RCMP raids Tory party headquarters

[Shakeyhands]

He did give you the link to the procedures manual check it out.

I saw that, who's to say it wasn't followed?

[Alta4ever]

I saw that, who's to say it wasn't followed?

Were are the denied requests for informaton from the conservatives? According to the CPC they complied with all requests, again no response on that from elections Canada.

[jdobbin]

You don't find it suspicious that the conservatives forged documents? We can do this all day. Fact is a judge signed the warrant making it legal.

Why hasn't anyone in official Tory circles made an issue about the judge?

[jdobbin]

What forged documents the EC has said nothing about this, all the arguement has been over is how it was billed.

Why did it take a judge from another city to sign the warrant, or could it be that they needed to go "shopping".

Why isn't Harper asking that question?

[jdobbin]

The CPC never stole anything. That was the Liebrals who stole taxpayer money, the CPC has been accused of spending too much party money in an election.

Which can result in criminal prosecution if found to be true.

By the way, posters have been told to refrain from namecalling even when it pertains to political parties.

[Shakeyhands]

Were are the denied requests for informaton from the conservatives? According to the CPC they complied with all requests, again no response on that from elections Canada.

I'd guess thats because EC doesn't need to spin the story, I assume the CPC would say whatever they need to to get the message on point. Just a thought.

[jdobbin]

The desperation of the liberals is starting to show.

It appears to be working with the Liberals now ahead of the Tories according to Decima.

Edited April 25, 2008 by jdobbin

[Alta4ever]

I'd guess thats because EC doesn't need to spin the story, I assume the CPC would say whatever they need to to get the message on point. Just a thought.

Where is the spin they will have to deny the claim, because I sure this will come out in the court proceedings.

[punked]

good lets see what happens in court.

[Argus]

You don't find it suspicious that the conservatives forged documents? We can do this all day. Fact is a judge signed the warrant making it legal.

What documents were forged? Citation, please.

[Argus]

We do Conservative not get this. They get 60% of that money back from us the Tax Payer that is our money they are stealing.

Short answer? We're an awful lot smarter than you are.

It's you who cannot understand, though I've tried to use small words for the benefit of the intellectually impaired, that the money would only have been spent on local campaigns if not for this business, and so they still would have gotten the refund. It's NOT your money. Taxpayers money had nothing to do with this.

[Shakeyhands]

What documents were forged? Citation, please.

According to a sworn affidavit, executives with Retail Media Inc., the Toronto "media buying" firm for the Conservatives, balked when investigators showed them an invoice on the company's letterhead.

The executives "didn't recognize" the invoice, similar to that filed by about 15 Conservative candidates among 67 from the 2006 election seeking more than $825,000 in taxpayer-funded rebates.

Marilyn Dixon, chief operating officer, suggested the invoice "must have been altered or created by someone" because they didn't look like the ones her firm submitted to the Conservative Party of Canada.

http://www.thestar.com/article/416912

[Alta4ever]

good lets see what happens in court.

Good then it settled you've got nothing further to say until after the court proceedings

[scribblet]

You all might want to read this and what happens when someone actually researches the issue

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...20-23cfcf6de0bf

Until I made a crucial blunder: I did research.

The key issue is whether the Conservative party, in the last election, could donate money to riding associations to purchase advertisements very similar to national ones without those ads being counted against national campaign spending and putting the party over the national legal spending limit. It was, at least to begin with, a dispute not about facts but about how to interpret the law.

At this point I foolishly read what I hope were all the relevant sections of the 500-plus page Canada Elections Act. Here, in unavoidable legalese, is what I found.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

The Act does set separate spending limits for registered parties (clause 422.1) and for their candidates (clauses 440 and 441). But Clause 422 (2) lets parties give money to local candidates and not count it as "an election expense..." So the key question is whether those candidates can spend that or any other money, up to their local limit, on what is essentially national advertising. And the crucial Clause 407 (1) defines an "election expense" as "any cost incurred, or non-monetary contribution received, by a registered party or a candidate, to the extent that the property or service for which the cost was incurred, or the nonmonetary contribution received, is used to directly promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate during an election period." What in there says local spending must happen locally or concern local issues? I see nothing.

[HisSelf]

Looks like the cockroach theory is holding up yet again. It originated in Wall Street - bad news about a stock is like cockroaches. Once you see one, sooner or later, a whole bunch more will emerge.

Don't be surprised if we get an election real soon....

[jdobbin]

You all might want to read this and what happens when someone actually researches the issue

The article goes on to say that the Tories may still be found guilty of violating election laws.

The Tories responded to this ruckus in a manner at once paranoid and juvenile and it worked about as well as you'd expect. But it doesn't mean there's anything scandalous in their challenging a technical Elections Canada ruling in court, even if they ultimately lose.

Robson tries to play it down but criminal charges may result from this.

Edited April 25, 2008 by jdobbin

[White Doors]

Looks like the cockroach theory is holding up yet again. It originated in Wall Street - bad news about a stock is like cockroaches. Once you see one, sooner or later, a whole bunch more will emerge.

Don't be surprised if we get an election real soon....

I sure hope so!

Can't wait to see Dion bumble hiw way through a campaign!

LOL

[HisSelf]

I sure hope so!

Can't wait to see Dion bumble hiw way through a campaign!

LOL

So far Jack is the only guy with no flies on him. Let's see. We have an economy headed for close to zero growth, of not recession (according to the Bank of Canada) and big enviro issues scowling at us over the horizon. I'm predicting NPD and Green Party gains.... and another minority.

What we could use right now is a NDP/Green Party merger like the Reform/Conservative merger. We could see a whole new ball game.

Change is in the air. Look at Les Canadiens. Go Habs Go!

[punked]

So far Jack is the only guy with no flies on him. Let's see. We have an economy headed for close to zero growth, of not recession (according to the Bank of Canada) and big enviro issues scowling at us over the horizon. I'm predicting NPD and Green Party gains.... and another minority.

What we could use right now is a NDP/Green Party merger like the Reform/Conservative merger. We could see a whole new ball game.

Change is in the air. Look at Les Canadiens. Go Habs Go!

Yah you see the NDP are closer to the Liberals in thought then the Greens. Besides their enviro policies the Greens are more a centralist party not a left leaning party.

[White Doors]

Yah you see the NDP are closer to the Liberals in thought then the Greens. Besides their enviro policies the Greens are more a centralist party not a left leaning party.

No, not anymore. When Harris was their leader, that was true, but now they are somewhere left of Chavez.

[HisSelf]

No, not anymore. When Harris was their leader, that was true, but now they are somewhere left of Chavez.

Harris who?

[Topaz]

You all might want to read this and what happens when someone actually researches the issue

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...20-23cfcf6de0bf

Until I made a crucial blunder: I did research.

The key issue is whether the Conservative party, in the last election, could donate money to riding associations to purchase advertisements very similar to national ones without those ads being counted against national campaign spending and putting the party over the national legal spending limit. It was, at least to begin with, a dispute not about facts but about how to interpret the law.

At this point I foolishly read what I hope were all the relevant sections of the 500-plus page Canada Elections Act. Here, in unavoidable legalese, is what I found.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

The Act does set separate spending limits for registered parties (clause 422.1) and for their candidates (clauses 440 and 441). But Clause 422 (2) lets parties give money to local candidates and not count it as "an election expense..." So the key question is whether those candidates can spend that or any other money, up to their local limit, on what is essentially national advertising. And the crucial Clause 407 (1) defines an "election expense" as "any cost incurred, or non-monetary contribution received, by a registered party or a candidate, to the extent that the property or service for which the cost was incurred, or the nonmonetary contribution received, is used to directly promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate during an election period." What in there says local spending must happen locally or concern local issues? I see nothing.

SO, Cons were giving to the locals one day and taking it back the next and the locals never use the money the Feds did.

[M.Dancer]

Harris who?

The former centre right leader of the green spirograph party. His policies caused a major rift in the fringe party which led to a break away group being formed...a fringe on the fringe.

[Keepitsimple]

You all might want to read this and what happens when someone actually researches the issue

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...20-23cfcf6de0bf

Until I made a crucial blunder: I did research.

The key issue is whether the Conservative party, in the last election, could donate money to riding associations to purchase advertisements very similar to national ones without those ads being counted against national campaign spending and putting the party over the national legal spending limit. It was, at least to begin with, a dispute not about facts but about how to interpret the law.

At this point I foolishly read what I hope were all the relevant sections of the 500-plus page Canada Elections Act. Here, in unavoidable legalese, is what I found.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

The Act does set separate spending limits for registered parties (clause 422.1) and for their candidates (clauses 440 and 441). But Clause 422 (2) lets parties give money to local candidates and not count it as "an election expense..." So the key question is whether those candidates can spend that or any other money, up to their local limit, on what is essentially national advertising. And the crucial Clause 407 (1) defines an "election expense" as "any cost incurred, or non-monetary contribution received, by a registered party or a candidate, to the extent that the property or service for which the cost was incurred, or the nonmonetary contribution received, is used to directly promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate during an election period." What in there says local spending must happen locally or concern local issues? I see nothing.

Finally someone with a brain. Almost all candidates will say that a good part of being successful at the local level is having their constituents agree with what's going on at the National level.....therefore in addition to their own local advertising, it makes sense that they run some "National Ads" that have their own personal name attached to them. Is it really the job of Elections Canada to tell the local candidate what he is allowed to advertise? Absolutely not - that's an affront to democracy. The fact that the Conservative Party "orchestrated" this among many candidates is simply good use of available budget maximums - whether they be local or national. Just because a Local Candidate has a budget ceiling does not mean that they actually have all that money - it depends on how good they are at fundraising. If they have room in their budget but no money to pay for advertising, the Conservative party "lends" them the money, then takes most of it back to pay for the Ad. It doesn't come from the taxpayer. What does come from the taxpayer is the claiming of those amounts as election expenses and quite frankly, I see nothing wrong with that. When all is said and done, all the Conservatives have done is max out their National and Local budget maximums. Makes perfect sense to me.

[punked]

Finally someone with a brain. Almost all candidates will say that a good part of being successful at the local level is having their constituents agree with what's going on at the National level.....therefore in addition to their own local advertising, it makes sense that they run some "National Ads" that have their own personal name attached to them. Is it really the job of Elections Canada to tell the local candidate what he is allowed to advertise? Absolutely not - that's an affront to democracy. The fact that the Conservative Party "orchestrated" this among many candidates is simply good use of available budget maximums - whether they be local or national. Just because a Local Candidate has a budget ceiling does not mean that they actually have all that money - it depends on how good they are at fundraising. If they have room in their budget but no money to pay for advertising, the Conservative party "lends" them the money, then takes most of it back to pay for the Ad. It doesn't come from the taxpayer. What does come from the taxpayer is the claiming of those amounts as election expenses and quite frankly, I see nothing wrong with that. When all is said and done, all the Conservatives have done is max out their National and Local budget maximums. Makes perfect sense to me.

National and Local funding limits are separate so there is not area targeting. Otherwise a party could target local markets and split the county into tiny pieces. Look at the Bloc for a good example of this do you want them to be able to spend more there saying they could be spending it in Alberta cause they haven't reached their cap there. There is a reason for this otherwise there would just be a general Cap for spending limits and not separate Local and National caps.