I promised to post on the allegations of a Blogging Tory on party campaign fund transfers between the Liberal Party of Canada and their leader Stephane Dion in his 2006 election campaign.
The issue has been covered so much better than I would have or could have done by the Blogger “A BCer in Toronto."
I commend you to his insight and analysis.
In summary it proves there is no tempest. No teapot and no hand in any cookie jar.
Proving only one thing – the CPC Blogging Tory blog-machine is merely reflecting the anxiety CPC brain trust and obviously nervous enough to make stuff up and then grab ant the manufactured straw to try and change the channel.
Kind of like the political bullying they are perpetrating on Elections Canada officials and the phony veil threats.
It is odd that A BCer in Toronto does not specifically state what the money transfer to the riding association was used for. If it was for local signs, brochures, etc., there is no problem. However, if that money was used to purchase the national advertising from the LPC, then ???
ReplyDeleteTo date, there has been no legal finding that the CPC broke the law. Local riding associations can choose to purchase advertising from any source, including the national party as long as the advertising is somehow directed to the local level. The ads purchased do mention the local riding and candidate and, therefore, comply with elections law. That is the facts and, despite the attempts by liberal bloggers to distort them, they will not change and, hence, the CPC will be found to be complaint with the law.
Lets hope the CPC did not break any law and that they did not over spend the campaign limits prescribed in the Election Act. Which, after all, are there to ensure everyone is treated fairly and no one gets an inappropriate advantage.
ReplyDeleteLets face it, the cynicism of the citizenry need no more fodder from politicians or political parties. If this was illegal it hurts the entire system of governance - not just the Cons.
On the other point, I think BCer does indicate his thoughts on the flow and use of the funds and he does it pretty clearly.
I think the matter needs more official clarification but it is a lot more precise and plausible a description of events than the Blogging Tory framing of the events.
There has been no legal finding, Anonymous, because the court hasn't ruled on the lawsuit yet.
ReplyDeleteFor a party that claims its innocence and how this was all hunky-dory.. it's sure spending a lot of time and effort trying to either deny the rumours or by trying to discredit Elections Canada.
Fact is.. if the court rules in favour of EC, the can of worms will really be opened then.. and the Cons bleating of how they've been unfairly repressed will be all for naught.
The Harper Cons have started a legal action in the Federal Courts to get a decision if what they did in their Ad-scheme was legal.
ReplyDeleteLet’s hope they don't withdraw their law suit and try to run and hide from the issues.
There are at least 3 legal issues that I can see that we need a Court to rule on.
Can a national party to an "in and out" funds transfer to use up a local campaign's unused spending room for regional advertising purposes other than where the funds were "generated" from?
Can that unused local campaign spending room, if used by the national campaign, still be seen as local so as not to have a national campaign exceed the legislated spending limits for advertising?
Thirdly, can national campaign moneys be funneled through local campaigns and then be spent on ads in other regions of the country and does putting a local candidate "authorization" tag on the ads identifying the regional candidate who gets the advantage of the spending but not using his own campaign money - fix the problem?
If this is found to be a breach of the Elections Act the penalties are personal and potentially very harsh - like jail time up to 5 years.
I'll bet the CPC withdraws their law suit in the very near future and the matter gets further politicized at the committee level.
If the Cons withdraw their law suit, I can see a time when Harper will be pressed to call a Gomery-like inquiry just as Martin did over Chrétien’s ad-scam.
Some time will pass before the MSM "gets it" on all of this and the public starts to see the importance and implications of it.
When that happens, expect the Harper minority government to fall on a confidence vote and then we move into election mode.
This is not going away and it is not going to be pretty.
Thanks for the link Ken.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
It is odd that A BCer in Toronto does not specifically state what the money transfer to the riding association was used for.
Do you mean the 44k? As I said, that appears to be fundraising proceeds that was owed the riding association. Before the campaign finance reform, when local ridings held fundraisers the cheques were written to the federal party, not the riding, so they could be tax receipted. In due course, the monies would be transfered from the party to the riding. As the same amount appears as a debt owed to the riding at the beginning of the year, this appears the likely scenario. It doesn't matter what the riding wanted to use the money for, it was their money collected through their fundraising activities, it would seem.
If you mean the 12k transfered by the riding to the campaign, this clearly was for the riding services package (signs, etc).
To date, there has been no legal finding that the CPC broke the law.
That's a very fine line. A judge hasn't so ruled, no. But Elections Canada, charged with upholding the elections law, has found the CPC in contravention, and is investigating further. And, of course, the whole thing is also now before the courts. If I could summarize the Con defence though, it seems to be that sure we did this, but its a dumb and unfair law. Not sure how that will hold-up.
he ads purchased do mention the local riding and candidate and, therefore, comply with elections law.
Not according to Elections Canada they don't. And not according to most interpretations of the act. But we'll see what the judge says.
Ken wrote:
I'll bet the CPC withdraws their law suit in the very near future and the matter gets further politicized at the committee level.
I wouldn't be surprised if Harper does withdraw, apologize, and hopes it goes away. That has been his pattern of behaviour. It's what happened last summer, when it was revealed they improperly accounted for a score of donations that were fees to attend their convention. They felt they didn't count as donations, Elections Canada and the law said otherwise. They fought it for a few months, then when it became clear they were totally in the wrong they backed-down, admitted they were wrong, and returned the donations that were over the limit. Of course, they did it over Christmas, hoping no one would notice...
As Jeff noted in an update blogpost this AM, the media didn't buy the Tories trying to claim that "Dion did it too", and it was relatively easy to disprove. That hasn't stopped the Cons. from throwing it up at their website, of course.
ReplyDeleteThx Scott for the comment and update. Good to see that Jeff's analysis has proven correct in the Globe story today.
ReplyDeleteAs for Ken's question, the federal party can and often does transfer funds to the local riding associations. Both the CPC and LPC do this and it is commmon place. The actual legal issue is whether the riding associations can purchase advertising from the federal party and claim it as a campaign expense and, thus, obtain the reimbursement under the elections law.
ReplyDeleteA BCer in Toronto states "Not according to Elections Canada they don't. And not according to most interpretations of the act. But we'll see what the judge says." Individuals at Elections Canada are not lawyers and I have not heard any expert legal opinion on the interpretation of the Act (Cherniak, a non-practising partisan lawyer, surely does not count). On my reading of the relevant legislative provisions, there need only be some nexus between the advertising purchased and the local riding association. This is a legal question of mixed fact and law. The legal argument will surely be that advertising mentioning the local riding association or candidate sufficiently benefits the local riding association.
As such, unfortunately for all of the hype created by liberal bloggers (and surprisingly not the MSM or the general public), there is a strong probability that the CPC complied with the law as it now stands. Furthermore, the riding associations are now flush with cash to fight any attempt by the power-hungry LPC to bring the government down.
Anon @ 3:34 - you may be right that the CPC has complied with the Elections Act. The Cons have launched a court action so they can make their case.
ReplyDeleteIn an open, transparent and accountable governance culture - this court action proceed and ultimately clear the air about the issues.
How much do you want to bet the Cons try to withdraw the court action before the trial?
My hunch is the Cons liked the idea of an aggressive response to the allegations but now - since they can't bully Mayrand into changing his mind - they will be afraid of what a judge might say about this matter.