Observer/Wells Fargo: Exclusive: Hillary Clinton Campaign Systematically Overcharging Poorest Donors

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Jess13, Sep 16, 2016.

  1. Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #1
    You don’t say?


    Exclusive: Hillary Clinton Campaign Systematically Overcharging Poorest Donors

    Wells Fargo fraud department inundated with calls from low-income Clinton supporters reporting repeated unauthorized charges

    http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusi...n-systematically-overcharging-poorest-donors/

    Hillary Clinton’s campaign is stealing from her poorest supporters by purposefully and repeatedly overcharging them after they make what’s supposed to be a one-time small donation through her official campaign website, multiple sources tell the Observer.

    The overcharges are occurring so often that the fraud department at one of the nation’s biggest banks receives up to 100 phone calls a day from Clinton’s small donors asking for refunds for unauthorized charges to their bankcards made by Clinton’s campaign. One elderly Clinton donor, who has been a victim of this fraud scheme, has filed a complaint with her state’s attorney general and a representative from the office told her that they had forwarded her case to the Federal Election Commission.

    [...]

    “We don’t investigate fraudulent charges unless they are over $100,” the fraud specialist explained. “The Clinton campaign knows this, that’s why we don’t see any charges over the $100 amount, they’ll stop the charges just below $100. We’ll see her campaign overcharge donors by $20, $40 or $60 but never more than $100.”

    [continue]​
     
  2. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
  3. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #3
    An exclusive from Trump's son-in-law's paper. Something tells me there's more to this.
     
  4. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #4
    You should read the piece, there is significant information I didn’t copy/paste. Here, a sample: Hillary stealing money from poor old ladies.


    Carol Mahre, an 81-year-old grandmother of seven from Minnesota, is one of the victims of Clinton’s campaign donor fraud scandal.

    c.png


    [...]

    Mahre, who said in an interview she only contributed $25 because she’s “not rich” and that’s all she could afford, contacted her son, Roger Mahre, to help her
    dispute the unauthorized charges.

    Roger, who is an attorney, told the Observer that he called the Clinton campaign dozens of times in April and early May in an attempt to resolve the issue. “It took me at least 40 to 50 phone calls to the campaign office before I finally got ahold of someone,” Roger said. “After I got a campaign worker on the phone, she said they would stop making the charges.”

    Incredibly, the very next day, Carol’s card was charged yet again and the campaign had never reversed the initial fraudulent charges.

    [...]

    The Clinton campaign overcharged Carol $25 three times and then overcharged her one time for $19, a grand total of $94 in fraudulent charges. The campaign’s overcharges to Carol were just a few dollars short of $100. This is in line with what the Wells Fargo bank source revealed to the Observer.

    [...]

    The incident hasn’t just left a bad taste in Roger’s mouth. Carol decided she’s not going to vote for Hillary even though she’s voted for the Democratic presidential nominee every election since President Dwight Eisenhower won reelection in 1956. “My mother is a lifelong Democrat and she’s voted every election in her life for a Democrat but she’s not going to vote for Hillary,” Roger said.​
     
  5. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #5
    Is this the same Wells Fargo who is paying millions of dollars in fines for employees setting up accounts their customers didn't know about? And you want to blame a 3rd party? I'd look back at Wells Fargo.
     
  6. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #6
    Yes, it is that same Wells Fargo. And this is Hillary’s campaign stealing money from poor donors.
     
  7. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #7
    More likely Wells Fargo stealing money so that they could add in interest payments. That's how their little scam worked.
     
  8. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #8
    Only thing I could recommend is that you read the piece in full. It is Team Hillary stealing the money, not Wells Fargo. You’re literate, take the ~5 minutes to read what Deplorable Hillary is doing to poor donors.

    http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusi...n-systematically-overcharging-poorest-donors/
     
  9. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #9
    I once had a contribution get tagged as recurring because I didn't uncheck a checked-by-default box that offered to make the donation a monthly one.

    I was annoyed that it had defaulted that way and provided feedback to that effect, but it didn't take more than a couple minutes to undo the nature of the contribution and make it a one-off. However I happened to notice immediately the discrepancy between what I meant and what had transpired, so the transaction was seconds old when I set about changing it from recurring to one-off. I received immediate confirmation of my change.

    If this is a similar situation I'd say it's just so stupid for a campaign to set up a default recurring contribution. People are busy, people are naive, people are distracted, people are nearsighted and blow up the screen with visual assistance software so they don't see the part of the screen with the checked-off box that says "Make this monthly..." But I would not call it theft if that's all that this is about.

    As far as Wells Fargo, no comment since I don't deal with them, but I assume they'd comply with request to return inadvertently made-monthly contribution. It could take some checking into if the customer's complaint is via phone and the customer does not have records handy.

    Certainly the brouhaha sounds like adequate teaching moment for campaigns that stupidly do that default-recurring setup. I have to say I was really pissed off when it happened to me but I didn't jump off to calling anyone a thief... I blamed myself for not staying focused on the task at hand since I was talking on the phone to someone while making that contribution...

    I'd be interested in hearing what the Clinton campaign has to say about this.
     
  10. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #10
    You're not following the Wells Fargo trail. They put a charge on an account that a customer did not authorize (not the account, and not the charge), then they sit back and collect interest because the customer doesn't even know the account is there.
     
  11. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #11
    The example with Carol: She set up one-time $25 donation, and Hillary’s scampaign overcharged her additional $25 increments, then finally one $19 charge. The result: The charges were under $100 total, where if it were $100 or more, it would have to be investigated as potential fraud. That is CONSCIOUS effort to steal that old lady’s money. It wasn’t all $25 increments, as it would have been if true recurring donation selected. Team Deplorable Hillary consciously made the final theft $19 not $25.
    All I have to say to you: :rolleyes:
     
  12. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    #12
    [​IMG]

    The charges are throughout the month and for different amounts.

     
  13. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #13
  14. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #14
    The source said he’s apolitical but noted that the bank’s fraud department is yet to receive one call from a Donald Trump supporter claiming to have been overcharged by Trump’s campaign. “I’m only talking to you because what Hillary’s doing is so messed up, she’s stealing from her poorest supporters.

    http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusi...n-systematically-overcharging-poorest-donors/
     
  15. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #15
    I think both donator SYSTEMS are at issue. I don't think either candidate is willfully doing this. Poor implementation of the system of which the candidate has no real oversight into.
     
  16. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #16

    All I have to say is who knows what the last charge would have been to my account if I hadn't noticed and the charges went into the "recurring" setup. If they program it to stop short of $100 before some timeframe or positive verification by the customer that it should be recurring, and then if the customer says wait up I never wanted this, then a) it can be reversed and b) it never became an issue of fraud -- which is certainly how I would want it not to become if I were a bank too.

    As I said before I would like to hear what the Clinton campaign has to say about this.

    And it wouldn't bother me to have read about it someplace besides that rag, also...
     
  17. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
  18. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #18
    Did you even click the link and read the piece in full? I am guessing you have not. Please do.
     
  19. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #19
    It's just a loan. You should see the paperwork. ;)
    --- Post Merged, Sep 16, 2016 ---
    I did read it, what, you think I would fail to read a link you supplied? Give me some credit.

    Well, wait. How about giving me five bucks. ;)
     
  20. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #20
    Now you are just trying to set up your own little recurring charge scheme.:eek:
     
  21. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #21
    Thank you. My apologies for falsely assuming.
     
  22. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #22
    Yeah but you'd have to wait until the second bill cycle to see if I'd actually try that. In the meantime, five bucks is enough real money for me. Inflation is still over the horizon or my little stash of inflation protected bonds would not still be deep in the red...

    You are welcome. I will apologize to you if this was a scam.
     
  23. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #23
    Why doesn't Hillary use her millions from big banks to self-fund more of her campaign?
     
  24. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #24
    Why does that matter?
     
  25. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #25
    It would show that she's not overly dependent on outside money (she is).
     

Share This Page