babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Why is Bay Street donating to not just Mulcair, but Topp, and possibly others?
OBVIOUS CONCLUSIONS
1) The NDP is no longer seen as toxic to business. (Some may even think that a more equal economy would grow faster.)
2) Some Bay Street Liberals hate the Conservatives enough to support the New Democrats.
3) Some Bay Street Liberals actually feel comfortable with the NDP. Afghanistan, Climate Change, Childcare... You name it.
PROBABLE CONCLUSIONS
4) Rich executives are donating to the individual candidate who is "the least of the evils" (in their eyes). If the NDP has a shot at governing, may as well pick someone like Topp or Mulcair, who seems "reasonable".
5) Individual donors have found common ground with an individual politician on an individual issue. (The blog does note that CanWest has been strongly pro-Israel.)
LESS PLAUSIBLE CONCLUSIONS
6) Conservatives are trying to sabotage the NDP from within by supporting the least electable candidate.
7) Lobbyists hope a few $500 and $1000 donations will counter the hundreds of thousands of other small donations from progressives.
8) Due to the exchange rate, the neoliberal conspiracy that costs a billion dollars in America only costs 2500 bucks in Canada.
9) Space aliens sucked out their brains and flipped the "hate socialism" switch to "love social democrats".
Okay, that's it. 24 hour vacation for you.
Nicky, I dont thing the blog article is written well. But I dont think at all its pointing the finger at 'Jewish financiers'. It is pointing the finger at taking money from arch-Zionists- which it is no question Schwartz and Reisman are. So thats fair game. While you bringing in Zundel is something I think you should apologize for. You could always claim ignorance about what extreme 'everything Israel does is fine' figure Schwartz and company are.
SDM, did you read what I said about what political operators Schwartz and company are?
They are not our friends does not begin to cover it.
For myself- the taking of money from Israel lobby figures is questionable, but even considering the already existing quesions about Mulcair and Israel, not the worst of it.
But Schwartz and company are in very tight with Harper Crew. So it's really basic- what the fuck does Tom Mulcair think he is doing?
OK, nicky has already got a time out for this. But lest anyone think he has been hard done by- read the short blog your self, and see if you see anything that warrants Nicky's suggestion about what the blogger said or implied.
Again, I'd like to point out, what is a self-declared environmentalist doing taking money from uber environment destroyer Barrick Gold?
Yeah, I agree that the "general case" of Liberal defectors isn't going to apply to them, the same way it might apply to other Bay Street supporters of Mulcair/Topp.
I think the "middle" explanations I offered probably fit the best.
Actually, what's notable about the Anthony Munk connection is that it apepars to be him and only him, to the exclusion of any other director or executive with Barrick Gold.
From this thread
Anyways, it does create some doubts for me. As far as public figures go, those donors are not exactly my faves...
Btw, it's amazing how defensive some of the Mulcair supporters on babble get at times. Even as a Mulcair supporter, I'd rather know the facts about him and the campaign now, rather than after the race. Kind of like how Dewar supporters need to know that his French is totally unacceptable.
I don't find the post anti-semitic. The word Jew is not mentioned once in the blogpost, only Israeli, and this in the correct political context. The conspiratorial element is a turn-off. I would comment more, but I am tired of giving Brian Topp ammo for negative campaigning. If he wants advice he is welcome to ask for it.
I seem to recall that Topp got some Bronfman dough if that means anything. I guess these things take money so it's only natural to go to those that have it right?
"BREAKING", or whatever you want to add to this informative post.
I was looking for some kind of coordinated campaign. The business community is extremely well connected, and if these guys are all donating on the same day you can bet your bottom dollar that they all sit and meet regularly on some organization.
I googled around, trying to find a "line of best fit". That is, I tried to find an article (other than Rabble) that mentions as many names in the article as possible.
I didn't find a Bay Street or Corporate connection.
But I did find this, which I offer without comment:
http://www.charityfocus.ca/en/pages/charitysummary.aspx?charityid=138445...
You'll notice the directors include:
SETH MERSKY
ANTHONY MUNK
GERALD W SCHWARTZ
what are mulcair or topp supposed to do, return the few hundred bucks? what planet are we living on where we find it odd that the front-runners to become leaders of official opposition would get a few bucks tossed their ways by the odd plutocrat? these people at the top always work that way, trying to grease their way to have their concerns heard, and that. if you're wondering about whether topp or mulcair would curtail their agendas because of a few hundred dollars in campaign donations, i don't think you have to worry.
also - the moderating here is getting ludicrous. it's so heavy-handed, bordering on obstructive. it seems like there's a moderator intervening every few posts, for reasons that often seems small and mysterious, with the effect that there are very few conversations that occur without some violent lurch of moderation. you two should chill out and let people call each other out if there's an issue, rather than structuring every single discussion. very boring.
nicky got banned for personal attacks, that happened to be directed at a moderator. It's not rocket science.
I will try to pop in here around 1pm (4pm EST) to catch up on and contribute to this discussion.
How is that Mulcair can have broad appeal a bad thing? Whether you like these people or not, they are entitled to participate in the democratic process. You should be happy that Mulcair can garner such support. It shows that he is a strong candidate who could bring the NDP to a majority goverment.
I specifically said "money from pro-Israeli rich people, not such a big deal" [to me even].
But I also said, these are people in very tight with the Harper Cons- one of their boys is currently the Harper Chief of Staff. And you bet that after they finish loaning him, whiz kid will back at Onex.
A lot of people cghoose not to notice that, to say 'not such a big deal' to the weakest points, as if they are the only ones.
Same vein, it isnt that Mulcair took a bunch of contributions from the biggest players in the country. Its their politics.
Doesnt it strike people as just maybe a tad 'inappropriate' to be taking money from very wealthy people in tight with the HarperCons? Not merely also contributors to the Cons, which would noty be too unusual... but in tight with Harper. Google irt and see for yourself.
"So what that he has 'broad appeal" does not even beging to say what a wave off this is.
I'll go checking eventually, but I guarantee that you will not find Schwartz and Munk distributing money among leadership candidates. It isnt uncommon for rich people to spread it around, but you arent going to be seeing it this time.
Schwartz and Munk both gave $500 each in December to Mulcair only.
Highly likely they have given more since- reporting period only went to year end.
If I get time I'll scan his contributors for other maes I recognize. Ithe list is for all contributors to all candidates. The EC database is clunky and I've forgotten how to sort on it for Mulcair contributors only.
The issue here isn't so much that Mulcair accepted the donations as that the donors thought that it was in their interests to support Mulcair. And these donors are not people with the NDP's best interests at heart.
It seems to me that there are two plausible reasons that they could be donating to Mulcair:
1) They want to prevent an NDP government, and think Mulcair would be less likely to beat Harper than some other candidates, or
2) They think an NDP government is a serious possibility, and want that government, if it does come to power, to be led by the person who is least likely to actually implement the NDP's policies in government.
Either possibility should raise serious concerns about the prospect of making Mulcair leader.
I do have a question for the people who actually think this is a legitimate story, which donors exactly should the campaigns be turning away? If there was some kind of definition to this concern trolling it would be a lot easier to tell if any of the candidates can pass this particular purity test.
This is completely specious. I have no idea whether or not they've given more (and neither do you) they didn't max out last year so there is no reason to asume they're dedicated to giving Mulcair the maximum they can.
KenS I can respect because at least he's admitting this is a one candidate witch hunt.
First of all, this piece is by no means exhaustive. It is very much a preliminary investigation. I think TheArchitect lays out pretty well the reason that NDP members should consider this carefully.
Well yeah, I see "Bay Street" and I tend to think the latter. I wonder how much that was the intent.
What led me to look more closely at who was supporting Mulcair was indeed his position on the Middle East. As it happens, I had a chance to ask him a few questions about his record on this file after his town hall meeting in Vancouver on Monday evening. Basically he just repeated one talking point that he adhered to NDP policy on the issue, but he would not answer anything specific - whether he opposed Operation Cast Lead in 09, or what his views were on the ongoing blockade of Gaza.
I was interested to see if any well known supporters of what I would call a pro Israel lobby in Canada were on his list. I did not expect to see a name like Gerry Schwartz on there - as soon as I saw that I suspected there was a bigger story here. Onex Corporation is arguably the biggest player on Bay Street. Their CEO and 4 of 8 (by my count) managing directors donated to Mulcair all around the same date. A basic follow up question for journalists covering the leadership race would be to ask if Mulcair held a meeting in Toronto or elsewhere with Schwartz, Onex or with other colleagues.
Oh my god Sloth, what the hell are you on about?
Someone speculated that maybe they did the common practice of rich people spreading the money around.
Nope. Only to Mulcair. And I just wanted to note that was $500 as of year end when the reporting period ended. There could easily be more.
What's 'specious'? If it confuses the issue, then leave it at they gave $500 apiece to Mulcair.
I am not actually suggesting that Mulcair somehow should not be allowed to take these donations -- just to be clear. I do think, however, that it speaks volumes about how his candidacy is perceived by some of the most influential players in corporate Canada. Establishment figures always have an interest in exerting influence on the leaders of both government and opposition. That has certainly been the history with Schwartz. His presence on an NDP donors list is fascinating to me. But NDP members should consider the full implications here.