Liberals fill coffers with pay-per-schmooze

[jdobbin]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

For $1,100, you can talk to Michael Ignatieff at a cocktail reception and then sit really close to him at the dinner that follows. Pay $500 and all you get is the rubber chicken.

This latest Grit tactic is being employed for the Leader's Dinner, a major Liberal Party fundraiser being held at the swank Fairmont Royal York hotel in Toronto on April 1. More than 1,000 people are expected.

It still too early to tell but the amount of donations seems to be on the rise for the Liberals.

Ignatieff mostly likely knows that the party won't be able to get a small monthly donation system in place in only a few short months so he has to hustle in this meet and greet sessions. Some of the sessions are only $10 bucks or so per person so it means a lot of appearances in a lot of places. Still, it will go a long way to improving previous years in the finance department.

[M.Dancer]

So...where all the usual suspects who whined about $000. plates for Harper?

[Alta4ever]

You hoo PT where are you, you have some crow to eat.

[noahbody]

Is it just me, or does this approach position Ignatieff as the epitome of arrogance?

[85RZ500]

You'd have to pay me $1100 to be in the same building with him.

That goofy smile would make me lose an expensive dinner.

[jdobbin]

Is it just me, or does this approach position Ignatieff as the epitome of arrogance?

How so? The Conservatives don't use Harper to raise money by giving speeches at fundraisers?

[Alta4ever]

How so? The Conservatives don't use Harper to raise money by giving speeches at fundraisers?

Harper doesn't ask people for bigger donations to sit closer to him.

Edited March 25, 2009 by Alta4ever

[jdobbin]

Harper doesn't ask people for bigger donations to sit closer to him.

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?...circle/&c=1

Mike Donison, executive director of the Conservative Party, in an email response to The Hill Times last week, said that members of the Leader's Circle receive "regular newsletters from the party; a lapel pin; invitations to Leader's Circle events across the country and special seating at party events."

The Leader's Circle still exists, still gives exclusive seating and the party has admitted that.

The bigger the donation, the bigger the access.

In this Hill Times report, it pretty much tosses out your argument that Ignatieff is exclusive in a seating plan. Another Tory lie up in smoke.

I personally don't care about the seating plans and have never made any issue of it.

[madmax]

Harper doesn't ask people for bigger donations to sit closer to him.

I don't think Size is a factor in whether people can sit close to Harper.

[Argus]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

It still too early to tell but the amount of donations seems to be on the rise for the Liberals.

Ignatieff mostly likely knows that the party won't be able to get a small monthly donation system in place in only a few short months so he has to hustle in this meet and greet sessions. Some of the sessions are only $10 bucks or so per person so it means a lot of appearances in a lot of places. Still, it will go a long way to improving previous years in the finance department.

I think a lot of those with cash now think that, sooner or later, Ignatieff will be prime minister, and are eager to purchase favours from him. It remains to be seen just what Ignatieff is selling - however it seems like he's not above selling it twice over.

In order to get around election financing rules (Liberals would never do THAT!) they are encouraging people to donate the maximum to the party, and then do the same to Igantieff's "leadership campaign", even though there really is no campaign. The reason is that when the Liberals close the fictitious campaign all the money in it goes straight to the Liberal Party.

To make it clear, Apps is encouraging people to donate to Michael Ignatieff's leadership campaign fund. But the leadership campaign is just a fiction. He knows the fund is already in surplus now that all the debts from the 2006 campaign have been paid off. He knows that the fund needs no more money since there is no active leadership campaign underway, and Ignatieff will be acclaimed as leader. He's telling donors to donate anyway, to contribute money to a fund for a fictional campaign that will incur no debts, for the express purpose of transferring that money to the party.

Money goes IN.

Money comes OUT.

IN. OUT.

All very familiar, eh?

The Liberals own "In-Out" donation program

[jdobbin]

In order to get around election financing rules (Liberals would never do THAT!) they are encouraging people to donate the maximum to the party, and then do the same to Igantieff's "leadership campaign", even though there really is no campaign. The reason is that when the Liberals close the fictitious campaign all the money in it goes straight to the Liberal Party.

My understanding is that Ignatieff is campaigning as he goes all over the country to certify his leadership.

To make it clear, Apps is encouraging people to donate to Michael Ignatieff's leadership campaign fund. But the leadership campaign is just a fiction. He knows the fund is already in surplus now that all the debts from the 2006 campaign have been paid off. He knows that the fund needs no more money since there is no active leadership campaign underway, and Ignatieff will be acclaimed as leader. He's telling donors to donate anyway, to contribute money to a fund for a fictional campaign that will incur no debts, for the express purpose of transferring that money to the party.

I guess I'll wait to see how much if any is transferred. From now until May, I expect Ignatieff will be campaigning for certification. That costs money.

If there is a big surplus turned over, you might have a case that this bypasses the spirit of the law but at the moment, it looks like Ignatieff is using the money to go from one end of the country to the country as part of his leadership.

[scribblet]

...........................

Money goes IN.

Money comes OUT.

IN. OUT.

All very familiar, eh?[/i]

The Liberals own "In-Out" donation program

Indeed LOL say it isn't so Joe whoda thunk it, but I suppose it's okay because it's the Liberals doing it -

[Moonbox]

I think people are just upset that the Liberals are able to raise money PERIOD now that Dion is done as leader.

[jdobbin]

Indeed LOL say it isn't so Joe whoda thunk it, but I suppose it's okay because it's the Liberals doing it -

The campaign does not expect to run a surplus. A candidate is responsible for their expenses until the convention and Ignatieff continues go from one end of the country to the other to get certification.

[Alta4ever]

The campaign does not expect to run a surplus. A candidate is responsible for their expenses until the convention and Ignatieff continues go from one end of the country to the other to get certification.

Sure spin spin spin. There is no leadership race so hence no more campaign expenses. This is more back door fundraising on the part of the liberals. Much like the "auction" that was cancelled last year.

[jdobbin]

Sure spin spin spin. There is no leadership race so hence no more campaign expenses. This is more back door fundraising on the part of the liberals. Much like the "auction" that was cancelled last year.

It isn't spin. The leadership decision has to be certified at the convention. Ignatieff cannot use travel or any other thing related to the leadership certification using central party financing.

If there is no surplus or very little surplus turned over, it will be hard to say this is backdoor fundraising since it will all be related to the convention in May which is covered by Elections Canada rules.

[scribblet]

Sure spin spin spin. There is no leadership race so hence no more campaign expenses. This is more back door fundraising on the part of the liberals. Much like the "auction" that was cancelled last year.

More like a whirling dirvish LOL ( or is that dervish ? )

[Progressive Tory]

So...where all the usual suspects who whined about $000. plates for Harper?

I'm here. However, I never whined about the practice; only the hypocrisy of suggesting they never used this fundraising tool.

[Progressive Tory]

You hoo PT where are you, you have some crow to eat.

Yummy. I'm serving it with my Canada Goose.

Again, my only point with the Conservatives was their suggestion that they never used this tool. All Parties do. It was the meat of the Harper campaign.

I never said the Liberals, NDP or even Green Party didn't hold these functions. I only debated Conservative supporters who tried to say that they were the party of grassroots so never served rubber chicken at high priced lunches and dinners. They're still picking it out of ther teeth.

[Progressive Tory]

Is it just me, or does this approach position Ignatieff as the epitome of arrogance?

It's just you.

[Progressive Tory]

Harper doesn't ask people for bigger donations to sit closer to him.

No he asks taxpayers to pay for the right of his MPs to ask for bigger donations. It's all about hypocrisy. Do as I say, not as I do.

Taxpayers pick up Tory tab Thousands billed as ministers split time between official duties, filling party war chests

When Defence Minister Peter MacKay flew to British Columbia in January, he split his time between government business and two Tory fundraising gigs. Taxpayers footed the bill.

When then-Indian affairs minister Jim Prentice flew to Nova Scotia to meet with provincial chiefs, he headlined a Conservative fundraising dinner in Prince Edward Island. Taxpayers paid for the trip.

And when Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn jetted off from a Quebec fisheries forum to attend a government meeting in Manitoba, he also guest-starred at a local Tory fundraising banquet.

The federal Conservatives – elected on promises to be squeaky clean – are using government resources to help fill their election war chest.

The Star easily found 25 examples of Tory ministers mixing fundraising and department business, each trip typically costing taxpayers several thousand dollars, though complete costs are not disclosed.

The Star found its examples by comparing government expense records with Conservative party notices of fundraising events.

Here's one journey:

MacKay, a senior political aide and a military adviser travelled from Toronto to Victoria on Jan. 10. Arriving at 4 p.m., they went to their hotel and were briefed by Canada's top Pacific admiral for 90 minutes. Then it was off to the McMorran Beach House in Victoria to guest star at a posh evening affair at which 200 Conservative faithful hobnobbed with MacKay. Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn, who is from the area, worked the Thursday fundraiser into his schedule as well, bringing along a political aide. A Conservative party report said the event "more than met its financial goals."

The next morning, MacKay and his aides toured the local dockyard, received an Olympic security briefing, and took a military helicopter to visit a search-and-rescue facility. By late afternoon, MacKay and an aide flew to Kelowna, where there was no government business, but where he guest starred at another fundraiser, telling party supporters: "We are getting ready for a campaign that could come quite soon."

All told, two ministers and at least three staff went on the western trip. The total cost of these trips for all parties is tough to nail down because ministers and staff charge different costs to different accounts and only some are publicly accessible. It certainly cost the Department of National Defence at least $10,000. (MacKay's aide paid for the Kelowna leg of the trip out of his own pocket, while MacKay, whose riding is in Nova Scotia, covered the Kelowna leg from his House of Commons travel allowance, a fund typically used for travel related to the minister's constituency).

For the Conservative party, the trip cost nothing, though about $40,000 was raised in Victoria and Kelowna.

In looking into expense reports since 2006, the Star tried to find out which came first, the decision to hold a fundraiser or the need for a government trip to be taken by a minister and a political aide. In one case, the Star found three ministers converging on the Harrison Hot Springs resort hotel in British Columbia for a major regional Conservative conference last fall that was about a year in the planning.

Stockwell Day (public safety); Chuck Strahl (Indian affairs) and Gary Lunn (natural resources) gave keynote speeches at the conference, and the theme was getting ready for the next election.

Strahl billed taxpayers about $5,000 for a five-day period that included the Tory conference. His expense report says he had "First Nations meetings" in Vancouver.

When the Star raised this, spokesperson Ted Yeomans said a "clerical error" was made and he said the department of Indian and northern affairs should not have paid for the portion of travel for the fundraiser. Strahl's Commons travel budget has now paid the money back.

Expense reports show Day was in the area to make a "national crime prevention centre announcement" in Vancouver. When the Star told Day's staff that his crime prevention announcement was actually the following month, they checked and agreed. They blamed an "error on the website" and said Day was actually making a Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements announcement in Squamish, north of Vancouver, then travelled to the Conservative conference.

"No public money was used to transport Minister Day to political events," spokesperson John Brent said.

Day's expense report shows only a $295 travel expense for the day prior to the Tory conference. However, three political assistants who state they accompanied him charged taxpayers about $3,000 in expenses for the conference period. Two state on their expense reports they went to Harrison Hot Springs, a 90-minute drive east of Vancouver, where the conference was held. Questions about this issue were not answered.

The Star had a hard time getting answers from ministers, even though Stephen Harper vowed to make accountability "one of the major pursuits of our new government" before he was sworn in as prime minister in February 2006. Some staffers were evasive, some dragged their feet, some refused to answer questions and one hinted that nothing could be released without approval from the Prime Minister's Office.

Conacher said published government expense reports (they are on the federal government's website under a heading "Proactive Disclosure") raise more questions than they answer. Since there is just a dollar figure given for meals, travel and hotel, and a vague description of the government business, the public can't tell how public money is being spent.

In the case of Lunn's expense reports for the Conservative conference, the problem is clear.

Lunn's expense reports show a $10,000 expense for several trips in a short period, leading up to the conference, and ending in British Columbia. His assistant, who typically travels with him, shows on her expense report a $5,000 bill to taxpayers for a five-day period that includes the three-day conference in Harrison Hot Springs. Lunn's office, which was contacted almost two weeks ago, has not responded to detailed questions.

[M.Dancer]

I'm here. However, I never whined about the practice; only the hypocrisy of suggesting they never used this fundraising tool.

Really? Then I suppose your desire to ban them was simply phoney and two faced?

Yep

[Progressive Tory]

Money goes IN.

Money comes OUT.

IN. OUT.

All very familiar, eh?[/i]

The difference with this "In and Out" is that the Conservatives tried to defraud taxpayers with forged receipts. It wasn't just about election overspending, but an attempt to claim credits they weren't entitled to. This one is not. But if you want to play the party fundraising game, I'm in.

Taxpayers pick up Tory tab

Elections Canada warns parties on campaign costs

No Election Will Absolve Harper’s Conservatives from Potentially Fraudulent Acquisition of Power

Global Compliance Research Project - During the week of August 11-14, the media reported on the investigation, by the Parliamentary Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, into the Conservative financial schemes of the 2006 election. The media reported on the scheme of transferring expenses to the local riding, in violation of the Elections Act, and on the failure of most of the Conservative candidates, who were subpoenaed, to appear before the Committee. The media, a week later, however, reported that Harper believes that Parliament is dysfunctional, and that Harper is prepared to call an election. The media, however is not making a connection between the serious violation of the Elections Act by the Conservatives in the last election, and whether an election should even be possible when there are allegations of violations of the Elections Act, and also whether the Conservative Party, if found guilty of fraud, should even be permitted to function as the government of Canada. Or has Canada arrived at an untenable position that leaders, executives and candidates of political parties have immunity to fraud?

“Help! Help! We’re Being Oppressed!”

[Progressive Tory]

If there is a big surplus turned over, you might have a case that this bypasses the spirit of the law but at the moment, it looks like Ignatieff is using the money to go from one end of the country to the country as part of his leadership.

Exactly. His leadership will still need to officially confirmed at the convention. There were extenuating circumstances requiring immediate action, when Harper threatened another election hoping to be able to once again run against Dion. Ignatieff still needs to campaign to validate his leadership, which Conservatives themselves have declared to be undemocratic.

Statement from Michael Ignatieff leadership campaign regarding fundraising

Although there is only one candidate for the Leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, Michael Ignatieff's campaign continues to incur expenses that remain his sole responsibility until the campaign concludes at the Biennial Convention in May.

All campaign donations and expenses will be made public through Elections Canada. The campaign does not expect to run a surplus.

This is perfectly legal and the Conservatives know it. They are grasping at straws.

[Progressive Tory]

Sure spin spin spin. There is no leadership race so hence no more campaign expenses. This is more back door fundraising on the part of the liberals. Much like the "auction" that was cancelled last year.

According to the rules Ignatieff must incur all expenses until he is officially declared the leader in May. I know it's difficult for a Conservative to comprehend adhering to Elections Canada rules, but we must.