Be an interesting area to investigate political financing (aka Free Speech) with hearings (under oath). Including testimony back to the Clinton days. Call those FBI agents that took early retirement around the time of china-gate. This has a been an issue since the federal government started picking business “winners and losers” back in the 1950s with regulations that were not equal-for-all. Foreign companies and countries wanted their voices heard, and not all had our sensibilities. These money flows were all too visible to the U.S. intelligence agencies who used information provided by the banks to try to limit high-tech goods from flowing to the U.S.S.R.
Vice-President Gore stopped this data collection (ending so-called “economic espionage” in the mid-90s) as it was arguably not needed after the cold-war (but later would have proved invaluable in catching, if not preventing, the 9-11 actors and conspirators had we had that data – esp. because investigating financial transactions does not require language skills to be helpful to gumshoe detective work, similar to phone bills helping determine who called who called who, irrespective of what was said). And by the 1990s, the amount of foreign influence was (and still is) gian-ormous. (if we want to get rid of this, we need to get the government out of taxing and regulating business except in the most even-handed, uniform way – so no advantage can be gained from lobbying.. well, I can dream).
Someone in the conservative leadership should call for investigations today. And put people on notice about preserving email so we can see the discussion about why Mr. O’s team did not do -any- validation of a donation – but instead chose to wait for re-imbursement requests, a customer contesting a transaction (presuming they even reviewed their CC bill) and just have the campaign repay including the (large) penalty. I wonder how many other merchants have this behavior? Call FirstData as a witness, etc. It may have been someone brainstorming at a clearing house or a bank that suggested this behavior (not ever seen because of the penalties, but, in this case it would work to the candidates advantage).. Perhaps call Mr. O’s large donors who are executives at these places and review their email, etc.