Appeals court sides with elections Canada...

[August1991]

Well, on one side we have cheaters and on the other we have thieves! I still can't consider challenging the EC rules with AdScam as morally equivalent.

Once again, both smell but on smells a bit less than the other. What else is new?

Wild Bill, I disagree. This is not a case of them all being cheaters.

IMHO, the Tories pushed the envelope. But this In/Out scheme (what a sexy term) is nothing at all like Adscam.

Actually, the in and out thing is perfectly reasonable to me as I understand that the Liberals used it for years. It only became illegal when Conservatives used it. Consider also that Elections Canada pressed charges before they supposedly knew that the decision was being overturned. hmmmm

Scribblet is right. All parties have used it in various degrees.

At issue is whether a Canada-wide campaign can claim expenses at the local level if such a claim is beneficial to the party.

IOW, if Stephen Harper spends $308 on campaign buttons, should this expense be charged as $1 to each 308 ridings as a local expense, or charged to the central campaign. Well, when Paul Martin appeared on every local campaign poster in 2006, this was treated as a local charge.

I frankly think Elections Canada should not be involved in these kinds of questions at all. Federal bureaucrats should not be micro-managing in this way campaign financing. Who cares how political parties spend their money? It is the source of funds that deserves attention.

With that said, given current rules and the current political situation, I think the Tories pushed the envelope. Harper should not only be honest but appear to be honest.

----

Last point. In Adscam, the federal Liberal government gave taxpayer money (hundreds of millions) to private, Liberal-connected, federalist Quebec advertising firms. These firms then gave money (tens of millions) back to the federal Liberal Party as political donations.

This In/Out scandal is nothing like Adscam.

Edited March 5, 2011 by August1991

[Bryan]

I must have missed the links and have looked back through the thread and still can't find them... help a brother out??

Sure. Scribblett and August have repeated some of it in the last few posts, but I'll repost the links with some quotes in case you still missed it.

Lets start with the Bloc. They are the ones who coined the phrase "in-and-out". Elections Canada didn't like it, but the Bloc sued and won not only the right to use "in-and-out" financing, but also the right to force their candidates to do it. In the process, the Bloc won the right to force their candidates to pay THEM the difference between what is actually spent on the campaign and what could have been spent had they accepted the in-and-out money.

Montreal Gazette: the-original-in-and-out-election-financing

Bloc brass then advised all Bloc candidates, organizers and volunteers to use a system called "La Methode In & Out" to inflate campaign spending to meet targets.

The National Post revealed the "in and out" system last spring, reporting that more than 1,000 Bloc Quebecois organizers, supporters and candidates boosted campaign spending across Quebec to meet spending targets and get the larger refunds.

A Quebec judge has ordered a former Bloc Quebecois MP to pay $16,362 to the separatist party, saying there was nothing improper about the Bloc requiring its 2000 election candidates to sign agreements that were part of a scheme to inflate campaign spending.

Steve Janke's "Angry in the Great White North" Blog has extensively documented how both the Liberals and the NDP have also used the same practices for many years. He's even got scans of the cancelled cheques, receipts, and emails.

Evidence of how the Liberals and the NDP engage in their own In-and-Out funding efforts

Paul Martin used a whole bunch of these techniques in the 2004 election, including having his name and face on every campaign sign across the country, having local candidates reimburse the national party for federal ads with no local content, immediately following the transfer of the identical amount to that local campaign:

"[d]uring the past election, the Liberal Party of Canada in Alberta transferred funds...directly to the candidate [that] need to be accounted for in your Candidate's Electoral Campaign Return."

Liberal HQ bought and paid for the ad without mentioning it to the local candidate, and that his riding association is now being told they have to cut a cheque and do some paperwork in order to "locallize" the ad spend.

a national ad with generic non-regional content that has a block of space in which local candidates' names and faces can be plugged in. The ad was funded by Liberal Party headquarters, transfering a share of the total ad spend to the each of the local candidates who appear in the ad, who then claim the money as local candidate spending, eligible for a rebate.

The NDP did this too:

For rebate purposes, we were asked to to bill each campaign - in the case of VanEast, $2,612.00.

The good news is that the Federal Party will transfer $2,600 to the Federal Riding Association as we agreed to pay for the ads.

the local ridings are told they'll be charged $3,738, and that the federal NDP will kick in $2,000 each. The split is determined "for budget and ceiling purposes".

The Liberals are still doing it today to help their donors contribute above their allowable maximums:

Liberal MPs own little in-and-out scheme exposed

“Tickets are $200 and the donation portion* will be directed to LPC for Martha Hall Findlay. If you have already donated the maximum amount allowed to a past leadership candidate, your donation will be directed to the Willowdale Federal Liberal Association”

Now your reaction to most of these (even if you read all of the links), is probably "that doesn't sound so bad". It's just semantics as to what part of the ad budget during a federal election campaign is truly federal and what part is truly local, right? But that's exactly the point. It's specifically what the Conservatives are being accused of: spreading their expenses around to make sure that everyone meets their maximums.

There is no scandal, just a difference of opinion with regards to accounting.

[William Ashley]

IOW, if Stephen Harper spends $308 on campaign buttons, should this expense be charged as $1 to each 308 ridings as a local expense, or charged to the central campaign. Well, when Paul Martin appeared on every local campaign poster in 2006, this was treated as a local charge.

They should be charged to his riding.

If they say "Vote Conservative Party" for instance it is National. (If they say Vote stephen harper it is his riding)

There are problematic issues on content.. if it is Party Policy not connecting with a local riding it is National. If it is a ridings stance on a policy matter or the candidates position then it is riding.

This is geared to the intended audience - if the audience is "in the riding" it is riding, unless it is in EVERY Riding and not specific to any specific candidate (in that case it is national).

There are more gray areas but those are the only black and white areas.

This is why parties would be well served by a party mascot. I think for now I'm going to go with a peregrine falcon for Social (see how it goes for now)

vote social be the bird

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peregrine_Falcon_in_flight.jpg

Or maybe a dog... or both. hmm tough call.

Edited March 5, 2011 by William Ashley