The Obama campaign was sloppy, not malicious.

Malicious? No, I'm sure they aporached the entire question with the best of intent... after all their power is more important than some old election law...

The FEC is hamstrung because it des not have a quorum and, for months, the Dems have refused to approve new members.

Which is the fly in the ointment. Anyone think for one second an Obama justice department or even the FEC would take action on this?

I don't believe it, and I am not sure investigations are necessary, but I hope congress has taken note and seeks to fix the problems with our financing system-I think it is about time public financing be put out to pasture, and a requirement that all donations be made public record-even the small ones.

I sort of think this is a case of the law not keeping up with the technology, and I am certain Obama's campaign saw the loophole and went for it. It is slimey IMO, but when it lets you run 10 or more ads to your opponents one ad, there isn't any real pain. In the end the worst thing he looks at is a fine and/or a requirement to refund some of the dollars.

Eventually, if an Obama Justice Department, and a Democratic Congress, allow an investigation, we could be talking about hundreds of millions of dollars incorectly accepted.

Comon, Billy. Call me when you get past your Sophmore year.

Call me when you can spell "come."

Lets see, he is a socialist/marxist/terrorist/sex ed fiend/redistributorist/contribution cheater/lover of violent criminals/baby hater/family hater/hater hater/Iran embracer/celebrity.

He thinks Castro's beard is cool.

Oh, and an anti-plumberite.

I think James Joyner nicely captures the dynamics at work when trying to investigate whether or not someone can engage in criminal behavior—in this case, make a contribution to a political campaign under an assumed name. I would only make the point t...

I'll take the pepsi challenge on that one Bit. I'm also certain that the information is currently publicly available, and I'd look it up myself if I weren't gainfully employed.

And I'm not?
Comon, Billy. Call me when you get past your Sophmore year.

That is why I am not so sure this was a case of stupidity. I think they realized turning off the security measures would allow them to get more donations that would be impossible to verify, which would in turn result in more money in the coffers.

It is amusing though how one candidate seems to get the benefit of the doubt whenever any potential questions are raised.

I do think in the end that what all this proves is that the campaign finance system and the rules for it are broken-or at the very least fail to account for what current technology allows.

My feeling on the issue has long been that people or companies should be able to donate however much they want to a campaign without any limits, but that all donations should be fully disclosed and public and that the records should be available within a certain number of days of the donation-even if the donation is just $25.

Of course, this once again serves to demonstrate the futility of the campaign finance regulation system.

Or perhaps the futility of spending much time reading flame wars between Megan McArdle and Mark Kleiman.

Let's make it interesting - if I'm right, you quit posting for a year (and vice versa, of course).