Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
McCain Campaign Paid Republican Operative Accused of Voter Fraud
John McCain paid $175,000 of campaign money to a Republican operative accused of massive voter registration fraud in several states, it has emerged.
As the McCain camp attempts to tie Barack Obama to claims of registration irregularities by the activist group ACORN, campaign finance records detailing the payment to the firm of Nathan Sproul, investigated several times for fraud, threatens to derail that argument.
The documents show that a joint committee of the McCain-Palin campaign, the Republican National Committee and the California Republican Party, made the payment to Lincoln Strategy, of which Mr Sproul is the managing partner, for the purposes of "voter registration".
Mr Sproul has been investigated on numerous occasions for preventing Democrats from voting, destroying registration forms and leading efforts to get Ralph Nader on ballots to leach the Democratic vote.
In October last year, the House Judiciary Committee wrote to the Attorney General requesting answers regarding a number of allegations against Mr Sproul's firm, then known as Sproul and Associates. It referred to evidence that ahead of the 2004 national elections, the firm trained staff only to register Republican voters and destroyed any other registration cards, citing affidavits from former staff members and investigations by television news programmes.
One former worker testified that "fooling people was key to the job" and that "canvassers were told to act as if they were non-partisan, to hide that they were working for the RNC, especially if approached by the media," according to the committee's letter. It also cited reports from public libraries across the country that the firm had asked to set up voter registration tables claiming it was working on behalf of the non-partisan group America Votes, though in fact no such link existed.
Such activities "clearly suppress votes and violate the law", wrote John Conyers, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. The letter suggested that the Judiciary Department had failed to take sufficient action on the allegations because of the politicisation of the department under the then-attorney general, John Ashcroft.
The career of Mr Sproul, a former leader of the Arizona Republican Party, is littered with accusations of foul play. In Minnesota in 2004, his firm was accused of sacking workers who submitted Democratic registration forms, while other canvassers were allegedly paid bonuses for registering Bush voters. There were similar charges in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Oregon and Nevada.
That year, Mr Sproul's firm was paid $8,359,161 by the Republican Party, according to a 2005 article in the Baltimore Chronicle, which claimed that this was far more than what had been reported to the Federal Elections Commission.
Mr McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin have been linking allegations of registration fraud by ACORN, the community group, to the Obama campaign.
ACORN has been accused of registering non-existent voters during its nationwide drive, with reports of cartoon characters such as Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse being signed up.
The organisation insisted that these are isolated incidents carried out by a handful of workers who have since been dismissed.
However, the Republican nominee insists that the group is involved in fraudulent activities, noting that Mr Obama, before leaving the legal profession to enter politics, was once part of a team which defended the organisation. At last week's debate, he said that ACORN was "perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history", a claim which the Obama campaign says represents political smear.
The revelation of Mr Sproul's involvement with the McCain campaign - he has also donated $30,000 to the ticket and received at least another $37,000 directly from the RNC - could undermine his case.
"It should certainly take away from McCain's argument," Bob Grossfeld, an Arizona political consultant who has watched Mr Sproul's career closely, told the Huffington Post. "Without knowing anything of what is going on with ACORN, there is a clear history with Mr Sproul either going over the line or sure as hell kicking dirt on it, and doing it for profit and usually fairly substantive profit."
In May this year, both ACORN and Mr Sproul were discussed at a hearing of the House subcommittee on commercial and administrative law. One Republican member, Congressman Chris Cannon, concluded: "The difference between ACORN and Sproul is that ACORN doesn't throw away or change registration documents after they have been filled out."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
41 Comments so far
Show All*evil laughter commences*
I wonder if the MSM will talk about this?
No.
Well, the ACORN part, yes ... incessantly.
But the rest? No.
I voted for Nader in the past three presidential elections. This year I will be voting for McKinney. To assert that those of us who support third party runs is "leaching" the vote says more about the vacuum these Cats live their lives. If the ballot process offered nothing more than Obama and McCain, I would sit home and not vote. Third Parties provide those of us who have moved light years beyond the corruption, obfuscation, and incompetence of the Dem and Repub tickets, a frigging choice. Get it, moron?
I voted for Nader in 2000. That was **before** the current era. But I have withstood the accusations, and the defensiveness, being blamed, literally charged by a close family member with having "blood on my hands" for letting Bush in (though this state had no role in the outcome). But "Get it moron?" How can you expect respect for your vote if you don't respect others for theirs? I have voted Kerry by holding my nose, and I will vote with moderate enthusiasm for Obama. Have you noticed those reports that the whole **world** wants us to get Obama in? Are they all morons or are they just sick of leveled countries and melting ice caps?
Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong!
Sorry, I'm not impressed with the claim that the whole world is rooting for Obama-- at least not as a suggestion that any Amerikan who doesn't follow suit needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
"The world" knows as much about Amerikan politics as I do about who the next Dalai Lama should be. "The world" may very well see Obama as a 21st Century JFK: young, "vigorous", intelligent, articulate. And they surely, and quite correctly, see the criminal incumbent as a hideous monster, and Maverick McCain as Old and in the Way.
But that's about it. The devil's in the details, and even Amerikan voters aren't very good with details. So of course to "the world" (and domestic devotees) it seems like supporting Obama is a "no-brainer".
Perhaps "the world" should tune in to the lively exchanges here on the submerged Reformed Comments at CD to learn the error of their ways.
Oh, and while I can't speak for Chris DeGetmon, I'm puzzled by your rejoinder. I take the "get it, moron?" to be directed to the writer who casually or carelessly implied that supporting Nader was merely a ploy to siphon off votes for Democratic candidates. Which is "disrespectful" of Nader voters, and the idea that voting for Nader is as respectable as a vote for a mainstream party.
He wasn't calling Obama voters "morons", although... well, I'd best leave the sentence unfinished.
""The world" knows as much about Amerikan politics as I do about who the next Dalai Lama should be."
The world probably knows more about american politics than 90% of americans do. canadians follow us politics very closely. more canadians watched the vp debate than the leaders debate in canada. a lot of canadians can prolly name the mayor of new york whereas i doubt many americans can name the prime minister of canada. you really should travel more. gives you a whole new perspective
Yes, most other countries actually get news services that don't blatantly lie to their faces. (Or they can get the BBC or Al Jazeera online)
Please read Mr. DeGetmon's post again.
I believe the "morons" that he was attacking are not those who simply choose to vote for Obama. He was attacking those who insisting that his vote is a vote for the Republican. But this is based on the erroneous assumption that Nader or McKinney voters would otherwise vote for the Democrat. This implys that the Democratic party somehow naturally owns their vote, so they are being somehow disloyal and
impudent for voting for Nader or McKinney. I also find this attitude to be moronic, vile and enraging in the extreme, because as DeGetmon pointed out, if they couldn't vote for the "third party" candidate, they would simply leave the presidential ballot blank, or write-in their candidate. So, their role in the election is neutral.
If the Democrats had spent a fraction of their resources investigating and prosecuting the gross Republican rigging of the past two elections as they have attacking Nader voters, they would not be worring about winning the election. World opinion regarding Obama, like US opinion regarding Obama, is badly distorted by the corporate media. Ask Palestinians if they expect anything different from Obama.
What I described was a repudiation of the presupposition that third party voters will succumb to the status quo if our candidates are off the table. This article represents a type of elitist entitlement to my vote and thus a gross disrespect for my freedom the think for myself.
If she wants respect, she might extend it to others, instead of speak on our behalf.
I hope they do Zach. This is ridiculous and worse, the pot calling the kettle black. ACORN may register some people that don't exist, but that is what voter verification is for. In this case, they actually got people to register and then destroyed the forms so that those people who thought they were set to vote could not.
ACORN is sloppy.
This is criminal.
Someone ought to investigate this legally.
ACORN isnt sloppy. They have a tiny percentage of workers cheating them out of a paycheck.
ACORN not only DOES NOT destroy forms, but they review them for bogus forms and then flag them in order to make it easier on the authorities to know which ones dont need to be processed.
And thats what makes the ACORN scandal so ridiculous. They are not perpetrating fraud. They are going out of their way to prevent it and to save the government time on reviewing the forms filled out.
But, you brought up the interesting point of voter verification. This is something largely being ignored in the media. I have written my local paper but they ignore me.
This is what I wrote to the Star-Telegram:
"Much is being said and written about the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or more simply known as ACORN. Nearly all is based on Republican propaganda designed to manipulate voter opinions. Folks should read ACORN's press releases on these matters.
"ACORN hired thousands of temporary workers to register voters. Some defrauded ACORN out of a paycheck by submitting false registrations. Most are not aware that it was ACORN itself that flagged the bogus forms when turning them over to the proper authorities.
"The flagged bogus registration forms are not voter fraud. Mickey Mouse will not show up with accompanying ID and vote. Are Republicans really insinuating that Obama is a member of a nationwide conspiracy with hundreds of thousands of citizens to create multiple identities in order to steal the election? Then why would ACORN flag the bogus forms?
"The most likely voter fraud will be voter suppression."
From someone who learned the long and hard way of getting peoples' attention and making a point in the most pleasant way -
The reason papers may reject what people write like this is because it's too political, and negative in tone. If you took out the second line in the first paragraph, and the second line in the last paragraph, it gives the case for ACORN against its attackers (and the whole world already knows who that is) and also tells people where to go to check out the truth of your statements.
I appreciate the critique and dont disagree with your the analysis - the comment is negative and political - but compared with what gets published I dont think that is the case. There are much more negative and blatantly partisan letters they publish daily.
On Democracy Now this morning I heard that only 25% of the money raised by Obama comes from small donors, the rest from big corporations. Wall Street has heavily donated to Obama over McCain. One wonders what they expect from him in return if elected.
Uncle Tom has already signaled that he's subservient to his white masters when he stabbed foreclosed America in the back and voted for the bailout. Once in the White House, the gifts to Wall Street will be unmeasurable. They won't let McCain steal the 'election', don't worry.
Tetti_tatti, I enjoy your frequent anti-duopoly postings, and I agree with you on many issues, but this article is about voter fraud, not campaign donations : )
Wait - I retract my last statement - this article does tie in with campaign donations.
Thank you. Even if the article hadn't tied the two, I was going to. Campaign donations have *everything* to do with election fraud.
What we need is a real, free, publicly-funded (instead of corporate-sponsored) media that will carry campaign ads free of charge as a public service...then there would be no need for hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate funding. Well, maybe.
We also need to get the two parties completely out and away from the whole voting apparatus. Talk about foxes in the hen house!
check this out:
http://therealnews.com/t/
We also need is publicly funded elections. As well as a party that doesn't have any corporate influence. Oh and by the way, if it is a country of for and by the people... then how come we are called socialists when we want health-care and education for our children?
Because fascists can't bear to call us normal people :-)
Yeah, I can't wait to see Hannity foaming at the mouth about the rethuglican-sponsored voter fraud. Notice that this article was published in the UK!
I'm pretty sure that Hannity, Limbaugh, Imus, and all of the other right-wing mouthpieces will avoid the subject of this article completely.
q
The leeching comment sprung out at me as well. It is perfectly legitimate for the competing parties to use this argument against each other. Where the US system falls down, however, is the voter registration process. In stronger democracies, there is a common widespread understanding that if you discredit the legitimacy of the election machinery, we are all losers. In America, on the other hand, it seems that there is a sort of total war being waged, primarily by the Republicans but also by the Democrats, against their opponents.
I mean, if the Rs and Ds believed in the equal right to vote, then why did they gerrymander their districts between them to almost guarantee the reelection of incumbents? How could anyone who believes in democracy, knock millions of voters off the lists and force them to wait hours in line for the rationed voting machines?
Clearly, many Americans don’t believe in the right to choose their leaders. If you wanted to change this, one good step would be to use paper ballots. When you sign a contract to buy a car, do you do it by touch screen? Are there hanging chads when you get married? If paper is required for these important moments, don’t you think the choosing of your government is at least equally deserving?
Amen
I'm reading Walter Karp's "Indispensable Enemies: The Politics of Misrule in America".
Although it is dry as a bone, it is a revealing portrait of the "duopoly" I'm always ranting about. In a nutshell, it makes the case that the superficial, popular view of the Republicans and Democrats as separate and distinct competing political parties representing competing political constituencies and interests is one huge mass delusion or deceit.
Rather, the parties indeed exist symbiotically, or collusively-- the "competition" is not about competing for the best policies and politicians, and maximum popular support, but it a competition to preserve and enhance the power of the PARTY as an institution.
I presume jlocke and others may have already read it.
I don’t always have the chance to read everything I would like but thanks for the recommendation.
I also endorse it. Also his "Liberty Under Siege" and "Buried Alive", a collection of political essays.
Vote McKinney! (or Nader!) (hell, even Barr if you're a right-wing visitor or troll)
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
If the Right Wing Crazies are accusing someone of something, you can be pretty damn sure that they are doing so simply to cover up the fact that they are doing the exactly same thing themselves.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
As we rally people for the final election push and to block an election theft, we need also to be thinking about how to respond to a stolen election - or worse - should it occur.
This is an extraordinarily dangerous moment in our history. The economic crisis raises the stakes considerably, and those capitalists who have staked their fortunes on the financial markets or the Empire are starting to panic. An Obama win could mean prosecution and prison for many in the Bush Administration.
And it is becoming clear that they're losing. Barring some kind of dramatic event, McCain won't even be close enough to Obama to make his win seem plausible. That however may not stop them from stealing the election anyway - or worse. All the evidence indicates that the Bush family and their cohorts have been thinking and talking about these things and making preparations; and it's their move. It may very well be that they are sufficiently held in check now that they can't take their move, but we have no way of knowing if this is so.
We can hope that Obama would give us the leadership we would need in such a crisis, but Gore rolled over, and Kerry rolled over, and we would be fools to count on Obama.
It is however foreseeable that the people will be different this time!
If Obama asks the people to just go home and stay calm and trust the system, perhaps people would do what he says, but what would we, the progressives, do when he says "go home" and the people don't?
In fact that probably wouldn't work this time. There are too many people too charged up and primed to react; there will be no sitting at home in stunned silence this time! So who then could take up the leadership of the people in challenging the usurpers and defending our Constitution? Without a well-known and trusted national figure - supported by a broad coalition of organizations - taking the leadership of the protests, articulating their goals and coordinating them, the resulting chaos would feed right into Bush's trap. We would need to be ready to support Obama's leadership if he gives it, but someone would need to be ready to take it up if he didn't. There would either be a disciplined response - or mayhem. And Bush is ready for mayhem, probably even counting on it!
One name that comes to mind is Jesse Jackson. He has the moral authority, the courage, the connections and the experience to take this on - but I doubt he would feel he could buck Obama now. McKinney doesn't have the name recognition or the strategic wisdom needed. Ralph Nader has the name recognition and the courage, but not the strategic wisdom, and he's too discredited with Obama's base to be a unifying figure. Perhaps Dennis Kucinich? Michael Moore? John Conyers?
Whomever it is would want to keep calling on Obama to come back to the fray and be the leader that we elected him to be!
And unfortunately we have to also consider that we might lose Obama, which would confront us with a situation that is undefined in the Constitution and ripe for Bush/McCain to exploit. My ear to the ground suggests that all Hell could break loose in the neighborhoods if that happens. What would we do? Who could step forward quickly, command the peoples' attention, both Black and white, articulate our feelings and unite us around goals and a commitment to disciplined and responsible action? In this instance, it is possible that some leader from within the Democratic establishment would step forward, and we would need to unify the people behind them while pushing them to stay in front of the people.
These are things we need to be thinking and talking about, now, if we haven't already. People who are close to national figures need to be discussing these things with them, nudging them to reach out to each other quickly and come to a consensus. In the meantime, there is nothing for the rest of us to do but to keep on keeping on, working to help deliver a crushing defeat to McCain at the polls, but be ready for anything.
And hopefully breathe a big sigh of relief on Jan. 20!
Chris Horton
milomom
I've heard of people who have been registered for decades finding that they are no longer registered when they went to the primaries. So how can people find out if they are indeed registered before election day?
It is actually relieving to see this in the news (notably NOT US media) because we know something is up and the dots are getting connected. Let's see if/when this hits mainstream media.
Isn't it amazing that we are trying to make Iraq a Democratic Gov. while our votes are being stolen or not counted right here in the USA.
Yeah, I think their mortar and gunfire-marked elections are more fair and accurate than ours too.
On what do you base your belief that "we" are trying to make Iraq a democratic government?
That part about Minnesota can't be right. We don't have party registrations, so that must refer to another state.
Re: Obama
"His campaign makes me want to be a better person"
http://www.wilypython.net/Better%20Person%20.asp
deleted
The ruling class has obviously lined up behind Obama. If the Republican Party operatives who stole the previous elections manage to steal this one, our overlords would correct it.
For the first time, there would be corporate media exposés of voting machine problems, and voter suppression by the Republicans. The corporate media would hammer on it day by day. There would be congressional investigations and John Conyers would suddenly be known to average Americans.
It would be like Watergate, and liberals would gush about how "the system works". It would be like when Cronkite counted off every day that the hostages in Iran had been there, so that Carter would be defeated. (Note that no other hostages were ever recognized the way the Iran hostages were).
The national self-congratulation on democracy and the will of the people would be overwhelming. And nauseating to those of us who see no difference between the two right wings of the corporate party.
The mud flies as democracy dies.
I can understand your focus on the yucky M U D, but
__ perhaps the temporary focus on the mud just accentuates the better ability and
__ clarity to envision a better
__ more effective version of Democracy ?
Please do consider that focusing upon the possible dream forthcoming is far more powerful in the process of creating that unprecedented future.
While errantly focusing upon the already apparent nightmare upon us, is far dangerously powerful to the process of maintaining that unpleasant reality. Don't argue for the adamant reality of what is, as that only sustains that vibration of "beating that drum" of frustration.
We all have the possible C H O I C E to create the positive and ignore that negative "reality" we do not wish to maintain.
__ The lazy re-creation of what is ( set fast in our "history" ),
__ is easier than more responsibly choosing for the creating
__ of an unprecedented possibilities of our dreams.
Perhaps the lazy might find this false security of predictability ( of the nightmare continuing ) preferable, BUT I choose to "take the road less traveled", ignoring the "reality" of what has been, in favor of the unprecedented possibilities of my dreams .
Namaste « Presence »
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world » — Gandhi
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man’s need but not for man’s greed » — Gandhi
« We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself » — ML King
Wagelaborer,
Well isn't that the reason Bush is over in Iraq? He said we were going to be greeted as liberators, etc. Why we guarded the Iraqi people while they were voting? Why he wants to stay over there so they can get their government together so they can be a democracy? That's what I mean.
And all the while we have to look over our shoulder so no one steals our votes here in the USA. This morning on C-SPAN, the guy read how Bonar (SP) Republican, wants Bush to look into the 200,000 voter registrations in Ohio even after the US Supreme Court said they didn't have to. Mukasey is looking into it. So the Repugs are trying everything they can again to steal this election. We don't have much of a democracy here but we sure want Iraq to have it. Just about everything Bush has done while he has been in office has been crooked and he said he wished he was a dictator. I know he is a dick for sure and so is Cheney.