An “extremely generous donor” gave $50,000 to James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas to fund their voter fraud stunt in New Hampshire on Tuesday, the conservative activist said in a email to supporters.
“Our Voter Fraud investigation is being funded with a gift of $50,000 from an extremely generous donor — but that covers the cost of just ONE national project,” O’Keefe wrote in a fundraising email.
Project Veritas received non-profit status from the IRS and said in an application that it wanted to raise $1.65 million over a three year period. A $50,000 donation will likely show up on the organization’s yearly 990 forms, but that information wouldn’t be available until this spring or the spring of 2013, depending upon if the donation was made in 2011 or 2012.
O’Keefe wrote in the email that his team had the “ability to cast more than a dozen votes” in what is one of the only known cases of a coordinated attempt at in-person voter fraud. Conservatives touted the project as evidence of the need for voter ID laws, though election experts said other polling station methods could have prevented such a scheme from taking place.
A federal prosecutor in New Hampshire is reviewing the video and election law experts told TPM that O’Keefe’s allies could potentially face charges for obtaining ballots in the name of deceased individuals.
Some officials and observers, including a Republican mayor in New Hampshire, have called on those involved in procuring the ballots under false pretenses to be arrested.
“My first thought on watching this video is that these people are committing election fraud,” Joan F. Ashwell, an election expert with the League of Women Voters who worked the polls in Durham, New Hampshire on Tuesday told TPM. Ashwell said she was only vaguely aware of O’Keefe before the stunt.
“I was really annoyed watching it because I was a ballot clerk, and they were waiting until the ballot clerk had checked their name off on the list until they said they were going to go get their voter ID,” Ashwell said. “I just think they’ve broken the law anyway by taking a ballot.”
“They had to impersonate someone else in order to be checked off, and that’s voter fraud. I think they might have thought they were being cute, but they’re committing voter fraud and they should be prosecuted for it,” Ashwell told TPM. “The people of New Hampshire are honest, and that video is saying that anybody can be a criminal. We’re just honest people and we expect other people to be honest.”
“You start out with criminal conduct by these people to try to prove a point,” David Coleman, former counsel to the New York State Senate Election’s Committee, told TPM. “No matter what system you develop, a criminal will find a way around it. But consider how massive an effort would have to be to actually effect an election.”
“I think it’s nonsense, nobody voted, and if they voted, they’re facing a five year jail sentence, and I think very few people would be willing to risk that,” of Frank Askin of Rutgers Law School told TPM. “I think the whole thing is bullshit, frankly. It’s another one of these O’Keefe bullshit actions. Let them cast a vote, see what happens.”
Ryan J. Reilly
Ryan J. Reilly is a D.C.-based reporter for TPM. Prior to joining TPM, he worked for a news website covering the Justice Department and was a researcher for Bloomberg News. His email address is ryan(at)talkingpointsmemo.com.
Newsflash: James O'Keefe proves that convicted republican felons commits fraud.
http://gawker.com/5848412/is-james-okeefe-a-fugiti...
And in other news, who da hell is this judge magistrate that keeps getting taken to the cleaners by O'Keefe because now, that Sentencing Judge Magistrate has to answer for the signing off on letting O'Keefe and his thugs to willfully commit voter fraud and admit to it.
snipeh:
"OKeefe demonstrated how easy it is to commit voter fraud with the relaxed standards that you libs put in place."
We didn't "put [them] in place". They were there for many a year with no problems.
We're looking forward to O'Keefe showing how easy it is to serve prison time for committing voter fraud too. Which is the point, right? You RWers insist that everyone ought to have guns, which makes it "easy" to shoot people and kill them. And then we investigate shootings, and arrest, convict, and imprison those who violate the laws in the exercise of their "rights"....
The vast majority of people are honest. They have no interest in committing voter fraud.
Newsflash: James O'Keefe proves he commits fraud. And in other news, sun rises in east today.....
Aren't O'Keefe's 15 minutes over YET??
Simply put, okeefe is a degenerate.
$50 grand and they were successful in procuring 12 fraudulent ballots. O'keefe just conclusively proved why such a scheme is completely implausible on a scale large enough to affect all but the most local elections, and why the constant Republican hand-wringing and consequent voter ID laws are just so much bullshit.
js_edit I agree. It's much cheaper to purchase votes ... er, I mean airtime, on Fox News!
Reply to snipeh, below, because the "reply" buttons don't work:
"Horsecrap - you need picture ID to buy beer, check out a library book, get on an airplane... are all of those things so much more important than honest elections that they should require that which is not required for voting?"
Guess what all of those things have in common? They're PRIVILEGES, not RIGHTS. Point out where in the constitution your right to buy a beer, check out a library book, or get on an airplane are GUARANTEED - as the right to vote is - and we can agree that they're no different from voting.
jennpolk1 Snipeh's drivel is even worse than you point out.
I've bought beer many, many, many, many times without being asked to present photo ID. Also, photo ID requirements for beer have manifestly failed in a massive way to prevent the underage drinking they were supposed to stop.
My local library's cards do not include pictures. Photo ID is not necessary to obtain one; a property tax bill, lease, mortgage, bank statement or utility bill with your name and address on it is adequate.
Whereas, first-time voters do already have to prove their identity either when registering or when they vote for the first time.
So, almost everything snipeh is trying to imply is completely wrong.
jennpolk1 Speaking of "horsecrap," of course those things are rights, not privileges. When the framers of our Constitution added a Bill of Rights, in the debate over adding it, one argument against it was that people like you, jennpolk1, would construe it restrictively... as denying unlisted rights... rather than expansively... as the framers, by their own statements, intended.
doggerelistjennpolk1 If drinking beer is as constitutionally protected as voting, how come there are still dry counties?
HMM?
sullivanstjennpolk1 If you'll notice, sullivanst, counties have to vote to go "dry," not vote to go "wet". With no law against drinking beer, it is indeed a protected right. The default, as with most things, is that you have a right.
doggerelistjennpolk1 So a county could vote to prohibit free speech or ban women from voting?
You have committed a truly epic failure of constitutional comprehension.
doggerelist Feel free to point out to us where in the Constitution your "rights" to buy beer, check out library books, and ride on airplanes are enumerated, like your right to vote is.
Privileges are things you can LOSE. Such as, your driving privilege, if you get a DUI or have an accident without being insured. Such as, the ability to use the library, if you take out books and do not return them. Such as, buying beer if you're under 21. And so on and so forth. But it's a cute dodge to try to restrict voting while at the same time beating your chest about how in favor of "expansive" rights you are. Too bad most people are smarter than you are, which allows them to see it for the BS it is.
Everything about O’Keefe has proven to be complete bullshit. There is no reason to accept his 50K donor story.
tao Other than to get the 50K donor out in the open and into the court room.
(cont. from below)
Go through the death stats for any state, see how many people typically die per year, divide by 12, and figure out how many of them you might be able to, at great risk, impersonate at the polls. Keep in mind that over a third of the "dead voters" had only been dead for 10 days; over 2/3 had been dead less than 1 month; almost 90% had been dead less than 6 weeks. So, figure out in your state how many people can be expected to die in the 6 weeks prior to an election, and there's your potential for "rampant fraud." Don't be surprised if you find the number so vanishingly small that it wouldn't affect an election outcome anyway, even if you WERE stupid enough to try it. Then figure out how much you'd have to pay each person to perpetrate the fraud, knowing that there's around a 10% chance that they're going to get caught red-handed.
As for your "90 dead people voted in S. Carolina," link or it's, as usual, more conservative lying BS.
(Sorry for posting in reverse order - the result of TPM's ridiculously unfunctional commenting system, where "Reply" buttons appear apparently only for show.)
snipeh, that's retarded. I could go out and drive my car at 100 mph in a 45 mph speed zone and possibly not get caught; however, if I DID get caught, telling the officer that "I was just trying to demonstrate how ineffective speed limits are" would not get me off the hook.
I find it amusing how you conservatives who claim to want "smaller government" change your tune and insist on full-on nanny state when it comes to these types of things. Here's a hint, Sherlock: laws on the books aren't intended to stop all crime. They're intended to impose disincentives so that the vast majority of people, and hopefully all of them, won't commit the act that the law criminalizes. There is no was to stop all crime short of assigning each of us a government minder to make sure we don't step on a crack when walking down the sidewalk. So much for that FREEDUMB!!! you bufords are always screeching about.
(cont.)
All the self-righteous chest beating going on here is exactly the problem. It's the old Shoot the Messenger routine that you're trying to follow in order to avoid the issue.
OKeefe demonstrated how easy it is to commit voter fraud with the relaxed standards that you libs put in place. The right to vote is probably the most important right we enjoy in this country and it is muddied and trampled on by the unfortunately large number of people who will do anything to further their political agenda such as the Acorn organization. Because of the lax voting laws enacted, the elections in our country are becoming meaningless because of the organized criminal groups who want to take over the government through the rampant fraud that's getting worse with each election.
In a recent election, 900 dead people voted in South Carolina and that's just the easiest category of vote fraud to prove - votes by everyone in high level care in nursing homes who are physically and mentally unable to vote would be another category - votes by people who do not exist - votes by children. All of these categories and more can and are being exploited and used to destroy the elections. Of course, maybe you like that and that's why you're so insistent that the identification and qualifications to vote rules be lax - you sympathize with the ones who are actually doing the fraud and don't like O'Keefe because he has thrown a bright light into your dark hole.
snipeh "OKeefe demonstrated how easy it is to commit voter fraud with the relaxed standards that you libs put in place."
No, he demonstrated how easy it is to get caught breaking the law when trying to do that.
And by 'you libs' you obviously mean the framers of the Constitution. They're the ones who put the standards in place. Sorry you hate the country so much.
Flying Squid The framers of the Constitution gave CITIZENS the right to vote - not foreigners, not dead people, not fraud. That right must be protected or this country will go on the scrapheap of history as a failure of the democratic system of government. O'Keefe deliberately made public what his group did - they didn't get caught.
snipeh There is no evidence of either non-citizens or dead people voting. All there is evidence of is a bunch of fools trying to vote in the name of dead people and getting caught. And yes they did get caught. If you think they didn't, you're simply uninformed about what happened.
Flying Squid In South Carolina, it's an established fact that 956 people voted who were dead at the time of the vote. In Colorado(?), the entire Dallas Cowboys Football team got registered to vote. I wonder what fraudulent bums were going to show up with phoney ID's to cast their ballots. Without adequate qualification to vote and identification laws, the criminal enterprises can and will destroy this country
snipeh It is not an established fact, but you're welcome to think it is.
Let me ask you- why is this only a problem now when it wasn't in the previous 235 years in this country? Why can't we vote the same way we've been voting for two centuries? What's changed?
snipehFlying Squid That's not really an "established fact" in South Carolina. No one knows if those people were actually dead at the time the votes were cast, nor did the person making the accusation know when exactly those votes were cast. He says "recent elections" but doesn't say how recent or how many elections he's including in that. Might want to wait for the full investigation to be complete before believing these things wholesale. Just a suggestion.
snipehFlying Squid And the Dallas Cowboys reference - they didn't actually get added to the voter roll in the state (Nevada) and the state found out about the false registrations and investigated. Had anyone impersonating a player tried to vote, they would have been arrested.
cognachas4pawssnipeh Exactly. What O'Keefe & Co. have proven is that you can spend a lot of money to fail to vote fraudulently.
Flying Squidsnipeh In my readings, I've learned that this whole notion of dead people voting is really misunderstandings or people jumping to conclusions before the full facts are known. In just about every single case, the dead voter actually died AFTER the vote was cast - so they were perfectly eligible to vote. People hear or see an accusation and without doing any follow-up, they just believe it and repeat it and - poof! - the myth of the dead voter is born.
Flying Squid That's the exact problem - things have been changed. Voter registration and identification always required positive ID and proof of eligibility. The laws protecting the sanctity of the vote were gutted with such provisions as not requiring a picture ID, motor-voter laws, and even registering to vote within days of the actual vote. That's all new and put in place supposedly to make it easier for minorities to vote. That's only partially true - the real reason for those relaxed laws was so the shady fraudulent groups that sympathized with them could more easily distort elections. No picture ID? Horsecrap - you need picture ID to buy beer, check out a library book, get on an airplane... are all of those things so much more important than honest elections that they should require that which is not required for voting? I sure don't think so.
snipeh You said things have changed but you didn't say what changed. Very telling.
Also, until you can show me where in the constitution every citizen has a right to buy beer, check out a library book, drive a car or get on an airplane, your argument holds absolutely no water.
cognachas4pawsFlying Squid The direct quote from the State Attorney General is that there were 956 people who cast ballots who were dead at the time. They are hoping that they were clerical errors like Sr vs Jr, but that's a lot of errors when the election clerks are supposed to be so careful. Only a minor number of Sr's and Jr's would be in the same voting district so that their names might be listed one after the other.
Only the fraud perpetrators know the extent - because they got away with it.
snipehcognachas4paws And again, very telling that you admit that they are NOT sure whether or not the ballots cast were genuinely fraudulent, meaning that your claim that it was an 'established fact' was a lie.
Flying Squid Those are freedoms that are given by the Constitution. The Constitution specifically says that essentially, anything that it does not specifically say is up to the states. The US Constitution is supposedly one of the shortest in the world. Laws are passed to fill in the details. The Supreme Court decides whether those laws are in accordance with the Constitution.
The requirement for Identification is an indication of just how important an action is. MY argument certainly is relevant.
snipeh Once again avoiding saying what changed and avoiding the fact that the constitution SPECIFICALLY grants the right of every citizen over 18 the right to vote with no mention of ID.
snipehFlying Squid When you consider that there are over 2,000,000 registered voters in the state, that's a pretty small number in comparison. Keep in mind, again, that they do not know yet if these are valid or not; nor do they know how many elections this covered. Just saying don't make a conclusion based on half information.
Flying Squidcognachas4paws No - it is an established fact that 956 votes were cast in the names of people who were dead at the time of the election. That is what I said. There are those like you who are trying to say they were merely clerical errors. I am acknowledging that some may have been but I doubt that there were that many errors considering that in most cases, two people are watching the lists.
snipehFlying Squid Could you please tell me in which election these 956 voted in?
Flying Squid Nothing telling about it. I did say what had changed in general. your statement that it is as it always has been for over 200 years is what is blatantly false. I could look up the exact law changes, but they are in every state and there are many many laws involved - I'd guess over 200 laws among the 50 states. It's not practical for me to chase every one. You just don't want to accept the truth
snipeh "It's not practical" = "I don't actually have evidence for my claims."
Flying Squid You offer no evidence to the contrary. You probably don't even know the history of who was allowed to vote over the years
Flying Squid It's so easy to establish: The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) (42 U.S.C. § 1973gg), also known as The Motor Voter Act, was signed into effect by United States President Bill Clinton on May 20, 1993. How's that for one. Your turn to demonstrate that things haven't been changed to relax the protection of the vote.
Flying Squid How about 18 year olds given the right to vote in 1971?
snipeh You mean as was added with the twenty-sixth amendment to the constitution?
Flying Squid yep - just as women were given the right to vote in 1920. These all prove that things haven't been as they "have been for 200 years" as you said.
Flying Squid I have useful things to get done today rather than waste time arguing with you libs. Bye - catch you another time
snipeh Your inability to know the difference between voting laws being changed by constitutional amendments and voting laws being changed on a state level is amusing.
snipehFlying Squid So, you're not going to tell me which election those 956 dead people voted in? Hmmm...wonder why.
snipehFlying Squid Does anyone else find completely making up fantastic lies to try to justify sweeping encroachments on a Constitutionally guaranteed right to be "offensive"?
Because I've decided that I very much do.
i hope they nail his ass to the wall
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like