Yesterday in a Comments exchange on the Renewing the One Party State Blog I commented on Norris being a Klein clone and his campaign funding model of issuing invoices for the candidate to provide consulting services to contributors. I was concerned how this worked and it the scheme had advanced blessing form the Canada Revenue Agency. “Dome Disease” is one of the anonymous Bloggers on this site and took me to task. Here is the subsequent exchange between us. I think people will find it interesting.
Dear Ken:
I am not sure you can criticize any other candidates funding platforms until your candidate reveals his. Makes you a hypocrite don't you think? Maybe your friend Anne McClelland could let you know what the Revenue Agency thinks. Unless you're afraid to disclose that you're one of Dave's handful of bankrollers hoping for huge payoffs in gov't contracts?
Norris is not a Klein clone, although it's actually not such a bad thing. In a big tent party you need someone who can relate to ordinary Albertans more than you need a nerdy lawyer who puts even librarians to sleep with his voice. Mark is a lot like Ralph in his ability to speak to people, not at them and I'm glad you see that valuable trait. But that's where similarities end, because Norris is much stronger on protecting Alberta and on actually being a conservative, don't forget your boy Dave isn't.
Your campaign has been getting more desperate with every set back and now you're swinging blidnly on your way down. I am sorry that your guy is an also ran but throwing mud at the former Premier (who helped make you, by the way) and at someone who shares some of his better virtues is not only childish, it's STUPID.Dome Disease 11.16.06 - 5:44 pm #
My response:
Dome Disease - I am not criticizing Mark for disclosure - just asking for clarification of the fundraising tactic he used in raising the funds he has disclosed.
If what he did is acceptable and satisfies the Income Tax Act by raising otherwise non-deductible campaign funds as contracts good on him. I just what to know if he had the prior blessing of the Canada Revenue Agency. It would be prudent don't you think?
If it is acceptable for candidates to do work for the "donors" as part of the campaign and a contribution deal it sure changes the way politics gets done. Don't you think?
I am not sure we want that to be the way politics "gets done" but if it is found appropriate by the Canada Revenue Agency then Mark has really changed the nature of political party leadership campaign fundraising.
For the record - I have not made a cash donation to Dave's campaign but I have volunteered lots of hours for sure. As for government contracts, we got some before and expect to get some after the leadership based on merit and not who the leader is. You wouldn't want it any other way would you?
As for Mark protecting Alberta, my Alberta does not need "protecting." It needs mature, seasoned, enlightened and wise leadership. It needs leadership that is not just ideological from a "Conservative" perspective.
I believe this campaign is about finding a leader for the PROGRESSIVE Conservative Party of Alberta. I want leadership that continues to embrace and integrate both of those concepts.
You mention Anne McLellan. What does Anne McLellan have to do with this PC leadership campaign anyway? Are you suggesting I should not have the right of free association and the right to vote for whom ever I wish? Are you suggesting there is only one way to think and act because I belong to a political party? Is that how a Conservative thinks?
Please also elaborate further on your comments on how Ralph Klein "helped make me" and tell us the relevance of that comment too. You allege to know quite a bit about me. I still have to wonder as to who you even are. Hardly the basis for a reasonable conversation, don't you think?
Are you implying in your comments that I am at some sort of risk by stating my opinions openly and freely and not anonymously? Should I fear you?
BTW - Every candidate except Morton has said they will fully disclose but after the campaign when the complete accounting can be done.Ken Chapman Homepage 11.16.06 - 8:39 pm #
Good on you, Ken. A measured, temperate, reasonable, intelligent and focused response to an unnecessarily bellicose posting.
ReplyDeleteThank you for providing value to the rest of us by distilling the essential merit of the points made by Dome Disease and expanding the debate from there.
I don't support Norris but his plan on providing consulting services to permit his backers to deduct the fees was brilliant. You don't need CRA's blessing for this - btw, this could only be done through an advanced tax ruling which is expensive and time-consuming.
ReplyDeleteKen's complaint that "it sure changes the way politics gets done" is ill-founded. If Norris complied with the Income Tax Act, then he's done nothing wrong. He's simply provided further incentives to support him financially.
"It needs leadership that is not just ideological from a "Conservative" perspective."
Which party do you belong to? Your association with McLennan does not surprise me in the least. I don't get it - yes, you agree with the "progressive" part. But it surprises me that you whole heartedly support the federal liberals but not the provincial liberals.
You always play the anon card. I post as an anon because I fear that the Liberal party will once again win federally and cancel contracts with my company, not based on lack of merit, but rather because of lack of financial support. Thus, I prefer, if possible to remain publicly neutral.
Also, ending every comment with a question is a weak method of putting across one's point.
You obviously don't remember the NEP. Many Albertans lost their wealth and dignity at the hands of individuals who professed to want a free and inclusive society.
ReplyDeleteI now understand why you're so supportive of Hancock. The company you work for receives bundles of cash from the AB gov't to do, let's put it bluntly, political science research. Your biases are aptly illustrated in your work: http://www.cambridgestrategies.com/documents/TSLV.pdf
ReplyDeleteI, for one, cannot believe you guys get paid for this stuff.
That piece (The Third Solitude)was done in 2001 when western alienation was a serious concern amongst people.
ReplyDeleteWe did not do that under contract and did not get paid for that piece but we are rather proud of it.
We wrote it because it helped get other people in Canada, primarily Ontario and Quebec, aware of the different perspective we westeners have about how we see our country compared to their historic Deux Nation approach.
Not everything we do is for money...we do lots of pro bono work and sometimes we write stuff that just interests us...like The Third Solitude piece.
It ended up a part of a book my business partner wrote called The Best Country. I will gladly sell you a copy for $19.95 if you are interested.
Haha, no thanks. It is your western perspective, not mine nor the majority of Albertans.
ReplyDeleteYes it is my just my perspective. Was that not clear to you and isn't that just what I said in the earlier posting?
ReplyDeleteI am not surprised it is not your perspective. I do not think we all need have the exact same position on things. Pretty boring and stifling existence I would say.
The world is an interesting, diverse and wonderfully complex place. The differences are something we should thrive on.
Each person's point of view has validity and merit. My point of view is not better than yours, just different. I merely want to share it and have it considered, understood and respected, just as you would too.
Surely you can agree with that concept in a free and democratic society. We should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.
OOHHH big payoffs
ReplyDeleteBankrollers OHHHHHH
we are trembling in our shoes!!!
Is this the Norris campaign complaining?? The "WELL FOLKS with all my "experience" and big fancy donor list that I have made available to every Albertan, I can solve every problem there is in Alberta", Norris campaign?
Attention Attention!
The regular grass roots Albertan could care LESS who your donors are. KNOW why? Because we are very clever, us regular Albertans, because in all likely hood, we are thinking, your donors are the same donors that every campaign has.
One professional that I know donates to all the campaigns, so he is "good" with them all.
SO come on already with this self-righteous, na na na naaaa na WE DISCLOSE ALL and you don'ont BLAH!
GREAT SIGH GREAT SIGH
I agree with Becky - most people in Alberta don't care who the donors are. I am a political geek and I am not even sure I care.
ReplyDeleteBut I am not sure charging people for services rendered is the same as recieving financial support for your campaign - are they actually donors, or are they clients? Are they voting with their money or getting a tax write off? Will Revenue Canada look at the published "donor" list to ensure that these funds are not being claimed as a "business expense?"
Technically, the "Norris Campaign" has only one donor - "GLG Consulting."
You know Dome Disease, you remind me of my sister-in-laws CAT. That cat sits under the bed and everytime something moves, the cat
ReplyDeleteputs his claw out and trys to scratch whatever is "out there". It doesn't matter what the something is, it treats all the somethings in the same manner.
Your comment DD ....
I am sorry that your guy is an also ran but throwing mud at the former Premier.
OH like the Norris campaign isn't swinging mud and acting childish?
LOL PLU_EASEEEEEEEEE
Like listening to other candidates at forums with their fingers in their ears and making "questionable muddy comments" throwing mud behavior DD?"
AND DD ...
It also is a fact that Dave Hancock won his seat in his constituency and didn't get booted out on his tushy now - did he?
and friend, if you think that Mark Norris is ANYTHING like Premier KLEIN, you better get out from underneath the bed and withdraw your CLAW friend. Going around saying WELL FOLKS adnaseam ...ly does not do it!
;-)
ok now putting on my boots to go out and do my volunteering. You know DD, like volunteering, not sitting on the net clawing at EVERYTHING without knowing the facts.
ps:exactly Allie, exactly!
A business whose primary expense is funding a political campaign? Gotta wonder whether the CRA is going to accept that as a legitimate business expense for tax purposes. They could end up being assessed a massive tax bill.
ReplyDeleteAndy, you clearly have no idea of what a business expense is for tax purposes. A business paid Norris for consulting work related to its primary business - that is a deductible business expense.
ReplyDeleteI have to defend Andy here. If you had closely read what he had stated you would see that he was referring to whether Norris's consulting company could reduce its tax burden by claiming the massive donation to his campaign that it made as a business expense. If it did that, and we don't know whether they paid with pre or after tax dollars, the CRA may take serious objection to that. Also, if Norris didn't do a reasonable amount of work for the money that his consulting company was given then the CRA can challenge those companies claiming the contract as a business expense. All such expenses have to be reasonable and related to the work that they do. If Norris was doing consulting for a company in an area that he had little or no expertise, you'd have to ask what value the company got, or whether this is just a tax dodge. From my perspective, this doesn't pass the smell test.
ReplyDelete"A business paid Norris for consulting work related to its primary business - that is a deductible business expense.
ReplyDeleteAnd then Norris published a record in the paper of every single one of them saying it was a Campaign DONATION - in a campaign where Donations are not tax deductable.
We'll have to see what happens when these people try to claim their "business expenses" and Revenue Canada says "hang on, this here says this amount was freely given as non tax deductable donation."