3rd quarter fundraising stats
By the end of this week all the parties will have to publish reports on their fundraising in the third quarter (ie: July, August and September). Its interesting that last quarter (and maybe also in the first quarter) the Liberals were breathlessly leaking or pre-releasing their fundraising stats because they wanted to show that they had turned things around since the dark Dion days and were now raising lots of money. It was all part of their spin strategy that they were ready willing and able to have an election campaign and that thanks to Rocco Rossi they were back "in the money" etc...
So far we are almost at the end of the month and NOTHING from the Liberals about their fundraising. Could it be that they have no good news to report and want to bury their fundraising stats as much as possible? Let's also keep in mind that while the wheels started to come off the good ship Iggy in mid-September - most of the third quarter was a time when one would think that the Liberals were raking in lots of dough. If their fundraising showed any signs of drying up in the third quarter, imagine how hard a time the Libs will have raising money in the current fourth quarter (ie: October, November, December) now that their are way down in the polls and totally demoralized.
Comments
While I do not have the means of confirming this, I expect with the last quarters numbers for the NDP mean they are now comfortably in the black, they also have the party HQ which they can use as collateral, so it isn't a question of whether they can finance a campaign today. My question, or rather assertion, is that they dropped the ball in Q2 and I find the whole provincial-federal linkage argument wholly unsatisfactory and unconvincing. The LPC wasn't ready for a campaign either, Iggy's declaration aside. Nonetheless, when Iggy said "boo" the NDP went scrambling into the CPC camp- full hypocrisy on display. And really, I don't blame them. They were so poorly prepared for an election, that even the Liberals could call their bluff and they did.
Its not a question of being prepared or not for an election. The NDP could have had $20 million in the bank and all 308 candidates nominated and it still might not mean that right now is a good time to force an election that is clearly only going to mean another parliament virtually identical to the one we have now.
Stockholm sort of already said this, but its got nothing to do with money- for either the Liberals or the NDP. And you have been laying at least part of the problem on supposed money woes for the NDP.
And Iggy wasn't calling the NDPs bluff and expecting them to fold. He was driven by desperation to draw a line in the sand. They may have hoped the NDP would back off, but they could not expect that. Bottom line: in throwing the switch the Liberals were ready for it to go boom. And they did that because the position they were in looked worse than taking their chances with an election. [Who knew it could get even worse for them.]
Note how no matter what the Liberals do it goes badly for them: they cave all the time to Harper, and pay the price; so Iggy draws the line in the sand, and that goes badly; so Iggy says I guess not, and that goes badly too.
Layton and the NDP reversing themselves isn't admirable. But the reason they could do that and come out pretty much unscathed has everything to do with capital earned and accumulated before that.
I never liked making such a big deal of the Liberals as cowards. I suspect one reason it didn't backfire is that more or less unbeknowest to anyone I know of [myself included], people weren't really taking all those NDP jibes seriously.
If you mean out of debt: not yet.
And its more nuanced then being able to borrow enough money. Its a question of how much can be borrowed without seriously mortgaging what you can do 1,2,3 years later.
The Liberals have to be very careful. And in the 2008 election they pulled the plug on all important late campaign advertising buys at the point where they were projected for a debt of only $1-2million. That means they walked away from spending $4million for not being able to prudently risk a further $2million in campaign debt [the rebate does the doubling].
They appear to be not quite that bad off any more. The reason they couldn't risk any more debt in the last campaign is because they went into that campaign not being able to meet normal operating costs. They seem to have corrected that now, but it remains to be seen whether they can sustain this year's pace. [Because the recovery is dependent on large donations that can't be sustained, while they are still weak in the smaller donations that are inherently sustainable.]
The NDP can borrow more than the Liberals without endangering future financing, but there's still a line far short of what the banks are willing to loan.
My question, or rather assertion, is that they dropped the ball in Q2 and I find the whole provincial-federal linkage argument wholly unsatisfactory and unconvincing.
I don't. And I'm surprised an economist would get so transfixed by the numbers for a quarter or two. In fact, if you look at the numbers, the 2nd quarter was comparable to last year's ... it was the 1st quarter that was down. And considering that they didn't actively fundraise until after June 10 ... that's not too bad at all.
In the federal council's shoes I would not have wanted to do anything to jeopardize the changes of one or both of a provincial win in BC and Nova Scotia, and anything that could be done to strengthen the Ontario and Saskatchewan provincial sections is also vitally important to the federal party's interests.
Remembering that there is a recession going on out there, and it's hurting our folks a LOT, I think the federal party's performance is really pretty strong all things considered. The fact that they could keep their cool while the entire media piled on, first in the Iggy honeymoon, and then in the Liberals' effort to deride the NDP's change in strategy; well I think the staff at the centre should be given a whole lot more credit for keeping their heads while all around were losing theirs.
Also, on the number of candidates nominated ... wouldn't you rather it were done slowly and carefully, after last time? No need to let panic over short-term metrics dictate sensible longer-term strategy, right? Isn't that part of what killed the banks and everyone else?
The numbers are out:
http://punditsguide.ca/2009/10/parties-post-strong-q3-results-across.php
I just did a comparison of stacking revenues against expenses for the Liberals and the NDP.
The normal non-election operating expenses are remarkably stable year to year. Thats even true for the GPC, and for all of them despit the fact that their revenues vary greatly year to year, and that debt producing elections might come anytime.
When you add together the 4 quarters of the public subsidy funding, with the 3 quarters of the fundraising that we know, for the Liberals that is enough to cover their more or less fixed expenses for the whole year. Parties at a minimum have to produce some degree of normal operating surpluses to be able to finance campaigns. The Liberals problems in 2006 and 2007 is that they were falling short even of that minimum- that was being corrected during 2008, while the hapless Dion was still leader.
For this year the Liberals will be able to put all of their fourth quarter fundrasing to surplus.
But the same comparison, the NDP even with its below average year of fundraising, has already produced revenues of at least $1million, probaly closer to $1.5M, surplus over expenses. So the NDP will also have all of the 4th quarter fundraising for surplus, plus another $1 to $1.5million.
So, the "thrifty NDP" makes their dollars go further, you're saying? I did notice that the NDP convention cost $300 to attend, while the Liberal one cost about $1000. I guess they have less overhead too, since they don't have to finance a whole regional infrastructure.
And the Liberals get no discernable value out of those regional bureaucracies. I have seen no evidence they do any more on the ground organizing than the NDP does.
My sense is that they are a product of the internal politics of petty patronage/loyalty empire building, and of the bygone days of bagmen fundraising largesses that supported this plump edifice. And that once these administrative structures are entrencehed they defend their turf with the usual tenacity of bureacracies. [And the term 'turf battle' tends to soften the brute reality that the stake is whether or not individuals and groups have jobs and sinecures.]
While the Liberals do finally seem to be getting a foundation in a small donor base, that is still going pretty slowly. Its no coincidence that the bloated administrative structure they have would be comparatively better at the inherently episodic nature of beating the bushes for the few larger donations- at least until they reach the bottom of that barrel and/or exhaust the administrative structure from all the treadmill running. While building your capacity in smaller donations takes disciplined and sustained organization.... something the bloated regional fiefdoms don't work well with.
There were some discussions about this on punditsguide.ca when the second quarters were released, and the much trumpeted 'pre-releases' by the Liberals.
I noted then that if anything, the Liberals had started 'underclaiming'.... and would stop public hyping their results. So I wouldn't read anything into them not 'pre-releasing' now'.
That said, there were even then plenty of indications that the Liberals were not going to be able to keep up the pace... and that the 3rd quarter was likely to be no better than OK.
I would point out the Bloc did awesome this quarter and did a pre-release so it seems like if you do, do amazing you pre-release those numbers.
I wonder how the NDP will do with 3rd quarter fundraising. There would have been a lot of money coming in due to all the convention fees from Halifax and also the federal party would have been able to start asking for money in BC and NS due to those election ebing out of the way.
I thought you were going to follow that up with the double play, on words, "Iggy Pop". As in: "the good ship Iggy Pop" instead of "the good ship lollypop"
Or would it have been a triple play?
As we also have a combined land and sea metaphor mixing.
Anyway great sentence imagry.
I think that history will record that the ultimate metaphor for when the wheels came off Michael Ignatieff was in late Sept. 2009 when his nickname in the media evolved from being "Iggy" to being "Iffy".
I thought the honeymoon was over in mid-June actually, when he gave that disastrous news conference, and the Press Gallery started counting the numbers of times he said I, me and my during a scrum. Then he disappeared all summer. I'm guessing there was not much fundraising going on besides Rocco Rossi's cayak trip up the Rideau Canal (he was asking for pledges of $23 dollars if you'll recall, and put himself on the front of the Liberals' website).
Ya but stock, that downgrade to Iffy, works too for, "Iffy Pops", as in "Jiffy Pops". :D
I had forgotten that OO.
NDP Scores Big Hike in 3rd Quarter Fundraising
According to data provided exclusively to punditsguide.ca, the NDP is reporting its best ever non-election third quarter fundraising results, at $1.08M from 13,655 donors.
The party's best-ever 3rd quarter came during last year's federal election campaign ($1.89M from 18,297 donors). Its previous best third quarter in a non-election year came in 2006, when it raised $796K from 13,297 contributors.
The NDP's third quarter performance goes most of the way to making up for its below-average performance in the first half of 2009, when the federal party withdrew from direct-ask fundraising in favour of four of its provincial counterparts with provincial elections or leadership conventions on the go. The third quarter also included the party's August national convention in Halifax, which raised convention fees of around $300 dollars per regular delegate.
The return has been filed with Elections Canada, but has not yet been posted to the EC website. Only the Bloc Quebecois return for Q3 is currently available there.
Thanks to the NDP for making this information available. And other party wishing to do the same, can always drop us a line.
NEW DEMOCRAT THIRD QUARTER DONOR REPORT
Today the New Democratic Party of Canada tabled its third quarter returns for 2009 with Elections Canada.
2009 3rd Quarter Highlights:
• 2009 represents the best non-election third quarter for the Party to-date.
• The New Democrats received $1,077,005 from 13,655 donors.
• On dollars raised, this is a $481,394.51 increase from the first quarter and a $365,736.54 increase from the second quarter.
• On number of donors, 3,351 more donated in the third quarter than in the first, while 2,484 more donated than in the second
It's time to drop the vote subsidy. The parties have had sufficient time to adjust to losing corporate and union donations. Never understood that one, corps and unions can't vote. The parties have gone back to the people for their cash flow so they no longer need taxpayer welfare.
In the overall scheme of things the amount of money it costs the government to subsidize parties is negligible - but it helps level the playing field for parties whose supporters aren't as rich.
Another solution might be to drastically lower the limits on what parties are allowed to spend during campaigns maybe from the current $20 million to about $7 million and maybe while we are at it - why not bar all partisan advertising outside of formal election campaign periods.
It might also be nice to bring in laws to stop governing parties from spending vast amounts of tax dollars on ads that are thinly veiled partisan ads asking people to support whoever is in power.
The biggest taxpayer welfare is the generous tax credits: where the biggest chunk of party fundraising is 75% paid by taxpayers. And guess which party gets half of all that?
The NDP can say what they like. Their 2nd quarter fundraising was disgraceful and they have NO valid excuse. All of the other federal parties had provincial elections and leadership races of their own and they didn't sit around picking at their belly lint like the NDP did.
It wasn't just the fundraising that the NDP dropped the ball on in the second quarter. They also didn't nominate any candidates. When 3rd quarter rolled around they were still in the red and had a whopping 13 candidates nominated! No wonder they discovered a new passionate love for Harper's EI bill. Oh yes, the NDP got $1 billion. Well, maybe the should keep working on their official opposition understudy role as the Liberals got $6 billion for their support. These party press releases are an insult to babblers' intelligence.
Jara I don't understand your point. The NDP provincally and Federally are linked, while none of the other parties are. That is a fact and something we were going to debate at convention but a bunch of people got their undies in a twist over a name change motion that wasn't going to pass anyway and ran the clock out on us moving forward as a party to discuss policy.
Read the rest of you post Jara the point seems lost on you that those "changes" the Liberals "got" were all Harper campaign promises. Don't make me laugh. "The Liberals got Harper to do what he promised to do in 2006 and 2008 and what he has been talking about from 2004 onward" Ohhhhhhhhhh good job Iffy.
Ohhhhh yah how can I forget they got a blue ribbon plannel in the summer to discus how to implement EI for the self employed another Harper promise. They got a panel to discus how to make a Harper promise a reality. Ohhhh Liberals you are lost. Stop reading Liberal spin they would tell you they got the sun to come up in the morning and they put the fish in the Atlantic if they thought you would believe them.
Based on the third quarter numbers quoted here. The average is about $100 per donor. Not bad. The issue is that the number of people donating to the ndp is small, where as the cpc has roughly the same average but many times as many donors. I believe since the averages are roughly the same then the problem is that the message is not strong enough to resinate with supporters to open their wallets. Since unionized jobs typically are higher than non union and there are how many unionized workers in this country say 1.2 million and if you use past election results that means 190,000 voted ndp (which would be extremely low in this demographic). Why are these higher paid people not bucking up $100 each to support their cause. That's at a minimum of $19 m which would put them on par with the cpc. plus these donors would also get the same 75% tax break, so for a $25 actual dollar cost the ndp would have a substantial war chest. The message must be wrong
NDP voters tend to make much less money than Conservative supporters. Why else do you think that NDP ridings tend to be places like Winnipeg North or Vancouver East that have the lowest household incomes in Canada, while Tories tend to win in filthy rich places like Oakville and Calgary Southeast etc...While unionized workers might make a bit more than non-unionized workers doing the exact same job that they do - that doesn't take into consideration all the mostly Tory voting people whith super high paying jobs like being currency traders, and used car dealers, real estate developers, loan sharks, bankers, factory owners etc...The Tories probably also get money from tightly organized fundamentalist churches where every Sunday these Rev. Phelps type preachers tell people that if they don't "tithe" to the Tory party, they will burn in Hell.
It wasn't just the fundraising that the NDP dropped the ball on in the second quarter. They also didn't nominate any candidates. When 3rd quarter rolled around they were still in the red and had a whopping 13 candidates nominated! No wonder they discovered a new passionate love for Harper's EI bill. Oh yes, the NDP got $1 billion. Well, maybe the should keep working on their official opposition understudy role as the Liberals got $6 billion for their support. These party press releases are an insult to babblers' intelligence.
Apparently the NDP stance didn't bother Canadians since support went up after we decided to stop the Liberals from sending the country off a cliff by forcing a fall election.
With regard to candidate nominations, its a bit of a tightrope to walk. Most prospective candidates who have anything to offer don't want to run for an election that may be years away and until Iggy's stupid Sudbury pronouncement, the conventional wisdom was that there was no chance of an election until 2010 (and cw ended up being right). The Tories gave the appearance of having their act together with nominatiosn because back in May, Haroer sent out a decree that all 143 Tory incumbents were automatically renominated - presto. Unfortunately, the NDP follows something call DUE PROCESS and Layton doesn't have the power to just renominate all 37 NDP MPs with the stroke of a pen. There have to be nomination meetings.
I don't know what your point is about being "in the red". No kidding, all the parties were in the red after everyone had to borrow millions to have a fully funded election campaign a year ago. If you think that all you have to do is press a little button on a console and millions of dollars miraculously come pouring in from donors think again. Even in the most ideal of curcumstances, it will a year or two to pay off debts from an election campaign.
How much have you donated to the NDP in the 2009 V. Jara? Have you hit the maximum $1,100/year mark yet? Or do you expect other nameless faceless people to give money while you give nothing and then you complain when not enough of them do it.
Another solution might be to drastically lower the limits on what parties are allowed to spend during campaigns maybe from the current $20 million to about $7 million and maybe while we are at it - why not bar all partisan advertising outside of formal election campaign periods.
It might also be nice to bring in laws to stop governing parties from spending vast amounts of tax dollars on ads that are thinly veiled partisan ads asking people to support whoever is in power.
Here, here!
We should also have more debates during elections. I'd like to see the party leaders debate 5 times during an election. A debate once every week in both languages would be enlightening.
Personally, I think the winning party, should not receive the subsidy at all.
They get to campaign between elections on the tax payer's dime, while the other parties do not.
Thus the subsidy would be levelling the playing field for the opposition parties who do not get to waste tax payer dollars on endless campaigning between elections.
I can say that in Saskatchewan there are not that many currency traders, used care dealers, real estate developers etc. Most are just hard working people and not alot of the so called fundlementalist church goers. I do a lot of fund raising for our local EDA and I see the demographic profile of the donors. They are far from the image the left portrays. Very few people ever donate the max of the $1,100 to the EDA or the $1,100 to the federal party. It is not the rich or wealthy that fund the party it is the average Jack and Jill with 40 hour work weeks, the small business owner with 2 - 5 employees or the retired person. The average donation is $100 bucks maybe in a year. It is simply the volume of donors. The average income in Saskatchewan is well below that of most large cities, yet people donate why? They believe in the message.
Get rid of the subsidy and make the parties and supporters more responsive to the funding requirements of their party. Stop the entitlement.
It's time to drop the vote subsidy. The parties have had sufficient time to adjust to losing corporate and union donations. Never understood that one, corps and unions can't vote. The parties have gone back to the people for their cash flow so they no longer need taxpayer welfare.
But IIRC the CPC are only interested in going after one sector and not the one they benefit the most from.
Another solution might be to drastically lower the limits on what parties are allowed to spend during campaigns maybe from the current $20 million to about $7 million and maybe while we are at it - why not bar all partisan advertising outside of formal election campaign periods.
Criticise the NDP on their 13 candidates and low 2nd quarter fund raising.
Should the government fall the NDP appears ready and have demonstrated the ability to mobilize and raise funds in short order. Perhaps it was the arrogance of the LPC in believing their own press clippings, perhaps it was that they under estimated the NDP. Perhaps it was that the LPC looked downwards instead of up.
The LPC can raise fundraise and appoint candidates. Nothing changes the fact that the LPC have strategically moved themselves from a party of contention, to one that is 14% behind the CPC.
This is hardly a time to be troubled over the NDP. The NDP polling numbers are solid, and far better then the intention of the LPC to drive them below 10%.
The LPC did a fall gamble and Ignatief fell flat on his face. Lucky for the LPC there is no election.
Personally, I think the winning party, should not receive the subsidy at all.
They get to campaign between elections on the tax payer's dime, while the other parties do not.
Maybe not a bad idea, considering the CPC believe they are giving out the money to infrastructure spending and not my taxes.
I agree Madmax, there should be zero influence or back door donations from the corporate or union world, union also buy blocks of tables etc. to ndp sponsored events. There is no tax receipt issued, but I bet it is written off as corp. or union business expenses. I believe and I can be corrected on this that the executive board table of the ndp has two seats that are guaranteed to a union organization, in Sask I believe it is the SFL at the table. I know that provision is not part of the CPC or LPC where the business community is guaranteed seats at the board table. All voting members should elect directors and there should not be any segmentation of voters or officers. Some are more equal than others.
Only individual Canadians can vote so why should any organization have an influence on a political party or provide funding. The 10%ers should be abolished I agree, I get them all the time from MP's of other parties that do not represent my riding. It is a waste of taxpayers dollars just like the subsidy.
Just so I am clear on this.
Someone votes and $1.95 of my taxes is spent.
But if someone gives $100 to a political party, the government spends $75 of my taxes?
If someone spends $1000 to a political party, the government spends $600 of my taxes subsidies?
Exactly how many times can that one person who donates VOTE?
ONCE! Therefore the most effective option of saving the taxpayer would be to eliminate the tax credit for those with money to donate.
Madmax - do you donate to a political party? How about you chesterdrawers? Just curious.
It wasn't just the fundraising that the NDP dropped the ball on in the second quarter. They also didn't nominate any candidates. When 3rd quarter rolled around they were still in the red and had a whopping 13 candidates nominated! No wonder they discovered a new passionate love for Harper's EI bill. Oh yes, the NDP got $1 billion. Well, maybe the should keep working on their official opposition understudy role as the Liberals got $6 billion for their support. These party press releases are an insult to babblers' intelligence.
Insult to babblers intelligence? Glass houses maybe?
I have addressed both of these points when you have made them previously [at different times].
While it might look like the other parties are in the same boat, they are not, and I already corrected you on this.
There are either no links at all, or only very weak links, between the Cons and Libs and the various parties in SK, BC, and NS. In no case in any of those is there any deference on fundraising. The only linkage that can be considered to have some strength is between the federal and NS provincial Liberals. And last year, as every year, the NSLP raised an absolute trifle from individuals- we're talking something like $100,000, no kidding. So you know the LPC didn't defer to them. In short: you are flat out wrong.
And the NDP is not broke, unable to fully finance a campaign now, or any of that. Dark arts master Warren Kinsella started that circulating, and you sucked it up. As I also explained earlier, part of the way the NDP finances punching above its financial weight is that it runs large operating surpluses when there is no election. Unlike the Liberals, who have such bloated sustained operating costs that they have to peddle like mad just to brek even. Which means, also unlike the Liberals, the NDP can plan on a substantial post campaign debt, since it can pay that down quickly. In other words, being $3-4 million in debt after a campaign is the norm [for the Liberals, it would be a financial calamity and albatross]. The weak fundraising for the 1st and 2nd quarters just mean that it will take a little longer to pay down the debt. But the NDPs financial fundamentals are so strong that it means they can turn around and finance another election at the same level as the last one, even if as is is the case now, the debt of the last election is still there. Again, very much unlike the LPC.
For what its worth, the NDP results are now online at the Elections Canada site. Stockholm referred above to them previously being available on punditsguide.ca.
The Liberals results are still not up. They have to be available on October 31. Don't know if they can be uploaded during the weekend.
Yes I donate, about $100 a year and $200 when there is an election. After the rebate it costs me $25 to $50. The best part of this is that it treats everyone equally and parties have to earn the donation not through some sort of entitlement like a subsidy.
Actually I'm ok with the removal of the rebate. Get rid of the subsidy, political parties should be funded by their supporters not taxpayers. In the big scheme of things the subsidy is not large, but a nickel there and a nickel here soon ads up to a buck. This money would be better spent on existing social programs. If the message resonates with more people then more money will come the party's way. If it doesn't resonate then the message is not what people want. The subsidy gives more money to some parties than they raise in donations, their own supporters won't even buck up. Take a look at the Bloc or Green numbers.
Another point, back in 1988 when the PC's message started to not resonate with their supporters; donations and support out west flowed to the Reform party, no subsidy was needed, infact the Reform party didn't qualify for the tax credit for quite a few years and money still flowed in. It's the message that brings in money, particularly with the new rules. If the message is worth it to you then put your money where your mouth is and do not have others pay for it.
Based on the third quarter numbers quoted here. The average is about $100 per donor. Not bad. The issue is that the number of people donating to the ndp is small, where as the cpc has roughly the same average but many times as many donors.
Chester, what do you make of this:
News Release
Global Integrity 2008 Report Drops Canada From "Strong" to "Moderate" Level in World's Most Detailed Assessment of Government Integrity and Democracy
Donations, Gifts and Lobbying Loopholes, Secrecy, Lack of Merit-Based Appointments Process, Arbitrary Election Calls, Lack of Judicial and Senate Accountability and Weak Enforcement Agencies the Key Problems with Canada's Federal Government
And this:
Taped Raitt talk reflects poorly on Liberals
Cash-strapped party said to have been influenced by bankers, CEO
And it's a good thing the Saskatchewan Party is no longer accepting $10,000 dollar donations from the likes of Imperial Tobacco, like they admitted to in 2003. It's the cash that our two old line big business and banking parties don't admit to accepting that I'm worried about.