Check out this blog and discuss.
Issues Pages:
Is Bay Street backing Thomas Mulcair?
Fri, 2012-02-24 11:44
#1
Is Bay Street backing Thomas Mulcair?
Fri, 2012-02-24 11:46
#2
Two donors? This is thin gruel even for a blog post.
Fri, 2012-02-24 11:50
#3
Just a part of the "renewal" process.
Fri, 2012-02-24 11:51
#4
Actually, four major Bay Street players are mentioned by name and a number of Onex Corp. executives are mentioned as having donated as well.
Fri, 2012-02-24 11:55
#5
So what?
[url=http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/02/02/bay-street-ponies-up-for-topp-... of Topps biggest donors came from Bay Street[/url] and were clearly giving as part of a coordinated campaign.
I didn't realize that warranted it's own attack thread.
Fri, 2012-02-24 11:58
#6
There's a difference between Bay Street Lawyers and very wealthy corporate executives. Not to excuse Topp, and I think it's a reasonable line of attack on him too, but this is a legitimate concern about Mulcair.
Fri, 2012-02-24 12:05
#7
This isn't an attack thread. Its purpose is to provoke discussion. Not every bit of information critical of Mulcair - or any other leadership candidate for that matter - is an attack. Framing criticism as such is an often-used attempt to shut down debate.
Fri, 2012-02-24 12:06
#8
There's a difference between Bay Street Lawyers and very wealthy corporate executives. Not to excuse Topp, and I think it's a reasonable line of attack on him too, but this is a legitimate concern about Mulcair.
It would be if there was a candidate in the race who would have refused any of those cheques, but that's silly. Campaign finance law is awful but it's the system we are going to have to run under. If you start turning away people because they don't pass a purity test we won't even be able to afford yard signs.
Fri, 2012-02-24 12:07
#9
What's the most reasonable conclusion to be drawn from these donations to Mulcair (or Topp, or others, for that matter)? I'm curious as to what babblers think it means.
Fri, 2012-02-24 12:09
#10
Well, the title of the blog is a little misleading. It looks to me like the blogger is making connections between Mulcair and powerful members of the pro-Israel lobby - who usually support the Libs and Tories - giving credence to the claim by some that Mulcair will take the party to the right.
Fri, 2012-02-24 12:14
#11
Catchfire
I don't know, Unionist. Capitalists will back any horse they think has a chance at winning. Actually, they will back all horses they think have a chance at winning, so if you happen to have a horse in this race, putting too much into this revelation could come back to bite you.
However, given Mulcair's views on Israel, Heather Reisman's involvment might raise a few eyebrows (ETA. This should only indicate, if anything, that some pro-Zionists may perceive him as an ally). We might also ask how so many executives at Onex came to donate to the campaign on the same day. I don't know enough about campaign donation politics to know if this is irregular or not, but to an innocent such as myself, it looks sketchy.
ETA: @DSloth. It's the title of the blog post. Why don't you answer the allegations instead of looking for a) conspiracy theories and b) misdirecting babblers to another campaign?
Fri, 2012-02-24 12:14
#12
This isn't an attack thread. Its purpose is to provoke discussion.
Riggght, you guys even broke out the [url=http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cavuto]Cavuto [/url] for this one.
Fri, 2012-02-24 12:15
#13
What's the most reasonable conclusion to be drawn from these donations to Mulcair (or Topp, or others, for that matter)? I'm curious as to what babblers think it means.
It means not being enemies with the country's Official Opposition, esp. as it edges toward being a possible Govt.;
plus the fact that there are many individuals whose vote/political opinions do not correspond to their income level (eg big-city liberals generally, Soros type non-conformists, )
Fri, 2012-02-24 12:19
#14
ETA: @DSloth. It's the title of the blog post. Why don't you answer the allegations instead of looking for a) conspiracy theories and b) misdirecting babblers to another campaign?
What allegation? That if you search through the 600+ Mulcair donations you could find a handful of people who you can twist into something sinister. No campaign with hundreds of donors could pass that test.
Fri, 2012-02-24 12:21
#15
Boom Boom
I don't know what it means. No rich folk have ever given me anything. Maybe I should be a politician and roll in the dough.
Fri, 2012-02-24 12:25
#16
About 13% of Topp's campaign donations come from lawyers. While there are a few downtown Toronto firms well-represented (none of which represent the kind of power of a Munk or a Schwartz/Reisman), I don't think an Osgoode Hall prof. counts as Bay Street big bucks. And anyway, what is an environmentalist doing taking money from the director of one of the world's biggest and most oppressive polluters - Barrick Gold Corp/?
Fri, 2012-02-24 12:26
#17
Riggght, you guys even broke out the [url=http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cavuto]Cavuto [/url] for this one.
Ha! Haven't heard that one. But it's so true. Of course, it could just be called, "The Fox," since all their "hosts" do that.
Fri, 2012-02-24 12:33
#18
Catchfire
ETA: @DSloth. It's the title of the blog post. Why don't you answer the allegations instead of looking for a) conspiracy theories and b) misdirecting babblers to another campaign?What allegation? That if you search through the 600+ Mulcair donations you could find a handful of people who you can twist into something sinister. No campaign with hundreds of donors could pass that test.
Or c) belittle and minimize.
Fri, 2012-02-24 12:33
#19
Riggght, you guys even broke out the [url=http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cavuto]Cavuto [/url] for this one.
Ha! Haven't heard that one. But it's so true. Of course, it could just be called, "The Fox," since all their "hosts" do that.
If you guys are quite finished congratulating each other on how witty you are, perhaps you'd like to actually discuss the blog and its implications.
Fri, 2012-02-24 12:46
#20
Okay, you have finally convinced me of what Ernst Zundel couldn't - that there is an international Zionist- banker- Free Mason -Bolshevik conspiracy to control the world and that Thomas Mulcair was one of the rabbis in the Prague Cemetary.
Fri, 2012-02-24 12:49
#21
There's a difference between Bay Street Lawyers and very wealthy corporate executives. Not to excuse Topp, and I think it's a reasonable line of attack on him too, but this is a legitimate concern about Mulcair.
It would be if there was a candidate in the race who would have refused any of those cheques, but that's silly. Campaign finance law is awful but it's the system we are going to have to run under. If you start turning away people because they don't pass a purity test we won't even be able to afford yard signs.
If we were discussing donations in a US race, pointing out who donated to who is hardly controversial. We'd also all assume such donations would indicate a lot about the agenda of the candidate. Apparently somehow in all of politics, Mulcair is immune to this issue of where his money comes from.
The "purity test" question is always a red herring, especially in many of these debates. I'd say going after Mulcair because he was a Liberal is pointless and alienating to other progressives. Here's a scenario for you: Should the NDP downplay of reduced it's vocal support for homosexual rights because it may be able to better attract socially conservative religious voters who support wealth redistribution like many conservative Catholics? You can never truly avoid a purity test though, it's just where you cross the line.
Fri, 2012-02-24 12:52
#22
[url=http://imageshack.us/f/523/foxnews152b.jpg/]Ha! Haven't heard that one. But it's so true. Of course, it could just be called, "The Fox," since all their "hosts" do that.
![http://imageshack.us/f/523/foxnews152b.jpg/]](http://imageshack.us/f/523/foxnews152b.jpg/]){kind=link}
You ain't kidding[/url] but Cavuto really deserves his own neologism like Santorum and I don't think "All Out Civil War in Iraq: Could it be a Good Thing?" will ever be topped.
If you guys are quite finished congratulating each other on how witty you are, perhaps you'd like to actually discuss the blog and its implications.
If there was any substance to the blog it wouldn't have needed to resort to the Cavuto. It would have been "Thomas Mulcair Backed by Bay Street" followed by evidence distinguishing his campaign from the others. This just reads like someone spent hours trawling through one candidates donors looking for anything to write about.
Fri, 2012-02-24 12:56
#23
If we were discussing donations in a US race, pointing out who donated to who is hardly controversial.
True, but let's put things in perspective. In the US you have billionaires like the the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson and George Soros giving MILLIONS of dollars to their preferred candidates. In Canada you are a high roller if you write a cheque for $500!
Fri, 2012-02-24 12:58
#24
Didn't Mother Teresa take money from just about anyone for good causes? Feel free to use it in response to any questions regarding the corporate backing of NDP candidates.
Fri, 2012-02-24 12:59
#25
I thought at first people were jumping on something pretty thin. And I think that the title is actually misleading. It makes a general reference to 'Bay Street' even though the author himself siad he did nt make a comprehensive analysis of donors.
And he probably does not know the same thing was tossed out about Topp, as has been noted. In Topp's case it predominately lawyers from a few firms. If you looked into it, my guess is that the personal connection to Brain Topp is from his role on the board(s) on labour venture funds, from being a credit union exec, and maybe entertainment industry lawyers.
Those are all traditional sources of fund raising for the NDP. There are not a lot of places where the NDP can find a density of maximum level donors. That's some of them. And it comes as no surprise that Topp has those connections, even though he may never have done much dedicated fundraising for the NDP, even for short stints.
Fri, 2012-02-24 12:59
#26
Those donors of Mulcair's are horses of another colour. I dont think the author of the blog himself realizes how tapped into the HarperCons Shwartz, Reisman and their crowd now are. They even contributed their whiz kid Onex genius as Harper's current Chief of Staff.
It is utterly impossible that Mulcair is not intimately aware of those connections. And it does not take any conspiracy theory notions to asses why they are contributing to Mulcairs campaign. They are long time Liberal players who ditched the Libs for the Conservatives because Harper Crew is more fulsomely supportive of everything Israel wants.
And throw in a dash of anti-union pointyness- that's Gerry Schwarz.
Fri, 2012-02-24 13:00
#27
Catchfire
Okay, you have finally convinced me of what Ernst Zundel couldn't - that there is an international Zionist- banker- Free Mason -Bolshevik conspiracy to control the world and that Thomas Mulcair was one of the rabbis in the Prague Cemetary.
Implying that other babblers are anti-semitic purveyors of Jewish or Zionist conspiracy theories, along with the other stereotypes you've lumped in there, is against babble policy. If you continue to attempt to shut down arguments this way, you'll be taking a break from babble. You and DSloth have given a clinic in this thread so far.
Fri, 2012-02-24 13:03
#28
Cross posted with some others.
I hope its clear that these are not just any very top corporate execs.
Fri, 2012-02-24 13:09
#29
My sense is that it may be personal connections (I had one with my former Tory MLA... great guy... different politics) or that they see a potential prime minister and hope to influence. It's all speculation.
But it's rather silly to take two or three donations out of several hundred and make a story about it.
I will say that someone who stepped down from cabinet over the issue of handing provincial parklands to private developers probably won't be influenced by a donation of $500 from someone...
Oh, don't forget... Mulcair eats babies too. And kittens are for dessert.
Fri, 2012-02-24 13:12
#30
Catchfire, I would have thought that you, as a neutral moderator, might have been concerned about the stereotypes on the other side of the question. You know, the ones suggesting that Mulcair is controlled by Jewish financiers.
You seem so zealous in unearthing stereotypes it seems odd that you have missed this one.
Fri, 2012-02-24 13:12
#31
There is absolutlely no comparison on scale of money in politics to south of the border- where even a modest mid level Congressional race soaks up multiple millions every 2 years, per candidate- all 800 some odd of them. Compared to a ceiling here of under $100,000, of which 2/3 of races do not reach.
In Canada its not really much about buying influence. Its more what is said about the company being kept.
And at a minimum, how much sense does it take to know that A few thosand dollars from Shwatrtz and coming is very likely to cost you in the NDP? I've been saying for a long time that Mulcair is the opposite of careful. People are ready on a regular basis to excuse his generalities on commitments because he is being cautious.
Cautious about making any kind of commitment what he'll do, yes.
Fri, 2012-02-24 13:14
#32
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".
Fri, 2012-02-24 13:16
#33
Catchfire, I would have thought that you, as a neutral moderator, might have been concerned about the stereotypes on the other side of the question. You know, the ones suggesting that Mulcair is controlled by Jewish financiers.
You seem so zealous in unearthing stereotypes it seems odd that you have missed this one.
Okay, that's it. 24 hour vacation for you.
Fri, 2012-02-24 13:17
#34
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.
Fri, 2012-02-24 13:19
#35
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.
Fri, 2012-02-24 13:23
#36
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?
Fri, 2012-02-24 13:29
#37
Catchfire, I would have thought that you, as a neutral moderator, might have been concerned about the stereotypes on the other side of the question. You know, the ones suggesting that Mulcair is controlled by Jewish financiers.
You seem so zealous in unearthing stereotypes it seems odd that you have missed this one.
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.
Fri, 2012-02-24 13:31
#38
Again, I'd like to point out, what is a self-declared environmentalist doing taking money from uber environment destroyer Barrick Gold?
Fri, 2012-02-24 13:41
#39
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.
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.
Fri, 2012-02-24 13:43
#40
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.
Fri, 2012-02-24 13:44
#41
From this thread
Spin this Mulcair supporters:
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/derrick/2012/02/following-money-bay-street-backing-thomas-mulcair
I was willing to give Mulcair a certain benefit of the doubt, but this isn't very helpful.
That article creates doubts, kind of like Brian Topp's fundraiser at the Empire Club and with Bay Street Lawyers caused me worry that the lobbyists are already getting to him, but it doesn't prove anything. For one, if you look at Mulcair's record he has actually voted against those donors interests. In the case of the Barrick Gold exec, Mulcair voted in favour of the Corporate Accountability of Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations in Developing Countries Act, which Barrick strenuously opposed. With the exception of the unsourced, unattributed Mulcair quote about being "an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances," (which means what exactly?) Mulcair has always spoken in favour of a two-state solution with Canada returning to its "honest broker" role.
Anyways, it does create some doubts for me. As far as public figures go, those donors are not exactly my faves...
Fri, 2012-02-24 14:20
#42
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.
Fri, 2012-02-24 14:26
#43
NDPPFrom this thread
Spin this Mulcair supporters:
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/derrick/2012/02/following-money-bay-street-backing-thomas-mulcair
I was willing to give Mulcair a certain benefit of the doubt, but this isn't very helpful.
That article creates doubts, kind of like Brian Topp's fundraiser at the Empire Club and with Bay Street Lawyers caused me worry that the lobbyists are already getting to him, but it doesn't prove anything. For one, if you look at Mulcair's record he has actually voted against those donors interests. In the case of the Barrick Gold exec, Mulcair voted in favour of the Corporate Accountability of Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations in Developing Countries Act, which Barrick strenuously opposed. With the exception of the unsourced, unattributed Mulcair quote about being "an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances," (which means what exactly?) Mulcair has always spoken in favour of a two-state solution with Canada returning to its "honest broker" role.
Anyways, it does create some doubts for me. As far as public figures go, those donors are not exactly my faves...
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?
Fri, 2012-02-24 14:54
#44
"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
Fri, 2012-02-24 14:54
#45
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.
Fri, 2012-02-24 15:04
#46
Let me get this straight, he got some donars from pro Isreali rich people? Whoopy do.
Call me when a real issue pops up.
Fri, 2012-02-24 15:07
#47
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.
It always seems to be Mulcair supporters who get punished as well.
Fri, 2012-02-24 15:10
#48
nicky got banned for personal attacks, that happened to be directed at a moderator. It's not rocket science.
Fri, 2012-02-24 15:11
#49
derrick
I will try to pop in here around 1pm (4pm EST) to catch up on and contribute to this discussion.
Fri, 2012-02-24 15:24
#50
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.
Fri, 2012-02-24 15:36
#51
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.