Unusual Riding Association Donations

[robert_viera]

I was looking at contributions to riding associations today and came across some unusual ones:

Contributor's last name is "Unidentified"

Unidentified A 2007-05-21 250.00 0.00 250.00 Calgary--Nose Hill Conservative Association AB Conservative 2007

Unidentified B 2007-05-21 250.00 0.00 250.00 Calgary--Nose Hill Conservative Association AB Conservative 2007

Contributor's name is "Conservative Fund Canada"

Fund Canada Conservative 2008-08-29 170.00 0.00 170.00 Cape Breton--Canso Conservative Association NS Conservative 2008

Fund Canada Conservative 2008-06-05 212.50 0.00 212.50 Cape Breton--Canso Conservative Association NS Conservative 2008

Fund Canada Conservative 2008-03-27 210.00 0.00 210.00 Cape Breton--Canso Conservative Association NS Conservative 2008

Fund Canada Conservative 2007-02-08 276.50 0.00 276.50 Cape Breton--Canso Conservative Association NS Conservative 2007

Fund Canada Conservative 2007-12-18 127.50 0.00 127.50 Cape Breton--Canso Conservative Association NS Conservative 2007

Fund Canada Conservative 2007-02-08 290.00 0.00 290.00 Cape Breton--Canso Conservative Association NS Conservative 2007

Fund Canada Conservative 2007-05-01 185.00 0.00 185.00 Cape Breton--Canso Conservative Association NS Conservative 2007

Fund Canada Conservative 2007-07-05 140.00 0.00 140.00 Cape Breton--Canso Conservative Association NS Conservative 2007

Companies?

Agent Signs & Designs 2007-02-05 1000.00 0.00 1000.00 Ottawa South Conservative Association ON Conservative 2007

Depanneur Delta 2007-02-05 1000.00 0.00 1000.00 Ottawa South Conservative Association ON Conservative 2007

House of Pizza 2007-02-05 1000.00 0.00 1000.00 Ottawa South Conservative Association ON Conservative 2007

My Cell 2007-02-05 1000.00 0.00 1000.00 Ottawa South Conservative Association ON Conservative 2007

9154-2589 Quebec Inc. 2007-02-05 1000.00 0.00 1000.00 Ottawa South Conservative Association ON Conservative 2007

$0?

Cudmore Verna 2007-12-13 0.00 0.00 0.00 Malpeque Conservative Association PE Conservative 2007

Over the limit?

ARSENAULT NORMAND 2008-09-05 1150.00 0.00 1150.00 Association du Parti conservateur Gaspésie--Iles-de-la-Madeleine QC Conservative 2008

[DrGreenthumb]

It wouldn't matter if you found absolute proof that Harper regularly engaged in beastiality, had buried 50 million dollars in oil bribes in his back yard, and boiled kittens alive to make stew every sunday after drinking pigs blood at a satanic alter, the Con partisans would just make excuses for him and vote Conservative anyway.

The guy has twice in two years subverted democracy and shut down parliament denying Canadians their right to be represented in the House of Commons. The Con cheerleaders don't care if he destroys our democracy as long as "their guy" holds on to power. Sadly we have a Harper dictatorship, democracy has been murdered.

[Bugs]

It wouldn't matter if you found absolute proof that Harper regularly engaged in beastiality, had buried 50 million dollars in oil bribes in his back yard, and boiled kittens alive to make stew every sunday after drinking pigs blood at a satanic alter, the Con partisans would just make excuses for him and vote Conservative anyway.

The guy has twice in two years subverted democracy and shut down parliament denying Canadians their right to be represented in the House of Commons. The Con cheerleaders don't care if he destroys our democracy as long as "their guy" holds on to power. Sadly we have a Harper dictatorship, democracy has been murdered.

And you know what? The bitch is that he's better than the other guy! (Though it's a little hard to see how the head of a minority government can be dictator very effectively.

Two subversions of democracy in four years? Not bad. I am sure that Chretien outpaced that, by far. Remember the golf course deal? Or the Somali Inquiry being shut down? Remember when he had the head of the Bank ruined for being right? Christ, he even prorogued Parliament repeatedly, just as he liked. Nobody even complained.

And Mulroney was no angel. There must have been years there when he subverted democracy half a dozen times.

That's what's weird. Despite what is said about our present PM, most people are just glad that they have him, and they think he's better than what he replaced. I suppose it's a bit like the relief that comes when you stop banging your head against the wall.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Bugs

[DrGreenthumb]

And you know what? The bitch is that he's better than the other guy! (Though it's a little hard to see how the head of a minority government can be dictator very effectively.

Two subversions of democracy in four years? Not bad. I am sure that Chretien outpaced that, by far. Remember the golf course deal? Or the Somali Inquiry being shut down? Remember when he had the head of the Bank ruined for being right? Christ, he even prorogued Parliament repeatedly, just as he liked. Nobody even complained.

And Mulroney was no angel. There must have been years there when he subverted democracy half a dozen times.

That's what's weird. Despite what is said about our present PM, most people are just glad that they have him, and they think he's better than what he replaced. I suppose it's a bit like the relief that comes when you stop banging your head against the wall.

2/3 of Canadians can't stand Harper. The smart 2/3.

[capricorn]

2/3 of Canadians can't stand Harper.

How many of that 2/3 is stoned?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

How many of that 2/3 is stoned?

Lets take a poll...I am not stoned and don't like him.

[DrGreenthumb]

How many of that 2/3 is stoned?

I don't know, but stoned or straight they are still not dumb enough to vote Conservative. The Conservative demographic is least likely to be intelligent or educated.

[Wild Bill]

It wouldn't matter if you found absolute proof that Harper regularly engaged in beastiality, had buried 50 million dollars in oil bribes in his back yard, and boiled kittens alive to make stew every sunday after drinking pigs blood at a satanic alter, the Con partisans would just make excuses for him and vote Conservative anyway.

The guy has twice in two years subverted democracy and shut down parliament denying Canadians their right to be represented in the House of Commons. The Con cheerleaders don't care if he destroys our democracy as long as "their guy" holds on to power. Sadly we have a Harper dictatorship, democracy has been murdered.

You misunderstand. It's not that they would forgive Harper if he had done all that. Rather, they believe that the other parties (especially the Liberals!) are ALREADY REGULARLY DOING THOSE THINGS!

Sheesh! Are ya new? I thought that was obvious!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The fact that these things are getting out probably does not mean good news for Harper. He doesn't need bad press right now.

[Topaz]

Harper been in the PMO long enough for his supporters to know what exactly the party stands for and this last thing about the coverup of the truth should be a wake up call for them, IF they believe in the government of Canada, should always stand for truth, honesty, always. IF they do vote him back in again, what does that say about THEIR moral values? Are they throwing that away over having THEIR party win over the others? This is serious stuff, Ottawa make rules that can affect all of our lives, like being jobless, going to war, etc. I like to know of any od the supporter her, care about honesty?

[Wild Bill]

Harper been in the PMO long enough for his supporters to know what exactly the party stands for and this last thing about the coverup of the truth should be a wake up call for them, IF they believe in the government of Canada, should always stand for truth, honesty, always. IF they do vote him back in again, what does that say about THEIR moral values? Are they throwing that away over having THEIR party win over the others? This is serious stuff, Ottawa make rules that can affect all of our lives, like being jobless, going to war, etc. I like to know of any od the supporter her, care about honesty?

Well Topaz, let's just assume you're right! So we shouldn't vote for them. However, the other parties have done worse!

So just who do you think we should vote FOR? The NDP, who never knew a business they didn't want to tax to death until it left the country? The Greens? Hah! Or the Liberals, with their tradition of Adscam and Shawinigate?

You love to tear Harper down. You never say anything about any real alternative.

[nicky10013]

Well Topaz, let's just assume you're right! So we shouldn't vote for them. However, the other parties have done worse!

So just who do you think we should vote FOR? The NDP, who never knew a business they didn't want to tax to death until it left the country? The Greens? Hah! Or the Liberals, with their tradition of Adscam and Shawinigate?

You love to tear Harper down. You never say anything about any real alternative.

The Party of Adscam and Shawinigate is long gone. Conservatives holding onto Adscam is just dumb. Why don't the Liberals ever bring up Brian Mulroney? This post is endemic of Conservative mentality. "Well the Liberals did it first so it makes it ok for us to do it, too."

Furthermore, the fact that party bureaucrats took money is awful, no doubt. However, I personally view the damage being done to our system right now much worse than people taking money. Why? Money can be repaid (and it was), damage to the system generally can never be undone. That's just my opinion, though.

[William Ashley]

Lets take a poll...I am not stoned and don't like him.

I am not stoned and don't like him as PM.

^lolz @ drgreenthumb

Remember there is an alternative ... last thing that is needed is a spoiler though

http://williamashley.info/SOCIAL/SP/SP.htm

Remember although it may be inane and imposible there is an oppourtunity for good governance, people just need to hold government accountable for the things it does to the public and forces the public to do.

Edited January 5, 2010 by William Ashley

[Michael Hardner]

Ahem... how about the OP folks ?

Does anybody know why 'unidentified' or 'Conservative Fund Canada' are listed as legitimate contributors ?

[capricorn]

Does anybody know why 'unidentified' or 'Conservative Fund Canada' are listed as legitimate contributors ?

I know that when I make a donation to the Conservative Party by cheque, it must be made payable to "Conservative Fund Canada". Don't know about other parties.

[robert_viera]

Ahem... how about the OP folks ?

Does anybody know why 'unidentified' or 'Conservative Fund Canada' are listed as legitimate contributors ?

I can't fathom why they wouldn't be able to identify a donor, as cash donations of more than $20 are not allowed. (Canada Elections Act s. 403.31 405.31) <--- CORRECTION

Edited January 6, 2010 by robert_viera

[robert_viera]

I know that when I make a donation to the Conservative Party by cheque, it must be made payable to "Conservative Fund Canada". Don't know about other parties.

In this case "Conservative Fund Canada" is the contributor, not the recipient.

[Michael Hardner]

These don't appear to be legal contributions, but I think the explanation is likely that it's an error.

In any case, I sent these to the editor of the Cape Breton Post...

[capricorn]

I doubt donations to the Liberal Party made by cheque are made payable directly to the Liberal Party. They are probably made to an agent acting on behalf of the Party. Anyone here donate to the Liberals? If so, please enlighten us.

[Michael Hardner]

I doubt donations to the Liberal Party made by cheque are made payable directly to the Liberal Party. They are probably made to an agent acting on behalf of the Party. Anyone here donate to the Liberals? If so, please enlighten us.

Please read Robert's post above.

[capricorn]

I did. "Conservative Fund Canada" acts as an agent on behalf of the party and "receives" the donations on its behalf. It is only a contributor in the sense that it reports donations to Elections Canada. That's the way I understand it.

That said, Michael is doing the right thing by questioning those entries if that's a concern to him.

[Michael Hardner]

I did. "Conservative Fund Canada" acts as an agent on behalf of the party and "receives" the donations on its behalf. It is only a contributor in the sense that it reports donations to Elections Canada. That's the way I understand it.

That said, Michael is doing the right thing by questioning those entries if that's a concern to him.

Aha, so you're saying that those are transfers from the federal party ? I guess so, but then Robert would have noticed this source elsewhere I would think. And - Robert - where did you get this list ? No link ?

[capricorn]

Aha, so you're saying that those are transfers from the federal party ?

No.

Sorry, in my other post I meant to say "Robert" is right to question those entries.

[Wild Bill]

No.

Sorry, in my other post I meant to say "Robert" is right to question those entries.

And when we "question those entries" we should all keep some perspective. I've been there, accepting party donations. You have to understand that all your help is from volunteers and some are more able than others. Sometimes for the life of me I just couldn't read the handwriting on the donation slip, even though it clearly said "Please Print"! Sometimes people made errors with the slips. It's a real world and any experienced auditor understands this and makes allowances.

What we should look for is not errors made from $20 donations but rather with $1000 donations! Ordinary people might make a mistake filling out a form to give $20. Nobody who can afford to give $1000 would not fill out the form clearly! No party has the time resources to try to jam a useful amount of money through a zillion $20 mistakes!

So along with perspective comes some common sense, the partisanship of some anti-Harper fanatics not withstanding when they equate a $20 error with the Watergate Affair.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Michael Hardner]

So along with perspective comes some common sense, the partisanship of some anti-Harper fanatics not withstanding when they equate a $20 error with the Watergate Affair.

It does seem minor, but since we seem to be dealing with first hand information, why not look into it, I say.