M. Spector
rabble-rouser-for-life
Member: 9273
Joined: Feb 19 2005

Brad Lavigne wrote:

Moreover, the offer to provide subsidies of "other items" leaves open the possibility that such delegates might end up paying all or a portion of their Convention fees (which are considered a contribution under the Elections Act) with money that is not theirs. This would be a breach of Section 405.3 of the Elections Act, which states "No individual shall make a contribution to a registered party, a registered association, a candidate or a leadership contestant or a nomination contestant that comes from money, property or the services of any person or entity that was provided to that individual for that purpose." Again, in such a circumstance the Party would be exposed to the risk of issuing tax receipts to such delegates that they would not be entitled to receive.

This is nonsense, of course.

Funds provided to a delegate "to defray the travel, lodging, food and other costs" (to use Lavigne's words) are not funds provided for the purpose of paying Convention fees, and thus do not attract the provisions of Section 405.3 of the Elections Act, contrary to Lavigne's claim.

 


Dana's NDP Convention Report By: Dana Larsen (105 replies) August 25, 2009 - 1:54am
  • Coyote wrote: Extreme By: Unionist (Aug 25 2009 - 5:11pm)
  • I think all people should be By: kropotkin1951 (Aug 25 2009 - 5:10pm)
  • Ken Burch wrote: And is that By: Pogo (Aug 25 2009 - 5:09pm)
  • I was talking about the By: Ken Burch (Aug 25 2009 - 5:03pm)
  • Honestly, Coyote, whatever By: Catchfire (Aug 25 2009 - 5:00pm)
  • Extreme hostility? From By: Coyote (Aug 25 2009 - 4:54pm)
  • As an outsider, I'd have to By: Ken Burch (Aug 25 2009 - 4:51pm)
  • Dana, I have no clue how you By: Unionist (Aug 25 2009 - 4:41pm)
  • Dana, thank you for your By: ennir (Aug 25 2009 - 3:36pm)
  • Re: Dana's NDP Convention Report By: Dana Larsen (Aug 25 2009 - 2:14pm)
  • I've watched COPS a couple By: Polunatic2 (Aug 25 2009 - 12:52pm)
  • He states that he was not By: remind (Aug 25 2009 - 12:49pm)
  • You seriously think it is By: Coyote (Aug 25 2009 - 12:39pm)
  • Quote:I know this much: I By: Dana Larsen (Aug 25 2009 - 12:30pm)
  • M. Spector wrote: Some By: Unionist (Aug 25 2009 - 12:25pm)
  • Dana explaining the videos By: Coyote (Aug 25 2009 - 11:56am)
  • Have you looked at his By: remind (Aug 25 2009 - 11:40am)
  • I am singling out for By: Coyote (Aug 25 2009 - 11:13am)
  • You are obviously singling By: M. Spector (Aug 25 2009 - 11:06am)
  • I think it is obvious that By: Coyote (Aug 25 2009 - 10:34am)
  • But you haven't explained By: M. Spector (Aug 25 2009 - 10:12am)
  • I'm saying that I would want By: Coyote (Aug 25 2009 - 10:04am)
  • Are you suggesting that Dana By: M. Spector (Aug 25 2009 - 9:53am)
  • SO not what i meant. I mean By: Coyote (Aug 25 2009 - 9:44am)
  • Coyote wrote: I know this By: M. Spector (Aug 25 2009 - 9:37am)
  • Dana Larsen wrote:The NDP is By: M. Spector (Aug 25 2009 - 9:35am)
  • I know this much: I would By: Coyote (Aug 25 2009 - 9:33am)
  • Brad Lavigne By: M. Spector (Aug 25 2009 - 9:26am)
  • Thanks for the report Dana, By: remind (Aug 25 2009 - 9:16am)
  • thanks Unionist - what I By: janfromthebruce (Aug 25 2009 - 8:55am)
  • The snipets of debate I By: Caissa (Aug 25 2009 - 7:34am)
  • Quote:13. A motion may be By: Unionist (Aug 25 2009 - 7:26am)
  • And to be the "devil's By: janfromthebruce (Aug 25 2009 - 7:05am)
  • Thank you so much for this By: Unionist (Aug 25 2009 - 6:36am)
  • Re: Dana's NDP Convention Report By: Dana Larsen (Aug 25 2009 - 2:16am)