Liberal Party Leadership Financing: A mess

[August1991]

"It's a different thing altogether. I mean a political donation is a political donation. A loan is a loan, it's not a donation, it's a loan. So, I don't see the logic frankly," said Ian Davey, campaign manager for the Ignatieff campaign who has loaned $125,000 to Mr. Ignatieff's campaign.

Hill Times

So, to get around campaign financing restrictions, the leadership candidates have solicited "loans" from contributors rather than "donations". This means there is no restriction on how much one individual can "contribute" to a campaign. The leadership candidate can then somehow work out "repayment" later.

There's the added bonus (and figleaf) of claiming to wait until the issuance of tax receipts is possible.

Liberals don't see rules as a guideline for behaviour. They see rules as obstacles and look for ways to get around them. They simply don't understand the spirit of the law or its true intention.

The Liberals just do not get this. They are absolutely clueless. Liberals don't understand that politicians are supposed to have values and integrity. The only Liberal principle is apparently pure pragmatism. Well, it's not very pragmatic to be caught constantly with one's hand in the cookie jar.

[August1991]

Liberal leadership candidates may never have to pay off hundreds of thousands in corporate loans because they may simply be written off, the NDP's ethics critic, Pat Martin, warns.

Now that the party is over, candidates are faced with debts to repay at the same time as the party itself must raise money for the next federal election.

....

The rules say loans must be repaid within 18 months of the leadership vote or they will be considered donations; however, unlimited extensions can be granted by Elections Canada.

....

But when the small Canadian Action Party said this year that it could not pay back the $829,000 debt owed to the party founder, Paul Hellyer, which dated back to 1997, Mr. Hellyer simply wrote it off.

Mr. Martin said if such moves are permitted, it could allow corporations or wealthy individuals to break the donation limits through loans that are then written off.

"It's a massive loophole that you could drive a truck through," Mr. Martin said.

...

According to the most recent declarations, the candidates have the following debt levels: Bob Rae: $845,000; Stéphane Dion: $430,000; Ken Dryden: $300,000; Gerard Kennedy: $201,750; Scott Brison: $200,000; Joe Volpe: $180,000; Michael Ignatieff: $170,000 and Martha Hall Findlay: $130,000.

It is expected that the totals will be considerably higher when the final numbers are made public.

The candidates were allowed to spend a maximum of $3.4-million each, but have not yet declared their expenses.

G & M

Who said that Dion was the anti-establishment candidate who beat the big players and won on a shoe-string budget?

[cybercoma]

"A loan is a loan. What kind of loan? It's a loan! A loan is a loan. And when you have a good loan, it's because it's loaned."

[Charles Anthony]

I am going to play the devil's advocate here.

Look at this:

Mr. Martin said if such moves are permitted, it could allow corporations or wealthy individuals to break the donation limits through loans that are then written off.

...

According to the most recent declarations, the candidates have the following debt levels: Bob Rae: $845,000; Stéphane Dion: $430,000; Ken Dryden: $300,000; Gerard Kennedy: $201,750; Scott Brison: $200,000; Joe Volpe: $180,000; Michael Ignatieff: $170,000 and Martha Hall Findlay: $130,000.

and juxtapose it with the comedy of having everybody (and their mother) running for the leadership. Think of the all of the money wasted on losing candidates. Who lost the money?? Not me.

My first thoughts: leave this to the free market. At the next party leadership convention, the "corporations or wealthy individuals" will think twice about investing. With enough time, the playing field will be evened out.

Cronyism is here to stay. Continuing with devilish advocacy, do you really think Liberals are the only ones taking advantage of these loopholes?

I find it intriguing that the first attacks against small government and small countries is that it will lead to feudalism. Ha! Welcome to the real world.

[normanchateau]

According to the most recent declarations, the candidates have the following debt levels: Bob Rae: $845,000; Stéphane Dion: $430,000; Ken Dryden: $300,000; Gerard Kennedy: $201,750; Scott Brison: $200,000; Joe Volpe: $180,000; Michael Ignatieff: $170,000 and Martha Hall Findlay: $130,000.

The candidates were allowed to spend a maximum of $3.4-million each, but have not yet declared their expenses.

Who said that Dion was the anti-establishment candidate who beat the big players and won on a shoe-string budget?

How on earth do you know how much Dion or anyone else spent? Your figures show only that Dion had the second highest debt of all the candidates. No candidate has yet declared expenses.

[jdobbin]

Liberals don't see rules as a guideline for behaviour. They see rules as obstacles and look for ways to get around them. They simply don't understand the spirit of the law or its true intention.

The Liberals just do not get this. They are absolutely clueless. Liberals don't understand that politicians are supposed to have values and integrity. The only Liberal principle is apparently pure pragmatism. Well, it's not very pragmatic to be caught constantly with one's hand in the cookie jar.

Is this sort of like the Conservatives believing their convention fell under different rules for the Elections Act?

Perhaps, they didn't have a clue.

If you 're going to criticize, you might as well spread the blame around.

[Argus]

Liberals don't see rules as a guideline for behaviour. They see rules as obstacles and look for ways to get around them. They simply don't understand the spirit of the law or its true intention.

The Liberals just do not get this. They are absolutely clueless. Liberals don't understand that politicians are supposed to have values and integrity. The only Liberal principle is apparently pure pragmatism. Well, it's not very pragmatic to be caught constantly with one's hand in the cookie jar.

Is this sort of like the Conservatives believing their convention fell under different rules for the Elections Act?

Perhaps, they didn't have a clue.

If you 're going to criticize, you might as well spread the blame around.

The Conservatives did not make an end run around the rules. Had they declared that money absolutely nothing would have changed. The money was legally raised and legally spent. There isn't even a suggestion otherwise. The only thing they failed to do was report it. But no one has been able to seriously suggest to me how reporting it or not reporting it would have changed anything.

[jdobbin]

The Conservatives did not make an end run around the rules. Had they declared that money absolutely nothing would have changed. The money was legally raised and legally spent. There isn't even a suggestion otherwise. The only thing they failed to do was report it. But no one has been able to seriously suggest to me how reporting it or not reporting it would have changed anything.

It was a violation of the the Election spending rules. If it didn't change anything, why do it?

[August1991]

It was a violation of the the Election spending rules. If it didn't change anything, why do it?

Once again dobbin, you divert attention from Liberal wrongdoing by raising other issues. This tactic is tiresome. And it just reinforces my first point: the Liberals don't understand why the rules exist. They (and you) see them as obstacles and seek ways to circumvent them.

The fact is that Dion went far into debt to win this leadership campaign. What if he had lost? How would he have paid back the debt? Or did the "lenders" simply view this as a risky "investment"? (And what does all this say about Dion's attitude to spending taxpayers' money?)

Rod Bryden apparently lent $50,000 to Dion and has now been named to Dion's transition team. Is that how Dion is going to make appointments?

Dion goes on in a whiny voice about how his integrity and principles are beyond reproach but maybe that's because he's never truly tested his personal ambition. How far will he go in making compromises?

How on earth do you know how much Dion or anyone else spent? Your figures show only that Dion had the second highest debt of all the candidates. No candidate has yet declared expenses.

That's a fair point and maybe Dion's campaign team has just been faster in reporting than the other campaigns.

[jdobbin]

Once again dobbin, you divert attention from Liberal wrongdoing by raising other issues. This tactic is tiresome. And it just reinforces my first point: the Liberals don't understand why the rules exist. They (and you) see them as obstacles and seek ways to circumvent them.

The fact is that Dion went far into debt to win this leadership campaign. What if he had lost? How would he have paid back the debt? Or did the "lenders" simply view this as a risky "investment"? (And what does all this say about Dion's attitude to spending taxpayers' money?)

Rod Bryden apparently lent $50,000 to Dion and has now been named to Dion's transition team. Is that how Dion is going to make appointments?

Dion goes on in a whiny voice about how his integrity and principles are beyond reproach but maybe that's because he's never truly tested his personal ambition. How far will he go in making compromises?

You're on the attack on Liberal fundraising. Is it a violation of the rules? No. Should the law be amended? Yes.

The Conservative convention was a violation of the Elections law. Why do you continually divert attention from this? Why do right wingers as yourself see no problem with the Tory violation of the law and see problems with Liberals who have not violated the law.

And you say I'm partisan? Isn't that tiresome?

Dion's whiny voice? Gimme a break. Do you refer to politicians that way or just non-Conservative ones?

Perhaps you should have read John Ibbitson's column on Tuesday.

Published: Tuesday, December 5, 2006 12:00 AM Page A7

"On Day 1, Stephen Harper got it wrong and Stephane Dion got it right.The Conservatives appear to fundamentally misunderstand that a tried and true cudgel with which they have been beating the Liberals for six years has suddenly lost its usefulness. They can no longer call the Liberals corrupt."

[jdobbin]

Who said that Dion was the anti-establishment candidate who beat the big players and won on a shoe-string budget?

Who said he was?

And you keep digging back without looking forward. The Globe article mentioned Liberals holding up the Accountability Act. Not any more. It is back in the House.

And the Hills Times article was back in June. Why did the government not add an amendment then if they saw it was a problem?

Seems to me that the Conservatives were asleep at the wheel.

[mikedavid00]

"It's a different thing altogether. I mean a political donation is a political donation. A loan is a loan, it's not a donation, it's a loan. So, I don't see the logic frankly," said Ian Davey, campaign manager for the Ignatieff campaign who has loaned $125,000 to Mr. Ignatieff's campaign.

Hill Times

So, to get around campaign financing restrictions, the leadership candidates have solicited "loans" from contributors rather than "donations".

All politics are like this. And those monies stay hidden.

Bob Rae

Total money raised: 0

Total money borrowed: $100,000

Name of Lender

John Rae: $100,000

He's an outright liar. He ran a 2 million dollar campaign.

And do you think these are 'loans?' Please.

[mikedavid00]

Who said that Dion was the anti-establishment candidate who beat the big players and won on a shoe-string budget?

What? Dion WAS the establishment. Rae was the anti-establishment.

[jdobbin]

What? Dion WAS the establishment. Rae was the anti-establishment.

That's not exactly true either.

The only one who wasn't establishment was Hall-Findlay.

All the others had support from MPs or established federal Liberals.

And what of it anyways?

[normanchateau]

Bob Rae

Total money raised: 0

Total money borrowed: $100,000

Name of Lender

John Rae: $100,000

He's an outright liar. He ran a 2 million dollar campaign.

Who's an outright liar? Rae has by far the largest debt of any of the eight candidates.

[normanchateau]

Who said that Dion was the anti-establishment candidate who beat the big players and won on a shoe-string budget?

Dion WAS the establishment. Rae was the anti-establishment.

Then why did more Liberal MPs support Ignatieff, Rae and Kennedy than supported Dion? Ignatieff, Rae and Kennedy each were endorsed by more Liberal MPs than Dion prior to the first ballot. Or are all Liberal MPs also anti-establishment in your opinion?

[August1991]

This is a loophole you could steer a supertanker through:

Elections Canada says there's nothing illegal in MP Wajid Khan using loans from his Toronto car dealership to finance his riding association and his election campaigns.

And even if those loans are never repaid -- effectively turning them into huge personal or corporate donations that are supposed to be prohibited -- there is likely nothing that the independent watchdog can do about it.

CTV

The insanity is that this is the same bureaucracy that told Stephen Harper that an independent organization can spend almost nothing in advocacy advertising during an election.

I hope Khan as a Conservative observes the intent of the law because as a Liberal, it appears he didn't.

[Remiel]

When have you ever known a politician to simply abide by the " Spirit of the Law " , August?

[August1991]

When have you ever known a politician to simply abide by the " Spirit of the Law " , August?

There are many honest, well-meaning politicians.

But I did notice this quote of Pat Martin in the CTV article above:

Politicians in all parties take out loans, said Martin, pointing to the hundreds of thousands loaned to Liberal leadership candidates last year, including more than half a million loaned to the eventual winner, Stephane Dion.

Martin said he too has taken out loans during elections to get his campaign started until donations begin to pour in. However, Martin said he borrows only $20,000 in seed money from a credit union, which is rigorous in demanding repayment.

Martin tried last spring to close the loophole through an amendment to the Conservative's vaunted Federal Accountability Act.

He proposed specifying that loans be made only by accredited financial institutions, not individuals or companies. He also proposed that no single loan be allowed to exceed the personal donation limit of the guarantor.

"It was the fix that was necessary and both the Liberals and the Conservatives panned it completely ... They didn't just vote against it. They mocked it with derision," Martin said.

"It's not as if they were unaware of the loophole ... They chose to ignore it."

Also, does that look like a sleeping ferret on Khan's head in the photo?

[Keepitsimple]

These "loans" are not loans. They are investments. Win or lose, there will be "favours" exchanged down the line and the "investors" will be nicely rewarded. That's why we have expressions like "Pork Barrel Politics" and "The Public Trough". It's another form of "brown envelopes" being exchanged across the table. It's insidious and must be done away with.

[HoratioCaine]

"It's a different thing altogether. I mean a political donation is a political donation. A loan is a loan, it's not a donation, it's a loan. So, I don't see the logic frankly," said Ian Davey, campaign manager for the Ignatieff campaign who has loaned $125,000 to Mr. Ignatieff's campaign.

Hill Times

So, to get around campaign financing restrictions, the leadership candidates have solicited "loans" from contributors rather than "donations". This means there is no restriction on how much one individual can "contribute" to a campaign. The leadership candidate can then somehow work out "repayment" later.

There's the added bonus (and figleaf) of claiming to wait until the issuance of tax receipts is possible.

Liberals don't see rules as a guideline for behaviour. They see rules as obstacles and look for ways to get around them. They simply don't understand the spirit of the law or its true intention.

The Liberals just do not get this. They are absolutely clueless. Liberals don't understand that politicians are supposed to have values and integrity. The only Liberal principle is apparently pure pragmatism. Well, it's not very pragmatic to be caught constantly with one's hand in the cookie jar.

I really don't care about this, until the campaign finance laws are changed so that one party doesn't benefit more from them than another I have no problem with the Liberals leveling the playing field.

Also loans have to be paid back, often with interest.

[Wilber]

Also loans have to be paid back, often with interest.

My be so and maybe not. Depends on the "lender".

[HoratioCaine]

Well if it isn't paid back it's not a loan.

[Wilber]

Well if it isn't paid back it's not a loan.

Exactly and calling a contribution a "loan" doesn't make it a loan if there is no intention by either party to have it paid back. Are there any mechanisms to ensure that these "loans" are in fact repaid and by who?

The cynic in me says that no matter what rules are made or who makes them, parties and politicians will start looking for ways to circumvent those rules because money is too important to success.

[HoratioCaine]

Well if it isn't paid back it's not a loan.

Exactly and calling a contribution a "loan" doesn't make it a loan if there is no intention by either party to have it paid back. Are there any mechanisms to ensure that these "loans" are in fact repaid and by who?

The cynic in me says that no matter what rules are made or who makes them, parties and politicians will start looking for ways to circumvent those rules because money is too important to success.

Yes, but what I'm saying is we wouldn't call it a "loan" unless we intended to pay it back.

Like I say I have no problem with parties leveling the playing field while the campaign finance laws are so lopsided toward one party. Campaign Finance laws should be geared so that no one party benefits more than another. This whole banning donations from one source thing is the problem.

What I'd suggest is something like a cap, that says parties can spend so much money per year. (more in an election year of course) But they can get it from any source, Individuals, Companies, Unions whatever.