Federal Political Party Fundraising Dinners

[Big Guy]

A Toronto law firm is playing host to Liberal fundraiser with justice minister Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Jody Wilson-Rayboul. The cost per person is $500.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-party-fundraising-ethics-1.3525751

Critics condemn the occasion as a blatant selling of influence and future contract. They point out that m,any of the participants will be seeking positions as judges and the firm may be trying to influence the coming decision by the government of who will get the contract for the looming "missing aboriginal women" inquiry.

All Canadian political parties need donations, contributions and bequests to survive. Every party uses fundraisers as a source of money to keep their party functioning. All Canadian parties organize fundraisers to achieve that goal.

The public views these fundraisers as a vehicle for special interests to BUY influence in government decisions. For that reason these fundraisers are generally frowned upon and considered an abuse of power.

I have no problems with the process. Somebody has to contribute to these political parties. All parties use them and the government in power has an advantage since the speakers invited are usually ministers and in a position to be influenced.

I have been to local fundraisers at $100 a plate for local politicians. I have also been at a $5,000 a table fundraiser for a federal politician. That is the way it is.

I think this latest "controversy" of to-nights meal is media created issue.

If I had plans to apply for government contracts then the LAST thing I would do is host a fundraiser for the current government. In this day of transparency, I would undermine my bid by hosting a fundraiser.

What the Harper Conservatives and the Mulcair NDP's and the Trudeau Liberals do in fundraising is legal and ethical. That is the way our democracy operates.

What is wrong with the process?

What is the alternative?

[andromeda]

fundraisers are fine. just not between cabinet ministers and those seeking 'favours'.

[Bryan]

As long as it's legitimate party members who are not registered lobbyists, and the total amount taken in by each individual does not exceed their contribution limits, fundraisers are perfectly OK. The reason some people are up in arms about the way the LPC is doing it, is this fundraiser was catering to certain lobbyists, some of whom tried to be cute by de-registering right before the event. What's also gotten the LPC in trouble in the recent past was trying to come up with clever ways to NOT include the money raised in the individuals' annual max contribution.

[waldo]

The reason some people are up in arms about the way the LPC is doing it, is this fundraiser was catering to certain lobbyists, some of whom tried to be cute by de-registering right before the event.

CBC has an article detailing 1 person from the law firm was a lobbyist with a dormant registration... that was closed. It also includes a quote from that individual that he didn't even know about the fundraiser and, in fact, didn't even attend it. Do you more current/differing sourced information in that regard?

.

[waldo]

fundraisers are fine. just not between cabinet ministers and those seeking 'favours'.

are you implying something? Guidelines provide specifics as to what constitutes a 'departmental stakeholder'... do you have concern/reservation in this fundraising regard?

.

[andromeda]

Section 16 of the conflict of interest act......

Fundraising

'No public office holder shall personally solicit funds from any person or organization if it would place the public office holder in a conflict of interest.'

Wilson-raybould claims she attended the 'private' fundraiser as an MP and not as Canada's attorney general or justice minister. but invitations were specifically sent out to members of the legal community. emails made it clear that issues Wilson-raybould was involved with would be discussed. how is this not a conflict of interest?

[Moonlight Graham]

I have been to local fundraisers at $100 a plate for local politicians. I have also been at a $5,000 a table fundraiser for a federal politician. That is the way it is.

That's the way it is because we allow it. $5000 a table fundraiser is disgusting and shouldn't be allowed. $500 is even pretty steep. These dinners are paid elitist hobnobbing events. Money buys you access to a powerful government official(s), and I'm sure some of his staff and other government folks (i have no idea, I've never been and have no desire to). Who knows what these kinds of favours these events can buy a person down the line. You don't see regular working class folks or seniors (you know, the vast bulk of people that elected officials actually represent and who vote them in) in on these shindigs, too rich for you sorry!...we want the big money!

What the Harper Conservatives and the Mulcair NDP's and the Trudeau Liberals do in fundraising is legal and ethical. That is the way our democracy operates.

Legal? Ya. Ethical? HA! "That is the way our democracy operates"....well that's pretty sad isn't it?

What is wrong with the process? What is the alternative?

The fundraising system should reflect our democracy and the voting public. The vast majority of fundraising dollars should come from ordinary Canadians, not rich elites like these lawyers making 6 figures or higher. Political contribution limits should be very modest, nothing higher than what the typical Canadian on a modest income could reasonably expect and afford to contribute. That shouldn't be more than a few hundred dollars per year. This will help keep the rich from buying influence into our political system.

Look at Bernie Sanders' fundraising campaign. Grassroots, from ordinary people not corporations/businesses or elites, low average donations (I think around $30?). A campaign funded by the masses who will be voting for him. No special favours to return later to special interests (which is, by definition, corruption)

I also support public subsidies. There will probably be much less money donated based on what I'm suggesting, that's a price of democracy I'm happy to top up with public money from my tax dollars if it means we still have absolute control over our own government and not a disproportionate influence by the wealthy few.

[waldo]

how is this not a conflict of interest?

ask the Ethics Commissioner who has stated Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould did not break any rules by attending that fundraiser

.

[waldo]

Look at Bernie Sanders' fundraising campaign. Grassroots, from ordinary people not corporations/businesses or elites, low average donations (I think around $30?). A campaign funded by the masses who will be voting for him. No special favours to return later to special interests (which is, by definition, corruption)

opensecrets.org shows Sander's "large individual contributions" is significantly less than half of what Clinton's is; however:

Sanders: - Large Individual Contributions $45,497,620 (33%)

Clinton: - Large Individual Contributions $116,826,187 (73%)

meanwhile, Donald Trump, who claims to be completely "self-funded" has received over $36 million dollars in donations

.

[Charles Anthony]

#StopThreadDrift

[andromeda]

I don't care what the ethics commissioner has to say. i'm asking you.

[Big Guy]

... how is this not a conflict of interest?

A conflict of interest implies a direct "quid pro quo" arrangement. The ethics commissioner did not think that to be the case.

If it was the case or not - it was a mistake.

Politics is perception. The perception of a misdeed is just as politically damaging as a real misdeed.

Those who want to give her the benefit of the doubt will excuse it as a rookie mistake. Those who do not will blame it on the perceived Liberal dishonesty that comes with the label.

Personally, I have no problem with any party that uses these fundraisers. At one time I used them to meet some decision makers in Ottawa - of all parties. Where else do they get the money? At least in this way the reporters have some challenges in trying to equate fundraisers with appointments and government contracts.

[PIK]

I don't think dawson would know a conflict of interest if it hit her in the face.

[waldo]

I don't care what the ethics commissioner has to say. i'm asking you.

You talkin' to me? It appears you have no difficulty quoting from the Act while completely discounting the person mandated to interpret and apply that Act.

.