Tory MP Uses Public Funds to Support Successor in Campaign

[nicky10013]

Jee, no complaints from the CTF...do as I say, not as I do.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/101109/national/tory_nomination_gripes

A departing Conservative MP used publicly funded House of Commons resources to back his political successor — a candidate who once headed the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and was a senior aide to the prime minister.

"As we prepare for the next federal election, the following few months are extremely important. The prime minister wants the party to present the best slate of candidates possible in all 308 ridings," MP Greg Thompson wrote on Commons letterhead of the contest to replace him in New Brunswick Southwest.

"I also believe it is important that you know exactly why I'm supporting John Williamson as our next Conservative candidate and MP."

"I was appreciative of his support and I know that other candidates wanted it, they were climbing all over themselves for it, but ultimately Greg did what Greg thought was best," Williamson said.

[scribblet]

Kinda like this one I suppose

http://bcinto.blogspot.com/2010/08/maurizio-bevilacqua-expected-to-resign.html

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/851501

[Wild Bill]

Kinda like this one I suppose

http://bcinto.blogspot.com/2010/08/maurizio-bevilacqua-expected-to-resign.html

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/851501

Now Scrib, you know it only matters if a Tory sins! In fact, its only a sin if a Tory does it!

Just ask a Liberal!

[William Ashley]

Jee, no complaints from the CTF...do as I say, not as I do.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/101109/national/tory_nomination_gripes

The issue is not what he did but because tax payers fund MPs to send political messages. I think it is marked of a very bad concept.

1. MPs have their own webpages, their own offices, subsidized residences, and travel allowances.

2. MP's can send and receive official mail for free... the issue here is that MP's spam - it is good for insuring activity - but why not just take out an ad in a newspaper - why the mail?

3. I don't disagree with the practice, but I firmly believe MP's are paid well enough to live and pay for their own marketing. Tax payers shouldn't be paying for funding - a system should exist where the MP actually communicates with their constituents in person, that is after all why they have a physical office isn't it? This wouldn't actually be an issue if parliament were a non charity organization. But as is Parliament the charity organization is spending tax payer funds for party marketing purposes. We need to realign how government functions so that it actually is self supporting instead of relying on charity of tax payers funds - or extorted funds on risk of arrest and imprisonment if not paying the funds for their campaigns.

See the Social Party for a real alternative to these extortion based tactics...

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

Just say no to extortion!

ik-stawr-shuh

Law . the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.

Edited November 10, 2010 by William Ashley

[scribblet]

Now Scrib, you know it only matters if a Tory sins! In fact, its only a sin if a Tory does it!

Just ask a Liberal!

Sigh... I know I know...

[DrGreenthumb]

Now Scrib, you know it only matters if a Tory sins! In fact, its only a sin if a Tory does it!

Just ask a Liberal!

Who was that party that promised to clean up government and be better than the Liberals again..? Now all they do is use past Liberal bad behaviour to justify their own. I'd rather have corrupt Liberals in power than corrupt bible thumping rapturist authoritarian douchebags in government.

[Keepitsimple]

Kinda like this one I suppose

http://bcinto.blogspot.com/2010/08/maurizio-bevilacqua-expected-to-resign.html

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/851501

Not really....Liberal Bevilaqua flooded every household in Vaughan in a manner that tried to curry favour for his personal political gain. Conservative Thompson on the other hand, was only communicating with Conservative Party members in the riding, explaining why he supported Williamson. The fact that he used Commons letterhead and postage is really a red herring. The issue as raised by the local riding is whether it was fair for Thompson to so overtly support Williamson by sending individual letters of support to members. I think they have a point....Thompson could have shown his support in more traditional ways that better respect the Riding nomination process. It's really an internal Conservative Party matter......but riding nominations have often been a sensitive matter for parties of all stripes....re: parachuting of "star" candidates contrary to the wishes of ridings.

Edited November 10, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[nicky10013]

Not really....Liberal Bevilaqua flooded every household in Vaughan in a manner that tried to curry favour for his personal political gain. Conservative Thompson on the other hand, was only communicating with Conservative Party members in the riding, explaining why he supported Williamson. The fact that he used Commons letterhead and postage is really a red herring. The issue as raised by the local riding is whether it was fair for Thompson to so overtly support Williamson by sending individual letters of support to members. I think they have a point....Thompson could have shown his support in more traditional ways that better respect the Riding nomination process. It's really an internal Conservative Party matter......but riding nominations have often been a sensitive matter for parties of all stripes....re: parachuting of "star" candidates contrary to the wishes of ridings.

No, he used his parliamentary office budget to send the letters on commons. That's what it's about.

As for Bevilacqua, if he used donated money to send out those letters I don't see much of an issue with it. If he used his budget that's a different story and I'd be claiming the same accountability of Bevilacqua as I would of Thompson.

Unlike you bunch of happy clapping seals I've no problem chastising a member of my own team. The continued excuse of "Well, the Liberals did it!" Is so hypocritical it's not funny. The Liberals were never elected on no corruption platform, I believe the CPC was, though.

[scribblet]

No, he used his parliamentary office budget to send the letters on commons. That's what it's about.

As for Bevilacqua, if he used donated money to send out those letters I don't see much of an issue with it. If he used his budget that's a different story and I'd be claiming the same accountability of Bevilacqua as I would of Thompson.

Bevilacqua sent out campaign pamphlets from his Federal office before stepping down to declare he was running for Mayor, a stealth campaign so to speak. His opponent Racco did accuse Bevilacqua of illegally mounting a campaign and using federal money to promote himself municipally, before his official registration in September.

If you read carefully, again you will see that the only people complaining about Thompson are the riding Tories, there is no issue with actual spending, only those who see everything through prism of liberal coloured glasses spin it that way.

[Evening Star]

If you read carefully, again you will see that the only people complaining about Thompson are the riding Tories, there is no issue with actual spending,

I think there is, going by the article:

Commons bylaws state that parliamentary resources should not be used for electoral campaigning.

It's totally possible that Bevilacqua is also guilty of similar things (and a stealth campaign does seem a little dishonest) but that's another issue.

[scribblet]

Thompson wasn't using resources for an electoral campaign, it was an in house riding candidate selection, with letters going out only to riding members. I don't believe it's considered an electoral campaign which is the 5 weeks prior to voting day.

Bevilaqua was definitely using his funds for an election campaign sending them out to the whole riding, only it was municipal, and he hadn't resigned as an MP or declared formally that he was running.

[robert_viera]

Conservative Thompson on the other hand, was only communicating with Conservative Party members in the riding, explaining why he supported Williamson. The fact that he used Commons letterhead and postage is really a red herring.

If Thompson's communication was only for Conservative Party members, it definitely should have been paid for by the Conservative Party, not the taxpayer.

[Wild Bill]

Unlike you bunch of happy clapping seals I've no problem chastising a member of my own team. The continued excuse of "Well, the Liberals did it!" Is so hypocritical it's not funny. The Liberals were never elected on no corruption platform, I believe the CPC was, though.

Well, by that logic, I guess the Liberals have absolutely no reason to fell any guilt about AdScam! After all, they never promised to forego corruption, therefore they CAN be corrupt and not face criticism!

[scribblet]

Who was that party that promised to clean up government and be better than the Liberals again..? Now all they do is use past Liberal bad behaviour to justify their own. I'd rather have corrupt Liberals in power than corrupt bible thumping rapturist authoritarian douchebags in government.

Good, because we wouldn't want that either, good thing they are not in government isn't it

As for the other comment about sending out mail to party members only, they are constituents too so it falls under the allowed umbrella.

[bud]

most of you posting in this thread are so predictably dull and boring.

why does this have to turn into conservative vs liberal like we're watching a predictably dull and boring piece from foxnews or msnbc?

just admit when a person is doing something wrong and for once forget which team jersey you're wearing.

Edited November 10, 2010 by bud

[nicky10013]

Well, by that logic, I guess the Liberals have absolutely no reason to fell any guilt about AdScam! After all, they never promised to forego corruption, therefore they CAN be corrupt and not face criticism!

That's not my point. Every one of those bastards deserved to be thrown in prison. However, for conservatives to be on here claiming oh well the Liberals did it first is so hypocritcal, that you shouldn't even be allowed to mount a defense.

[scribblet]

That's not my point. Every one of those bastards deserved to be thrown in prison. However, for conservatives to be on here claiming oh well the Liberals did it first is so hypocritcal, that you shouldn't even be allowed to mount a defense.

That's a pretty stupid thing to say, everyone is allowed a defense - but - neither of them have broken any laws, although the Liberal may have, but I don't see the party going after him.

No one is claiming because the Liberals did it first it's okay, we are just pointing out that in case you didn't know, differences in how the money should be spent happens in all parties but according to some on this board, only conservatives are the bad guys.

[nicky10013]

That's a pretty stupid thing to say, everyone is allowed a defense - but - neither of them have broken any laws, although the Liberal may have, but I don't see the party going after him.

No one is claiming because the Liberals did it first it's okay, we are just pointing out that in case you didn't know, differences in how the money should be spent happens in all parties but according to some on this board, only conservatives are the bad guys.

Didn't I just say these people should be thrown in prison? Funny, you're position on how money should be spent moves pretty much in line with the CPC. If you're ok with money being spent in this frivolous fashion, at least be kind to argue next time around that real conservatives really aren't worried about saving money for tax payers.