How the Trump Campaign Steered Supporters Into Unwitting Donations

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,865
17,187
✟1,423,338.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Fund raising - the Trump way....

Stacy Blatt was in hospice care last September listening to Rush Limbaugh’s dire warnings about how badly Donald J. Trump’s campaign needed money when he went online and chipped in everything he could: $500.

It was a big sum for a 63-year-old battling cancer and living in Kansas City on less than $1,000 per month. But that single contribution — federal records show it was his first ever — quickly multiplied. Another $500 was withdrawn the next day, then $500 the next week and every week through mid-October, without his knowledge — until Mr. Blatt’s bank account had been depleted and frozen.
.....
The Times also interviewed two dozen Trump donors who made recurring donations, as well as campaign officials, campaign finance experts and consumer advocates. Nearly a dozen bank and credit card officials from the nation’s leading financial institutions spoke for this article on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters.

A clear pattern emerged. Donors typically said they intended to give once or twice and only later discovered on their bank statements and credit card bills that they were donating over and over again. Some, like Mr. Blatt, who died of cancer in February, sought an injunction from their banks and credit cards. Others pursued refunds directly from WinRed, which typically granted them to avoid more costly formal disputes.
...
Jason Miller, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, downplayed the rash of fraud complaints and the $122.7 million in total refunds issued by the Trump operation. He said internal records showed that 0.87 percent of its WinRed transactions had been subject to formal credit card disputes. “The fact we had a dispute rate of less than 1 percent of total donations despite raising more grass-roots money than any campaign in history is remarkable,” he said.

That still amounts to about 200,000 disputed transactions that Mr. Miller said added up to $19.7 million.


upload_2021-4-5_10-3-52.png


How Trump Steered Supporters Into Unwitting Donations
 

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,429.00
Faith
Atheist
Fund raising - the Trump way....

Stacy Blatt was in hospice care last September listening to Rush Limbaugh’s dire warnings about how badly Donald J. Trump’s campaign needed money when he went online and chipped in everything he could: $500.

It was a big sum for a 63-year-old battling cancer and living in Kansas City on less than $1,000 per month. But that single contribution — federal records show it was his first ever — quickly multiplied. Another $500 was withdrawn the next day, then $500 the next week and every week through mid-October, without his knowledge — until Mr. Blatt’s bank account had been depleted and frozen.
.....
The Times also interviewed two dozen Trump donors who made recurring donations, as well as campaign officials, campaign finance experts and consumer advocates. Nearly a dozen bank and credit card officials from the nation’s leading financial institutions spoke for this article on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters.

A clear pattern emerged. Donors typically said they intended to give once or twice and only later discovered on their bank statements and credit card bills that they were donating over and over again. Some, like Mr. Blatt, who died of cancer in February, sought an injunction from their banks and credit cards. Others pursued refunds directly from WinRed, which typically granted them to avoid more costly formal disputes.
...
Jason Miller, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, downplayed the rash of fraud complaints and the $122.7 million in total refunds issued by the Trump operation. He said internal records showed that 0.87 percent of its WinRed transactions had been subject to formal credit card disputes. “The fact we had a dispute rate of less than 1 percent of total donations despite raising more grass-roots money than any campaign in history is remarkable,” he said.

That still amounts to about 200,000 disputed transactions that Mr. Miller said added up to $19.7 million.


View attachment 297336

How Trump Steered Supporters Into Unwitting Donations

Sounds about what i'd expect from Trump.

You're in for a penny, but we'll take a pound anyway.
 
Upvote 0

mala

fluffy lion
Dec 5, 2002
3,379
2,520
✟261,324.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
The grift has been obvious since the very beginning. This doesn’t surprise me in the least. I truly feel bad for anyone that’s fallen for his con.
why? they are reaping what they sowed. let them. we're not talking about innocents here. these people liked what they saw in trump and paid for more of it. the fact that the monster has eaten them is their own fault.
 
Upvote 0

adrianmonk

Recursive Algorithm
Jan 14, 2008
600
700
Seattle, WA
✟217,584.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
I truly feel bad for anyone that’s fallen for his con.

I don't feel bad for them at all.

Imagine supporting a guy who cheated to get out of serving in Vietnam, cheated on his wives, cheats at golf, stole money from his own charity to buy pictures of himself, scammed people at his fake university.

This is quite possibly the most on brand that his campaign has been.
 
Upvote 0

mina

Brown Eyed girl
Sep 26, 2003
37,260
4,054
in the South
✟115,511.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't feel bad for them at all.

Imagine supporting a guy who cheated to get out of serving in Vietnam, cheated on his wives, cheats at golf, stole money from his own charity to buy pictures of himself, scammed people at his fake university.

This is quite possibly the most on brand that his campaign has been.
yep. That's what I thought when I read this. The man has cheated everyone throughout his whole life and still maintains he's super rich and successful. Why on Earth would anyone send him or his campaign money? It's all a grift.
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Site Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,111
13,172
✟1,087,939.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
why? they are reaping what they sowed. let them. we're not talking about innocents here. these people liked what they saw in trump and paid for more of it. the fact that the monster has eaten them is their own fault.
The man they described lived on $1000 a month and had cancer.
There should be banking regulations that "recurring donations" should never be the default.
Out of ethical concerns, the Trump campaign should have made it very obvious that if you didn't opt out they'd get paid over and over.
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Site Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Fund raising - the Trump way....

Stacy Blatt was in hospice care last September listening to Rush Limbaugh’s dire warnings about how badly Donald J. Trump’s campaign needed money when he went online and chipped in everything he could: $500.

It was a big sum for a 63-year-old battling cancer and living in Kansas City on less than $1,000 per month. But that single contribution — federal records show it was his first ever — quickly multiplied. Another $500 was withdrawn the next day, then $500 the next week and every week through mid-October, without his knowledge — until Mr. Blatt’s bank account had been depleted and frozen.
.....
The Times also interviewed two dozen Trump donors who made recurring donations, as well as campaign officials, campaign finance experts and consumer advocates. Nearly a dozen bank and credit card officials from the nation’s leading financial institutions spoke for this article on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters.

A clear pattern emerged. Donors typically said they intended to give once or twice and only later discovered on their bank statements and credit card bills that they were donating over and over again. Some, like Mr. Blatt, who died of cancer in February, sought an injunction from their banks and credit cards. Others pursued refunds directly from WinRed, which typically granted them to avoid more costly formal disputes.
...
Jason Miller, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, downplayed the rash of fraud complaints and the $122.7 million in total refunds issued by the Trump operation. He said internal records showed that 0.87 percent of its WinRed transactions had been subject to formal credit card disputes. “The fact we had a dispute rate of less than 1 percent of total donations despite raising more grass-roots money than any campaign in history is remarkable,” he said.

That still amounts to about 200,000 disputed transactions that Mr. Miller said added up to $19.7 million.


View attachment 297336

How Trump Steered Supporters Into Unwitting Donations

Well he did say he was going to drink the swamp, right? Or was it decorate the swamp? I can’t remember.
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,340
7,678
51
✟314,759.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
There should be banking regulations that "recurring donations" should never be the default.
In America? I can’t see that happening. Won’t someone please think of the shareholders?
 
Upvote 0

GoldenBoy89

We're Still Here
Sep 25, 2012
23,844
25,770
LA
✟555,035.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I can do both. I can feel bad and blame them for their own fault in falling for an obvious con. Some of these people, I assume many, are grandparents who’ve been taken advantage of. They didn’t deserve that.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

adrianmonk

Recursive Algorithm
Jan 14, 2008
600
700
Seattle, WA
✟217,584.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
The man they described lived on $1000 a month and had cancer.
There should be banking regulations that "recurring donations" should never be the default.
Out of ethical concerns, the Trump campaign should have made it very obvious that if you didn't opt out they'd get paid over and over.

He chose to support a person who has been accused of not paying his contractors, swindling students at his fake university, stealing from his charities and being prohibited by the courts from being in a management position at any charity. Many of these happened during his presidential term and he should have known better to double check all of the terms.

I agree that the Trump campaign should have made it very obvious, but the fact that they did not, means they intended to fill their coffers by any means necessary.
 
Upvote 0

Sparagmos

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
8,632
7,319
52
Portland, Oregon
✟278,062.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Fund raising - the Trump way....

Stacy Blatt was in hospice care last September listening to Rush Limbaugh’s dire warnings about how badly Donald J. Trump’s campaign needed money when he went online and chipped in everything he could: $500.

It was a big sum for a 63-year-old battling cancer and living in Kansas City on less than $1,000 per month. But that single contribution — federal records show it was his first ever — quickly multiplied. Another $500 was withdrawn the next day, then $500 the next week and every week through mid-October, without his knowledge — until Mr. Blatt’s bank account had been depleted and frozen.
.....
The Times also interviewed two dozen Trump donors who made recurring donations, as well as campaign officials, campaign finance experts and consumer advocates. Nearly a dozen bank and credit card officials from the nation’s leading financial institutions spoke for this article on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters.

A clear pattern emerged. Donors typically said they intended to give once or twice and only later discovered on their bank statements and credit card bills that they were donating over and over again. Some, like Mr. Blatt, who died of cancer in February, sought an injunction from their banks and credit cards. Others pursued refunds directly from WinRed, which typically granted them to avoid more costly formal disputes.
...
Jason Miller, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, downplayed the rash of fraud complaints and the $122.7 million in total refunds issued by the Trump operation. He said internal records showed that 0.87 percent of its WinRed transactions had been subject to formal credit card disputes. “The fact we had a dispute rate of less than 1 percent of total donations despite raising more grass-roots money than any campaign in history is remarkable,” he said.

That still amounts to about 200,000 disputed transactions that Mr. Miller said added up to $19.7 million.


View attachment 297336

How Trump Steered Supporters Into Unwitting Donations
This is one of the many grifts we are seeing right now in the Trumposphere. The new "free speech" social media platforms seem to be full of clickbait and fake accounts whose whole purpose is deceptive fundraising. On clouthub I discovered a whole new subset of fake news sites. You would click on a link, and there would be a completely fabricated "news story’ (like the Vatican was raided and the Pope was arrested for pedophilia!) but it was a very short story and it asked you to donate money or would just be full of ads, many for the Trump coins.

‘Then there is the way Sidney Powell was/is using the "release the Kraken" lawsuits to get donations. It now appears that whole thing was either a grift or Putin’s work, or both. What is scary is the comments under the posts with the obviously fake stories. A very common comment on clouthub and Parler is "I hope this is true!" You almost never see people asking for a citation or more details. You don’t see people saying "I’m going to research this," or "where is this information coming from?" Bottom line is that if it fits the narrative or their conspiracy fantasy, they excitedly buy it hook, line, and sinker.
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,256
24,154
Baltimore
✟556,867.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
This is one of the many grifts we are seeing right now in the Trumposphere. The new "free speech" social media platforms seem to be full of clickbait and fake accounts whose whole purpose is deceptive fundraising. On clouthub I discovered a whole new subset of fake news sites. You would click on a link, and there would be a completely fabricated "news story’ (like the Vatican was raided and the Pope was arrested for pedophilia!) but it was a very short story and it asked you to donate money or would just be full of ads, many for the Trump coins.

‘Then there is the way Sidney Powell was/is using the "release the Kraken" lawsuits to get donations. It now appears that whole thing was either a grift or Putin’s work, or both. What is scary is the comments under the posts with the obviously fake stories. A very common comment on clouthub and Parler is "I hope this is true!" You almost never see people asking for a citation or more details. You don’t see people saying "I’m going to research this," or "where is this information coming from?" Bottom line is that if it fits the narrative or their conspiracy fantasy, they excitedly buy it hook, line, and sinker.

They’re siphoning funds from the candidates, too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...300fde-7077-11eb-85fa-e0ccb3660358_story.html
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,865
17,187
✟1,423,338.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

....another reason to abolish our current campaign finance and move to 100% public financing (...yes, that means using my tax money to fund campaigns).

High-margin fundraising fees — sometimes in excess of 90 percent of a donor’s first contribution — have sucked resources out of conservative politics ever since the movement organized in the 1970s around the costly medium of direct mail. Social media, email and text-message fundraising brought those same steep margins online.
 
Upvote 0

mala

fluffy lion
Dec 5, 2002
3,379
2,520
✟261,324.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
The man they described lived on $1000 a month and had cancer.
There should be banking regulations that "recurring donations" should never be the default.
Out of ethical concerns, the Trump campaign should have made it very obvious that if you didn't opt out they'd get paid over and over.
there should be but there are not.
they should have but they did not.
he shouldn't have but he did.
lot's people have cancer or worse and are poor. not all of them give money to monsters though.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sparagmos

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
8,632
7,319
52
Portland, Oregon
✟278,062.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
WOW. From the article:

"Her campaign is an example of how some consulting firms are profiting handsomely from Republican candidates who have robust appeal in today’s politically charged environment — even when they are running in deep-blue districts where it is virtually impossible for them to win. The more viral the candidate goes, the more money the companies make — a model possible only through the online outrage machine of hyperpartisan politics.

Fundraising companies say their fees are well-earned and still leave candidates with more money than they would have if their ads had not been shared widely. But critics, including Klacik and some other 2020 candidates, say the system is deceptive, trapping first-time politicians in onerous contracts that siphon away cash their donors intended for them.

“It sounds like part of the swamp that needs to be drained,” said Bruce Dale, a Klacik donor from Michigan who was aghast to learn that a chunk of his $800 in donations may not have made it to her. “They can say it’s legal, but there are a lot of things that are legal that are wrong. This is wrong.”
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,256
24,154
Baltimore
✟556,867.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
WOW. From the article:

"Her campaign is an example of how some consulting firms are profiting handsomely from Republican candidates who have robust appeal in today’s politically charged environment — even when they are running in deep-blue districts where it is virtually impossible for them to win. The more viral the candidate goes, the more money the companies make — a model possible only through the online outrage machine of hyperpartisan politics.

Fundraising companies say their fees are well-earned and still leave candidates with more money than they would have if their ads had not been shared widely. But critics, including Klacik and some other 2020 candidates, say the system is deceptive, trapping first-time politicians in onerous contracts that siphon away cash their donors intended for them.

“It sounds like part of the swamp that needs to be drained,” said Bruce Dale, a Klacik donor from Michigan who was aghast to learn that a chunk of his $800 in donations may not have made it to her. “They can say it’s legal, but there are a lot of things that are legal that are wrong. This is wrong.”

Yeah, that Bruce Dale they quote at the end is another good example of the folks who've been described all through this thread - they got conned, but they're also kind of dumb for being conned in the first place. Dude is from Michigan and he's donating $800 to a candidate running a campaign in Baltimore that was an obvious scam to anybody living here. The whole thing was designed to bilk guys like him out of money - she just didn't expect to get soaked herself.
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,340
7,678
51
✟314,759.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
“They can say it’s legal, but there are a lot of things that are legal that are wrong. This is wrong.”
This is purely anecdotal in my part so confirmation bias ahoy!

It’s my experience that unless it is against the law (even if it is beyond the pale- ethically) many Americans appear to think it’s fine to do whatever it is and if someone is taken advantage of it becomes their fault for being a sucker.

I can’t help but twin this in my mind with the other American stereotype I have in my head of shareholders doing everything in their power to not regulate big businesses (reducing the number of laws that can limit profits).

Like I said; confirmation bias ahoy!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Site Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is purely anecdotal in my part so confirmation bias ahoy!

It’s my experience that unless it is against the law (even if it is beyond the pale- ethically) many Americans appear to think it’s fine to do whatever it is and if someone is taken advantage of it becomes their fault for being a sucker.

I can’t but twin this in my mind with the other American stereotype I have in my head of shareholders doing everything in their power to regulate big businesses (reducing the number of laws that can limit profits).

Like I said; confirmation bias ahoy!

That reminds me of one of the most disturbing Trump apologist arguments I read somewhere, re. his 'grab them by the ____ ' comment. According to this person, because Donald also said 'they let you do it' then this was perfectly fine.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Handmaid for Jesus

You can't steal my joy
Site Supporter
Dec 19, 2010
25,595
32,980
enroute
✟1,402,918.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
It’s my experience that unless it is against the law (even if it is beyond the pale- ethically) many Americans appear to think it’s fine to do whatever it is and if someone is taken advantage of it becomes their fault for being a sucker.
Some Americans give Trump a pass on everything.
 
Upvote 0