Two Tory senators charged by elections Canada

madmax · March 2, 2011

Geez, Max! Has it been THAT long?

LMAO..

Yes

madmax · March 2, 2011

So what is the deal with this Doug Finley.

Why did he get appointed to the Senate ?

Evening Star · March 6, 2011

Katie O'Malley gives a pretty good explanation of the in-and-out issue in this podcast of The House (click on the audio):

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/03/05/pol-the-house-layton.html

It does seem that no other party has been found to have moved money into riding campaigns and back out. It seems pretty nakedly crooked, right?

Molly · March 6, 2011

It's the Conservative thing to declare equivalency between Glinda and Evillene. Both, after all, are witches.

It's their go-to justification, fiollowed immediately on the list by 'Two wrongs must make a right.' and "That's not at all important. Other things are important." (aka "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.")

nicky10013 · March 6, 2011

Katie O'Malley gives a pretty good explanation of the in-and-out issue in this podcast of The House (click on the audio):

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/03/05/pol-the-house-layton.html

It does seem that no other party has been found to have moved money into riding campaigns and back out. It seems pretty nakedly crooked, right?

Sure does. The government is claiming it was an accounting error but ex-MPs are now coming out and saying they were specifically asked by the national campaign if they could accept money and then send it back to Ottawa.

That doesn't sound like an accounting error to me.

Scotty · March 6, 2011

Katie O'Malley gives a pretty good explanation of the in-and-out issue in this podcast of The House (click on the audio):

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/03/05/pol-the-house-layton.html

It does seem that no other party has been found to have moved money into riding campaigns and back out. It seems pretty nakedly crooked, right?

If it was 'nakedly crooked' would the first judge have agreed it was perfectly legal?

Sounds to me like its highly technical, and that they had strong legal opinions it was entirely legal.

nicky10013 · March 6, 2011

If it was 'nakedly crooked' would the first judge have agreed it was perfectly legal?

Sounds to me like its highly technical, and that they had strong legal opinions it was entirely legal.

In politics why should you need a legal opinion to do something? There's ethical and then there's unethical. Using money in a certain way that you can spend more than is allowed under the law (which no one disputes), even if found "legal" (which as we've seen, it wasn't) is still highly unethical. So you're saying that you support these unethical practices?

YEGmann · March 6, 2011

The government is claiming it was an accounting error but ex-MPs are now coming out and saying they were specifically asked by the national campaign if they could accept money and then send it back to Ottawa.

That doesn't sound like an accounting error to me.

You misrepresent the CPC claim. The conservatives say it is an accounting issue. Just an iterpretation of existing at that moment accounting rules. Nobody says it was a mistake (other than in strategic term).

nicky10013 · March 6, 2011

You misrepresent the CPC claim. The conservatives say it is an accounting issue. Just an iterpretation of existing at that moment accounting rules. Nobody says it was a mistake (other than in strategic term).

Do you consider it to be unethical?

YEGmann · March 7, 2011

Do you consider it to be unethical?

If law allowed to do that (as conservatives say) - No. You use your tax credits to reduce your taxes and you do not question ethics of your technique (as do I). This is the same. I cannot see how ethics are applicable here.

If conservatives are not correct in their interpretation of the law - it is a different story.

In any case, the bottom line is that conservatives spent their own money.

Smallc · March 7, 2011

Actually, the bottom line is that they may have broken the law by spending too much of their own money, and creating an unfair advantage.

Molly · March 7, 2011

Actually, the bottom line is that they may have broken the law by spending too much of their own money, and creating an unfair advantage.

Let's just not be forgetting that taxpayers refund 60% the money that is legitimately spent by candidates, but not what is spent by 'party central', so they were (trying to) spend $1.67 of ours to every $1.00 of their own.

Misappropriation of our money is a smaller issue than cheating in an election, but it's not just a toss in.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/03/04/pol-in-out-payout.html

"For some campaigns, the scheme could have been quite lucrative, landing them taxpayer funded reimbursements worth thousands of dollars more than Elections Canada says they actually spent — a surplus that could be retained by the riding association for the 2008 election."

Edited March 7, 2011 by Molly

madmax · March 7, 2011

Back off and leave these two conspiring hard working Conservative Senators alone.

DrGreenthumb · March 7, 2011

Let's just not be forgetting that taxpayers refund 60% the money that is legitimately spent by candidates, but not what is spent by 'party central', so they were (trying to) spend $1.67 of ours to every $1.00 of their own.

Misappropriation of our money is a smaller issue than cheating in an election, but it's not just a toss in.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/03/04/pol-in-out-payout.html

"For some campaigns, the scheme could have been quite lucrative, landing them taxpayer funded reimbursements worth thousands of dollars more than Elections Canada says they actually spent — a surplus that could be retained by the riding association for the 2008 election."

Wow so its like they cheated in the 2006 AND 2008 elections. Time for them to turn over their medals.

scribblet · March 8, 2011

Good piece here you all should read, Conservative MP destroys Elections Canada CEO’s credibility - I'm shock I say, I'm shocked !!! I just can't imagine Elections Canada, much less the CEO, doing such things... tipping off the media... having it in for Harper... working to ... get the Conservatives ... Can't imagine it... yeah, right! :rolleyes:

http://www.canada.com/mobile/iphone/story.html?id=b92b618d-d777-4539-b553-c34b3a5b0376&p=1

John Robson • The case of the disappearing scandal

====
First he asked Mr. Mayrand why slide 6 of his PowerPoint handout to the committee defined "Candidate election expenses" as "any expense incurred, or property or service used to directly promote or oppose a candidate during an election period" when the Elections Canada candidates' handbook for the 2006 election (on p. 25) directly quotes clause 407(1) of the Canada Elections Act that it must be "used directly to promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate during an election."

Since the crux of this matter is spending by local candidates to promote the national party, the altered wording to leave out "party" is not a trivial omission. (Especially as the latest, 2007 Elections Canada candidates handbook also removes the reference to parties (see p. 27) while citing the same, unaltered, clause 407(1) of the Elections Act.) But Mr. Poilievre wasn't done with his fireworks.

He then read an e-mail worth quoting in full: "Hi Phyllis, We are told by communications folks in BC that these were radio ads with the Candidate's personal tag on the end -- therefore a local expense to be reported under the Candidate's expense ceiling, regardless of who pays. For rebate purposes, we were asked to bill each campaign -- in the case of VanEast, $2,612.00. The good news is that the Federal Party will transfer $2,600 to the Federal Riding Association as we agreed to pay for the ads. We hope that you are able to squeeze this in under the ceiling. Some expenses are not considered election expenses subject to spending limits, such as fundraising costs. Please have a look at the totals and get back to us if you think we have a problem." It was signed by the federal party bookkeeper.

It sounds like sharp practice. But did it require investigation? Mr. Mayrand refused to comment without more information. So Mr. Poilievre revealed that it was an NDP e-mail obtained by the Tories from Elections Canada. Yet Mr. Mayrand testified that no other party had engaged in the sort of "in-and-out" financing that prompted him to refuse dozens of Tory reimbursement claims and ask the Commissioner of Elections Canada to investigate.

The third Mason-style moment concerned Mr. Mayrand's attempt to show that his office had not given the press or the Liberal party a heads-up on the police raid on Conservative Party HQ. In his opening statement the Chief Electoral Officer said an internal review had cleared him and his staff, though when Scott Reid on a point of order required him to table the review he quickly downgraded it to "not truly a report, barely a sheet."

So Mr. Poilievre asked who conducted the review and Mr. Mayrand grudgingly confessed that it was one M. Mayrand. Since he certainly wouldn't let the Tories investigate themselves on the in-and-out affair, Mr. Poilievre called it surprising that he'd think it appropriate to investigate himself on the leak. And it is.

The more I watch this stuff, including the ugly procedural fiddling on Wednesday, the more convinced I am that if there's a scandal here, it doesn't involve the Tories. But nobody seems to care. The opposition want a scandal, the press want a scandal, and since everybody who's anybody knows Conservatives stink, let's not bore ourselves with details on a beautiful summer day.

Imagine a Perry Mason show where, after the dramatic denouement, the jury convicted his client anyway. I expect it would be cancelled in a hurry.

if you think the Liberals didn't do it, think again

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/con-mp-destroys-elections-canada-ceos-credibility/

- denying other parties did any “in-and-out” schemes even though EC knew that they had
- the coup-de-grace, getting Maynard to admit he investigated and cleared himself in the accusation that EC tipped off the Liberals and the media on the Conservative Party Headquarters RCMP raid

Any one of these should end with Maynard’s resignation but like Robson says, the media want a Conservative scandal so they will conveniently look the other way.

proof

http://mrdconservative.com/cgi/wp/?p=197

Scotty · March 8, 2011

In politics why should you need a legal opinion to do something? There's ethical and then there's unethical. Using money in a certain way that you can spend more than is allowed under the law (which no one disputes), even if found "legal" (which as we've seen, it wasn't) is still highly unethical. So you're saying that you support these unethical practices?

How and when and where you spend money you've collected for political purposes is a matter of law. Interpreting the law is a matter for lawyers. In some cases (many cases) the law is not entirely clear on certain things. It is patently obvious that the Tories obtained legal opinions that this was legal and went with it. It may or might not be legal, for you can be sure the recent appeal will be appealed again. But since it's not even obvious to lawyers - or judges - what the law says I can't find it in my heart to criticize laymen in that regard.

waldo · March 8, 2011

How and when and where you spend money you've collected for political purposes is a matter of law. Interpreting the law is a matter for lawyers. In some cases (many cases) the law is not entirely clear on certain things. It is patently obvious that the Tories obtained legal opinions that this was legal and went with it. It may or might not be legal, for you can be sure the recent appeal will be appealed again. But since it's not even obvious to lawyers - or judges - what the law says I can't find it in my heart to criticize laymen in that regard.

rolling, rolling, rolling... so, now the club would like to add, "bad legal advice" to the growing list of the regime's unaccountability!

madmax · March 8, 2011

Torie Senate bagman are sunk <_<

madmax · March 8, 2011

Since we're off topic, a trip down memory lane, clips from the October 2008 English leaders debate.

I certainly hope so.

WHERES YOUR PLATFORM!!! :lol: :blink: :rolleyes:

The Conservatives had no platform and it showed.

"Idle Minds are a Devil's Workshop

nicky10013 · March 9, 2011

How and when and where you spend money you've collected for political purposes is a matter of law. Interpreting the law is a matter for lawyers. In some cases (many cases) the law is not entirely clear on certain things. It is patently obvious that the Tories obtained legal opinions that this was legal and went with it. It may or might not be legal, for you can be sure the recent appeal will be appealed again. But since it's not even obvious to lawyers - or judges - what the law says I can't find it in my heart to criticize laymen in that regard.

That wasn't the question. The question was that even though they thought they could get around the law "legally," did they break the spirit of the law that was meant to protect against unfair monetary advantage? Just because to certain people it may have been illegal doesn't mean it wasn't an unethical act. I'd argue that going against the spirit of the law is just as unethical as breaking the law itself (either way, this is foolish, a court has ruled it was illegal).

So are you saying you think that breaking the spirit of the law isn't unethical?

Scotty · March 9, 2011

So are you saying you think that breaking the spirit of the law isn't unethical?

I suppose I've simply set my standards with regard to politicians so to not expect anything be done out of ethical or moral reasons. I don't believe politicians act like that. Moral? Ethical? They'll do anything and everything they think they can get away with as long as it profits them in some way, usually politically.

Which is why the Tories doing something which might go against the 'spirit' of the law just makes me shrug and say "So?"

I mean, next you'll be telling me it snows in winter here.

blueblood · March 9, 2011

Good piece here you all should read, Conservative MP destroys Elections Canada CEO’s credibility - I'm shock I say, I'm shocked !!! I just can't imagine Elections Canada, much less the CEO, doing such things... tipping off the media... having it in for Harper... working to ... get the Conservatives ... Can't imagine it... yeah, right!

http://www.canada.com/mobile/iphone/story.html?id=b92b618d-d777-4539-b553-c34b3a5b0376&p=1

John Robson • The case of the disappearing scandal

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/con-mp-destroys-elections-canada-ceos-credibility/

proof

http://mrdconservative.com/cgi/wp/?p=197

If this is true Then some heads should roll at the civil service. I wonder why there are crickets with this post?

Ill reserve my opinion until the supreme court makes its ruling

Evening Star · March 9, 2011

Some interesting points there... I'm not convinced that the NDP/Liberal examples given there are actually examples of "in and out" though.

scribblet · March 9, 2011

If this is true Then some heads should roll at the civil service. I wonder why there are crickets with this post?

Ill reserve my opinion until the supreme court makes its ruling

Crickets ???

DrGreenthumb · March 9, 2011

WHERES YOUR PLATFORM!!!

The Conservatives had no platform and it showed.

"Idle Minds are a Devil's Workshop

You should put up the part of the video where Jack warns Harper about the "economic downturn", and Harper lies, and denies, or is so totally incompetant and inept an economist, that he can't see there will be a recession, and swears that Canada will never go into a deficit under a Conservative government. He is such a lying sack of shit. An incompetant lying sack of shit.