Get off my dime
Political candidates will no longer be able to rely on big loans from wealthy individuals, unions or corporations to finance their campaigns under legislation introduced Tuesday by the Conservative government...
Political candidates will no longer be able to rely on big loans from wealthy individuals, unions or corporations to finance their campaigns under legislation introduced Tuesday by the Conservative government.But what happened to the Tories' 2004 campaign promise to abolish the parties' publicly-funded "allowance"? Talk about big money.Peter Van Loan, the government House leader, said proposed amendments to the Canada Elections Act will make political financing more open and transparent and "eliminate once and for all the influence of rich, wealthy individuals from the political process...
Since 2004, donations to political parties and candidates have been strictly limited. With further reforms brought in by the Harper government, individuals are now limited to giving $1,100 per year and all corporate and union donations are banned.
However, Van Loan said last year's Liberal leadership race exposed a loophole that allowed contestants to do an end run around the donation limits. Contenders took big loans from wealthy family, friends, supporters and even themselves which, if they are not repaid within 18 months, can be written off, becoming defacto donations.
5/08/2007
related
Keep bookmarked posts here.
64 Comments
Well, let's clean up the whole mess - ALL donations should be reported - Harper has some outstanding reports.
Time to cough it up Harper.
Generally I am happy with this however it appears as if you are still allowed to borrow, or as Pat Martin put it borrow like everyone else, from the bank.
I am not sure I am comfortable with any loan to a candidate. Will the bank have to take it as a donation if it loans money?
But generally this is a good thing I am very happy with the direction.
I agree on the public financing piece as well. If you cant raise the dough from voters it is another way of saying, the voters dont want you.....all for these built in feedback mechanisms
As a Canadian in the US, I try to figure out, sometimes, why Canadians donate to causes far less than Americans.
I think it is because we have less of a culturally-instilled tendency to throw money at problems. There is more encouragement to discuss the issue and (despite all of our jadedness) I think we do sincerely think that our government will take action on things when it needs to, if we have a frank discussion of the problems.
Maybe.
In any case, all this really seems to do (together with the "allowance") is help the Tories. Which, I suppose, is fine, since in the long run it is good for Canadian democracy.
I wonder about parties that specifically fight for the rights of less well-off citizens, though. Like the NDP party might have at one point. Since now this basically means that the working budgets of each party depends primarily on the number of people (a) with money, and (b) who are willing to part with it for politics, that believe their party is the right one.
My instinct has been, well, hey, that should be the way it is, but now that it's happening, I am pretty sure the Liberal party is going to have to go through some serious changes. Changes which they've already tried to set in motion, but changes nonetheless. Changes that you probably want a leader for.
I am sure no one wants to read that the Liberal party being handicapped is bad for politics, but, until we all consider the NDP or the Greens as a real, viable alternative, or until the Bloc drop that whole "separatism" thing, they're our foil to the Tories, and parliamentary democracy doesn't work without adversaries.
This post has been removed by the author.
Be careful what you wish for. The parties are gonna campaign. They're gonna need cash.
They have access to a giant pile of money...guess what happens next?
They're already paying themselves by the vote. How quickly do you think they can get a bill through parliament raising that rate?
So, instead of some small group of people financing the candidate of their choice, we all end up financing all of them. Yeesh.
It's probably the best-worst solution, but we just gotta be careful is all.
I saw something interesting the other day...that the anount of money that will be spent in the US Presidential election that has already started (Thank-you set election dates!) will approach $3-billion, if I remember correctly.
$3Bn you say? Outrageous! Oh, by the way, that's how much Americans spend every single year on chewing gum.
Ho hum.
This post has been removed by the author.
I love the first comment -- a plea for greater openness and transparency, from "anonymous." I know, I know, don't feed the trolls, but still.
Garnet
newsrim-at-hotmail
Stephen: "I am not sure I am comfortable with any loan to a candidate. Will the bank have to take it as a donation if it loans money?"
Corporations - including BANKS - can no longer donate to parties. Therefore, anyone contacting TD Canada Trust or BMO for a loan to fund a leadership campaign needs assets - either signed membership forms to show they can win and/or raise the funds (probably plan B in the Bank's mind) or assets or guarantors willing to pay the freight.
Would BMO have funded Dion? or Ellie May? Paul Martin? Or, for that matter, Harper?
Difficult to say, although I'd bet Harper would have been able to pony up some memberships worth taking into consideration. I'm not sure of Dion's finances, but Martin would have gotten a loan for sure.
I believe it's called (a) "Put your money where your mouth is" or (b) calling your bluff.
Needless to say, if this rule had been in effect last year, there would not have been as many contenders for the Liberal leadership. Not necessarily a bad thing, given some of the earlier dropouts ("crosses burning" comes to mind).
I fail to understand how these sources of loans don't find themselves afoul of the law - and potentially facing jail time - if the loan isn't repaid (at least to within the limits of the "donation" allowances) within the legislated window.
The law seems pretty clear to a simple sap such as myself: if this is a donation (which it is, if it's written off), you face the consequences.
But then, I'm still waiting for some candidates to officially register with Elections Canada that they had spent even a thin dime on "exploratory" campaigns. Failure to do so, of course, risks legal consequences as well.
Typical Tory issue - support big business. Now the banks can make more money.
So, Harper where are those reports? I'd like to know if "American" republican lobbyists and the NRA supported you? If you have nothing to hide - why hide it?
You've got to be kidding, Andrew. How can a person run for election without borrowing money? There's nothing democratic about requiring volunteers to also give money.
This makes it harder for ordinary Canadians to participate in the electoral process and helps rich, well-connected Bay Street types.
The Liberals introduced legislation banning donations from corporations and unions, but this goes too far.
It is very costly to run a leadership campaign. You want to be able to get support from all party members across an whole of the second largest nation on earth when very few in the media and the general public are paying attention. How are you going to get that money in the generally short amount of time necessary?
More importantly, how are you as an ordinary Canadian with solid community connections but no Bay Street connections going to compete against someone who can walk into any bank and borrow huge sums of money?
So it is not good policy. It is rushed and poorly thought through, like most of this government's actions, and hugely hypocritical when the Conservatives continue to refuse to disclose who Harper's biggest donors and lenders were.
Clearly, this is a hail mary throw designed to change the channel from the focus on the Conservatives incompetent handling of Afghanistan and detainees, the environment, splits within their base and within caucus, and mounting accountability problems of their own after only 15 months.
No. This hail mary hypocritical move makes it harder for ordinary Canadians to run for office and leadership and it helps rich, well-connected Bay Street types.
I think the case of Dion actually raises an important question. He needed a lot of money to get his campaign through its early stages, but he won. Consider the counterfactual: without loans, Liberals would have ended up with a leader who at the time of the convention was less liked than the one they chose. Now, you may say the benefit of increased accountability is worth it, but you have to justify it by balancing it against this reality.
Isn't it a $5000 per individual limit (plus any inflationary adjustment), and a $1100 limit for corporations and unions? A corporation's officers or directors could still donate heavily to a candidate or party. So a corporation or union could still donate a lot, but it would have to be through each individual officer/director.
Here's a radical concept - make election campaigns cheaper.
Why should it cost $18m to run an election campaign? Why should it cost $0.5-1m to run a leadership campaign.
The Tories have found a way of tapping a broad base of people for small amounts of cash. There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why the Liberals can't do the same and as a happy coincidence it broadens rather than narrows democratic participation.
Cerberus, give me a break. If someone has enough going for them to be considered a viable candidate for political office, they will have access to funds. I think the people that run to be your local MP would be in a position to put up their house as security to get most of the funds necessary to compete effectively, or could find enough other people to support their campaign to an adequate level.
Claiming only Bay Street connected types will be able to run for elected office is just stupid, stupid, stupid.
Didn't the ADQ, many candidates on a shoestring budget, just out-campaign the two established parties in Quebec?
Speaking of non-disclosure of financial contributors, there's this from the CBC's website of June 5th, 2006...
"In July 2002, Paul Martin came under fire after he said he could not reveal the names of people who donated to his leadership campaign. He said the new disclosure rules, brought in a month earlier, only applied to current cabinet ministers and not him, then a former cabinet member. And, he said he didn't think it was fair to name those who donated before the new rules were in effect."
One would think that the actions of ex-Prime Minister Paul Martin would make for a good comparison to the actions of current PM Harper. Yet, the above paragraph never found its way into any of the reporting on this issue. However, the next paragraph in this old CBC article seems to be referenced all over the place ...
"Later that year in October 2002, then Canadian Alliance leader Stephen Harper refused to release information on who donated to his leadership campaign. He later backtracked, and quietly posted a partial list on his party's website. But, he only posted 54 donors who gave more than $1,075 each, leaving out the names of 10 other large donors who refused to go public, and more than 9,000 people who gave less than $1,000 each. "
I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked !
KRB,
Excellent! So all I'll have to do to run for political office is put up my house as collateral!
No bar there!
I guess I'd better go buy a house if I want to fully participate in our democracy.
You state that "If someone has enough going for them to be considered a viable candidate for political office, they will have access to funds". I suppose that may be true. Can we quantify it though? Could you tell me exactly what my net worth needs to be in order for me to qualify as "having enough going for me" that I'll be allowed to run for office? Or are you out and out stating that people without access to large amounts of funds, or the collateral to secure bank loans simply shouldn't be considered viable candidates, and shouldn't run?
Seriously, I'd like to know. 'Cause I think I need to start saving now if I ever want to run for office.
It's good to know that "land owner" is making a comeback as a requirement for political office. Ahhh, the good old days!
Comparing ADQ and shoe strings is hardly a comparison. ADQ only ran in "one" province and could probably drive most places.
The banks must be rubbing their hands. I find it odd that the NDP who are obsessed with bank profits would like this idea.
I think CPC are going to the extremes here.
I don't care what Mulroney did, Paul Martin did - I want to know who back Harper. His refusal makes him look very guilty.
Harper put himself on the shelf of purity, transparency, etc. He did it to himself.
Now - who supported him?
LKO, it's not a requirement in law (at least not for the House of Commons), but for all intents and purposes, is a requirement in modern politics. I'm just pointing out current reality.
But say in the case of a Cheri Di Novo (excuse me if I misspelled her name), such a person will find they have adequate support via private loans from those that support their candidacy.
The ability of the CPC to raise money from a broad base of citizens galls the Grits to ne end, particuarly so since mon oncle Jean has seperated from their allowance.
Cerberus and Cherniak expose the Grits #1 weakness; for years the Liberal money machine has been Bay Street. In typical Liberal fashion the hand is out while the mouth shoots off, exposing the cynical duplicity of the Grit ethos. Chretien changed the rules for all Canadians so he could strike a blow from the grave (so to speak) at Paul Martin and these 2 nitwits would have it that SH was behind it all from the beginning. He just won't admit to it, which only proves that he has something to hide. Oh the Perfidy!!
So since I'm a regular Joe with no connections, I have to mortgage my house to run for political office? I have to sacrifice my financial stability to server the country?
Funny logic that....
So if Mr. Accountability has nothing to hide... why doesn't he tell us who his big backers were? Why is he so afraid to be accountable and transparent?
Bottom line is simple: a rich, well-connected Bay Street type has been given a huge advantage over the ordinary Canadian.
It doesn't matter if you are good at fundraising or can borrow from a 1000 well meaning individuals because so can the rich guy. But now, thanks to "Canada's New-ish-like Government (TM)" and (it looks like, surprise surprise) the NDP, the rich guy is going to have an advantage because it's always going to be easier for him to get a big loan from the bank.
as it now stands, only the elite can afford to run for office. this motion merely entrenches that fact. how this serves democracy is beyond me. how it serves the conservatives' and the ndp's partisan agenda is unambiguously clear.
It must be a great idea...all the Liberals are whining!!!
Typical Liberal. Restricting donations is fine as long as we can scam our way around it by "borrowing" from our rich friends and then not paying them back.
The law prohibits the forgiveness of loans. Just enforce it.
Typical Conservative. (1) Do as I say not as I do and stop asking about Harper's secret Big Business donors. (2) Create more problems than you are trying to solve by throwing together a stunt legislation that isn't very well thought out for a problem that already has a built-in solution.
Politics over policy. Partisanship over principle. Every time.
"The law prohibits the forgiveness of loans. Just enforce it."
I think that the concern is not "forgiveness" of loans, but writing off loans or simply declining to pursue payment.
"Politics over policy. Partisanship over principle. Every time."
Is that meant to be a joke?
"However, Van Loan said last year's Liberal leadership race exposed a loophole that allowed contestants to do an end run around the donation limits. Contenders took big loans from wealthy family, friends, supporters and even themselves which, if they are not repaid within 18 months, can be written off, becoming defacto donations."
You seem to be misinformed Cerberus. It seems that the loans can be written off, so in fact someone who either is wealthy or knows wealth can accept big money. The new rules make that illegal. If you can't donate to yourself anything more than the $1,000 individual limit, than a bankloan can only be repaid by within the limits fundraising, making one's personal wealth irrelevant.
The reason the Liberaqls are whining like children is that the preponderance of big money in Canada is Liberal. The CPC just gave them a kick in the balls, too bad.
"Partisanship over principle."
geeez a Grit trying teach anyone about principle...like the principle behind cancelling the GST that gave us the HST in 3 provinces, or the principle behind the Gun registry that was a bald faced attempt to profit from tragedy, or the principle behind the position on Afghanistan, just what is it again, or should I say today? Now let's also not forget the principle behind Adscam, what is that exactly? We can do whatever we want, tell whatever lies it takes, steal as much money as we can, fudge the accounting, hang a few of our "friends" and everything will be forgiven in 2 years. As long as it keeps us in power its justified.
Those are great principles.
Colino: forgiving a loan and writing it off are the same thing.
Grithater: There are lots of exceptions in the current legislation and no enforcement. Tighten it up and enforce it.
But this law goes even further than that. It limits how much you can loan yourself to a negligible amount. And, worse, it says you can only borrow from a bank or other financial institution.
So who do you honestly think benefits from that? Little ordinary Canadian who wants to serve his country but the only time she's ever dealt with the bank is when she took out a mortgage and paid off her student loan... or... the Big Bay Street lawyer who has a mortgage on his home, his cottage, his boat, has a line of credit, plays golf with the Senior VP-Credit/Investments?
The proposed change says loans will be limited to "market terms"? What are they? If you want to borrow money, the market says: what collateral do you have? Whoever has more and better collateral will get bigger loans on better terms. That's the market. So again, ordinary Joe is at a disadvantage to Big Bay Street.
It's like everything this government does, like the interest deductibility mess. A single problem is noted and rather than fix the problem, the Cons bring out the full arsenal of a rushed together policy stunt without thinking through all of the ramifications.
What it does to democracy doesn't matter as long as it is perceived to make the Liberals look bad.
Meanwhile... silence on Harper's secret big business donors. Interesting consistency.
This is good for Canada, which has been run the way wealthy elites want since the family compact.
It means parties who cut them selves off from the grass roots will feel it big time.
This is a good move tightening a loophole,
I think the step chretien took was one of the best moves of his career.
If parties have an issue with we the people they can go the way of the progressives in the 20's.
I am absolutely amazed at how many conservative supporters here are prepared to completely ignore the fact that Harper refuses to reveal his donors. Point all the fingers you want at the liberals; if you are not prepared to demand the same from your own party then you are the definition of hypocrisy.
Convenient for the conservatives to trot out this little nugget during a time when they are falling in the polls. What is more important - our soldiers and the treatment of prisoners or trying to stop the liberals from being able to finance an election campaign.
Meanwhile stories of the conservatives' accountability failures continue to mount...
I think we know where Harper's priorities lie.
Gayle: if you are not prepared to demand the same from your own party then you are the definition of hypocrisy.
It's not hypocritical at all. I don't care to dig up who donated to Paul Martin's campaign, or Jean Chretien's campaign in 1990, or any and all party leadership aspirants since time immemorial. Spend your time looking backward if you want; I'm lookin' forward.
In 2002 there was no requirement for Harper to divulge. Many donors donated because of this fact. It is understandable to me. I do not donate more than $200/yr to a party, to avoid being listed. I have nothing to hide, I just don't care to have my name on a publically available list.
So why should you automatically assume the worst about these donors? It could be a simple case of wanting to maintain their privacy, for all you know.
Now, with the new rules, donors donating large amounts know what to expect. They know that their names will be catalogued for all to see.
Everyone talks as though the bill is already passed. It's a minority House. I'm sure if there are particular issues with the bill, they will be dealt with accordingly at the commitee stage.
Cerberus: forgiving a loan and writing it off are the same thing.
No they're not! It might be the same end result, but they are done with entirely different motivations behind them.
KRB,
You write: "But say in the case of a Cheri Di Novo (excuse me if I misspelled her name), such a person will find they have adequate support via private loans from those that support their candidacy" and it seems as though you're saying "not to worry, because non-wealthy people who can't get bank loans will find they have adequate support via private loans from those that support their candidacy".
Accept that this is exactly what this law disallows. It says you can only borrow money from banks under "market conditions". So if you don't have collateral, and aren't well-off, good luck getting that bank loan.
It seems to me this change is basically stopping rich people from backing not-so-rich candidates by ensuring that only rich people can afford to be candidates. I don't see how making sure our politicians are too rich to need to be supported financially is an improvement.
The solution to "rich people can exert influence over non-wealthy politicians" is NOT to entrench a system in which only wealthy people can afford to become politicians.
"In 2002 there was no requirement for Harper to divulge. Many donors donated because of this fact. It is understandable to me. I do not donate more than $200/yr to a party, to avoid being listed. I have nothing to hide, I just don't care to have my name on a publically available list.
So why should you automatically assume the worst about these donors? It could be a simple case of wanting to maintain their privacy, for all you know."
I assume, KRB, that it is only a pure coincidence that all of Harper's small donors were, after much public pressure and reluctance by Harper, revealed but only Harper's biggest donors and all of Harper's biggest donors unanimously decided they wanted to preserve their privacy. Right.
(BTW, forgiving a loan or writing it off are just different words used to describe one and the same action. Ask any accountant or tax/finance lawyer.)
Cerberus: "I assume, KRB, that it is only a pure coincidence that all of Harper's small donors were, after much public pressure and reluctance by Harper, revealed but only Harper's biggest donors and all of Harper's biggest donors unanimously decided they wanted to preserve their privacy. Right." Actually, Cerberus, this makes perfect sense, when you consider who was in power at the time. What person wants a vicious amoral thug like Jean Chretien and his band of goons after them, when they have access to the levers of power? This is the same crew who abused their power and letr their malignant filth stain the BDC, The RCMP, HRDC all in pursuit of political gain or in carrying out personal vendettas. Ask M. Beaudoin. Ask the Ottawa Citizen reporter who was visited by some of JC's personal goons inside the RCMP. Christ even Paul Martin's donors were scared of being targeted by Chretiens enforcers and pulled their donations rather than be exposed.
Cerberus, when you run with the garbage of the Liberal Party, it is hard to do the virtuous act.
Banks could have political leanings (we know they do) so who's to say they won't approve loans according to their political views?
Banks (executives) are part of that elite you talk about.
KRB - surely you have noted the conservatives introduced this legislation with comments suggesting Dion is in bed with big money interests because he owes some people money from his leadership campaign.
So, maybe YOU are not a hypocrite, but anyone who buys the suggestion Dion is "owned" by the people who lent him money, and does not ask the same questions of Harper IS a hypocrite.
Gayle: It's sheer optics. Harper has piles of cash from a bevy of small donors, donors who cannot have strings attached.
Dion is literally indebted to the rich and powerful.
Is it just me, or has no one assailed the Liberals for not passing C2 Accountability Act until the week after the convention. Why were its 'serious flaws' suddenly okay as soon as the spending limits didn't apply to them?
Mike
The optics are that possibly a large group of American pro-gun lobbiests supported Harper's leadership campaign, or perhaps a large group of "pro-family" anti-gay groups, or other groups with a right wing social agenda - this is what people suspect and Harper is not prepared to allay those suspicions. Perhaps he might be concerned about what people would think if they knew his leadership was bankrolled by American interests.
I have no problem with the limit in principle, however the conservatives reduced that limit to 25% of that set by the liberals, which is significant.
I am the first to say the liberals need to improve their grassroots fundraising, and I think they will. I do not think it is a lack of support but rather a new way of doing things that has hampered them so far. The timing of this new bill, and the language used to introduce it makes it pretty plain that the purpose is to embarass the liberals, and hamper them in preparing for the upcoming election. If that simply means we are not going to have an election in the next year or so I would not lose sleep. However if the conservatives call an election this year it would mean this measure was introduced in order to give the conservatives an advantage in that election.
It is quite apparent the conservatives are unable to appeal to the majority of voters through policy, so I guess the next step is to cripple the opponent instead. It is very Tonia Harding'ish.
Mike:
Harper, after much public pressure and extreme resistence to transparency, disclosed all of his small donors. It is only the big donors he keeps secret. Hmmmm. Wonder why.
Ah Cerberus, there is nothing sweeter than the sound of a Librano lawyer in full whine. Don't feel too bad. You can always work overtime, rook a few widows out of some extra money, and buy yourself a nice watch and a car to out-shallow your peers.
Speaking of whining:
"What person wants a vicious amoral thug like Jean Chretien and his band of goons after them, when they have access to the levers of power? This is the same crew who abused their power and letr their malignant filth stain the BDC, The RCMP, HRDC all in pursuit of political gain or in carrying out personal vendettas..."
Not prone to hyperbole or anything...
Gayle: "Not prone to hyperbole or anything..." I love your new line Gayle.......sure we did all that stuff, abused our power and broke the laws to enrich ourselves, punish our enemies and stay in power....but calling us malignant filth.........that's over the top.
Huh?
Gayle, You couldn't credibley dispute the substance of the argument, so you're left objecting to the tone.
Cerberus
There is no need to keep railing about Harper's donors. The fact is that he doesn't need to disclose them and a disclosure would only be used as a weapon by the Liberal party. Why would he arm his opponents?
The liberals have no support in this request because it is obvious, it is just an attempt to smear.
Oh...and by the way...your earlier implication of putting democracy in the hands of Bay street wheeler dealers shows you are either clueless about risk management protocols in a bank (you would have been more correct to say "in the hands of the credit bureaus") or purposefully ignorant in order to build your hyperbolic argument. There are things called governance documents that don't allow for "funding our guy" reason code for approval. Beyond that, the Banks have always been supportive of the Liberals (remember Red Ed who wrote the NEP?...he is running Canada's largest retail bank)
"Grithater" - now really, why would anyone listen to a person that labels themselves a "hater". Think about it.
I want to know about Harper's donators, becuase I want to know if Americans and more specifically, Republicans, have interfered in Canadian politics.
If so, this is a disgrace.
Hey Anonymous. Are you saying that Gore's comments about Canadian legislation is a disgrace too? I would assume so considering you aren't a hypocrite, right?
LKO, as to the Cheri Di Novo case (or anyone that has taken a vow of poverty, as I'm assuming she had), as I read the piece, was that private supporters could issue loans or loan guarantees up to the $1100 limit.
Basically this law is looking for candidates to have a wide breadth of support, so as not to be beholden to one big backer.
Cerberus: I assume, KRB, that it is only a pure coincidence that all of Harper's small donors were, after much public pressure and reluctance by Harper, revealed but only Harper's biggest donors and all of Harper's biggest donors unanimously decided they wanted to preserve their privacy. Right.
Umm, none of his small donors were revealed as I understand it. Only 10 that gave over $1000 were revealed, after they had been asked by Harper if it was ok to reveal their names.
(BTW, forgiving a loan or writing it off are just different words used to describe one and the same action. Ask any accountant or tax/finance lawyer.)
Like I said, done with different motivations. Writing off a loan is admitting that you can't recoup those funds; it doesn't mean that you don't want to. It's about cutting your losses, so you do not expend any more effort on a fruitless venture.
Forgiving a loan is a gesture of generosity, a donation of sorts. You don't care to recoup the funds, in fact you wish not to.
I was forgiven a decent amount of my student loans through OSAP. I never defaulted on payments, or my loan in general. It was a generous gesture.
There are some, though, that do default on their loans, and after some time OSAP writes those loans off as irretrievable. Can you see the difference now???
Sheesh!
KRB: Forgiving a loan is what the lender does with the borrower. Writing off a loan is what the lender does in his/her/its books and tax returns with respect to that loan after it has been forgiven or deemed uncollectible. Two different sides of the same coin.
Your focus on motives are a little silly but I'd love to see you try telling CRA that it matters.
Wrong again KRB. Harper initially disclosed a few and then under public pressure he disclosed a bunch more. Surprisingly and just by pure coincidence I'm sure it was only the 10 biggest donors - each and every one of them, but only them - who were concerned about their privacy.
"Mr. Harper disclosed only 54 donors who'd contributed more than $1,075 each to his campaign. He never revealed the names of 10 large donors who wanted to remain anonymous or the more than 9,000 donors who gave less than $1,000."
The point is that it is incredibly - pick your comment here: rich, hypocritical, stretching suspended disbelief, wrong, unaccountable, non-transparent - to keep a secret stash of cash from a secret bunch of big donors... and then claim that the Liberals have an accountability problem because some had to borrow money.
Geez Cerberus, are you one of those people who can never admit that you're wrong, and have to keep hammering at the same point??? Seems like it. If so, I feel for you, and anyone who has to live with you.
I got the number wrong of how many of the "medium" sized donors he revealed; I said 10, but it was 54. Excuse me for getting that wrong, but to jump on that with such gusto marks you out as an overzealous idiot.
But he didn't reveal any of his "small" donors, as you suggested erroneously before. Thanks for providing the paragraph that confirms what I said.
I see no conspiracy in the top 10 donors wishing to remain private. None. I'd bet that Paul Martin received big donations from the likes of Desmarais, Schwartz, the McCains and Irvings, etc. It doesn't bother me. It wouldn't bother me if he were still PM.
The fact remains there was no need for disclosure by Harper in 2002. The rules have changed since then, and Harper complied with them during his 2004 leadership race. And it's a fact that many Liberals went against the spirit of the current law through the loophole allowing them to not have to pay back loans after 18 months.
That loophole is being closed, for good or bad. Deal with it.
"to keep a secret stash of cash from a secret bunch of big donors... and then claim that the Liberals have an accountability problem because some had to borrow money."
As opposed to a secret stash stolen from the taxpayers? There's a slight accountability problem in Joe Volpe accepting money from children AND dead people. And then being placed in the front bench as part of a Dream Team.
Of course, the Conservatives are just American pawns, why else would the keynote speakers at their 2006 convention and the last Ontario convention be American politicians? Oh wait, that was the Liberals. (Howard Dean and James Carville, respectively)
Cerbi...ahem...excuse me but the quote you so vigorously toss around says "....10 large donors...." not the 10 "...largest...".
There is also a question regarding the loans as to whether they are legally loans. If no repayment at all is made, even a token amount, they might be considered gifts when the debt is cancelled.
Grithater - there was no substance to your post for me to respond to. In my world, calling people names is not an actual argument.
As for this:
"I love your new line Gayle.......sure we did all that stuff, abused our power and broke the laws to enrich ourselves, punish our enemies and stay in power..."
I never said any of that, nor do I know what you are referring to with the term "we" - unless you think I was a member of the liberal party in Quebec in the 1990's, which I was not, and still am not.
If you want to make an argument with SUBSTANCE, I will be happy to respond.
I want to know about Harper's donators, becuase I want to know if Americans and more specifically, Republicans, have interfered in Canadian politics.
If so, this is a disgrace.
You're right; it is a disgrace! I mean, that American Howard Dean and James Carville dared to get involved in Canadian politics! Those Conser ...
oh, wait, those were the Liberals. Never mind.
It's hilarious watching the usual raving lunatics in this forum (Gayle, Cerebus, etc.) cry and moan about this. Sorry guys; you're party is going to have to fundraise fairly, just like everyone else. Tough luck.
Dear anonymous person who is too afraid to actually identify him/herself
Here is a quote from my post above:
"I am the first to say the liberals need to improve their grassroots fundraising, and I think they will. I do not think it is a lack of support but rather a new way of doing things that has hampered them so far."
Maybe if you actually bothered to read, you would not post things like this:
"Sorry guys; you're party is going to have to fundraise fairly, just like everyone else."
Maybe if you actually bothered to read, you would not post things like this:
Waa! Waaaa!
Harper is acting like a Liberal in my opinion...I voted conservative, I would like a conservative.
http://jimcotton.blogspot.com