Tories may have taken $2M in illicit donations

[no1important]

The Conservative party may have illegally accepted millions in unreported donations last year because it didn't understand political financing laws.

That's the startling conclusion drawn from testimony given to a Senate committee by the Harper administration's point man on cleaning up government.

Treasury Board President John Baird has told the committee that his party did not consider fees paid to attend its March 2005 policy convention to be political contributions.

But the Elections Act stipulates that convention fees do constitute a donation.

The Tories' 2005 convention was attended by about 2,900 party members, who paid a regular fee of $600 each, although discounts were available for some.

That means the party stood to rake in as much as $1.7 million, all or some of which should have been reported to Elections Canada as donations.

Are they really that stupid?

Link

[geoffrey]

Pretty stupid move for sure. Oh well, the Tories can afford to give it back or to donate it to some charity of the hour. The Liberals are under tens of million in debt and won't ever pay the money they fraudulently stole from taxpayers.

If your trying to play the lesser of evils game, your going to lose. It was wrong for the Tories, but they will likely fix the problem this is in fact true.

[August1991]

This issue will quickly get mired in spin, as the Liberals milk it for everything they can. And it's certainly not cut and dried. I'll say first of all that John Baird, Tory Treaury Board minister, has been up front and open about this. In fact, everyone has been. There's nothing to hide - it's a question of interpretation.

The Tories' 2005 convention was attended by about 2,900 party members, who paid a regular fee of $600 each, although discounts were available for some. That means the party stood to rake in as much as $1.7 million, all or some of which should have been reported to Elections Canada as donations.

....

In fact, the Elections Act stipulates that convention fees do constitute a donation "to the extent that the person paying the fee is not receiving a good or service that has any commercial value beyond its political value.''

Any portion of a convention fee that covers lodging, meals or travel does not count as a contribution.

CP

Well, how much does it cost to organize a convention? The Conservative convention in Montreal lasted from 17 to 19 March or two days. I randomly found this two day convention in Chicago. The participation fee? About $700. (Liberals are charging $995 for each delegate to their convention.)

I think the Conservatives should somehow determine how much of the $600 fee went for non-Party expenses and then treat the remainder as a donation.

If we are going to go down this path of tightly controlling party expenses, then we'd better be aware of the problems it will pose. There are going to be more problems in the future where we'll have to call in a referee for an interpretation. Deciding a rule is not the same as breaking a rule.

[Riverwind]

This issue will quickly get mired in spin, as the Liberals milk it for everything they can. And it's certainly not cut and dried. I'll say first of all that John Baird, Tory Treaury Board minister, has been up front and open about this. In fact, everyone has been. There's nothing to hide - it's a question of interpretation.

This will disappear. The public mood seems to want Harper to succeed right now so people will brush things like this off. The next election will be fought on how the Conservatives governed not donations that appear to have violated rules that have been extremely arcane.

[Topaz]

All I like to say, is Baird should take some of that money and get a new hair piece, it was ugly when he was in provincial govt and its still ugly in the Fed govt where he going to make more money!!!! When another party comes down on another for wrong doing, you better keep your backyard crystal clean and NO excuses! By the way, the Libs that are sitting, have nothing to do with the scam created by Libs from Quebec. Cons should move on and try to govern and quit bringing up the scam and it was majority of Canadians that kept the Lib in 13 years, that another things Harper can drop too. Lets see if he can be in for 13 years!!!

[Cameron]

The Conservative party may have illegally accepted millions in unreported donations last year because it didn't understand political financing laws.

It's not fact yet. And if they did, as stated before they will probably fix the problem.

[August1991]

This will disappear. The public mood seems to want Harper to succeed right now so people will brush things like this off. The next election will be fought on how the Conservatives governed not donations that appear to have violated rules that have been extremely arcane.

Good call, Riverview. I think you're right.

I don't want to speak too soon but it's as if the public has decided that Harper's an honest guy where money is concerned and so he's got a teflon coating. I'm still waiting for the first major Tory scandal. It's bound to come at some point.

BTW, this story got about the same reaction in Quebec.

[Argus]

The Conservative party may have illegally accepted millions in unreported donations last year because it didn't understand political financing laws.

That's the startling conclusion drawn from testimony given to a Senate committee by the Harper administration's point man on cleaning up government.

Treasury Board President John Baird has told the committee that his party did not consider fees paid to attend its March 2005 policy convention to be political contributions.

But the Elections Act stipulates that convention fees do constitute a donation.

The Tories' 2005 convention was attended by about 2,900 party members, who paid a regular fee of $600 each, although discounts were available for some.

That means the party stood to rake in as much as $1.7 million, all or some of which should have been reported to Elections Canada as donations.

Are they really that stupid?

The quote itself shows the bias of the media. There was nothing "illicit" about the Tories charging fees and nothing "illegal" about it either, nor is there anything to refund. At worst, what they did was fail to report completely legal donations. Once costs of the convention had been determined, whatever was left should be reported. That's the end of it. To compare this to the Liberals outright theft of money, kickbacks, and bulging moneybags being passed across restaurant tables in dimly lit rooms is ridiculous.

[Shakeyhands]

All I like to say, is Baird should take some of that money and get a new hair piece, it was ugly when he was in provincial govt and its still ugly in the Fed govt where he going to make more money!!!! When another party comes down on another for wrong doing, you better keep your backyard crystal clean and NO excuses! By the way, the Libs that are sitting, have nothing to do with the scam created by Libs from Quebec. Cons should move on and try to govern and quit bringing up the scam and it was majority of Canadians that kept the Lib in 13 years, that another things Harper can drop too. Lets see if he can be in for 13 years!!!

Its the taking of the advice of the American pollster to new heights!!!! Anytime we do anything wrong, remind them of the 13 years of Liberal whatever... it won't work. Its a cheap way to lead isn't it.

[gc1765]

Its the taking of the advice of the American pollster to new heights!!!! Anytime we do anything wrong, remind them of the 13 years of Liberal whatever... it won't work. Its a cheap way to lead isn't it.

Very true, the conservatives looove to bring up the sponsorship scandal anytime they possibly can. What some people can't seem to understand is that the crooks involved in the sponsorship program are no longer in the liberal party. No current liberal MPs were implicated in the scandal, so get over it.

[gc1765]

The quote itself shows the bias of the media. There was nothing "illicit" about the Tories charging fees and nothing "illegal" about it either, nor is there anything to refund. At worst, what they did was fail to report completely legal donations. Once costs of the convention had been determined, whatever was left should be reported. That's the end of it. To compare this to the Liberals outright theft of money, kickbacks, and bulging moneybags being passed across restaurant tables in dimly lit rooms is ridiculous.

If it's 'legal' for the conservatives, then it's legal for the liberals. You can't apply different standards to each party: Link

and

If the legislation passes, Liberals who have already donated more than $5 this year will find themselves unable to go to the convention because they will have exceeded their donation limit.

Link

[gc1765]

Pretty stupid move for sure. Oh well, the Tories can afford to give it back or to donate it to some charity of the hour. The Liberals are under tens of million in debt and won't ever pay the money they fraudulently stole from taxpayers.

If your trying to play the lesser of evils game, your going to lose. It was wrong for the Tories, but they will likely fix the problem this is in fact true.

Ottawa — The federal Liberals have dug themselves out of their financial hole and posted a surplus of more than $400,000 last year.

The party was about $1.9-million in debt at the end of 2004. It has since covered that and repaid $1.14-million to the federal government as a result of the Gomery inquiry.

Link

[gerryhatrick]

Well, how much does it cost to organize a convention? The Conservative convention in Montreal lasted from 17 to 19 March or two days. I randomly found this two day convention in Chicago. The participation fee? About $700. (Liberals are charging $995 for each delegate to their convention.)

I think the Conservatives should somehow determine how much of the $600 fee went for non-Party expenses and then treat the remainder as a donation.

If we are going to go down this path of tightly controlling party expenses, then we'd better be aware of the problems it will pose. There are going to be more problems in the future where we'll have to call in a referee for an interpretation. Deciding a rule is not the same as breaking a rule.

That's the same sad BS the Conservartives are playing right now....."but what about the Liberals???? snif snif"

You should read this article: http://www.cjad.com/node/376243

The rules are established and understood by old Reform and Alliance. It's not a case of "if we are going down this path", the path is well worn and has been gone down by all the parties for a while, apparently.

The CPC just f'd up, and if they were smart they'd admit it and take a fast lump instead of trying to deny and deflect.

[sharkman]

Look everyone, this is just simple accounting crap. They didn't declare some funds as they should have, and now they will pay whatever it is decided they owe. To compare this to Liberal thieving is delusional. If this is the worst opponents of the CPC can come up with, there's a Tory majority coming.

[gerryhatrick]

Look everyone, this is just simple accounting crap. They didn't declare some funds as they should have, and now they will pay whatever it is decided they owe. To compare this to Liberal thieving is delusional. If this is the worst opponents of the CPC can come up with, there's a Tory majority coming.

Excuse me? No, this has gone a little beyond that. You're not keeping up with the news, apparently.

They are saying they didn't have to declare because they didn't turn a profit. Everyone, even old time Tories and Reform, say that's bullsh@t.

Show a little credibility and demand some honesty from what's obviously the party you support rather than attempt to toss the spotlight back on the Liberals. This has nothing to do with the Liberals, and it's not "opponents of the CPC" that came up with it.

[jbg]

It strikes me that the CPC are pikers in the area of graft compared to the Lieberals.

[gerryhatrick]

It strikes me that the CPC are pikers in the area of graft compared to the Lieberals.

I notice a common theme in your posts. It's the same theme that Harper is employing, which is to deflect responsibility away to another time and place.

Paul Martin took responsibility for adscam. So what? That was then, this is now.

Harper can't take responsibility, obviously. Not only will he not take responsibility, he's trying to claim all is well AND he's moaning about the Liberals. What pathetic, childish behaviour.

[sharkman]

It strikes me that the CPC are pikers in the area of graft compared to the Lieberals.

I notice a common theme in your posts. It's the same theme that Harper is employing, which is to deflect responsibility away to another time and place.

Paul Martin took responsibility for adscam. So what? That was then, this is now.

Harper can't take responsibility, obviously. Not only will he not take responsibility, he's trying to claim all is well AND he's moaning about the Liberals. What pathetic, childish behaviour.

I notice a theme in your posts gerry. You hate Harper and the CPC, and the horse they rode in on. But you're going to need patience, because the CPC ain't done nothing yet that warrents outrage. But maybe you could practice your outrage in the hope of one day actually having an outragous situation to be outraged about. Until then, keep your hopes up.

[jbg]

It strikes me that the CPC are pikers in the area of graft compared to the Lieberals.

I notice a common theme in your posts. It's the same theme that Harper is employing, which is to deflect responsibility away to another time and place.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Paul Martin took responsibility for adscam. So what? That was then, this is now.

Harper can't take responsibility, obviously. Not only will he not take responsibility, he's trying to claim all is well AND he's moaning about the Liberals. What pathetic, childish behaviour.

Martin did not "take responsibility" for Adscam. The investigation was his way of letting loose on the Chrétien faction in the LPOC, and trying to comoplete his takeover of the party. He was Finance Minister while Adscam was happening and unless I'm deaf I never heard him say that he was asleep at the switch.

The LPOC had become a coalition of competing wheeler-dealers sucking at the trough.

[gerryhatrick]

Martin did not "take responsibility" for Adscam. The investigation was his way of letting loose on the Chrétien faction in the LPOC, and trying to comoplete his takeover of the party. He was Finance Minister while Adscam was happening and unless I'm deaf I never heard him say that he was asleep at the switch.

The LPOC had become a coalition of competing wheeler-dealers sucking at the trough.

He took personal responsibility for dealing with it. In the end, all Liberal cabinet ministers were determined by Gomery to be free from blame or responsibility, and Paul Martin in particular was "exonerated for any blame for carelessness or misconduct". So, whatever.

In the case of Stephen Harper he is also probably free of blame, carelessness, and misconduct. The difference here is we see him claiming that what happened was just A-OK and him and his party complaining multiple times about the Liberals in the course of answering this....while the Liberals have nothing to do with it.

I think the problem that's emerged for the Conservative party is they've become incapable of answering to anything without including the Liberals in some shape or form. They've been told by an American rightwing think tank to pile on, and they have been. Problem is when something would be more fitting to contrite honesty and a pledge to get to the bottom (as Martin did in the case of sponsorship) then that's what you should do, not point the finger at someone else. Looks....well, pathetic.

[sharkman]

Martin did not "take responsibility" for Adscam. The investigation was his way of letting loose on the Chrétien faction in the LPOC, and trying to comoplete his takeover of the party. He was Finance Minister while Adscam was happening and unless I'm deaf I never heard him say that he was asleep at the switch.

The LPOC had become a coalition of competing wheeler-dealers sucking at the trough.

He took personal responsibility for dealing with it. In the end, all Liberal cabinet ministers were determined by Gomery to be free from blame or responsibility, and Paul Martin in particular was "exonerated for any blame for carelessness or misconduct". So, whatever.

In the end, the Canadian people MADE the Lieberals pay for Adscam. Martin at first tried telling us it happened before he became PM and as Finance Minister he wasn't privy to what was going on. That went over like a Liberal leadership convention, so he 'took' responsibility as a grasp at straws. It didn't work either.

[gerryhatrick]

Martin at first tried telling us it happened before he became PM

It did happen before he became PM.

I think you've been listening to a little too much Frank Luntz yourself. Go see this topic:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=6081

to see how silly that looks.

Now, care to comment on THIS topic? You know, the controversy surrounding 1.7 million in undeclared donations to the CPC? Or does it not matter of sponsorship?

[sharkman]

I did comment on this thread in post 18, and we all know how you feel about it since you keep repeating yourself ad nauseam. Let me know when there's an actual scandal.

[gerryhatrick]

I did comment on this thread in post 18, and we all know how you feel about it since you keep repeating yourself ad nauseam. Let me know when there's an actual scandal.

Post 18 was more of an ad hom squirt at myself than a comment on the thread. As was this last post. You keep trying though.