More than 60 percent of comments on the ObamaCare website are from 100 people, who post again and again, according to a story in the U.K. Daily Mail. The Mail reports:

  • Fewer than 100 people comment numerous times a day, analytics revealed 

  • One California woman posted 59 times a day for 60 days only during working hours, she used four different profiles, claims she isn't paid to comment

  • She claims to be employed full-time, LinkedIn page lists commercial firm

  • Organizing For Action, which runs the Facebook site, refused to comment on whether the 100 users were being paid for their services 


Kudos to the Washington Times, which actually conducted the investigation. The newspaper hired an outside analytics team to assist with the data. According to this analysis, many of the profiles on the page belong to one person who “created multiple aliases or personas to widen her influence and multiply her voice.”

One of the most prolific posters is Cindi Huynh, who posted on average 59 times a day over a sixty day period—always during work hours and never on weekends.  She told the newspaper that she had not been paid for her posts but was a volunteer through the Democratic Party in California. She said she had a full-time job elsewhere but declined to say where she worked.

Wanda Milner posted 4,695 times during the period of the investigation. She is from Canada and described herself as passionate about ObamaCare. She said that she was not paid to post. The investigation also turned up an anti-ObamaCare activist, Paul Nunley, a retired veteran living in New Mexico, who 2,316 in 60 days, often engaging other posters in heated debate. He has had numerous time-outs.

Organizing for America declined to say if posters are paid. OFA also manages President Obama’s Twitter feed. An investigation by a computer team over the summer said it found that half the president’s Twitter followers are fictitious. Organizing for America employs Blue State Digital, which created online tools for pro-Obama home gatherings. Blue State Digital collected 13 million names and organized them into lists by issue interest in 2008.

Social media can have an enormous impact on public discussions. The Washington Times story noted:  

E.J. Dionne told his readers at The Washington Post during the 2012 presidential contest to watch their Twitter feeds to get an unfettered view of who won the second debate.

However, social media is anything but unfettered. It can be leveraged to spread rumors, undercut the opposition or create a false sense of public pressure, computer analysts and public relations representatives say.

“There have been smear campaigns since Adams and Jefferson in the early 1800s and we’re seeing the same thing here, with just a new set of tools,” said Richard Levick, chairman and chief executive officer of Levick, a public relations and strategic communications firm in Washington.

“Where do undecided voters, journalists go to get their information? Google. So controlling the search engine is hugely important. We need to know who is our audience, how do we reach them, how do we engage them, and then, how do we control the territory?” he said.

Wonder if Pajama Boy, the face of the ObamaCare ad campaign last year, is posting?