Campaign finance law needs to reign in labour unions
Canada's elections law essentially allow ganging-up by anyone willing to establish a third-party campaign.
It's no secret. The 2011 federal election was a splendid example of an attempt to do this, as dozens of far-left campaigns sprung up, eager to defeat the governing Conservative Party through the organization of strategic voting and, in some cases, outright lies.
So long as registered third-party campaigns are willing to stick the truth, they for the most part present no great dilemma for campaign finance law. At least not at the federal level.
At the provincial level, however, particularly in Ontario, it seems that there is a problem. A big one.
In Ontario, it seems that third-party campaigns face no spending limits, allowing some third-party campaigns to essentially gang up and bully the provincial Progressive Conservative Party, who are subject to spending limits and cannot effectively defend themselves.
The Working Families Coalition is the most publicly-known example. It claims to be independent of the Liberal Party, but was in fact directly organized by the Liberals. Another example that comes to mind is the "No Gun, No Funeral" campaign organized and operated out of then-Attorney General Michael Bryant's campaign offices.
In each case, Elections Ontario opted to ignore the undeniable connections between these organizations and the Ontario Liberal Party and treat them as an independent third-party. What had actually happened is that these groups allowed the Liberal Party of Ontario to breach campaign spending limits.
It's evidence that Elections Ontario is just as ill as Elections Canada, and needs the same overhaul of the people running the institution.
“The rule is too loose. We need the teeth of the federal rules if we’re to keep elections from being swayed,” remarked York University political science professor Robert MacDermid. He recently produced a report that demonstrates just how badly organizations like Labour Unions have abused the system in their bids to help out their partisan allies. (In the case of public service unions, this amounted to picking their own bosses.)
“The possibility of corruption is so much less,” MacDermid says of the federal campaign finance laws.
It's worth noting that the Coaliton for a Better Ontario came out on the side of the then-Mike Harris led Tories in 1999. Any connection between that organization and the Ontario Tories is unknown to this author, but just as troublesome if they existed.
MacDermid suggests the provincial Tories wouldn't complain if such a group were helping them, and he's likely right.
For Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty's part, however, he's naturally pleased with the current status quo.
“We’ve got a great system here,” McGuinty remarked. “There are so many different avenues for people to give expression to their opinion. I believe in a strong collision of ideas.”
Unfortunately for McGuinty, that isn't what's happening right now, and he knows it full well. What is currently taking place is that his party has organized an environment in which they and the third-party campaigns they themselves organized can gang up on the PCs, whose own hands are tied.
Under the watch of the Dalton McGuinty Liberals, Ontario's lax rules on third-party campaigning have become a bully pulpit from which they can unfairly dominate their opponents. It needs to be stopped at the earliest opportunity.
Showing posts with label Campaign finance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Campaign finance. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Friday, September 02, 2011
All Eyes on Elections Canada
How Broadbent Institute treated in wake of scandal will speak to impartiality, credibility of EC
Eventually, Elections Canada was bound to get it right.
In the wake of an appeal by the NDP, to its followers, to donate money to the fledgling Broadbent Institute -- a think-tank which is so fledgling that it hasn't even been incorporated yet, which prevents it from accepting donations.
The NDP came up with a very simple solution: accept the donations, made in the memory of the late Jack Layton, on the think tank's behalf, and hold it until the institute is incorporated.
This turned out to be contrary to the Elections Act. Not only was it illegal for the NDP to accept these donations on the Broadbent Institute's behalf, it was actually illegal for them to solicit the information in the first place.
To its credit, Elections Canada, which turned a blind eye to the electoral fraud committed by the Ruth-Ellen Brosseau campaign -- they submitted nomination papers to the Elections Canada featuring signatures that had been falsified -- got this one right. They advised the NDP that it was unlawful for them to accept these donations.
However, there is still much to be seen about how well Elections Canada can be trusted to treat the Broadbent Institute impartially. The NDP has very clearly demonstrated a direct relationship between itself and the Broadbent Institute.
This should prohibit the Broadbent Institute from registering as a third party at election time -- acting essentially as an extension of the party, and potentially allowing it to exceed election spending limits either at the national level, or in individual constituencies.
The NDP may wish to pretend that the Broadbent Institute is completely separate from the party itself. These recent events have exposed that notion for precisely what it is: pure bullshit.
It's with this in mind that Elections Canada would be required to reject any third-party application from the Broadbent Institute come the 2015 federal election.
Whether or not they actually will seems far from certain, and remains to be seen. Elections Canada can expect to be watched very closely when it comes time to make that decision.
Eventually, Elections Canada was bound to get it right.
In the wake of an appeal by the NDP, to its followers, to donate money to the fledgling Broadbent Institute -- a think-tank which is so fledgling that it hasn't even been incorporated yet, which prevents it from accepting donations.
The NDP came up with a very simple solution: accept the donations, made in the memory of the late Jack Layton, on the think tank's behalf, and hold it until the institute is incorporated.
This turned out to be contrary to the Elections Act. Not only was it illegal for the NDP to accept these donations on the Broadbent Institute's behalf, it was actually illegal for them to solicit the information in the first place.
To its credit, Elections Canada, which turned a blind eye to the electoral fraud committed by the Ruth-Ellen Brosseau campaign -- they submitted nomination papers to the Elections Canada featuring signatures that had been falsified -- got this one right. They advised the NDP that it was unlawful for them to accept these donations.
However, there is still much to be seen about how well Elections Canada can be trusted to treat the Broadbent Institute impartially. The NDP has very clearly demonstrated a direct relationship between itself and the Broadbent Institute.
This should prohibit the Broadbent Institute from registering as a third party at election time -- acting essentially as an extension of the party, and potentially allowing it to exceed election spending limits either at the national level, or in individual constituencies.
The NDP may wish to pretend that the Broadbent Institute is completely separate from the party itself. These recent events have exposed that notion for precisely what it is: pure bullshit.
It's with this in mind that Elections Canada would be required to reject any third-party application from the Broadbent Institute come the 2015 federal election.
Whether or not they actually will seems far from certain, and remains to be seen. Elections Canada can expect to be watched very closely when it comes time to make that decision.
Friday, April 01, 2011
An Alternative Reform of Campaign Finance
Harper plans to cut per-vote subsidies
With Prime Minister Stephen Harper continually reminding Canadians about the ill-fated socialist/separatist coalition then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion cobbled together in the wake of the 2008 election, no one needed a reminder.
But Harper sent just such a reminder today, when he announced that he would eliminate the per-vote subsidy political parties receive in the wake of an election.
"Taxpayers shouldn't have to support political parties that they don't support," Harper declared. "[It's] this enormous check that keeps piling into political parties every month, whether they've raised any money or not, that means we're constantly having campaigns. The war chests are always full."
Harper says that he plans to end the continuous threat of an election by cutting those funds off, leaving parties to fundraise on their own.
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff responded with a blatant fear-mongering attack.
"We have a democratic system at the right price -- it's economical, it creates a level playing field," Ignatieff declared. "If he wants to attack it he will face the resistance of all parties."
"Do you defend Canadian democracy or do you want to import American-style democracy into this country?" Ignatieff asked. "I don't think so, because you get big money, you get corruption, you get all the problems that bedevil American democracy."
If only it were so. Harper's bid to eliminate the per-vote subsidy does not, on its own, re-open the door for corporate or union money to reenter Canadian partisan politics, even if Elizabeth May -- far from a renowned constitutional scholar -- seems to think that it should.
If Ignatieff were wise, he would offer some kind of alternative reform to keep the per-vote subsidy alive.
He would begin by proposing that any party wishing to receive the per-vote subsidy must run candidates in a minimum of 75% or 80% of Canada's ridings. Right now, there is only one major party that doesn't do this: the Bloc Quebecois.
Frankly, federalist Canadians are offended that the Bloc Quebecois, a country that wants to break Canada apart, gets to make their pitch to do so on the taxpayer dime. Ignatieff would not only win the approval of Canadians by cutting the Bloc out, he would also restore his party's tarnished image as a stalwart of federalism.
Ignatieff would further propose that any party that wants to receive the per-vote subsidy elect their leaders through a primary election process.
As respected a Canadian journalist as John Ibbitson proposed this very idea in Open & Shut. While many adherents of Canada's opposition parties would likely denounce this kind of reform as "too American", it would actually make Canada's electoral politics far more democratic and responsive than they are today.
As Ibbitson himself notes, without the primary process, Barack Obama could have never been nominated for President, let alone could he have won. (Although the results of Obama's tenure cast doubt on whether this was actually for the best.)
It would be a simple choice for Canadian political parties: they could choose to be open and democratic, and be rewarded with public support, or they could choose to be insular and parochial -- and receive no such reward.
But Canadian voters should expect Michael Ignatieff to make no such proposal. He's too busy fear-mongering in the current election while accusing Stephen Harper of doing it.
So far as campaign finance reform goes, such an implicitly democratic reform is just a sweet, sweet dream.
With Prime Minister Stephen Harper continually reminding Canadians about the ill-fated socialist/separatist coalition then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion cobbled together in the wake of the 2008 election, no one needed a reminder.
But Harper sent just such a reminder today, when he announced that he would eliminate the per-vote subsidy political parties receive in the wake of an election.
"Taxpayers shouldn't have to support political parties that they don't support," Harper declared. "[It's] this enormous check that keeps piling into political parties every month, whether they've raised any money or not, that means we're constantly having campaigns. The war chests are always full."
Harper says that he plans to end the continuous threat of an election by cutting those funds off, leaving parties to fundraise on their own.
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff responded with a blatant fear-mongering attack.
"We have a democratic system at the right price -- it's economical, it creates a level playing field," Ignatieff declared. "If he wants to attack it he will face the resistance of all parties."
"Do you defend Canadian democracy or do you want to import American-style democracy into this country?" Ignatieff asked. "I don't think so, because you get big money, you get corruption, you get all the problems that bedevil American democracy."
If only it were so. Harper's bid to eliminate the per-vote subsidy does not, on its own, re-open the door for corporate or union money to reenter Canadian partisan politics, even if Elizabeth May -- far from a renowned constitutional scholar -- seems to think that it should.
If Ignatieff were wise, he would offer some kind of alternative reform to keep the per-vote subsidy alive.
He would begin by proposing that any party wishing to receive the per-vote subsidy must run candidates in a minimum of 75% or 80% of Canada's ridings. Right now, there is only one major party that doesn't do this: the Bloc Quebecois.
Frankly, federalist Canadians are offended that the Bloc Quebecois, a country that wants to break Canada apart, gets to make their pitch to do so on the taxpayer dime. Ignatieff would not only win the approval of Canadians by cutting the Bloc out, he would also restore his party's tarnished image as a stalwart of federalism.
Ignatieff would further propose that any party that wants to receive the per-vote subsidy elect their leaders through a primary election process.
As respected a Canadian journalist as John Ibbitson proposed this very idea in Open & Shut. While many adherents of Canada's opposition parties would likely denounce this kind of reform as "too American", it would actually make Canada's electoral politics far more democratic and responsive than they are today.
As Ibbitson himself notes, without the primary process, Barack Obama could have never been nominated for President, let alone could he have won. (Although the results of Obama's tenure cast doubt on whether this was actually for the best.)
It would be a simple choice for Canadian political parties: they could choose to be open and democratic, and be rewarded with public support, or they could choose to be insular and parochial -- and receive no such reward.
But Canadian voters should expect Michael Ignatieff to make no such proposal. He's too busy fear-mongering in the current election while accusing Stephen Harper of doing it.
So far as campaign finance reform goes, such an implicitly democratic reform is just a sweet, sweet dream.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Is Foreign Money Involved in the US Election?
United States Chamber of Commerce accused to accepting foreign funds
Speaking recently in advance of the United States midterm elections, US President Barack Obama is attempting a new tactic to stave off defeat:
He's insisted that the United States Chamber of Commerce is running attack ads funded by foreign money.
"We learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign sources," Obama announced. "Are you going to let special interests from Wall Street and Washington and maybe places beyond our shores come to this state and tell us who our senator should be?"
As it turns out, according to ABC News, there is truth to one of these claims, but not the other. The US Chamber of Commerce does, it seems, accept revenue from foreign companies and foreign affiliates. However, there seems to be no evidence that the US Chamber of Commerce is using those funds to pay for their political campaigning.
The Centre for Responsive Politics doesn't seem convinced by Obama and the Democrats' desperate attack.
"We have no idea if the Chamber or any 501(c) organization as defined by the IRS code, is taking foreign money for the purposes of playing politics," exmplained CRP spokesman Dave Levinthal. "Saying that that foreign money is actually going toward attack ads or any type of messaging in the political realm, you just don't know. It's speculation and nothing more."
For the Obama administration, it seems that the issue of foreign money is a manner to attempt to stir up discontent surrounding the Citizens United decision, which lifted restrictions on third-party election spending in the United States.
"The Chamber is throwing tons of money at these races and they haven't done that before and you can't disaggregate it," explained Dartmouth College Political Scientist Ronald Shaiko. "But the Chamber appears to be meeting the letter of the law in what they're doing. Plus, they've got plenty of money and they really don't need to be bringing in foreign money to be doing what they're doing."
To Shaiko's eye, however, there's little difference between outright electoral interference and the manner of lobbying considered more mundane by American standards.
"For over a decade now we've had the door open to foreign influence in the political process, policy process," Shaiko continues. "If we're equating political influence via lobbying with political influence via elections, I wouldn't want to draw the distinction."
But so far as an attempt to stir up discontent, Shaiko expects that this strategy will fail.
"This isn't going to help the White House win votes by doing this," he concludes. "They're grasping at straws."
Perhaps this is because the Democrats themselves have been accepting foreign money as well.
The Democrats have been found to have accepted $1.02 million from Political Action Committees linked to foreign companies.
"This is not foreign money per-se, but these PACs are certainly populated by people who work for foreign companies," explains Levinthal.
These groups have made their donations public via the Federal Election Commission. Meanwhile, the Democrats are demanding that the US Chamber of Commerce reveal its donor lists to the American public.
"All you have to do to clear up the questions is reveal who your donors are from," insists White House advisor David Axelrod. "It is an insidious, dangerous thing when people can contribute huge sums of money to run negative ads in campaigns and never confess or allow to their participation. It opens the door to all kinds of chicanery."
"Any interest group can write a $10 million check to try to defeat a candidate and no one will ever know exactly what their involvement was," Axelrod concludes.
Of course, one can just as easily defeat a candidate with thousands of small cheques -- foreign- or domestic-sourced -- as with one large one.
There's ample reason to suspect that the Democrats have received a large number of foreign donations and used them to fund their campaigns -- particularly small donations that don't need to be reported to the FEC.
Speaking recently in advance of the United States midterm elections, US President Barack Obama is attempting a new tactic to stave off defeat:
He's insisted that the United States Chamber of Commerce is running attack ads funded by foreign money.
"We learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign sources," Obama announced. "Are you going to let special interests from Wall Street and Washington and maybe places beyond our shores come to this state and tell us who our senator should be?"
As it turns out, according to ABC News, there is truth to one of these claims, but not the other. The US Chamber of Commerce does, it seems, accept revenue from foreign companies and foreign affiliates. However, there seems to be no evidence that the US Chamber of Commerce is using those funds to pay for their political campaigning.
The Centre for Responsive Politics doesn't seem convinced by Obama and the Democrats' desperate attack.
"We have no idea if the Chamber or any 501(c) organization as defined by the IRS code, is taking foreign money for the purposes of playing politics," exmplained CRP spokesman Dave Levinthal. "Saying that that foreign money is actually going toward attack ads or any type of messaging in the political realm, you just don't know. It's speculation and nothing more."
For the Obama administration, it seems that the issue of foreign money is a manner to attempt to stir up discontent surrounding the Citizens United decision, which lifted restrictions on third-party election spending in the United States.
"The Chamber is throwing tons of money at these races and they haven't done that before and you can't disaggregate it," explained Dartmouth College Political Scientist Ronald Shaiko. "But the Chamber appears to be meeting the letter of the law in what they're doing. Plus, they've got plenty of money and they really don't need to be bringing in foreign money to be doing what they're doing."
To Shaiko's eye, however, there's little difference between outright electoral interference and the manner of lobbying considered more mundane by American standards.
"For over a decade now we've had the door open to foreign influence in the political process, policy process," Shaiko continues. "If we're equating political influence via lobbying with political influence via elections, I wouldn't want to draw the distinction."
But so far as an attempt to stir up discontent, Shaiko expects that this strategy will fail.
"This isn't going to help the White House win votes by doing this," he concludes. "They're grasping at straws."
Perhaps this is because the Democrats themselves have been accepting foreign money as well.
The Democrats have been found to have accepted $1.02 million from Political Action Committees linked to foreign companies.
"This is not foreign money per-se, but these PACs are certainly populated by people who work for foreign companies," explains Levinthal.
These groups have made their donations public via the Federal Election Commission. Meanwhile, the Democrats are demanding that the US Chamber of Commerce reveal its donor lists to the American public.
"All you have to do to clear up the questions is reveal who your donors are from," insists White House advisor David Axelrod. "It is an insidious, dangerous thing when people can contribute huge sums of money to run negative ads in campaigns and never confess or allow to their participation. It opens the door to all kinds of chicanery."
"Any interest group can write a $10 million check to try to defeat a candidate and no one will ever know exactly what their involvement was," Axelrod concludes.
Of course, one can just as easily defeat a candidate with thousands of small cheques -- foreign- or domestic-sourced -- as with one large one.
There's ample reason to suspect that the Democrats have received a large number of foreign donations and used them to fund their campaigns -- particularly small donations that don't need to be reported to the FEC.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Hard Labour Ahead for Labour's Finances
Labour party 20 million Pounds in debt
The Labour party leadership won't be the only office the Labour Party will need to fill this year.
A far-more-quiet campaign has been ongoing to choose a new Treasurer for the party.
Lord John Prescott is running for that job, and he's dropped a bombshell: the Labour Party is at risk of going broke.
Prescott notes that Labour's 2010 election campaign was funded largely by a single billionaire donor, and that the party's finances have been degraded by a double squeeze on party finances.
One such squeeze is a declining party membership. The other squeeze is spendthrift party leadership.
"The treasurer has got to say to the central body, you cannot keep on spending, we haven't got it," Prescott insisted.
Moreover, Prescott has said that a strong leadership drive will be key to helping the party manage and retire its 20 million Pound debt.
"We want a strong treasurer who's involved in the membership drive, putting a proper financial account into the party," Prescott announced.
Moreover, Prescott noted the Labour party has frequently abandoned the organizational end of the party in favour of the political pursuit of power.
"The politics of organisation are equally as important as the politics of ideas," he added. "We forgot about the organization bit."
Prescott is promising to make badly-needed changes to the manner in which the party is funded and organized.
"You can go on if you like and just have somebody doing what's always been the way," he told the Labour party membership. "Well, we cannot continue to finance a political party in that way."
Nor can the Labour party afford to continue relying on a billionaire to finance their campaigns -- especially if some of its candidates intend to continue to relying on rich-versus-poor class warfare as part of their politics.
The Labour party leadership won't be the only office the Labour Party will need to fill this year.
A far-more-quiet campaign has been ongoing to choose a new Treasurer for the party.
Lord John Prescott is running for that job, and he's dropped a bombshell: the Labour Party is at risk of going broke.
Prescott notes that Labour's 2010 election campaign was funded largely by a single billionaire donor, and that the party's finances have been degraded by a double squeeze on party finances.
One such squeeze is a declining party membership. The other squeeze is spendthrift party leadership.
"The treasurer has got to say to the central body, you cannot keep on spending, we haven't got it," Prescott insisted.
Moreover, Prescott has said that a strong leadership drive will be key to helping the party manage and retire its 20 million Pound debt.
"We want a strong treasurer who's involved in the membership drive, putting a proper financial account into the party," Prescott announced.
Moreover, Prescott noted the Labour party has frequently abandoned the organizational end of the party in favour of the political pursuit of power.
"The politics of organisation are equally as important as the politics of ideas," he added. "We forgot about the organization bit."
Prescott is promising to make badly-needed changes to the manner in which the party is funded and organized.
"You can go on if you like and just have somebody doing what's always been the way," he told the Labour party membership. "Well, we cannot continue to finance a political party in that way."
Nor can the Labour party afford to continue relying on a billionaire to finance their campaigns -- especially if some of its candidates intend to continue to relying on rich-versus-poor class warfare as part of their politics.
Monday, August 09, 2010
The Hard Turn of Labour's Class Warfare
Abbott: New Labour "contaminated" by big money
As the Labour leadership campaign creeps closer and closer to balloting, candidate Diane Abbott is taking a new approach to her leadership bid:
Class warfare.
Some may recall that, as the 2010 general election approached, then-Labour leader (and then-Prime Minister) Gordon Brown tried to stir up class warfare sentiments when he targetted Tory leader David Cameron over his education.
Abbott has evidently decided to adopt the same tactic. The difference is that she's directing it within her own party, as opposed at a partisan opponent.
Her principle complaint is that some of her competitors have received far more campaign donations than she has. She declares this to be evidence that New Labour was "pretty much contaminated".
"It is odd that David Miliband has £400,000 and I have £5,000," Abbott complains. "He's got the big Blairite money and the big Blairite backers."
It's the kind of move that must lead one to question how serious Abbott is about her leadership bid.
After all, to be seen attempting to divide Britons at large against one another based on wealth is one thing. To be doing it within her own party is another entirely.
After all, election campaigns cannot be contested without money. Under Abbott's best-case scenario, in which wealth is a pervasive enough wedge issue to help her win the Labour leadership, she risks dividing the party membership against those most likely to donate to contest the next election.
The dangers of this stategy speaks for itself: a Labour Party under Diane Abbott's leadership isn't likely to progress any closer to power in a future election, but is likely to instead find itself further away.
Moreover, if Labour rewards Abbott's petty class warfare, it will deserve to be.
As the Labour leadership campaign creeps closer and closer to balloting, candidate Diane Abbott is taking a new approach to her leadership bid:
Class warfare.
Some may recall that, as the 2010 general election approached, then-Labour leader (and then-Prime Minister) Gordon Brown tried to stir up class warfare sentiments when he targetted Tory leader David Cameron over his education.
Abbott has evidently decided to adopt the same tactic. The difference is that she's directing it within her own party, as opposed at a partisan opponent.
Her principle complaint is that some of her competitors have received far more campaign donations than she has. She declares this to be evidence that New Labour was "pretty much contaminated".
"It is odd that David Miliband has £400,000 and I have £5,000," Abbott complains. "He's got the big Blairite money and the big Blairite backers."
It's the kind of move that must lead one to question how serious Abbott is about her leadership bid.
After all, to be seen attempting to divide Britons at large against one another based on wealth is one thing. To be doing it within her own party is another entirely.
After all, election campaigns cannot be contested without money. Under Abbott's best-case scenario, in which wealth is a pervasive enough wedge issue to help her win the Labour leadership, she risks dividing the party membership against those most likely to donate to contest the next election.
The dangers of this stategy speaks for itself: a Labour Party under Diane Abbott's leadership isn't likely to progress any closer to power in a future election, but is likely to instead find itself further away.
Moreover, if Labour rewards Abbott's petty class warfare, it will deserve to be.
Monday, March 29, 2010
What Are They Going to Do, Threaten A Coalition?
When Pierre Poilievre appeared on CTV's Power Play recently, host Tom Clark was notably disappointed when Poilievre mused about the Conservative Party taking on the opposition parties over per-vote political subsidies, then declined to announce they would table legislation in the house.
Clark may be less disappointed today, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office has confirmed that the Tories will campaign against per-vote subsidies during the next federal election.
This comes after opposition parties voted to end the privilege for MPs to mail ten percenters outside of their riding.
"The position of our government is clear. If all the parties wish to abolish this particular subsidy for mailings outside of an MP's own riding, of course this party would be delighted to do that. Of course, we would also like to see the $30-million direct tax subsidy to political parties abolished," Harper announced.
Some may recall that it was the Harper government's last move to eliminate the per-vote subsidy that led to the ill-fated Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition push. But with the coalition effective redudiated by Canadians, one may wonder precisely what the opposition would do about such an arrangement.
Interestingly enough, Tom Flanagan suggests that the per-vote subsidy should be replaced with some measure that would allow the opposition parties to receive a comparable level of funding.
"As much as I applaud that, there would be bound to be a backlash from that," Flanagan predicted. "The media would beat you up for deliberately bankrupting your competition and I think the blowback from that would be pretty intense, so if they are going to do it, they have to find some practical way of replacing at least a substantial portion of the lost revenue."
"It's hard to find an approach that would yield the amount of money that's equal to the subsidies unless you go back to some level of corporate donations or raising the level on individual donations," Flanagan continued. "The other one is a taxpayer check-off system, which is used in the United States."
For his own part, Minister of Democratic Reform Steven Fletcher doesn't seem to think that any replacement of the subsidy is necessary at all.
"We believe that the per-vote subsidy is not necessary, particularly in these tough economic times," Fletcher insisted. "People voluntarily donate to political parties in Canada. That's one of the problems with the per-vote subsidy, is that it's not a voluntary donation."
As Tasha Kheirddin points out, however, abolishing the per-vote subsidy would require the Conservatives to win a majority government.
"If the Conservatives fail to get a majority, this promise will be impossible to keep, as other parties will want to keep riding that public gravy train," Kheirridin writes. "And while this pledge may be a vote getter, it’s hard to see it as the defining issue of a campaign, with so many other things on the table."
Indeed, it seems unlikely that Canadians will grant the Conservative Party a majority government based on a $30 million budget line item.
But as much as the last desperate hold-overs from the pro-coalition crowd (those who have yet to realize the folly of dealing with a regressive separatist party) may hold out hope that Layton and Ignatieff will threaten a coalition again, or even try to pull it off, it's simply incredibly unlikely.
Other bloggers writing about this topic:
Walker Morrow - "Pro-active Voter Apathy. I Like That Strategy."
Chrystal Ocean - "Per-Vote Subsidy is Baaaack!"
Saturday, November 29, 2008
It's All About the ...Stimulus Package
Liberal/NDP coalition talks are all about the Benjamins
With the federal government having speculated that they will end a $30 million program subsidizing Canada's political parties to the tune of $1.97 per vote, Canada's opposition parties immediately started crowing.
The Liberals and NDP announced would defeat the government and attempt to form a coalition government. Many conservative commentators are calling it a coup d'etat. The National Post's Kelly McParkland has even called the arrangement a junta.
Of course, matters were very different just days ago when Parliament passed the throne speech despite the lack of an economic stimulus package in the government's prescribed program.
Then the government talks about cutting the subsidies received by each political party -- including itself. Now the Liberals and NDP are ready to defeat the government and try to form a coalition.
Anyone who honestly believes that this scheme really has anything to do with economic stimulus is a fool.
When the Conservatives first moved to cut these subsidies, there was a great deal of ambiguity related to their motives. Yet various partisans from the Liberals, NDP and Greens vocally accused the government of having devious intentions. Admittedly, those motivations are part and parcel of the government's own proposition.
The Tories have since backed off on the topic. But there's little news of the opposition preparing to back down.
With the talk of a Liberal/NDP coalition, there is no ambiguity. The Liberals and NDP want to protect their subsidies. The Liberals want to govern, and the NDP wants its first taste of federal power.
When the government mused about eliminating party funding from the federal budget, the opposition parties insisted that the government was being self-serving.
Whether or not this is true remains a significant question. If the government was being self-serving it deserves to be defeated and replaced. But while the case can be argued, it's far from certain.
But in the case of the proposed Liberal/NDP coalition government there is no uncertainty. The Liberals and NDP are being self-serving to the extent that they are set to help themselves to power that they have not won.
All the talk about a Liberal/NDP government is about money and power. Nothing more and nothing less.
With the federal government having speculated that they will end a $30 million program subsidizing Canada's political parties to the tune of $1.97 per vote, Canada's opposition parties immediately started crowing.
The Liberals and NDP announced would defeat the government and attempt to form a coalition government. Many conservative commentators are calling it a coup d'etat. The National Post's Kelly McParkland has even called the arrangement a junta.
Of course, matters were very different just days ago when Parliament passed the throne speech despite the lack of an economic stimulus package in the government's prescribed program.
Then the government talks about cutting the subsidies received by each political party -- including itself. Now the Liberals and NDP are ready to defeat the government and try to form a coalition.
Anyone who honestly believes that this scheme really has anything to do with economic stimulus is a fool.
When the Conservatives first moved to cut these subsidies, there was a great deal of ambiguity related to their motives. Yet various partisans from the Liberals, NDP and Greens vocally accused the government of having devious intentions. Admittedly, those motivations are part and parcel of the government's own proposition.
The Tories have since backed off on the topic. But there's little news of the opposition preparing to back down.
With the talk of a Liberal/NDP coalition, there is no ambiguity. The Liberals and NDP want to protect their subsidies. The Liberals want to govern, and the NDP wants its first taste of federal power.
When the government mused about eliminating party funding from the federal budget, the opposition parties insisted that the government was being self-serving.
Whether or not this is true remains a significant question. If the government was being self-serving it deserves to be defeated and replaced. But while the case can be argued, it's far from certain.
But in the case of the proposed Liberal/NDP coalition government there is no uncertainty. The Liberals and NDP are being self-serving to the extent that they are set to help themselves to power that they have not won.
All the talk about a Liberal/NDP government is about money and power. Nothing more and nothing less.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Questions of Tactical Brilliance Are Irrelevant
If this is about electoral strategy, then this is wrong
A recent move by the federal government to stop the flow of federal subsidies -- at a rate of $1.95 per vote received -- was bound to attract the outrage of Canada's opposition parties.
Even the staunchest supporters of the Conservative party have sufficient cause to wonder whether or not this is a strategic move on Harper's part.
Those who have subscribed to the notion of Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a power-mongering ideologue for whom winning a majority government is all-important, this makes sense. For those who see Harper as a principled conservative looking for a way to prevent unncessary spending during a time of economic crisis may be impelled to see the move as more of a symbolic move, akin to cutting the bonuses and expense accounts of MPs and government bureaucrats.
Some, however, can't seem to resist the urge to assess the strategic virtues of the move. In a Full Comment blog, Ian MacDonald muses on this very topic:
Not to mention the fact that Dion himself may insist on fighting this election. Should he force the party to remove him before the leadership convention, the blood on the floor of the Liberal party will almost certainly attract some sharks -- from both within the party and without.
Then again, there is still the other side of this issue -- the one that is actually more important.
The strategic virtues of this move are actually irrelevant. If this move is really about political strategy, then this move is just plain wrong -- and Canadians should judge and reject Stephen Harper and his party based on that.
A recent move by the federal government to stop the flow of federal subsidies -- at a rate of $1.95 per vote received -- was bound to attract the outrage of Canada's opposition parties.
Even the staunchest supporters of the Conservative party have sufficient cause to wonder whether or not this is a strategic move on Harper's part.
Those who have subscribed to the notion of Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a power-mongering ideologue for whom winning a majority government is all-important, this makes sense. For those who see Harper as a principled conservative looking for a way to prevent unncessary spending during a time of economic crisis may be impelled to see the move as more of a symbolic move, akin to cutting the bonuses and expense accounts of MPs and government bureaucrats.
Some, however, can't seem to resist the urge to assess the strategic virtues of the move. In a Full Comment blog, Ian MacDonald muses on this very topic:
"Had the Conservatives been returned with a majority in last month’s election they had every intention of cutting off public financing of political parties, and they would had the means and the muscle to do it over the howls of opposition protests. Now they’re doing so anyway, touting it as part of Ottawa tightening its spending in yesterday’s economic update.Of course, any snap decision in leadership will inevitably produce significant rifts within the Liberal party.
But all three opposition parties, who live on the Elections Canada annual subsidy of $1.95 per vote, were instantly outraged and will ferociously oppose it, which means if they defeat it in the House, the government will fall on a question of confidence.
And Stephen Harper said he was hoping for a more civility in the new House. Forget it, Prime Minister. This is a declaration of war. It’s tactically brilliant, but could prove fatally flawed. Harper does not want an election with the economy sliding into a deep recession and the government falling into a deficit. But he should not assume the Liberals will go into a snap election with Stéphane Dion as their leader. The Liberal caucus will not allow it, and would step in to elect either Michael Ignatieff or Bob Rae."
Not to mention the fact that Dion himself may insist on fighting this election. Should he force the party to remove him before the leadership convention, the blood on the floor of the Liberal party will almost certainly attract some sharks -- from both within the party and without.
"The move would save taxpayers about $27 million a year. That’s chump change in $200 billion of federal spending, nothing more than symbolic gesture of Ottawa doing its part. But for the opposition parties, it’s their lifeblood -- $7 million for the Liberals, $5 million for the NDP, $3 million for the Bloc Quebecois, and nearly $2 million for the Greens. The Conservatives get about $10 million based on their current 38% share of the vote, but are much less reliant on the public subsidy than the other parties -- last year the Conservatives raised $16 million on their own, four times as much as the Liberals.Which is precisely what one should expect from a party that wants to break up the country, and so can only fundraise in the portion of the country it wants to excise -- in this case, Quebec.
But it’s the Bloc Quebecois, the party that wants to break up Canada, that is the most reliant on the federal subsidy. While its provincial cousins, the Parti Quebecois, are worse than broke and went into the current Quebec election $800,000 in debt, the Bloc is flush with cash. The $6 million the Bloc would receive over the normal two-year life of a minority Parliament is more than 10 times what it would raise on its own."
"One of the reasons the PQ is effectively demobilized, as well as broke, is that many of its best people are on the Bloc or federal government payroll, in 49 parliamentary and riding offices. Like the NDP and the Liberals in the House yesterday, the Bloc screamed that the cuts to party allowances were an attack on democracy itself, although to all appearances democracy functioned quite well before parties were subsidized in the 2003 campaign finance reform, which banned corporate and union donations as the tradeoff for the public subsidy.And he's right -- they won't.
In the House yesterday, Harper replied to a fulminating NDP Leader Jack Layton that “protecting the entitlements of political parties is not going to do anything for the Canadian people.”"
"And here’s his closing argument in English-speaking Canada. Should the taxpayers of Canada finance the separatist movement? Answer: no.That is, provided that either Iggy or Bob can unite what will almost certainly be a very divided party behind them in time.
But Harper should also beware of what he wishes for. In the toxic atmosphere he has instantly created, his government could fall. And in the ensuing election, in a steep economic downturn, he could lose to either Iggy or Bob."
Then again, there is still the other side of this issue -- the one that is actually more important.
The strategic virtues of this move are actually irrelevant. If this move is really about political strategy, then this move is just plain wrong -- and Canadians should judge and reject Stephen Harper and his party based on that.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Triumphalism Interrupted
Obama campaign to Fish Griwkowsky: thanks a lot, jackass
With the 2000 and 2004 US Presidential elections having proven to be the crooked clusterfucks that they really were, it should be unsurprising that many observers -- both American and otherwise -- would be looking for a way to cast the results of the 2008 election in doubt.
In particular, those who supported John McCain. McCain had noted that people didn't know who was financially supporting Obama after Barack Obama's record-breaking fund raising haul.
CBS looked into Obama's fund raising, and revealed the gaping holes in the reporting of campaign donors, seemingly revealing the worthiness of McCain's concerns.
Then, enter Fish Griwkowsky, who has essentially all but confirmed them:
"I can safely say that there are people up in Canada who donated small amounts of money to Obama’s campaign. Good-looking folks who, instead of putting — say, er — my address, used a fake one in the States."Which, of course, would actually make Griwkowski's donation to Obama illegal, not being an American citizen and all. Not to mention extremely unethical.
After all, if American Republicans were caught donating money to a Conservative party campaign, Canadian left-wingers would be outraged at the interference in Canadian political affairs -- and rightfully so.
But when they themselves interfere in another country's politics, in favour of a candidate they support?
Well, one just assumes it's yet another case of "it's OK when we do it."
Monday, April 14, 2008
...And One Other Thing...
Maybe the Conservatives aren't "the party of big business" after all
In the closest thing that passes for a shocking revelation over at the Toronto Star, their editorial board has reviewed recently-released financial records from the 2007 Ontario provincial election and realized that corporations and unions donated almost as much money to the incumbent Ontario Liberals as the provincial Progressive Conservatives collected in total.
Their great conclusion? By golly, those big corporations sure do like to stay on the government's good side.
But the unspoken, actually more logical conclusion would probably be that maybe the Conservative party aren't such corporate toadies -- or at least not just the only party made up of corporate toadies.
But that kind of non-partisan honesty would probably be too much to ask for from the Toronto Star.
In the closest thing that passes for a shocking revelation over at the Toronto Star, their editorial board has reviewed recently-released financial records from the 2007 Ontario provincial election and realized that corporations and unions donated almost as much money to the incumbent Ontario Liberals as the provincial Progressive Conservatives collected in total.
Their great conclusion? By golly, those big corporations sure do like to stay on the government's good side.
But the unspoken, actually more logical conclusion would probably be that maybe the Conservative party aren't such corporate toadies -- or at least not just the only party made up of corporate toadies.
But that kind of non-partisan honesty would probably be too much to ask for from the Toronto Star.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Conservatives Should Be Wary of Their Rhetoric
Media martyrdom may make for good fundraising, but bad politics
With a 2008 election possibly in the cards, the Conservatives -- like all of Canada's political parties -- will need every dollar they can get their hands on.
Apparently, they're banking on outrage over the recent allegations of collusion between the Liberal party and the CBC. In a fundraising letter, Conservative party campaign director Doug Finley is urging Conservative party members to contribute whatever they can to help the party win what he predicts will be an uphill battle:
Needing money to overcome the machinations of a powerful media enemy may look good on a partisan fundraising letter, but it overlooks a number of basic political realities.
The Conservatives may be overestimating the value of money to a political campaign. Certainly, one can't mount a campaign without it, but masses of money doesn't guarantee political success. This is a lesson the Conservatives should have learned by now, having out-fundraised the Liberals since what seems like the dawn of time, the Conservatives have all too often come up short electorally.
First off, one has to consider the key differences between "earned media" and "paid media". Paid media consists of TV, radio and newspaper ads that are paid for by the party. Earned media consists of media exposure earned by releasing policy statements, criticising political opponents, or staging photo ops.
Earned media is infinitely more valuable than paid media, because earned media is what makes a party seem like it matters. A party that seems unnewsworthy by necessity also seems inconsequential. Being deemed insignificant is a political death warrant by any means.
Secondly, no amount of money can elect a candidate that is unlikable.
As Steven Levitt and Michael Dubner remind us, money can't force people to cast their ballot in favour of a candidate. In examining US congressional campaigns in which opponents ran against one another on consecutive occasions, Levitt and Dubner concluded that in some cases, 50% of money spent by a candidate could account for as little as 1% of their vote total.
Levitt and Dubner basically concluded that in elections, previously defeated candidates had a tendency to spend more money, while incumbents had a tendency to spend either the same amount, or less. However, despite expectations that the higher-spending candidates would at least perform better, voting patterns didn't always correlate to the amount of additional spending.
In short, money doesn't have quite the impact on politics that some imagine.
Even with Liberal fundraising figures languishing in the basement, the Conservatives are far from guaranteed to ski down mountains of cash and back into 24 Sussex Drive. In a future election they'll have to earn their way back into power.
If they want to do so, they'll need to earn media coverage, and control their message stringently enough to ensure that such coverage will be favourable.
Complaining about a hostile CBC and throwing money to the four winds is a recipe for electoral disaster.
The alleged collusion between the Liberals and the CBC is, indeed a serious matter. But milking this controversy for the purposes of fundraising may send a message to the Candian electorate that the Conservative party may not be altogether comfortable with.
To those in the know, it suggests the party may be out of touch with some basic political realities.
The Conservatives need to call a public inquiry into the collusion allegations, and let that matter take care of itself. Scrambling to raise money on the back of these allegations only makes the party appear weak and unable to conduct a political campaign in the media.
The Conservatives may inspire a windfall of fundraising cash with this issue, but they'll do themselves more favours by simply getting down to the business of conducting politics. That will involve dealing with the media including, inevitably, the CBC.
With a 2008 election possibly in the cards, the Conservatives -- like all of Canada's political parties -- will need every dollar they can get their hands on.
Apparently, they're banking on outrage over the recent allegations of collusion between the Liberal party and the CBC. In a fundraising letter, Conservative party campaign director Doug Finley is urging Conservative party members to contribute whatever they can to help the party win what he predicts will be an uphill battle:"Let's face the facts.In theory, the letter may bring in precisely the results one simply knows Finley is hoping for.
Running as a Conservative in Canada is never easy.
The Liberals have long benefited from the support of the country's most powerful vested interests. And the NDP has always been backed by the country's loudest vocal interests.
And now it has been revealed that representatives of the CBC – the CBC that you and I pay for with our taxes – worked with Liberal MPs to attack our Government's record on a House of Commons committee.
That's right. Former Liberal Cabinet Minister Jean Lapierre – now a journalist with the TVA network – told CTV Newsnet that questions posed by Liberal MPs in House Committee were written by the CBC."I knew all about those questions. They were written by the CBC and provided to the Liberal Members of Parliament and the questions that Pablo Rodriguez asked were written by the CBC and I can't believe that but last night, an influential Member of Parliament came to me and told me those are the questions that the CBC wants us to ask tomorrow."Lapierre's stunning revelations shocked me. And having listened to Canadians' feedback on talk radio and read their comments on the blogs I know they probably shocked you too.
-Jean Lapierre, CTV Newsnet, December 13, 2007
The CBC even admitted to Canadian Press that its behaviour in this instance was both "inappropriate" and "inconsistent" with the Corporation's policies and practices.
Sadly, this is not the first time our taxpayer-funded public broadcaster has found itself caught up in an embarrassing anti-Conservative controversy.
During the 2004 election campaign, it was revealed that CBC tried to stack a town hall-style meeting with Stephen Harper with people who were "scared, freaked out or worried about the Conservatives, the Conservative agenda or its leader."
And following our 2006 election victory the CBC publicly expressed "regret" after one its journalists was exposed using footage of Stephen Harper totally out-of-context and in a way that distorted the Government's position.
So what does this all mean?
In the coming weeks and months Canada could be headed into an election forced by Stéphane Dion's Liberals.
We may not have the support of the Liberals' powerful allies. (As Campaign Director, I can assure you that the CBC will not be writing Stephen Harper's questions for his debate with Mr. Dion). But we do have the support of people like you. Proud Canadians who work hard, pay their taxes and play by the rules.
I would ask that you make a contribution - $200 or $100 – whatever you can afford to ensure the Conservative Party has the resources it needs to take on the Liberal Party and its vested interest allies.
We will need all of the money we can raise in order to fight back with paid advertising, direct voter contact and candidate support when the Liberals - and their vested interest allies – begin to attack our record, our leader and our plans for Canada's future.
People like you are the backbone of the Conservative Party, the only party that stands up to the vested and vocal interests who so desperately want to go back. Please contribute today so we can keep Canada moving forward under the strong leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper."
Needing money to overcome the machinations of a powerful media enemy may look good on a partisan fundraising letter, but it overlooks a number of basic political realities.
The Conservatives may be overestimating the value of money to a political campaign. Certainly, one can't mount a campaign without it, but masses of money doesn't guarantee political success. This is a lesson the Conservatives should have learned by now, having out-fundraised the Liberals since what seems like the dawn of time, the Conservatives have all too often come up short electorally.
First off, one has to consider the key differences between "earned media" and "paid media". Paid media consists of TV, radio and newspaper ads that are paid for by the party. Earned media consists of media exposure earned by releasing policy statements, criticising political opponents, or staging photo ops.
Earned media is infinitely more valuable than paid media, because earned media is what makes a party seem like it matters. A party that seems unnewsworthy by necessity also seems inconsequential. Being deemed insignificant is a political death warrant by any means.
Secondly, no amount of money can elect a candidate that is unlikable.
As Steven Levitt and Michael Dubner remind us, money can't force people to cast their ballot in favour of a candidate. In examining US congressional campaigns in which opponents ran against one another on consecutive occasions, Levitt and Dubner concluded that in some cases, 50% of money spent by a candidate could account for as little as 1% of their vote total.
Levitt and Dubner basically concluded that in elections, previously defeated candidates had a tendency to spend more money, while incumbents had a tendency to spend either the same amount, or less. However, despite expectations that the higher-spending candidates would at least perform better, voting patterns didn't always correlate to the amount of additional spending.
In short, money doesn't have quite the impact on politics that some imagine.
Even with Liberal fundraising figures languishing in the basement, the Conservatives are far from guaranteed to ski down mountains of cash and back into 24 Sussex Drive. In a future election they'll have to earn their way back into power.
If they want to do so, they'll need to earn media coverage, and control their message stringently enough to ensure that such coverage will be favourable.
Complaining about a hostile CBC and throwing money to the four winds is a recipe for electoral disaster.
The alleged collusion between the Liberals and the CBC is, indeed a serious matter. But milking this controversy for the purposes of fundraising may send a message to the Candian electorate that the Conservative party may not be altogether comfortable with.
To those in the know, it suggests the party may be out of touch with some basic political realities.
The Conservatives need to call a public inquiry into the collusion allegations, and let that matter take care of itself. Scrambling to raise money on the back of these allegations only makes the party appear weak and unable to conduct a political campaign in the media.
The Conservatives may inspire a windfall of fundraising cash with this issue, but they'll do themselves more favours by simply getting down to the business of conducting politics. That will involve dealing with the media including, inevitably, the CBC.
Friday, June 02, 2006
Joe Volpe Gives Candy Back to Babies
I'd sure like these kids' allowances
Liberal leadership hopeful Joe Volpe has been busted.
Despite insisting that three $5,400 donations recieved from the children of exectuives of Apotex, a generic drug company, were perfectly legal, Volpe has chosen to return the controversial donations.
" They're kind of embarrassed about the controversy," Volpe said of the children's parents. "They had made a decision for very positive reasons and someone has turned it into something very negative."
And if you'll buy that, mr. Volpe also has a truckload of Apotex's new cure for the common cold that he can sell you -- slightly sneezed on.
In fact, Volpe has recieved $108,000 from current and former executives of the company, which under law, is prohibited from donating funds to a leadership race. While corporations are restricted from making donations, private individuals are not. So, if someone were to donate $5,400 in their children's names to a candidate they feel would be likely to reciprocate to their company, that would be perfectly legal.
...Or not. Under Elections Canada regulations, it is unlawful for individuals to willfully seek to circumvent election laws. While Volpe's lawyer sent NDP Member of Parliament Pat Martin a letter threatening to sue him for accusing Volpe of "a deliberate and well-orchestrated fraud on the Elections act donations limit rules." Martin has since retracted his statement and apologized. Perhaps rightfully so.
Yet, it would seem, if mr. Volpe has not himself tried to circumvent this law, has someone not sought to do it on his behalf? Namely, Apotex CEO Barry Sherman and president Jack Kay? Sherman donated $5,400 in the name of his 11-year-old twins and 14-year-old son. Kay donated in the name of his two children as well.
Of course, one could argue that perhaps the children donated the money out-of-pocket. Liberal party rules actually allow minors to participate in the party. They may be delegates at party conventions, provided that they can pay thousands of dollars in fees necessary to attend. Then again, one would expect that the children of Canada's richest would have one fuckload of an allowance -- certainly enough to cover these expenses.
This has been the story of the Liberal leadership race from the very beginning. In an effort to open the process to more "ordinary people", each candidate must pay a $50,000 fee. Notably, this was reduced from a previous $75,000 fee -- but one can easily question may many "ordinary people" are willing to mortgate their homes in order to enter a leadership race they could not win, in a political party that is predisposed to electing multi-millionaires and billionaires as their leader.
Curiously, Joe Volpe's website (www.JoeVolpe.ca), which is emblazoned with his campaign slogan: "Growth, Opportunity and Equality" has nothing to say about this controversy. As with all Liberal leadership candidates, his campaign slogan should read: "Hegemony of the rich, for the rich, by the rich."
Because that is precisely what this is. Joe Volpe and his Liberal bretheren certainly want this story to blow over quickly, mostly because of the parallels it could draw between them and the spectacularly unpopular and corrupt Bush administration in the United States. In a very similar fashion, corporate executives in the United States were able to gain influence with the president by soliciting donations from their friends, families and employees, then packaging them together to form donations that well exceeded the maximum permissable under American law, yet remained legal because they were essentially thousands of smaller donations. Corporate executives who were able to deliver $100,000 in packaged donations were dubbed "Rangers". Those able to deliver $200,000 in donations were dubbed "Pioneers". In return for delivering such a package of donations, American pharmaceutical executives were able to push through a national prescription drug program that would benefit the companies at the expense of the taxpayer.
This is transactional politics at its worst. And for a leadership candidate of a party that, during the 2006 election, accused Conservative leader Stephen Harper of accepting funds from U.S. President George W. Bush, this absolutely reeks.
There, is however, a ray of hope. The NDP have responded by proposing an amendment that would count the political donations of any minors against the contribution limits of their parents, an amendment that Treasury Board President John Baird has said the Conservatives are very receptive to.
Volpe, for his part, claims that while these donations don't violate the letter of the law, his decision to return them is due to his respect for the spirit of the law. Yet, someone could ask them why he accepted them to begin with, let alone why he waited until after tremendous public and media backlash to do this.
One can simply call it good old fashioned Liberal duplicity. Joe Volpe clearly doesn't care very much about Elections regulations -- he's certainly more than willing to accept money from those who don't care about them at all.
Liberal leadership hopeful Joe Volpe has been busted.
Despite insisting that three $5,400 donations recieved from the children of exectuives of Apotex, a generic drug company, were perfectly legal, Volpe has chosen to return the controversial donations.
" They're kind of embarrassed about the controversy," Volpe said of the children's parents. "They had made a decision for very positive reasons and someone has turned it into something very negative."
And if you'll buy that, mr. Volpe also has a truckload of Apotex's new cure for the common cold that he can sell you -- slightly sneezed on.
In fact, Volpe has recieved $108,000 from current and former executives of the company, which under law, is prohibited from donating funds to a leadership race. While corporations are restricted from making donations, private individuals are not. So, if someone were to donate $5,400 in their children's names to a candidate they feel would be likely to reciprocate to their company, that would be perfectly legal.
...Or not. Under Elections Canada regulations, it is unlawful for individuals to willfully seek to circumvent election laws. While Volpe's lawyer sent NDP Member of Parliament Pat Martin a letter threatening to sue him for accusing Volpe of "a deliberate and well-orchestrated fraud on the Elections act donations limit rules." Martin has since retracted his statement and apologized. Perhaps rightfully so.
Yet, it would seem, if mr. Volpe has not himself tried to circumvent this law, has someone not sought to do it on his behalf? Namely, Apotex CEO Barry Sherman and president Jack Kay? Sherman donated $5,400 in the name of his 11-year-old twins and 14-year-old son. Kay donated in the name of his two children as well.
Of course, one could argue that perhaps the children donated the money out-of-pocket. Liberal party rules actually allow minors to participate in the party. They may be delegates at party conventions, provided that they can pay thousands of dollars in fees necessary to attend. Then again, one would expect that the children of Canada's richest would have one fuckload of an allowance -- certainly enough to cover these expenses.
This has been the story of the Liberal leadership race from the very beginning. In an effort to open the process to more "ordinary people", each candidate must pay a $50,000 fee. Notably, this was reduced from a previous $75,000 fee -- but one can easily question may many "ordinary people" are willing to mortgate their homes in order to enter a leadership race they could not win, in a political party that is predisposed to electing multi-millionaires and billionaires as their leader.
Curiously, Joe Volpe's website (www.JoeVolpe.ca), which is emblazoned with his campaign slogan: "Growth, Opportunity and Equality" has nothing to say about this controversy. As with all Liberal leadership candidates, his campaign slogan should read: "Hegemony of the rich, for the rich, by the rich."
Because that is precisely what this is. Joe Volpe and his Liberal bretheren certainly want this story to blow over quickly, mostly because of the parallels it could draw between them and the spectacularly unpopular and corrupt Bush administration in the United States. In a very similar fashion, corporate executives in the United States were able to gain influence with the president by soliciting donations from their friends, families and employees, then packaging them together to form donations that well exceeded the maximum permissable under American law, yet remained legal because they were essentially thousands of smaller donations. Corporate executives who were able to deliver $100,000 in packaged donations were dubbed "Rangers". Those able to deliver $200,000 in donations were dubbed "Pioneers". In return for delivering such a package of donations, American pharmaceutical executives were able to push through a national prescription drug program that would benefit the companies at the expense of the taxpayer.
This is transactional politics at its worst. And for a leadership candidate of a party that, during the 2006 election, accused Conservative leader Stephen Harper of accepting funds from U.S. President George W. Bush, this absolutely reeks.
There, is however, a ray of hope. The NDP have responded by proposing an amendment that would count the political donations of any minors against the contribution limits of their parents, an amendment that Treasury Board President John Baird has said the Conservatives are very receptive to.
Volpe, for his part, claims that while these donations don't violate the letter of the law, his decision to return them is due to his respect for the spirit of the law. Yet, someone could ask them why he accepted them to begin with, let alone why he waited until after tremendous public and media backlash to do this.
One can simply call it good old fashioned Liberal duplicity. Joe Volpe clearly doesn't care very much about Elections regulations -- he's certainly more than willing to accept money from those who don't care about them at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)