Conservative Party of Canada Takes Hit from Elections Canada

[William Ashley]

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/elections-canada-wins-court-appeal-to-overturn-conservative-campaign-accounting-112264229.html

The tories are still in court stemming from their elections win in 2006 - but they have been mirred since then in accusations by elections Canada in a number of electoral fraud issues.

They lost this case though.

What I'm issued with is that, I am hard pressed to see the party deregistered for multiple instances of fraud.

It seems that one of the biggest parties in canada just doesn't get how to do proper election financing.

Do they make the laws so complex no one but judges can understand them?

Clearly there is a problem with election financing law. On the flip side there would be a problem with the Schemes of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Either way they fail on the issue, either by bad legislation or bad interpretation.

So does this then mean they DID OVERSPEND?

$600000 in "funds we didn't spend, but we really did"

seems like a substantial fund when elections only run degree of that.

likewise this ain't the only case ongoing.. another case appeal was filed in Quebec

http://ipolitics.ca/2010/12/17/tories-take-elections-canada-to-court-again-over-campaign-spending/

Edited December 21, 2010 by William Ashley

[Topaz]

This is one of many things that Harper does or trying to pull that makes some voters question how HE ever got into politics and stays in the PMO. He's like a teen who doesn't like the rules so he ignores them or trys to change them. Other parties in the past have played by the rules or suffered for trying not to, what makes him think he's better than them? Being the PM is just a game to him and he sees just how much he can get away with.

[Wild Bill]

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/elections-canada-wins-court-appeal-to-overturn-conservative-campaign-accounting-112264229.html

The tories are still in court stemming from their elections win in 2006 - but they have been mirred since then in accusations by elections Canada in a number of electoral fraud issues.

It seems that one of the biggest parties in canada just doesn't get how to do proper election financing.

Do they make the laws so complex no one but judges can understand them?

It does look like they buggered something up but hey, the laws with campaign funds and also taxation are rarely clear and obvious.

We should note that the reason it was the Tories who got into this fix was because they were the only party that got a lot of public donations! It was easy for the Liberals and the NDP to stay out of trouble. They didn't have much money to handle improperly, or even properly for that matter!

These are accounting things that really don't interest any but those political junkies who hated the Tories in the first place. The Tories interpreted the law one way but it looks like they were wrong so they'll have to pay some back. Big deal! I thought I could declare the cost and upkeep of my toaster as a communications and economic forecasting device. Revenue Canada told me I was wrong so I paid some of my refund back.

These are arguments over accounting tricks, not attempts of a political party to sell us all into slavery with the American Illuminati...

[Argus]

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/elections-canada-wins-court-appeal-to-overturn-conservative-campaign-accounting-112264229.html

The tories are still in court stemming from their elections win in 2006 - but they have been mirred since then in accusations by elections Canada in a number of electoral fraud issues.

Apparently, among your numerous linguistic inadequacies is a definition of fraud - which entirely eludes you. Perhaps the fact the story never used the word nor hinted at it might have clued you in. But your continuing bitterness towards the conservatives evidently were a bigger motivation than truth - or sanity - in this posting.

As usual.

[guyser]

It does look like they buggered something up but hey, the laws with campaign funds and also taxation are rarely clear and obvious.

Except when they are?

From the link..."The three-justice appeal panel overturned that ruling, saying that both Parliament and the Supreme Court have been very clear that spending limits are the primary tool used to promote Canada's "egalitarian model of elections."

These are accounting things that really don't interest any but those political junkies who hated the Tories in the first place.

Are you not the one who tends to rail "part hack party hack", as admonishment for trying to cover for the sins of others?

Well ok then.

The Liberals were under the impression they were handing a CCRA tax guy envelopes of money to pay off tax debts.

Yea thats it.

Only a political junkie would think otherwise.

Edited December 21, 2010 by guyser

[Zachary Young]

Listen, I hate the CPC more than pretty much any other person I know. I disagree with them on pretty much the entire array of policy they advocate but I happen to believe that speech, especially political speech, is sacred and this includes spending money on things during elections. Yes, I am sure there are a million rules to govern exactly how someone can and cannot campaign, and I'm sure during elections these rules are broken but the rules shouldn't be there and it doesn't matter if they are broken. It is paramount that the right to free speech be preserved, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARDS TO POLITICAL SPEECH, and that includes advertising during election campaigns or any other type of sensitive speech, and anyone who politicizes the issue of speech is an enemy of freedom.

[scribblet]

Well said argus.... there was no fraud, or intent to commit fraud, simply a difference of opinion and accounting practices on how these very unclear rules can be applied.( which a lower court accepted). Some people in their haste to smear the CPC will jump on anything then blow it out of proportion. This also speaks to the issue of your other thread.

As for the 'many things that Harper does' - what a crock - you think Harper okays everything,or advises all the EDAs...

Edited December 21, 2010 by scribblet

[PIK]

There will always be little things like this, but smart canadians know that the left is done,tired, has no ideas what to do and spend all their time trying to dig up a scandal here or there and they just can't do it, why because no party is going to be as corrupt as the liberals. Your elitist ways no longer go over with canadians, and till you change and I mean big change all the old liberal guard has to be shown the door and bring in some new blood like the cons did, and get your party going. I am a con ,but believe for the good of the country we need 2 strong parties, just like when the cons were down to nothing the libs went nuts and tried to steal everything that was not tied down.

[guyser]

and anyone who politicizes the issue of speech is an enemy of freedom.

So youre cool with say the LIBERALS not being able to run any ads on TV or in any newspaper ?

Didnt think you'd agree

[guyser]

accounting practices on how these very unclear rules can be applied

Didnt read the report either huh?

Says the rules were clear

[Wild Bill]

Didnt read the report either huh?

Says the rules were clear

Yeah, 'they' SAY lots of things!

Does that make it true? Would you expect an appeal panel to say "Well, our laws AREN'T very clear!"

The Law NEVER says that! If you're ever unfortunate enough to get charged under some vague and imprecise law try using that as a defense and see how far you get!

Sometimes the Law is an ass but the Law NEVER admits it was an ass!

[guyser]

Yeah, 'they' SAY lots of things!

Does that make it true? Would you expect an appeal panel to say "Well, our laws AREN'T very clear!"

The Law NEVER says that! If you're ever unfortunate enough to get charged under some vague and imprecise law try using that as a defense and see how far you get!

Sometimes the Law is an ass but the Law NEVER admits it was an ass!

Ok, the Liberals did not hand cash in an envelope to circumvent anything, it was payment to CCRA. No one better deny this reasonable interpretation from here on in.

Come on, the laws against cash in envelopes is pretty sketchy.

Edited December 21, 2010 by guyser

[Argus]

Didnt read the report either huh?

Says the rules were clear

Apparently not since they won the last court case on the issue.

[Argus]

Except when they are?

From the link..."The three-justice appeal panel overturned that ruling, saying that both Parliament and the Supreme Court have been very clear that spending limits are the primary tool used to promote Canada's "egalitarian model of elections."

Egalitarian? Which means tens of thousands of people who support the Conservative party donate millions of dollars so they can use in their election campaigns. Meanwhile, since neither the BQ nor the Liberals apparently can get people to voluntarily contribute money to them, they prevail on the taxpayer to fund themselves. How every "egalitarian".

"No one will give you any money? Don't you worry, we'll give you taxpayer money to make up for it!"

Edited December 21, 2010 by Argus

[guyser]

Apparently not since they won the last court case on the issue.

The last court case? The report linked say the date is Dec 21

[guyser]

Egalitarian? Which means tens of thousands of people who support the Conservative party donate millions of dollars so they can use in their election campaigns. Meanwhile, since neither the BQ nor the Liberals apparently can get people to voluntarily contribute money to them, they prevail on the taxpayer to fund themselves.

True enough, it was the other way around a few years ago. So?

[Argus]

The last court case? The report linked say the date is Dec 21

They disputed Elections Canada's finding on their "in out" funding, went to court, and the court sided with them.

Now they're disputing Election Canada's finding on the regional offices and have sued them again.

[Argus]

True enough, it was the other way around a few years ago. So?

No, actually it wasn't. The Conservative Party has never had a lot of trouble raising funds from a massive group of supporters. Prior to this when they were the Alliance or the Reform Party, their funding model remained the same: many small donations from a large donor base.

What has changed is that the vast majority of funding for the Liberals always used to come from corporations and the wealthy elites - small numbers of donations but very large amounts. Now that's out and the Liberals - and to a lesser extent the BQ - have had trouble making up for it. Neither could fund their campaigns without public grants because they can't seem to find many people willing to give them money.

[William Ashley]

Apparently, among your numerous linguistic inadequacies is a definition of fraud - which entirely eludes you. Perhaps the fact the story never used the word nor hinted at it might have clued you in. But your continuing bitterness towards the conservatives evidently were a bigger motivation than truth - or sanity - in this posting.

As usual.

a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual;

Although all of these and more are applicable the one in particular is bolded.

Frauds on the government

121. (1) Every one commits an offence who

(a) directly or indirectly

(i) gives, offers or agrees to give or offer to an official or to any member of his family, or to any one for the benefit of an official, or

(ii) being an official, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from any person for himself or another person,

a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with

(iii) the transaction of business with or any matter of business relating to the government, or

(iv) a claim against Her Majesty or any benefit that Her Majesty is authorized or is entitled to bestow,

whether or not, in fact, the official is able to cooperate, render assistance, exercise influence or do or omit to do what is proposed, as the case may be;

( having dealings of any kind with the government, directly or indirectly pays a commission or reward to or confers an advantage or benefit of any kind on an employee or official of the government with which the dealings take place, or to any member of the employee’s or official’s family, or to anyone for the benefit of the employee or official, with respect to those dealings, unless the person has the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government with which the dealings take place;

© being an official or employee of the government, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from a person who has dealings with the government a commission, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for themselves or another person, unless they have the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government that employs them or of which they are an official;

(d) having or pretending to have influence with the government or with a minister of the government or an official, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept, for themselves or another person, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with

(i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or

(ii) the appointment of any person, including themselves, to an office;

(e) directly or indirectly gives or offers, or agrees to give or offer, to a minister of the government or an official, or to anyone for the benefit of a minister or an official, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence, or an act or omission, by that minister or official, in connection with

(i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or

(ii) the appointment of any person, including themselves, to an office; or

(f) having made a tender to obtain a contract with the government,

(i) directly or indirectly gives or offers, or agrees to give or offer, to another person who has made a tender, to a member of that person’s family or to another person for the benefit of that person, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for the withdrawal of the tender of that person, or

(ii) directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from another person who has made a tender a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for themselves or another person as consideration for the withdrawal of their own tender.

Contractor subscribing to election fund

(2) Every one commits an offence who, in order to obtain or retain a contract with the government, or as a term of any such contract, whether express or implied, directly or indirectly subscribes or gives, or agrees to subscribe or give, to any person any valuable consideration

(a) for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate or a class or party of candidates to Parliament or the legislature of a province; or

( with intent to influence or affect in any way the result of an election conducted for the purpose of electing persons to serve in Parliament or the legislature of a province.

Punishment

(3) Every one who commits an offence under this section is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 121; 2007, c. 13, s. 5.

Breach of trust by public officer

122. Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 111.

Its like they have a game going on to break every rule in the book.

Edited December 21, 2010 by William Ashley

[scribblet]

Well that's only your opinion, and your sticking to it

[scribblet]

a different take on this as the CPC is saying that the ruling is outrageous:

“The Ontario Court of Appeal has authorized the practice of political parties double dipping at the expense of Canadian taxpayers,” said party spokesman Fred DeLorey.

“The entire rebate that the Conservative Party has received is being held in trust so we don't have the use of it, and we look forward to returning this money to taxpayers once our further appeal is determined.”

The party is pledging to appeal this case all the way to the Supreme Court.

Kevin Gaudet of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation called the ruling “a very dumb decision.”

[segnosaur]

It does look like they buggered something up but hey, the laws with campaign funds and also taxation are rarely clear and obvious.

Except when they are?

From the link..."The three-justice appeal panel overturned that ruling, saying that both Parliament and the Supreme Court have been very clear that spending limits are the primary tool used to promote Canada's "egalitarian model of elections."

Also from the link:

Heather MacIvor, a political scientist at the University of Windsor who studies election financing law, said the Tories will have a strong case for appeal.

Of course, that is just one "opinion". But the individual does seem to have the expertise to know what she's talking about.

Then there's also this:

Last January, a lower court accepted the Conservative GST argument...That judgment centred on the application of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles to the campaign books of political parties.

So it looks like the conservatives were following accounting principles that would normally be quite acceptable.

[William Ashley]

perhaps she can outline the strong case that includes current court rulings indicating that the ruling of elections canada on elections expenses was more correct than the conservative party of Canada's view on the same subject.

Prohibited contributions

It is illegal for anyone (including a company or other organization) to solicit or accept a contribution on behalf of a registered party, registered association or candidate if that person or organization made a representation to the contributor or potential contributor that any part of the contribution would be transferred to a person or entity other than the registered party, a candidate, leadership contestant or electoral district association. It is also illegal for anyone to collude with someone else (including a company or other organization) to circumvent this prohibition.

It is also prohibited for an individual to make a cash contribution in an amount that exceeds $20.

In addition, corporations, trade unions and individuals who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents are forbidden to make political contributions.

Election expenses

Only persons authorized by the Act may incur election expenses. Candidates and registered parties are subject to indexed election expenses limits based on the higher of:

the number of electors registered on the preliminary lists of electors in the applicable ridings, or

the number of electors registered on the revised lists of electors in the applicable ridings

For candidates only, this limit is adjusted in certain circumstances:

In a general election, if the number of electors on the preliminary or revised lists of electors in any riding is less than the average number on all preliminary or revised lists of electors in that general election, the number of electors used for the calculation of the limit is halfway between the number on the lists in that riding and the average number on all preliminary or revised lists of electors, as the case may be.

In a by-election, if the number of electors on the preliminary or revised lists in the riding is less than the average number on all revised lists of electors in the preceding general election, the number of electors used for the calculation of the limit is halfway between the number on the lists in the riding and that average number.

If the number of electors per square kilometre is less than 10, based on the preliminary or revised lists of electors in a riding, the dollar amount per elector is increased according to a formula set out in the Act.

If a candidate endorsed by a registered political party dies between 2:00 p.m. on the fifth day before nominations close and election day, the election is postponed; at the postponed election, all candidates are entitled to 150 percent of the normal base election expenses limit.

Registered political parties and candidates must not exceed the election expenses limits calculated by the Chief Electoral Officer under the formulas provided in the Act.

Reimbursements

If a candidate is elected or receives at least 10 percent of the valid votes cast in his or her riding at an election, the Chief Electoral Officer will authorize the Receiver General to send the candidate's official agent, or a person designated by him or her, a reimbursement of 15 percent of the expenses limit for that riding shortly after the return of the writs. If the candidate also complies with all the post-election requirements of the Act, he or she will qualify for a second instalment representing a reimbursement of 60 percent of actual election and personal expenses paid, minus the amount already received. The total reimbursement may not exceed 60 percent of the election expenses limit for the riding.

All candidates are entitled to full refunds of their $1,000 deposits, provided they comply with the reporting requirements of the Act and return unused official receipts within certain deadlines.

Registered political parties that obtain at least 2 percent of the total valid votes cast in a general election, or 5 percent of the valid votes cast in the ridings where they have endorsed candidates, are entitled to a reimbursement of 50 percent of their actual election expenses paid.

Election advertising restrictions

Section 323 of the Canada Elections Act does not permit individuals to knowingly transmit election advertising to the public on election day.

Receipts

The official agent or registered agent must issue a receipt for each contribution over $20.

Official tax receipts

Receipts valid for income tax purposes may be issued by the official agent of a candidate only for monetary contributions received during the period that begins on the day the nomination of the candidate is confirmed by the returning officer, and ending on election day. However, for contributions in transit on election day, the official agent has 30 days after election day to issue a receipt valid for income tax purposes.

Outside an election period, only the registered agent of a registered party or a registered association, if authorized, may issue receipts valid for income tax purposes for monetary contributions to the registered party or registered association.

No official tax receipts

The Income Tax Act prohibits issuing receipts valid for income tax purposes for non-monetary contributions.

Income tax credits

The Income Tax Act provides the following tax credits in any one calendar year:

Contribution amount Corresponding tax credit

$0.01 to $400.00 75 percent of the contribution

$400.01 to $750.00 $300 plus 50 percent of the contribution over $400

$750.01 and over $475 plus 33⅓ percent of the contribution over $750

Public disclosure

Through their official agents, candidates must submit an audited electoral campaign return to the Chief Electoral Officer within four months of election day. Among other information, the candidate's return must show all electoral campaign expenses incurred, the amounts of all contributions and the names, addresses and dates the contributions were provided of all those whose aggregate contributions exceeded $200.

Following a general election, every registered political party is required to submit an audited return of its election expenses to the Chief Electoral Officer within six months of election day. Registered parties are also required to submit an annual fiscal period return, disclosing (among other information) any by-election expenses, the expenditures of the party during the fiscal period, the amount and source of all contributions, the names and addresses of those whose aggregate contributions exceeded $200 as well as the dates on which the contributions were provided. This return must be submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer within six months after the end of the fiscal period to which the return relates.

The Chief Electoral Officer publishes a summary of each candidate's return in whatever media he deems appropriate. Returning officers keep all candidates' returns for six months so that anyone who wishes to consult them or obtain extracts may do so. After that initial period, the returns may be examined at Elections Canada in Ottawa.

The Chief Electoral Officer also publishes the financial returns of registered political parties and candidates in whatever form and media he deems appropriate.

The Elections Canada Web site includes a searchable database of:

the contributions received and the election expenses incurred by candidates for all general elections since the general election of October 1993 and all by-elections since 1997

the election expenses incurred by registered political parties at the last general election and their receipts and expenses by fiscal period since 1993

Edited December 24, 2010 by William Ashley

[PIK]

Did the liberals that ran for the leadership ever pay back the money they owed, I know election canada kept changing the date , which right there I lost all respect for them.

[William Ashley]

Did the liberals that ran for the leadership ever pay back the money they owed, I know election canada kept changing the date , which right there I lost all respect for them.

The liberals and NDP both just paid off their debts, THE PQ are usually pretty good in terms of financing.

Each liberal leadership campaign is individually responsible for the debt.

Many are still "in debt" to pay off the races, such as Gerrard Kennedy's 1.4 or so million dollar campaign....

at the begining of this year it was sitting at about 135,000, and as of the begining of december was around 75,000

meaning about 60,000 was paid off in about 10 months.. or about $6000/month.

The catch on the leadership debt is that money must be raised from "different" individuals.. not just paid off by a single donor - the maximum is $1,100/person, and I think the minimum is $20.

Stephane Dion must be really close to paying his off. (maybe the liberals just don't know how to move the money around for the greatest benefit anymore amongst themselves with the loss of some of their more senior members)

The thing that is wonky about all this is that apparently if you give a $250 donation it costs only about $62.50 of actual money - because of tax credits... meaning all that money the tories got, or other parties works out to 3/4th paid by tax payers and 1/4 paid by "the donor"

Seems strange if you donate $100 everyone pays $75 and you pay $25. Strange no?

None the less.. I think that they should be able to pay everything off by the end of 2011, but it might be easier if they just get personal bills for 25% the overall cost because tax payers are paying the rest anyway.

So of that 5 million raised by the tories tax payers are paying about 4 million of it. the donors are paying the other 1.25 million.

The party that raises the most is actually costing tax payers the most.

So like 75% of 21.1 million in 2008 75% of $17.7 million in 2009 .. not sure if they got less or more this year..

but that is about 15 million and 13 million in the last two years of tax payer costs to fund the CPC.

Yet only 32% of the population is currently supporting them if that.. this reduces to about 68% overpayment in terms of people who actually want to pay for them.

This is while party's like the NDP and BLOQ were raising funds like 4.03 million. The Bloc Quebecois drew $621,526.

costing tax years around 3 million and about $350,000

Well I dunno but look what party is costing tax payers more, maybe the 15 million a year they are costing tax payers can be paid into the consolidated debt fund instead of to fund them?

Who exactly is getting favoritism with tax dollars here?

Edited December 25, 2010 by William Ashley