The only reasons that make it happen is: An IT department will save us money in the following ways: x, y, z.
The reality is that unless you can have a positive effect on the bottom line, you're spinning your wheels.
Obama endorses the claim that God is important to nation
Actually, whether your'e a believer or not, or religious or not, the the concept of a God is CRITICAL to our nation. This nation exists based upon the belief that we have inalienable rights that are endowed by a Creator. This is a long-established legal principle in the United States which recognizes that in a free society there must be an authority greater than government, otherwise anything that government says is legal, automatically becomes just, as well. If our rights come from government, then everything that government says is right - is right, and there is never a just cause for rebellion.
Only when you recognize that there is an authority greater than than government telling government essentially, "you may say that X is legal, but it's still wrong" can society truly be free. The alternative is, "well, that's wrong because I say it's wrong" or "that's wrong because we say it's wrong" - neither of which is a prescription for a free society for what should be obvious reasons.
Note that this model has worked quite well since the founding of the nation, in spite of the fact (or because of the fact) that the U.S. government makes no determinations about any specific religion. 80% of the conductors of the underground railroad were Catholics and Quakers - theologically completely different, but both informed by their religious beliefs that even though government said slavery was legal, it was still wrong and had to be fought. Every major moral victory over government has been won at the behest of believers in a Creator, not a single, solitary one was ever led by atheists or agnostics.
But, were they being run by his campaign or by a group supporting him? The reason I ask is that there's been tons of money in recent years for various swiftboating outfits to engage in that sort of behavior, they're beyond the control of the politicians campaign and can raise a lot of money independently.
If you believe that, you're a fool. Those groups are just as much a part of the campaign as the candidate. Sure, they jump through some hoops to avoid blatantly violating campaign finance laws forbidding coordination (at least at the federal level), but it is a well-known tactic to use third parties to say things that it would be unseemly for the candidate to say.
"We really need to get it out there that %opponent% beats his wife, but we obviously can't run an ad saying that."
"Well, I could always call %rich_friend% and have him start a PAC. We can't coordinate once it's formed, but he'll do the job and throw the bombs that need thrown."
Welcome to McCain/Feingold - the law that achieves the opposite of its intended purpose.
Requiring physical access is likely to be the only real solution that cannot be compromised remotely.
And even then you would have some user that some hacker social engineered into giving them physical access.
"The Mets were great in 'sixty eight, The Cards were fine in 'sixty nine, But the Cubs will be heavenly in nineteen and seventy." -- Ernie Banks