Checking CVV isn't required, but may result in a higher transaction fee for the merchant. The campaign likely made a choice of "fewer fields = better conversion".
It's 100% certain that it would be less conversion. It's also nearly certain that they were accepting illegal foreign donations. In this case, conversion probably shouldn't be the deciding factor... (Note I'm sure the OP had 0 say in this, just wondering if there is an explanation other than better conversions)
This isn't just about Obama, it's about all of the campaigns. Obama was just the most visible and highest raising, with a higher likelihood of attracting foreign money. It's also not just the CVV, but many many things that aren't being done (that aren't required yet but should be).
> It's also nearly certain that they were accepting illegal foreign donations.
A CVV wouldn't make a difference for that, and given that US citizens live all over the world, there's realistically no way to prevent illegal foreign donations.
What would you use? Name? American have all sorts of names. Credit card billing address? Americans live abroad. IP? Americans live abroad. SSN? Fakeable (ask a restaurant dishwasher in NYC), and I dunno if you can ask for it.
It is a tiny minority of people that live overseas. It's reasonable to make them jump through an extra hoop or two to keep the rest of the money out of our elections. Note this isn't just Obama's campaign, many others have the same problems. The only thing partisan about this is that Obama is the most visible and also the most likely person to be receiving these illegal donations. As such, he should have been working harder to prevent them, not being the most lax in the group.
The GAI report recommends election officials:
-Integrate safeguards to limit the solicitation of money from foreigners by requiring donors with foreign IP addresses to provide proof of U.S. citizenship before they can proceed to the donate page
-Immediately require campaigns to use industry-standard anti-fraud security technologies including, but not limited to, the Card Verification Value (CVV) and a rigorous Address Verification System (AVS)
-Immediately require all campaigns to retain and disclose identifying information on all online campaign contributions, including those falling under the $200 nondisclosure threshold currently allowed under federal law
-Address the threat of "Robo-Donations": The absence of industry-standard anti-fraud credit card security features render campaigns more vulnerable to so-called “robo-donations.” Robo-donations are large numbers of small, automated donations made through the Internet to evade FEC reporting requirements.
> Though not required by law, OFA requires a copy of a valid passport from any contributor who has been affirmed as eligible but donates with a mailing address outside the U.S. If they do not offer in one in a timely manner, the donation is returned.
The big question, as with voter fraud, is really "is this happening much at all?" I suspect the answer is similar to that of voter fraud - "nope".
On the other hand, any US company can make massive donations to 527s, superpacs etc., and it doesn't matter a whit where the shareholders or executive team are based.
What I heard (sorry no source) was that the Obama campaign was doing analysis post-donation to make sure they were valid donations. This seems like a more realistic approach given the scope of the problem.
Little off topic here, but did "project dreamcatcher" have as much of an impact as you guys thought it would? I didn't hear much about that toward the end of the election. What kinds of grassroots stories were generated from it? I didn't really get the sense that there was as cohesive a narrative this time around. With hurricane Sandy everything leading up to the election seemed rushed and confusing.
Checking CVV isn't required, but may result in a higher transaction fee for the merchant. The campaign likely made a choice of "fewer fields = better conversion".