GOP Group Operating Websites That SUCKER Democrats Into DONATING MONEY

[Segami]

A Florida man complained about being targeted for Republican fundraising emails after mistakenly donating money against a Democratic congressional candidate thanks to a website he says is misleading.



The Tampa Bay Times reported on Monday that Ray Bellamy intended to contribute to former state Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink’s campaign online. Instead, he went to “sinkforcongress2014,” part of a group of Republican-controlled websites designed to resemble pages boosting Democratic candidates.



“After sending what I thought was a contribution of 250 dollars to Sink, I get a page clearly thanking me for attempting to defeat Democrats, [President Barack] Obama, and [House Minority Leader Nancy] Pelosi,” Bellamy told the Times, adding that the page contained a picture of Rep. Greg Walden (R-OH), who leads the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), leading him to call the NRCC and ask for his money back. “The receptionist Kate, who would not give her last name, and would not transfer me to the Finance Dept., said the NRCC let credit card companies handle such requests,” Bellamy was quoted as saying. “She would not refund my money. My credit card company is mailing me papers to register a complaint or challenge the charge.”



NBC News reported that Bellamy was later given a refund. NRCC spokesperson Andrea Bozek told NBC that her organization would also offer refunds to any donor who feels they were misled. At the same time, however, she rejected the idea that their websites — which feature candidates in several other states besides Florida — were meant to trick anyone. “Democrats are clearly pitching stories on these effective websites because they are worried about voters learning the truth about their candidates’ disastrous records,” Bozek was quoted as saying. “Anyone who reads the website understand these are negative attacks. Also as required our disclaimer is at the bottom.”






cont'


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/03/gop-group-operating-websites-that-sucker-democrats-into-donating-money/

[Berlum]

1. Republicon occultism. As usual. They hide the truth.

Republicons employ occultism routinely and systematically.

Beware Republicon OCCULTISM & DeceptioN.

[malaise]

2. Isn't that fraud? n/t

[seveneyes]

3. Probably not for a domain name

If the text of the ad had been misleading, then I think it would be fraud. The text makes this statement...

"Make a Contribution Today to Help Defeat Alex Sink and candidates like her"

[Segami]

4. Maybe one of DU's member lawyers could address

your question with more insight.

Does the 'fraud' criteria shoe fit the charge? ...



Here is a brief definition:

What is Fraud?

Fraud is defined as the act of knowingly, purposefully, and deliberately misleading another individual or entity with the intent to swindle or manipulate. Fraudulent acts can be classified as misleading, deceitful, fake, and spurious activities in which the individual accused of fraud has attempted to garner personal profit or gain as result of their actions.
Fraud Offense Profile

Legal Jurisdiction: Criminal Law, Financial Law, Business Law, Cyber Law

Type of Crime: Misdemeanor or Felony – varies upon the nature of the crime

Criminal Code: Varies upon the location of the crime, including the applicable country, nation, state, or province

Range of Punishment(s): fines, probation, associated penalties, or incarceration – varies upon case details

Duration of Punishment(s): Varies upon case details

Applicable Punishment(s): Varies upon individual intent, criminal record, criminal history, and the victims involved with the fraud allegations. Furthermore, the latent intent of the individual accused of fraud must be provable beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court.


Fraud Allegations: Terminology and Associated Offenses


The following are commonly associated with charges or fraudulent activity:

Intent: Intent is legally defined as the intended result for which one hopes as a result of any individual actions or activity. In the event of a fraud charge, the prosecuting attorney is responsible to prove that suspect acted knowingly and deliberately in their respective actions in order to defraud the victim(s) involved. Typically, the verdict in a fraud lawsuit is contingent on proving intent.

Insurance Fraud: The submission of fraudulent insurance claims in order to gain monies or property. Fraudulent insurance claims can be both exaggerated or fabricated in their respective nature. The intent to defraud the insurance company is the focus of this type of fraud lawsuit.

Financial Fraud: The act of purposefully defrauding individuals by misrepresenting the return(s), conditions, and statuses of investment opportunities. Financial fraud can also include the defrauding of Government programs, such as welfare fraud, unemployment fraud, and insurance fraud.

White Collar Crime: Crimes that are typically non-violent in nature. White collar crimes usually involve financial crimes and fraudulent investments targeted towards individuals with higher social, financial, and economical statuses.

Misrepresentation: Falsely reporting or describing a product or service. In contrast to a fraud charge, misrepresentation does not always consist of the intent to deliberately misrepresent.

Scam: An organized program or scheme intended to purposefully defraud those solicited to participate in it.



http://criminal.laws.com/fraud

[awake]

5. Well it does say "Make a Contribution Today to Help Defeat..."

When I first heard about this I thought it was misleading but from this image it does seem that it clearly states what it is doing. We need to do the same, there are a lot lot more Repuks who do not read or understand what they are doing than Demarcates. We should raise money to "Protect Medicare from Congress" "Support our troops" (end the war) "Stop anti-American international corporations from stealing our taxes" "Protect our workers from foreign governments by raising US wages for our citizens and workers"......

[Gothmog]

6. The RNCC is backing down and will refund contributions

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4440023. We need to make sure that people know about this scam

[nykym]

7. Need some crafty ahckers

to alter the websites with a BIG BANNER that says FAKE!
Report this site to the web master.

[Gothmog]

8. Juanita Jean is calling out the GOP for this deceptive tactic

http://www.juanitajean.com/2014/02/04/like-deception-is-anything-new-to-the-gop/

Okay, so the Republican Party is trying to fool people into donating to them when the people think they’re donating to Democrats.

Well, alert the damn media. It ain’t like trying to fool people is virgin territory for them. This ain’t no damn pilgrim experience for Republicans.

Republicans are defending a series of websites they established that appear to support Democratic candidates for Congress, but instead direct contributions to the GOP.

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) said its websites were not confusing, and accused Democrats of crying foul because their candidates were struggling.

They refused refunds until a donor went to the media about it and now they are all like …. oh, not us, we will be delighted to refund money.

However, headlines like this —


— can hardly be classified as “news.” It’s what they do in the normal course of business.

[Fumesucker]

9. When Republicans run out of ooze to sink into...

They make more ooze.

[TheKentuckian]

10. Shady and desperate but not fraud as it is pretty prominent the intent is to defeat Sink.

A passing glance may lead to the opposite conclusion for sure but it isn't like it was a Sink ad that sent the money to her opponent or something like that.

[Gothmog]

11. These websites are illegal

I found this analysis on why these websites are illegal on Prof. Hasen's electionlaw blog. I think that it is clear that these websites are illegal and the DNC needs to sue the RNCC http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/do-misleading-campaign-websites-violate-federal-law

By 1992, the FEC came to share Justice Ginsburg’s view and amended its regulations at 11 C.F.R. § 102.14(a) to extend the candidate name prohibition to include not only the official name of the committee, but also “any name under which a committee conducts activities, such as solicitations or other communications, including a special project name or other designation.” The FEC explained that it had “become more concerned about the potential for confusion or abuse when an unauthorized committee uses a candidate’s name in the title of a special fundraising project. A person who receives such a communication may not understand that it is made on behalf the committee rather than the candidate whose name appears in the project’s title.” The Commission further explained that “the potential for confusion is equally great in all types of committee communications,” not merely the official titles.

Of course, notwithstanding the ban on the use of candidate names in the titles of committee communications, committees remain free to “discuss any number of candidates, by name, in the body of the communication.” Additionally, following a 1994 amendment to the FEC’s regulation, noncandidate committees may also use the name of a candidate “in the title of a special project name or other communication”—but only “if the title clearly and unambiguously shows opposition to the named candidate.” Thus, the law is clear: a noncandidate committee may not use the name of a candidate in the committee’s title or in the title of a special project, such as a website, unless the committee opposes that candidate and the title of the website or other communication makes that opposition very clear.

The FEC made clear in a 1995 advisory opinion that the operation of a website constitutes a “special project” for purposes of the candidate name prohibition. Thus, because the NRCC is a noncandidate committee; the new websites are special projects under the law; and the URLs and titles include the names of candidates; the websites clearly fall within the federal law candidate name restrictions, and may only use the name of a candidate in their titles “if the title clearly and unambiguously shows opposition to the named candidate.” But far from doing so, the URLs and titles of these websites contain textbook language indicating support for these candidates—e.g., SinemaForCongress.com. Indeed, the phrases of support used in the website URLs and titles are nearly the same as the examples of express advocacy or support the Supreme Court used in Buckley v. Valeo, such as “Smith for Congress.”

Finally, it is not sufficient, as some have asserted, that a reader who scrutinizes these websites more closely will ultimately recognize that they oppose, rather than support, the candidate named in the title. The FEC regulations make it clear that “the title” must unambiguously indicate such opposition. The regulations thus put the burden on political committees to refrain from creating misleading websites – not on the voting public to sort through intentionally confusing language.

Consequently, these misleading websites violate federal law. The NRCC should take down these websites and the FEC should initiate an enforcement action against the NRCC’s flagrant violations of federal campaign finance law.

If the law cited in this article is correct, the DNC could wait and sue to force these committees to turn over all funds. In any event, the RNCC is going to be facing some litigation for this tactic.

[Gothmog]

12. The GOP/NRCC is worried and have changed the donations page for these fraudulent websites

The GOP/NRCC may be getting worried because they are changing the donation page for these fake websites. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/nrcc-fake-websites-corrected

After news outlets reported that a Republican campaign group had set up fake websites for Democratic congressional candidates, the group has fixed the sites to clarify that money donated through them will go to the GOP.

As TPM and other outlets reported, some donors said that they had been duped by the websites, believing they were giving money to the Democratic candidates instead of the National Republican Congressional Campaign, which is working to defeat them.

The sites have innocuous URL's -- johnbarrow2014.com, for example -- and only a close read of the content would reveal that they are critical, not supportive, of the candidate.

But now the donation button on some of the sites re-directs to a page that clearly identifies the NRCC as the recipient of any contributions, CNN reported.

We still need to warn Democrats about this scam but I am glad that the NRCC has changed the donation page. You can view the changed donation page by going to the link (I refused to pose even a screenshot of a NRCC donation page).

[Gothmog]

13. CREW is filing an ethics complaint against one of the Repugs using one of these fake websites

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/12/ethics-complaint-nrcc_n_4950173.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

WASHINGTON -- An ethics watchdog filed a formal request Wednesday for an investigation of National Republican Campaign Committee Chairman Rep. Greg Walden (Ore.), citing his team's use of phony websites.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington -- citing numerous reports of 18 GOP webpages that masqueraded as sites belonging to Democrats -- is asking the Office of Congressional Ethics to investigate whether or not Walden broke federal law or House rules by tricking Democratic supporters into donating to the GOP.

CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan thinks he did.

"Rep. Walden and the NRCC have become online scam artists, tricking people out of their campaign donations," Sloan said in a statement. "Rep. Walden's support for such activity violates House ethics rules, and OCE needs to act quickly to protect the House's credibility.”

This is good news. Hopefully, the GOP will stop trying to use these fake websites