD","TORONTO","CN","547","SELF EMPLOYED","MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT",-550,29-FEB-08,"REDESIGNATION FROM","","REDESIGNATION FROM","SA17A",328366

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","HIKEL, RONALD","TORONTO","CN","547","SELF EMPLOYED","MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT",550,29-FEB-08,"REDESIGNATION TO","","REDESIGNATION TO","SA17A",328366

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","HIKEL, RONALD","TORONTO","CN","547","SELF EMPLOYED","MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT",250,25-FEB-08,"","","","SA17A",328366

C00431445,"P80003338","Obama, Barack","HIKEL, RONALD","TORONTO","CN","547","SELF EMPLOYED","MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT",2300,29-FEB-08,"","","ORIGINAL TRANSACTION","SA17A",32836

Over at CQ: "The table below is based on data from a Campaign Finance Institute pdf that lists donation totals from January 2007 through May 2008.  I highlighted in red the higher figures for each category of totals received from "big" donors, and “mil” means “million”:

	$201-$999		$1000-$2299		$2300+	$1000+ (all)
Obama	$50 mil	.	$42 mil		$48 mil	$91 mil
McCain	$14 mil	.	$24 mil		$43 mil	$67 mil

I did not make up the categories.  Obama’s campaign chose $200 as a cutoff point between big and small donors, as evinced by a statement that his staff made to the New York Times last month:

"The Obama campaign highlighted Thursday the fact that 93 percent of the more than three million contributions it had received were for $200 or less." (NY Times, emphasis added)

The $200 cutoff likely stems from the fact that the Federal Elections Commission doesn’t require itemization for donors who give a total of $200 or less. If the FEC and Sen. Obama use $200 as a cutoff, who am I to argue?

To prevent confusion over the New York Times quote, I’ll mention (as I did a few weeks ago) that small donors contributed 49% of Obama’s total donations (from January 2007 - May 2008), meaning that big donors contributed 51%. (From CQ)

Previous related post: Obama's Foreign Contributions: Who is Jeanne McCurdy

Comments

[michael098762001]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/donations.asp

[RISE_UP]

So....a link to snopes is supposed to be the end all...I think not. Snopes is like the rest of the retards who are flying the Obama bin stupid flag. (scroll til you find the snopes exposure)

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=203134464

[HenryB]

Pamela,

The Dems learned back in 2000 and before that it is much easier to ask forgiveness after the act than worry about whether an act is illegal. The FEC is, for big-name politicians, a joke. If Obama took in $20M from a Chinese dignitary and proceeded to provide such information to the FEC, the very worst that would actually happen would be that he might have to give the money back [but more likely would give it to charity]. If he wins the election, the FEC is not going to do anything, and if he loses, he'll explain that it was just a series of "mistakes", and the FEC will wag its collective finger at his campaign and tell them not to do it again.

If, however, you are a small-time politician and you break some of the FEC rules, you'll have hell to pay, especially if your political party does not start with a 'D'.

The Dems simply don't worry about legalities, because in most cases their highly-placed friends simply look the other way. Corruption at its finest.

[JustMark]

This is a heads up for those who might want to see how corrupt Nobama is.

1 . Gmail accounts can be opened anonymously by anyone.
2 . U S Postal money orders can be purchased for cash anonymously up to certain amounts.
3 . If someone wanted to avoid McCain Feingold Laws even a wealthy individual or foreign power,
(imagine) all that would be required would be to open a bank account and hire individuals to sign up for gmail accounts and pledge donations and fulfil them with U S Postal Money orders or similar instruments.
4. That would make the law meaningless and unenforceable. Which is probably what is going on.
Nobama and his backers are likely laughing up their collective (no pun intended) sleeves.

[John D. Infidel]

Kudos to Pamela and John! Keep up the good work!

Have you thought about utilizing a press release to all news agencies to get the word out? I am sure they won't publish it but they will be aware of it. Can't hurt.

[Thomas Carney]

The FEC is a joke... it's nothing to worry about as long as you're a Democrat.

One of the major sources of funding for Senator Barack Hussein Osama, I mean Barack Hussein Obama is George Soros. Rest assured George "Its-OK-to-be-deceptive-to-get-ahead" Soros has his lawyers making sure his son Barack Hussein Osama gets by this in a "legal" fashion.