Obama For America reported in its monthly Federal Election Commission (FEC) disclosure that it borrowed $15 million from none other than Bank of America last month.

Tweet

Apparently, Democrats are just as irresponsible with their own dollars as they are with taxpayer dollars. 

In fact, considering recent revelations that the Obama campaign accepts donations from illegal foreign sources, they’re even blowing foreigners’ money. 

Regardless, perhaps it’s finally time for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to spend less time consuming her foot on national television, and more time balancing the checkbook of the party she was appointed to oversee. 

This week, Politico reported that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) disclosed just $4.6 million in its account and $20.5 million in debt as of September 30: 

“The Democratic National Committee was unable to keep up with the Republican National Committee’s fundraising again in September, despite taking out $10.5 million in loans.  The DNC raised $20.3 million in September, including the loans, and only $3.7 million of its total fundraising came from individuals and political action committees.  The rest came from transfers and offsetting operating expenditures.” 

That follows last month’s DNC disclosure of $11.8 million in debt as of August 31.  “The committee owes about $5.5 million of its total debt,” according to Politico, “to creditors for services such as direct mail consulting, polling expenses and event consulting.”  In other words, the entirely foreseeable sort of purposes for which the DNC exists and raises funds in the first place. 

By way of comparison, Politico pointed out that the Republican National Committee announced $48.4 million raised and $82.6 million in the bank for September. 

In similar news, Obama For America reported in its monthly Federal Election Commission (FEC) disclosure that it borrowed $15 million from none other than Bank of America last month. 

Here’s why that’s interesting. 

First, noted Obama supporter and faux-populist Warren Buffett recently invested some $5 billion in BofA when it was languishing.  Second, BofA contributed a reported $20 million to support this year’s Democratic National Convention, and Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte was scheduled to host Obama’s acceptance speech before lack of interest led them to downsize to a basketball arena.  Then, two weeks after Obama For America obtained the loan, BofA announced the layoff of 16,000 of its employees. 

Third, BofA was part of a questionable $25 billion shakedown settlement with the federal government over a false foreclosure scandal, in which there was no evidence that borrowers current on their mortgages were improperly removed from their homes.  Fourth, why is it that the supposed juggernaut Obama campaign expected to become the first $1 billion effort needs $15 million from such a curious source in the final weeks before election? 

Meanwhile, each day brings new revelations regarding suspicious foreign donations to the Obama campaign. 

According to the Government Accountability Institute (GAI), the Obama campaign has accepted substantial illegal donations from foreign contributors.  GAI discovered that, “Obama’s reelection campaign took in $130,867 from donors who provided no ZIP code and $2 million from those with an incomplete ZIP.”  As noted by Tony Lee of Breitbart.com, “Based on donations that needed to be legally reported, the Obama campaign received more than $2 million in donations that should have been rejected while Romney’s campaign only received $5,000 in such donations.” 

This week, the New York Post profiled British citizen Chris Walker and his success in donating to the Obama campaign while his effort to donate to Romney was unsuccessful.  Mr. Walker told the Post that he twice contributed $5 to Obama to see if it would work, saying that he “used his actual street address in England but entered Arkansas as his state with the Schenectady, NY ZIP code of 12345.” 

“When I did Romney’s,” Mr. Walker said, “the payment got rejected on the grounds that the address on the card did not match the address that I entered.”  He continued, “Romney’s website wanted the code from the back of the card, Barack Obama’s didn’t.”  Breitbart’s Mr. Lee noted that Romney’s site verifies addresses while Obama’s doesn’t bother to: 

“Romney’s campaign most likely denied Walker’s donation because, as a GAI investigation discovered, Romney’s campaign uses a more secure Address Verification System (AVS) than the Obama campaign and uses the ‘CVV’ security feature on its website while the Obama campaign pays millions in transaction fees, which defies logic, to turn off the security feature that requires users to enter a three- or four-digit code on the back of their credit card.” 

Mr. Lee notes something else that’s interesting.  Namely, while the Obama campaign doesn’t bother to verify donors, its merchandise website does: 

“The vendor the Obama campaign uses to sell merchandise, however, does use the CVV security feature, which means one must go through more security to purchase a campaign hoodie than donate $5 to the campaign.” 

All of these revelations are of a kind with the emerging profile of the Obama Administration more generally.  Just consider the fact that before Barack Obama, the United States had never witnessed a trillion-dollar deficit.  Under Obama, however, we’ve witnessed four trillion-dollar deficits in a row. 

It’s no comfort to discover that he and his party are just as careless with their own dollars than they are with other people’s.