Unions, centre-left interests start anti-Harper Ad Campaign

[WWWTT]

I also note your hypocrisy in being in favour of bans on corporate advertising but wanting big labour to be able to put out tens of millions to support those they favour.

The Conservatives in Alberta said they'll just "find more secretive ways to give money." I wonder why they'd say that?

Still waiting for that link that says corporations aren't allowed to make political adds.

Or a link at the least giving some further details because there's lots of accusations getting thrown around here.

Speaking about throwing, I know the conservatives couldn't throw their one time parliamentarian parrot DelMaestro under the bus fast enough when it was found out whom his donators were!

WWWTT

[Bryan]

Or your level of biased partisan love for anything Conservative.

Not even remotely true.

[On Guard for Thee]

Still waiting for that link that says corporations aren't allowed to make political adds.

Or a link at the least giving some further details because there's lots of accusations getting thrown around here.

Speaking about throwing, I know the conservatives couldn't throw their one time parliamentarian parrot DelMaestro under the bus fast enough when it was found out whom his donators were!

WWWTT

Cons are pretty good at throwing folks under the bus. Nigel Wright may have been the one who could really come back to return the favor.

[WWWTT]

Hey, I actually saw a good Tory TV ad the other day! It might be the first I've seen in ... my memory!

It wasn't negative (I have nothing against negative ads, btw) but featured Harper working at his desk and talking about the important things a leader does, then leaving the office at the end of the day. You've probably seen it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxyuP_pZY40

The distinct difference between the union ads, and the ones the Conservatives have done, is the level of honesty. The CPC ads have certainly been unflattering, but they have always been demonstrably factual -- usually using the other guy's own words. These new union ones are the most dishonest ads I've ever seen. Attack all you want, but if you have to flat out lie to get your supposed point across, all that means is you don't really have one.

You guys finished AttackAddsplaining?

I'm guessing you'll both need another 3-4 pages before you think "we get it" and you can comfortably shut off the computer having a sense of accomplishment.

WWWTT

[Argus]

VOTE CPC- the best government corporations can but. (especially big oil)

How much money does 'big oil' give the CPC? I mean, given corporate donations are illegal I'm sure you've managed to do some kind of in depths investigation to find how the funds are passed and how much there are, right?

[Argus]

Actually people don't mind paying taxes.

I'm guessing that's a pretty strong admission that neither you nor anyone you know pays any taxes.

[Vancouver King]

TV ads cut both ways. A gov't that has raised character assassination to an art form (ie. Ignatieff) during it's decade in power has absolutely no argument for sympathy when it's victims use the same airwaves to document that gov'ts shortcomings.

The Conservative gov't has spent $75 million of tax money designing TV ads to glorify the Conservative party while informing Canadians of programs. When will Conservatives pay some of this expenditure back to the treasury?

[WWWTT]

I'm guessing that's a pretty strong admission that neither you nor anyone you know pays any taxes.

Are you finished "taxsplaining"?

WWWTT

[Argus]

TV ads cut both ways. A gov't that has raised character assassination to an art form (ie. Ignatieff) during it's decade in power has absolutely no argument for sympathy when it's victims use the same airwaves to document that gov'ts shortcomings.

I like how aggressive, hostile, unfair, attack ads are just politics when the Liberals were in power. They never became an issue till the Tories won.

The Conservative gov't has spent $75 million of tax money designing TV ads to glorify the Conservative party while informing Canadians of programs. When will Conservatives pay some of this expenditure back to the treasury?

Every government of every political stripe does the same. The Ontario Liberals just changed the rules so they could do it too.

[Keepitsimple]

Will the media put pressure on Engage Canada to shut down? Don't hold your breath.

[Vancouver King]

So Conservative third party ad misfortune means anti-Harper ads should also be shut down. Typical Conservative reasoning.

[eyeball]

Will the media put pressure on Engage Canada to shut down? Don't hold your breath.

Shouldn't the reason to shut it down be the same as that which was used to pressure HarperPAC to shutdown?

[drummindiver]

The Conservatives in Alberta said they'll just "find more secretive ways to give money." I wonder why they'd say that?

I looked but could find nothing approaching this comment.

The Tories get corporate funds, but so what? The NDP/Liberals get union funds. At least the corporations are producing something, including jobs, as opposed to collecting off the work of others.

[drummindiver]

Actually people don't mind paying taxes. It's corporations that pay a dismal fraction that ticks people off!

Oh and by the way, this upcoming weekend was brought to you by UNIONS!

WWWTT

I've read some misguided comments on here before, but really? People don't mind paying taxes?

.

Edited June 28, 2015 by drummindiver

[scribblet]

So Conservative third party ad misfortune means anti-Harper ads should also be shut down. Typical Conservative reasoning.

Actually it's the reasoning of Pierre Kingsley, I read elsewhere that engagecanada is saying they will not register as a third party.

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/06/26/other-third-parties-should-follow-harperpacs-lead-close-up-shop-says-kingsley/

“I think they should all shut down,” Kingsley said.

“Don’t set up shop, wait for the writ to be dropped and then register as a third party as you’re supposed to. And follow the rules

[scribblet]

TV ads cut both ways. A gov't that has raised character assassination to an art form (ie. Ignatieff) during it's decade in power has absolutely no argument for sympathy when it's victims use the same airwaves to document that gov'ts shortcomings.

The Conservative gov't has spent $75 million of tax money designing TV ads to glorify the Conservative party while informing Canadians of programs. When will Conservatives pay some of this expenditure back to the treasury?

Two wrong don't make a right but did you complain when the Liberals were spending far more than the CPC is doing now.

[Derek 2.0]

Shouldn't the reason to shut it down be the same as that which was used to pressure HarperPAC to shutdown?

Or better yet, just suppose its in violation of the Federal Fair Elections Act, by not disclosing donors names, which is a legal requirement once the writ is dropped for an election, -or- there are ongoing by-elections (as there are three such right now), and the adds are of a partisan nature........it would be awful if NDP party members and supporters involved in these PACs were charged with election fraud just before the start of the Federal election

And people (in the media) wonder why the CPC quickly withdrew support (and threatened legal action) against the HarperPAC that was on its side.....

[Big Guy]

The simple solution is to create an impartial clearing house whose responsibility is to evaluate an ad if it is a campaign ad or not. If it is, then consider it within the guidelines of campaign spending and establish the sponsor of the ad - just like during the writ period.

[Vancouver King]

Two wrong don't make a right but did you complain when the Liberals were spending far more than the CPC is doing now.

Two wrongs don't make a right indeed, especially when one of the miscreants was elected to curtail such near illegal activity. Conservatives promised to clean it up - they didn't.

We know the Conservatives and Liberals can't contain themselves on this problem, it's time to give the NDP a turn at governing.

[Keepitsimple]

The simple solution is to create an impartial clearing house whose responsibility is to evaluate an ad if it is a campaign ad or not. If it is, then consider it within the guidelines of campaign spending and establish the sponsor of the ad - just like during the writ period.

Not quite as simple as it might sound because you run up against a concept called Free Speech.

[scribblet]

Or better yet, just suppose its in violation of the Federal Fair Elections Act, by not disclosing donors names, which is a legal requirement once the writ is dropped for an election, -or- there are ongoing by-elections (as there are three such right now), and the adds are of a partisan nature........it would be awful if NDP party members and supporters involved in these PACs were charged with election fraud just before the start of the Federal election

And people (in the media) wonder why the CPC quickly withdrew support (and threatened legal action) against the HarperPAC that was on its side.....

There is a question of legality with the ongoing by-elections, although engagecanada has not, and says it does not intend, to register as a third party. Not registering gets them around the spending limits, but how can they get away with not registering as a third party I don't know.

I do not subscribe to the idea of unrestricted third party advertising but we cannot stop people from voicing opinions. We can however, stop unions from using tax subsidized funding for political purposes. Taxpayers lose about $1 billion per year in lost income tax revenue due to the allowance for unionists to deduct union dues from gross income. . That has to stop.

The solution isn't to ban unions et al from expressing their views. Rather Union membership needs to be made voluntary through right to work laws so those who disagree with the advertising aren't forced to fund it.

Businesses also get tax deductions for advertising and lobbying efforts. The difference is that businesses are using their own money while unions essentially have a taxation power over their members. It's this power to confiscate income to fund advertising that needs to end

[Argus]

I've read some misguided comments on here before, but really? People don't mind paying taxes?

.

A third of Canadians don't pay any taxes. Clearly they wouldn't be opposed to tax increases, however large.

[Argus]

The solution isn't to ban unions et al from expressing their views. Rather Union membership needs to be made voluntary through right to work laws

No, that is not the solution. The solution is to inject a little democracy into unions. Right now, the union leadership is not directly elected. The ordinary workers get to choose their local representatives, but that's it. Regional and top level executives are chosen by the group below them. And in many unions, particularly public service unions, there isn't a whole lot of interest in the union. If 10% show up for a general meeting to vote for local reps that's doing really good. And who shows up? Often the bitchers and complainers. The only time you get anything like a heavy turnout is for strike votes.

What I would do is have direct elections for the leadership. I would also require a secret ballot for a vote on using union funds for extra-union activities such as donating to political parties or to other causes. Most people I knew when I worked for the government were not happy at seeing their dues going to these causes but had no real way to deny or refuse. Give them one.

Require regular votes which have at least 50% of the membership (not just those who show up) to approve donating union funds to political groups or causes.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Argus

[On Guard for Thee]

I've read some misguided comments on here before, but really? People don't mind paying taxes?

.

Most people like healthcare and paved roads and they know they have to be paid for.

[Bob Macadoo]

No, that is not the solution. The solution is to inject a little democracy into unions. Right now, the union leadership is not directly elected. The ordinary workers get to choose their local representatives, but that's it. Regional and top level executives are chosen by the group below them. And in many unions, particularly public service unions, there isn't a whole lot of interest in the union. If 10% show up for a general meeting to vote for local reps that's doing really good. And who shows up? Often the bitchers and complainers. The only time you get anything like a heavy turnout is for strike votes.

What I would do is have direct elections for the leadership. I would also require a secret ballot for a vote on using union funds for extra-union activities such as donating to political parties or to other causes. Most people I knew when I worked for the government were not happy at seeing their dues going to these causes but had no real way to deny or refuse. Give them one.

Require regular votes which have at least 50% of the membership (not just those who show up) to approve donating union funds to political groups or causes.

I don't know what imaginary union you paid dues to....or imagine its a parliamentary democracy. Most unions directly elect their executive and they do have referenda on major policy decisions that are dictated in their constitution. Just so you know if you are in such a union....know how you get a good one......"elect" members who will push constitution changes.