Foreign money funding Canadian elections

[Argus]

But don't worry. It's only the Americans. Well, mostly.

And don't look for Trudeau to do a single thing about this, since third party spending is only a problem, as we've seen in Ontario, when it's being spent from the conservative side of the political spectrum. When it's liberals then it's righteous and all in a good cause.

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/joe-oliver-canadas-elections-are-already-being-infiltrated-by-foreign-interests-and-shockingly-its-all-legal

[bush_cheney2004]

So what's the problem ?    Canada has been taking...no...begging for foreign money/investment for decades as a matter of national policy.

Half of Canada's manufacturing base is owned by Americans, and 70% of its oil/bitumen industry is foreign owned.

And it is all...legal.

 

[Omni]

5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

So what's the problem ?    Canada has been taking...no...begging for foreign money/investment for decades as a matter of national policy.

Half of Canada's manufacturing base is owned by Americans, and 70% of its oil/bitumen industry is foreign owned.

And it is all...legal.

 

But then there is that troublesome little constitutional thingy known as the "Emoluments Clause"

[The_Squid]

So why didn't the previous government change this if it's such an issue?  

[Topaz]

Yeah, I heard about this and one was Geo. SOROS and son,  were ever there is conflict  in any country, check out the possibility of their involvement.

[Argus]

15 hours ago, The_Squid said:

So why didn't the previous government change this if it's such an issue?  

I don't think it was really much of an issue until the last election. Much as third party advertising has only become a big issue in the Ontario provincial election in the last couple of elections (and the Ontario Liberals have no intention of hanging that since it all favours them)

[Moonlight Graham]

From the OP article:

Quote

 

We learned it is perfectly legal for a third party to use foreign money to fund campaign activities. Even more concerning, there is no cap on the amount that can be contributed and limitless dollars can be spent, provided the recipient is Canadian. Furthermore, if the foreign money is received at least six months and a day before the writ is dropped, it will be mingled with domestic money, so disclosure of foreign funds is not required or even possible.

...

A strict limit of $1,550 is placed on what Canadians can contribute directly to political parties and candidates. Corporate and union donations are banned entirely. But it is open season for expenditures by third parties, be they financed domestically or from L.A. or Moscow. This issue was just exacerbated by the government’s intent to allow charities to engage in political lobbying without limit.

 

I don't believe for a second that the Liberals/NDP take this money and the CPC doesn't, as the article alludes (written by a former Conservative cabinet minister).  Either way, this seems like a big problem.

[Argus]

14 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

From the OP article:

I don't believe for a second that the Liberals/NDP take this money and the CPC doesn't, as the article alludes (written by a former Conservative cabinet minister).  Either way, this seems like a big problem.

I'm not suggesting the Conservatives wouldn't take such outside money if it were available, but the money right now is coming largely from US liberal groups, just as, in Ontario, the money which helped re-elected the Ontario Liberals came largely from public sector unions in Ontario. Both are wrong, and both should be banned.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

I'm not suggesting the Conservatives wouldn't take such outside money if it were available, but the money right now is coming largely from US liberal groups, just as, in Ontario, the money which helped re-elected the Ontario Liberals came largely from public sector unions in Ontario. Both are wrong, and both should be banned.

But "liberal groups" charge is only according to this article, which is written by a guy who was the CPC federal finance minister until 2015.  Not exactly unbiased.  If a lot of these donations can't even be disclosed I dont even know how he'd know the real numbers and extent of donors either way.

[Argus]

A report compiled by Conservatives has been filed with Elections Canada detailing some of the deliberate violations of the elections act left wing groups engaged in, fueled by foreign money from US liberal groups. It's ironic that these would be the same American liberals up in arms over Russian interference in the US election. Apparently foreign interference is okay if it's 'in a good cause'.

Leadnow staff members flew around the country on numerous occasions, as Facebook postings and photographs show, to distribute flyers and put up signs. Also, 57 local polls were commissioned across 37 ridings urging citizens to strategically vote for the most winnable, left-of-centre candidate in order to defeat the Conservative candidate.

There is an $8,788 spending limit per riding for the election. NDP candidates and even CUPE complained about Leadnow’s activities being anti-democratic.

 

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/canada/report+alleges+outside+influence+canada+2015+federal+election/13390207/story.html

[August1991]

On 5/16/2017 at 1:37 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

So what's the problem ?    Canada has been taking...no...begging for foreign money/investment for decades as a matter of national policy.

Half of Canada's manufacturing base is owned by Americans, and 70% of its oil/bitumen industry is foreign owned.

And it is all...legal.

 

And many Chinese own US government bonds - if not US real estate.

For Leftists, more money, who can advertise to influence an election, decides the vote - since according to Leftists, voters are stupid. 

IMHO, in US elections, American voters are smart: it is a question of who can vote where.

Edited May 24, 2017 by August1991

[August1991]

This past US federal presidential election demonstrates the false Leftist belief that money/propaganda can buy an election.

Jeb! had hundreds of millions. Hillary had a foundation. They both lost.

This does not mean the converse - that to win an election, one must be impoverished. Trump and Sanders  are evidence of that.

=====

Ignore Russian subterfuge, Chinese money, the Koch Brothers, Hollywood, the MSM, liberal media, big ad buys - to win an election in a democracy, a candidate must get many people in the right places to choose the candidate. The ability to know how to do that is worth more than what money can buy.

Edited May 27, 2017 by August1991

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, August1991 said:

This past US federal presidential election demonstrates the false Leftist belief that money/propaganda can buy an election.

Jeb! had hundreds of millions. Hillary had a foundation. They both lost.

This does not mean the converse - that to win an election, one must be impoverished. Trump and Sanders  are evidence of that.

=====

Ignore Russian subterfuge, Chinese money, the Koch Brothers, Hollywood, the MSM, liberal media, big ad buys - to win an election, a candidate must get many people to choose the candidate. 

No, sorry. That has been proven wrong time and time again. The Koch bros.for instance put millions into superpacs. What makes you so naive as to think the last election wasn't bought and paid for, especially when you look at the popular vote?

[August1991]

26 minutes ago, Omni said:

No, sorry. That has been proven wrong time and time again. The Koch bros.for instance put millions into superpacs. What makes you so naive as to think the last election wasn't bought and paid for, especially when you look at the popular vote?

If it were possible to buy an election, Jeb! and Hillary would have both won. They didn't.

=====

Omni, believe it or not, some things are "real"; they exist and they are not a "social construct".

To wit, Hillary Clinton's defeat in the Electoral College is real. It happened.

[Omni]

1 minute ago, August1991 said:

If it were possible to buy an election, Jeb! and Hillary would have both won. They didn't.

=====

Omni, believe it or not, some things are "real"; they exist and they are not a "social construct".

To wit, Hillary Clinton's defeat in the Electoral College is real. It happened.

So I guess the really real thing to do would be to get rid of the EC, especially in light of the popular vote.

[Argus]

12 hours ago, August1991 said:

This past US federal presidential election demonstrates the false Leftist belief that money/propaganda can buy an election.

Jeb! had hundreds of millions. Hillary had a foundation. They both lost.

And yet billionaires are buying senators, congressmen and governors across the US. They money they're spending on their behalf has definitely had a huge impact on the American political scene as we see state after state going Republican under a tide of money. In Canada, we've seen millions, tens of millions spent by leftist groups to help support Liberals, and that too has had a very definite impact.

Trump can't be taken as an example in this area. Most money is spent for advertising and the networks gave Trump so much free advertising he didn't need any more.

 

[Argus]

11 hours ago, August1991 said:

If it were possible to buy an election, Jeb! and Hillary would have both won. They didn't.

Your belief that because big money failed a single time it is of no use in winning elections goes against all logic and facts.

[August1991]

On 5/27/2017 at 0:12 PM, Argus said:

Your belief that because big money failed a single time it is of no use in winning elections goes against all logic and facts.

I'm reminded of the old advertising quote: "Half of my marketing budget is a waste of money; sadly, I don't know which half."

====

Argus,

I generally agree that the "Moneyball" approach gets it right. But sometimes, the "Big Short" is more accurate.

[August1991]

On 5/27/2017 at 0:45 AM, Omni said:

So I guess the really real thing to do would be to get rid of the EC, especially in light of the popular vote.

Omni, Trump won a majority in the EC. Can we agree on this truth?

[Omni]

Just now, August1991 said:

Omni, Trump won a majority in the EC. Can we agree on this truth?

It has nothing to do with agreeing. He obviously did or he wouldn't be in the WH. What's your point?

[August1991]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

It has nothing to do with agreeing. He obviously did or he wouldn't be in the WH. What's your point?

You made my point: We can agree on one truth.

Now, let's disagree on other points - as civilised people in Canada, or even North America.

Je vous écoute....

 

[Omni]

Messieur Trump vive dans la maison blanc. C'est ne fait rien pour moi. Je suis Canadienne.