Liberals at it again

7 posts / 0 new

Mon, 2009-03-23 22:26

Chester Drawers

How is this possible? How can they contribute to his campaign account when he is in surplus?

Here are excerpts from an email from incoming Liberal Party president Alfred Apps:

As you may know, we are doing the annual Leader's Dinner for 1,000 people at the Royal York in 10 days, on April 1. Purdy Crawford, Frank McKenna, Belinda Stronach, David Peterson and Jean Augustine are the Honourary co-chairs. I think the event is going to be sold out.

Those who pay $1,100 per seat are entitled to (a) a premiere table location, (b) admission to the VIP Reception preceding the Dinner and (c) an automatic Laurier Club membership (which includes the ability to attend the upcoming Vancouver convention for free).

Those who pay only $500 per seat are able to attend the dinner only.

Each donor/purchaser can donate up to $2,200, paying up to $1,100 by cheque or credit card to the Liberal Party of Canada and $1,100 to the "Liberal Party of Canada (Michael Ignatieff)". The Ignatieff Campaign account is in surplus and any surplus automatically reverts to LPC under the Elections Act.

Tue, 2009-03-24 04:16

KenS

It might be technically OK to do thgis quietly on a few case ad hoc basis.

But even then, Elections Canada could easily dissalow it.

And advertsing it is, well, stupid.

You could get away with advertsing that people can make max donations to the LPC and to the Buctouche Liberal EDA. And you could blatantly have them all thinking or whisper to them what the EDA might choose to do with the donation. But that is not what was done here. [And EC staff in such a case might still dissalow the EDA donation... leaving you with the burden of proof this is is not an attempt to circumvent.]

I'm inclined to think this is a deliberate attempt to see what they can get away with rather than "just stupid".

I'v been looking for a while now at how the Green Party has been "pioneering" with the boundaries of riding campaign spending limits.... over several campaigns now.

What the LPC is doing here is a little more transparent. But the principle is the same: the worst that happens from pushing the limits is you get told you can't do it and get a little wrist slap. More likely, odds in your favour you'll get away with it. And next time, you push the boundary a little further.

Tue, 2009-03-24 04:16

KenS

It might be technically OK to do thgis quietly on a few case ad hoc basis.

But even then, Elections Canada could easily dissalow it.

And advertsing it is, well, stupid.

I'm inclined to think this is a deliberate attempt to see what they can get away with rather than "just stupid".

I'v been looking for a while now at how the Green Party has been "pioneering" with the boundaries of riding campaign spending limits.... over several campaigns now.

Tue, 2009-03-24 04:33

KenS

Interestingly, when Apps talks to the Globe about this, the fact individuals can only donate $1100 comes in.

Yes, someone may have corrected him. I think not. Rocci knows where the lines are and didn't leave Apps to free lance.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090324.wignatieff24/BNStory/politics/home

Tue, 2009-03-24 07:57

Bookish Agrarian

Why is there an Iggy leadership campaign account when there is no campaign and there never was one in the first place?

Tue, 2009-03-24 09:44

KenS

Short answer:

because the 2006 campaign debts were until recently still being paid off [and still are for the majority of the contendors] it is legitimate and expected that the Iggy leadership campaign still exists as a real entity.

This use of it Apps is suggesting is another story.

Tue, 2009-03-24 23:01

ottawaobserver

Well also Ken there was a 2009 leadership campaign underway at one point, and in fact Bob Rae put down his $50K deposit barely a week before he withdrew again, and had to raise money to pay it off.

So, I believe it's the 2009 leadership account the email was referring to. Meaning Bob Rae and Dominic LeBlanc would have had them too. Hmmm.