Is Avaaz An Unregistered Lobbiest

[scribblet]

I have to believe that Avaaz is not following our rules, this certainly warrants investigation.

McGuinty to worry aloud in a news release Monday that the government would “listen to a powerful foreign influence” when considering Canadian policy.

But during the last federal election, Avaaz, an internationally based liberal activist group, registered for the first time as a third party in Canada — meaning it raised and spent money on campaigning, but wasn’t an official party or candidate.

It spent tens of thousands of dollars aimed at defeating three Conservative candidates in three federal ridings, even though the Elections Act puts a tight limit on that kind of targeted spending to just a few thousand dollars. It has lately been lobbying the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s chairman to influence his decisions. It has lobbied the Conservative government on climate policy (it is behind those “fossil of the day” awards regularly handed out to Canada at climate summits) and organized rallies and petitions to convince the Governor General to bless the coalition of opposition forces attempting to unseat the Tories in 2008.

All this even though Avaaz is not listed in Canada’s lobbyist registry.

Third-party organizations are not legally allowed to buy interference in Canadian elections, using ads or similar communication tactics, with even a dollar of foreign funds. But whether Avaaz itself — the name means “voice” in a number of languages — is Canadian or a foreign influence remains a matter of some ambiguity. The group is based in New York; archived copies of Avaaz’s website from as recently as last year read “we currently have staff based in Rio de Janeiro, Geneva, New York, London, and Washington DC,” without mentioning any Canadian presence.

The group has no specific Canadian website. The Ottawa phone number listed on Avaaz’s third party election advertising report no longer works; it currently belongs to a federal civil servant who says that he was only recently assigned the number by his wireless provider.

Avaaz’s media relations office in New York did not return several messages left over several days requesting clarification on this, or other questions about the group’s participation in Canadian politics.

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/20/kevin-libin-the-third-party-no-one-talks-about/#ixzz104j3XLko

[capricorn]

It's questionable whether Avaaz remained within election spending limits imposed on third parties by Canadian law. The other question raised is whether the money spent came strictly from funds raised in Canada.

Third-party organizations are not legally allowed to buy interference in Canadian elections, using ads or similar communication tactics, with even a dollar of foreign funds.

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/third+party+talks+about/3549000/story.html

As we discover, Avaaz doesn't limit its activism to elections or the anti-gun movement.

Avaaz is a new web-based democratic advocacy group that has grown in

18 months to over 300,000 supporters across Canada. Avaaz exposed and

challenged the Harper government's policy at the UN climate change summit in

Bali through sending hundreds of thousands of messages and funding a widely

publicized ad campaign.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2008/11/c5521.html

That type of activity doesn't come cheap and I'm also wondering if it was funded with money raised in Canada. Avaaz appears to have very deep pockets.

[M.Dancer]

Avaaz appears to have very deep pockets.

So does Soros

[PIK]

You have this going on, the CBC printing BS stories about the NRA making the decisions for the goverment. So who runs this country ? Time for a harper majority to take our country back, the left is selling us out.

[scribblet]

Avaaz is either breaking the election rules or they really are a foreign socialist org. influenceing and interfering in Canadian politics etc. They can't have it both ways so someone really does need to investigate those deep pockets !!

[waldo]

Avaaz is either breaking the election rules or they really are a foreign socialist org. influenceing and interfering in Canadian politics etc. They can't have it both ways so someone really does need to investigate those deep pockets !!

but scriblett... your own linked article states Elections Canada investigated Rusty Baird's whiny complaint and found no wrongdoing - is there a problem?

given Ezra Levant's recent mind-numbing and fallacious attack against Soros... the one FoxNewsNorth & Levant have had to apologize for and retract... focus on alleged Soros funding to Avaaz came under significant review. Poor flailing Dancer will need to consult with his cats and find another target - no Soros funding has gone directly to Avaaz and the amount that flowed through an interim source was minimal. Since Dancer (and capricorn) imply the deep-pockets Soros is the funding bankroll behind Avaaz, I'm sure they could provide figures to support their claims - hey?

(Avaaz's) Mr. Patel responded to the claims of foreign meddling by insisting that the “campaign is of, by, and for Canadians, and strictly Canadian money is being used.”

[Evening Star]

Yeah, this sounds like fearmongering. The groups should certainly abide by Canadian laws but if they've been investigated and have not been found to be doing anything illegal, what's the issue? Foreign-owed businesses and media spread information and opinions all the time.

Even the Post article acknowledges

If Avaaz has no dedicated staff devoting at least 20% of their time to pressuring Canadian public office holders, however, it needn’t register, likely making all of this legal.

[scribblet]

They didn't investigate it, they refused to consider the complaint. Someone needs to ask that this be reconsidered.

Supporters of Avaaz and foreign interference in what Canadians get to watch, are telling us they are not 'foreign', it is not a U.S., they can't have it both ways. Not to mention the double standards around the issue of foreign interests, it's okay for Avaaz to interfere, but it's not okay for the NRA to help out some private clubs by giving them data.

But whether Avaaz is actually a Canadian entity, entirely funded by Canadians, is a question that has implications for more than just how it operated in the past federal election; Avaaz's latest battle is to "Stop 'Fox News North'"--a petition on its website, now exceeding 80,000 signatures, to pressure Mr. Harper and CRTC chair Konrad Von Finckenstein to prevent Sun TV, the nascent channel being launched by Quebecor, from being "funded from our cable fees."

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/third+party+talks+about/3549000/story.html#ixzz105rYjMQH

[waldo]

They didn't investigate it, they refused to consider the complaint. Someone needs to ask that this be reconsidered.

no - it was considered by Elections Canada, and found without merit... from your own link:

Elections Canada apparently did not consider the Conservatives' complaint about Avaaz to have merit

did you even read your own linked article?

[Evening Star]

They're not trying to interfere in what Canadians "get to watch". They're getting involved in the question of whether a channel should become a mandatory part of cable packages, which is a different issue.

Not to mention the double standards around the issue of foreign interests, it's okay for Avaaz to interfere, but it's not okay for the NRA to help out some private clubs by giving them data.

Both groups have the right to get involved in these debates as long as they abide by Canadian laws.

[M.Dancer]

They're not trying to interfere in what Canadians "get to watch". They're getting involved in the question of whether a channel should become a mandatory part of cable packages, which is a different issue.

Baloney....rasining the spectre of fox news and hate was an attemp to block, full stop. The issue of whether Sun should have the same access as the CBC and a host of others was not their concern.

[Argus]

Yeah, this sounds like fearmongering. The groups should certainly abide by Canadian laws but if they've been investigated and have not been found to be doing anything illegal, what's the issue?

There was no investigation. Baird complained about their announced intentions and Election Canada said there was no reason to presume they were going to violate the spending laws. No review of their advertising costs was ever conducted nor did Elections Canada ever look at their advertising to see what it said. Though I have a sneaking suspicion that f they had been campaigning on behalf of the Conservatives Elections Canada would have set up a branch office just to oversee the massive investigation which would have been launched.

[Argus]

no - it was considered by Elections Canada, and found without merit... from your own link:

did you even read your own linked article?

Did you?

[dre]

You have this going on, the CBC printing BS stories about the NRA making the decisions for the goverment. So who runs this country ? Time for a harper majority to take our country back, the left is selling us out.

No way.

I think time for Majority Governments in Canada is over. I dont believe we will see one for a long long time, and Id be happy if I never saw one again by ANY party. We just dont have the kind of people in politics today that should be trusted with that much power.

Ill be voting to that effect from now on as well. Not so much for a particular party, but to keep a permanent minority government.

[scribblet]

They're not trying to interfere in what Canadians "get to watch". They're getting involved in the question of whether a channel should become a mandatory part of cable packages, which is a different issue.

Both groups have the right to get involved in these debates as long as they abide by Canadian laws.

The cable packaging is a smoke screen, if you believe that, that is all it's about then I can sell you some swamp land in Florida.

[Bitsy]

I have to believe that Avaaz is not following our rules, this certainly warrants investigation.

Well, golly gee, looks like they have had over two years for investigations to find some illegalities but so far all they have are some paranoia from the ones who really want to stifle free speech.

Hey, remember that weird press release John Bairds campaign put out earlier today in response? The one that claimed a Wall Street Billionaire was bankrolling an anti-Harper campaign, possibly in violation of the Canada Elections Act?

Berryposted from the road (so excuse any formatting glitches):

Avaaz Denounces John Bairds Deception and Intimidation Tactics to Silence Canadas Environmental Voice

At a press conference in Ottawa today, Avaaz.ca, the 300,000 strong online activist community, launched its campaign stop a Harper majority government and the devastating consequences it would have for climate change. The campaign encourages Canadians in close races to work across party lines to save the planet and vote smart for the candidate most likely to defeat the Conservative candidate.

After the conference, staff members of Minister of the Environment John Baird distributed a press release accusing the Avaaz effort of being a shadowy foreign initiative, funded by foreign billionaire George Soros, which is violating Canadian election law. All of these allegations are false.

In fact, the Avaaz campaign is exclusively run and funded by Canadians, and has been fully reviewed and registered as a legitimate third party by Elections Canada and is listed on its website. Avaaz proactively initiated full consultations with Elections Canada lawyers, who approved the application.

Our campaign is of, by, and for Canadians, and strictly Canadian money is being used, thats verified by an auditor registered with Elections Canada, said Avaaz Executive Director Ricken Pstel.

We have been very careful about this, to even go beyond normal procedure to discuss our campaign with Elections Canada lawyers, and we are 100% in compliance with Canadian law.

We have over 300,000 subscribers across Canada almost 1% of the Canadian population people who have mobilized for this campaign to donate over $100,000 in small online donations, tell friends, and get active like never before. I dont think theyll be happy to hear Mr. Baird call them shadowy foreigners".

I approached the staff in Minister Bairds office directly and encouraged them to check with Elections Canada before distributing these falsehoods, but they werent interested in checking their facts added Patel.

This is exactly the kind of deceptive and intimidating tactics that the Harper government in general and John Baird in particular have tried to use to silence environmental advocates who tell the Canadian public the truth about the Harper record.

Theyre also hoping to distract people from our urgent message to Canadians to stop a Harper government from devastating the climate.

Bairds press release cleverly used the words apparently and supposedly when leveling accusations against us, which might be chosen to avoid the possibility of libel suit on this added Patel.

Avaaz.org is the largest online activist community in the world, with 3.4 million members from every nation of the world. Avaaz.ca is the Canadian arm of the organization, with a Canadian team and office in Ottawa. Avaaz founder and Executive Director Ricken Patel is a Canadian citizen, born and raised in Edmonton, Alberta.

So your move, John Baird?

http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/avaaz/

Edited September 20, 2010 by Bity

[scribblet]

Well, golly gee, looks like they have had over two years for investigations to find some illegalities but so far all they have are some paranoia from the ones who really want to stifle free speech.

http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/avaaz/

Gosh really Bity - who really wants to stifle free speech - surely not the leftists, or American unregistered lobbiests.

[Bitsy]

Gosh really Bity - who really wants to stifle free speech - surely not the leftists, or American unregistered lobbiests.

Nope, not them!!! The ones who seem to be afraid of one little petition and make an all out assault on not just the organization but a supposed founder, Soros. That didn't work out so well for the bastion of free speech though, Soros, decided to challenged the lies set up to silence the free speech of the opposition. How is that lawsuit of Sun Media's progressing; you know the one they threatened Avaaz with?

If the international organiation, Avaaz, has broken any Canadian laws, petition your officials to prosecute them; as I said in my first post, they have known of their activities for 2 years now

[msdogfood]

I have been looking at the ongoing thread conversations. Everybody on this site might want to look up the definition of a charity or non-profit or not-for-profit organization. If they did I think it might clarify some peoples positon. Not-for-profits do have some of the powers of people even though they are classified as an entity as we recently found out with the Canadian Blood Services fiasco. Another little known example of a not-for-profit is, believe it or not, NAV Canada the N-F-P organization that runs the Canadian air traffic control system. Both of these organizations do have fairly expansive independent powers and can exert influence. Now I am aware that neither of these organizations have exerted any political influence, however they would have the capacity to do so. Everybody watch your definitions.

[August1991]

Well, golly gee, looks like they have had over two years for investigations to find some illegalities but so far all they have are some paranoia from the ones who really want to stifle free speech.

And of course, we will simply accept Patel (a resident of New York) and Avaaz at face value in this matter.

It is ironic that Atwood has signed an American promoted petition to stop a Canadian network from creating a news channel. It is further ironic that the CBC chooses to deride the mere suggestion of the US NRA's involvement in Canadian politics (through a sister Canadian organization or not) - while saying nothing of Avaaz.

----

At issue, IMHO, is something else.

For a long time, people like Atwood and other Southern Ontario aparatchiks (for lack of a better term) have defined Canada (or at least English Canada) in their own way. For the most part, this definition involved a healthy dose of anti-Americanism.

Stephen Harper happens to be a WASP English-Canadian - he's a Canadian, to speak more generally. Margaret Atwwod does not own the definition of Canada and she is not the arbiter of who is a good Canadian or not.

That's the issue.

Edited September 21, 2010 by August1991

[msdogfood]

And of course, we will simply accept Patel (a resident of New York) and Avaaz at face value in this matter.

It is ironic that Atwood has signed an American promoted petition to stop a Canadian network from creating a news channel. It is further ironic that the CBC chooses to deride the mere suggestion of the US NRA's involvement in Canadian politics (through a sister Canadian organization or not) - while saying nothing of Avaaz.

----

At issue, IMHO, is something else.

For a long time, people like Atwood and other Southern Ontario aparatchiks (for lack of a better term) have defined Canada (or at least English Canada) in their own way. For the most part, this definition involved a healthy dose of anti-Americanism.

Stephen Harper happens to be a WASP English-Canadian - he's a Canadian, to speak more generally. Margaret Atwwod does not own the definition of Canada and she is not the arbiter of who is a good Canadian or not.

That's the issue.

No its not the issue you just want it to be.

[August1991]

No its not the issue you just want it to be.

I beg to differ. It is the issue.

Moreover, I expect Atwood and people like her to claim suddenly that Harper is divisive. "Harper wants to divide Canadians, use wedge issues."

As if Atwood herself never divided Canadians, or decided who was a "good" Canadian and who wasn't.

----

My Canada is divided first along language. Some of us speak English at home, others speak French. We are further divided by the religion of our grandparents - some were Catholic, others protestant.

My thinking about all this? Canadians are divided. So what? We live peacefully together, and pay our taxes. We have done this for over 200 years.

The last thing we need is an English Canadian leftist writer pretending to speak for "Canada" explaining what Canada is, or what TV news channel Canadians should watch.

In her own mind, Margaret Atwood is another Emile Zola. Such hubris. In 2010, people still read Zola. I suspect that in 2110, Atwood - if she is lucky - will be as well known as Arnold Bennett is now. She's no Maugham.

----

Harper divisive? Chretien and Trudeau were just as divisive - if you were on the other side.

Edited September 21, 2010 by August1991

[waldo]

It is ironic that Atwood has signed an American promoted petition to stop a Canadian network from creating a news channel.

American promoted petition? How so... American promoted?

what's that you say?... a, "petition to stop a Canadian network from creating a news channel"... how do you equate your understanding of the petition (intent), based on it's actual wording. All those who railed against the petition's supposed "suppression of free speech", did so based upon what petition wording?

To CRTC Chair von Finckenstein and PM Harper:

As concerned Canadians who deeply oppose American-style hate media on our airwaves, we applaud the CRTC's refusal to allow a new "Fox News North" channel

to be funded from our cable fees

. We urge Mr. von Finckenstein to stay in his job and continue to stand up for Canada's democratic traditions, and call on Prime Minister Harper to immediately stop all pressure on the CRTC on this matter.

[betsy]

A guy named Patel (representing Avaaz) makes accusation on tv against Harper influencing the CRTC.

Twice, Solomon asked him if he had any evidence to back up his accusation, and this Patel doesn't have any. He insists on information from sources and rumours.

What I want to know is why this Avaaz is trying to censor and control information. Why is this group even given so much time - twice he's been featured on CBC - to express their un-democratic notion, not to mention to even make this attempt at dictatorial control!

The media's gone soft....nobody strongly challenge this group! I don't care if it's garbage news or whatever - it's my right to choose what I want to watch!

Edited September 21, 2010 by betsy

[bloodyminded]

The last thing we need is an English Canadian leftist writer pretending to speak for "Canada" explaining what Canada is, or what TV news channel Canadians should watch.

So Red Tories (which is what she is) are "leftists" now?

In her own mind, Margaret Atwood is another Emile Zola. Such hubris. In 2010, people still read Zola. I suspect that in 2110, Atwood - if she is lucky - will be as well known as Arnold Bennett is now. She's no Maugham.

I'm no Maugham fan, but yes, I think Atwood is astonishingly overrated.

----