Conservatives vastly out fundraise Liberals in 2006.

[Ricki Bobbi]

So the fundraising numbers are in for 2006. Link

CPC $19 Million

Liberals $11.2 Million

First key point to remember (from the story).

The governing Conservatives enjoy a widening money gap over the Liberals despite the windfall of cash that Stéphane Dion's party earned from its December leadership convention

Second key point.

The Conservatives still had money in the bank after the election.

The Liberals had a debt to pay off...

[geoffrey]

Liberals don't have a great deal of grassroot support, it mostly came from a few big business leaders (and their young children) but now that those loopholes are mostly closed, they are a little strapped for cash.

Do those numbers include the adjustment for the CPC violation of the rules on their conventions, or was that applied previously back?

[Ricki Bobbi]

Do those numbers include the adjustment for the CPC violation of the rules on their conventions, or was that applied previously back?

Hmmm Geoff the value of that adjustment was below $10K. You know that. The reported number for the Conservatives was in the millions. Either way the number would have been $19 Million.

What does "applied previously back" mean?

For a self-professedly educated man you ask some pretty difficult to comprehend questions. Yes, even accountants would wonder what you meant by that one...

[geoffrey]

Do those numbers include the adjustment for the CPC violation of the rules on their conventions, or was that applied previously back?

Hmmm Geoff the value of that adjustment was below $10K. You know that. The reported number for the Conservatives was in the millions. Either way the number would have been $19 Million.

What does "applied previously back" mean?

For a self-professedly educated man you ask some pretty difficult to comprehend questions. Yes, even accountants would wonder what you meant by that one...

I need to keep it lower level in case PolyNewb wants to read it. You never know.

I was unsure when the CPC convention income was realised so the revenue deduction would have been applied to a previous year in which it was, instead of the current year, therefore distorting the real picture of their income.

When a company prepares financial statements, such a change in previous years earnings would have to mentioned in a note in the statements, so I was essientially asking if there was a note here... did the CPC pay out a massive chunk of refunds but it wasn't recognized in the current period.

If it was only $10k, then oh well, not really material there.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

All this talk about fund raising can only mean that preparations are underway for the next election. I find that entertaining, because I don't think there will be any significant change in the composition of government.

[geoffrey]

Oh, and by the way, the adjustments were far greater than $10k... it was a much more considerable nearly $1.5mil in revenues... in the amendment to the 2005 financial statements:

Last Thursday, the party filed a revised financial report for 2005 with Elections Canada, acknowledging that it did not report delegate fees collected for its national convention that year as donations, contrary to political financing laws.

In the revised report, the Conservatives have "reclassified revenue related to the 2005 convention," disclosing an additional $539,915 in previously unreported donations, an extra $913,710 in "other revenue," and an additional $1.45 million in "other expenses."

Source: </b>http://www.thestar.com/News/article/165383

Sure net income didn't increase considerably, but missing a million and bit of revenue is a serious issue.

[Catchme]

Oh, and by the way, the adjustments were far greater than $10k... it was a much more considerable nearly $1.5mil in revenues... in the amendment to the 2005 financial statements:

In the revised report, the Conservatives have "reclassified revenue related to the 2005 convention," disclosing an additional $539,915 in previously unreported donations, an extra $913,710 in "other revenue," and an additional $1.45 million in "other expenses."

Sure net income didn't increase considerably, but missing a million and bit of revenue is a serious issue.

539,915 + $913,710 and an additional $1.45 million in "other expenses." = 2.9 million that was set back to 2005. So let's take that 3 million off of the 19 million leaving 16 million they raised in 2006. 4 milion more than the Liberals, which is not a great deal when you consider the Liberals had raised the ire of their supporters and they migrated elsewhere.

But really this is all past tense tense anyway. As the true indicator will be how much the CPC will now be able to bring in considering the division lines being drawn in the party and by how much the Liberals can bring in now that their supporters are landing their votes back with their party.

Plus, how much of this is Oil payolya? As the CPC has of yet refused to disclose donation sources.

[scribblet]

All this talk about fund raising can only mean that preparations are underway for the next election. I find that entertaining, because I don't think there will be any significant change in the composition of government.

There's nothing wrong with election readiness, and they are always fundraising. So far there is no division or loss of revenue, I understand they are doing well.

As for 'oil payola', no idea what that bit of malicious innuendo is about and all donations are the elections Canada website.

[jbg]

All this talk about fund raising can only mean that preparations are underway for the next election. I find that entertaining, because I don't think there will be any significant change in the composition of government.

There's nothing wrong with election readiness, and they are always fundraising. So far there is no division or loss of revenue, I understand they are doing well.

As for 'oil payola', no idea what that bit of malicious innuendo is about and all donations are the elections Canada website.

Not to be election-ready during a minority government is foolhardy. Even though this looks like a relatively solid minority government (since no other party wants an early election) one presumably could happen by accident.

[Ricki Bobbi]

539,915 + $913,710 and an additional $1.45 million in "other expenses." = 2.9 million that was set back to 2005. So let's take that 3 million off of the 19 million leaving 16 million they raised in 2006. 4 milion more than the Liberals, which is not a great deal when you consider the Liberals had raised the ire of their supporters and they migrated elsewhere.

Catch me do you have any clue at all? For crying out loud, what a blatant example of your blind hatred when you have no idea what you are arguing about.

The $539,915 and $913,710 are additional revenues. i.e. just over $1.4 million in additional revenues and they had $1.45 million in other expenses.

The net effect would be $40,000 less to report as income in 2006. Geoff is right, this amount is pretty minimal.

It still $7 million more then the Liberals raised in 2006, as reported in the story.

[madmax]

Hmmm Geoff the value of that adjustment was below $10K. Yes, even accountants would wonder what you meant by that one...

539,915 + $913,710 + $1.45 million = 10 k

Damn accountants, never could figure them out.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Damn accountants, never could figure them out.

You're an all star max.

Why not look at the *net* adjustment? jack*ss...

The *net* adjustment was a little under $40K.

Can you figure that out?

[Catchme]

Hmmm Geoff the value of that adjustment was below $10K. Yes, even accountants would wonder what you meant by that one...

539,915 + $913,710 + $1.45 million = 10 k

Damn accountants, never could figure them out.

Apparently, it is a reading comprehension problem. They seem to think it is just the first 2 amounts, and are ignoring/not comprehending the additional 1.45 million on top of the first 2 amounts.

How they get that to 10k is really unknowable. Let's hope the government they voted for is better at the math and reading than their supporters are.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Apparently, it is a reading comprehension problem. They seem to think it is just the first 2 amounts, and are ignoring/not comprehending the additional 1.45 million on top of the first 2 amounts.

How they get that to 10k is really unknowable. Let's hope the government they voted for is better at the math and reading than their supporters are.

You're an all star max catchme.

Why not look at the *net* adjustment? jack*ss...

The *net* adjustment was a little under $40K.

Can you figure that out?

[geoffrey]

Plus, how much of this is Oil payolya? As the CPC has of yet refused to disclose donation sources.

So oil industry workers are no longer allowed to donate? They are second class pieces of shit?

Your thinly vailed intolerance of everything not-so-perfectly Liberal is showing.

By the way, prior to the banning of corporate donations and huge private donations, how much did the Liberals receive from companies initmately tied with US interests. It's no secret that the Liberals are in bed with the US defense industry, transportation and finance.

Oh my. It can't be.

The source of the funding, when legal, is really invalid as long as it comes from Canadians... that's my point.

How they get that to 10k is really unknowable. Let's hope the government they voted for is better at the math and reading than their supporters are.

How you don't get that amount is really evidence of your lack of basic math principles. The net difference (unrecognized revenues - unrecognized expenses) of the adjustments is simply $10k.

Now missing all that revenue shows incompetence on the part of the CPC's accounting staff, it looks bad and it really unexcusable from an internal party position. But the actual realistic change it made in the picture isn't even material.

$3625 is the actual net adjustment by the way, using the numbers we've been given.

[Who's Doing What?]

That is a lot of fancey math.

So just what were the 1.45 million in expesnses that seem so conveniently close to the ammount of money the CPC was trying to hide or were to stupid to claim?

[geoffrey]

That is a lot of fancey math.

If you insist that Revenue-Expense=Income(loss) is a complex mathematical process, then indeed, it is fancy.

So just what were the 1.45 million in expesnses that seem so conveniently close to the ammount of money the CPC was trying to hide or were to stupid to claim?

Accounting principles require that you match expenses to revenue. If no revenue existed previously, than expenses incurred in raising that revenue could not be recognized.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Accounting principles require that you match expenses to revenue. If no revenue existed previously, than expenses incurred in raising that revenue could not be recognized.

Don't waste your time and effort.

WDW? is here to attack no matter what. Between the two of us we have explained a dozen ways how there was nothing nefarious about this adjustment. But the Harper-haters will make the point out of pure childishness than anything else.

I put him on ignore and it has made my experience here much better.

[madmax]

You're an all star max.

Why not look at the *net* adjustment? jack*ss...

Hmmm Geoff the value of that adjustment was below $10K.

The *net* adjustment was a little under $40K.

Can you figure that out?

I can figure this out.

If you didn't have Geoffrey here to sort your facts out you would be lost.

You were questioning his accounting. I was not.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I can figure this out.

If you didn't have Geoffrey here to sort your facts out you would be lost.

You were questioning his accounting. I was not.

Hmmm, you selectively quoted my responses in a way that made it confusing.

I was uncertain of the adjustment he was talking about. I now know and our last posts on the topic have been on the same topic.

I responded to WDW? and you respond to me. Do you have two screen names here?

Take one post in isolation, and Geoff or I, will answer any question you have.

Then we can do the second then the third and so on.

[madmax]

I responded to WDW? and you respond to me. Do you have two screen names here?

What Part of this quote is directed at WDW?

You're an all star max.

Why not look at the *net* adjustment? jack*ss...

The *net* adjustment was a little under $40K.

Can you figure that out?

I don't need to ask you for $ information. I can read the thread, I can follow what Geoffrey Posted. I think it is pretty clear.

Damn Accountants I never could figure them out

I suggest you find a little "decorum" in the near future.

[Topaz]

I think the vast numbers of voters don't care about the money the parties have. They only care HOW they spend the voters money!! The environment is the front and center and perhaps the Green Party would shock the two other parties and get a minority government!! Boy, would I love to see their faces!!!! I'm not saying this would happen but who knows when it comes to the voters of this country. Perhaps Layton would be smart to join these two parties together, once the Green party had enough seats to become part of parliament. I'm sure the Liberal party picked the right person to lead their party. I like Dion but I rather have seen someone like Rae across the aisle from Harper.

[Who's Doing What?]

Accounting principles require that you match expenses to revenue. If no revenue existed previously, than expenses incurred in raising that revenue could not be recognized.

I'm just saying it is pretty convenient that these "other expenses" amount to almost exactly the same as the undeclared and new revenues. How does it cost so much to cash cheques or swipe credit cards for the convention fees?

Don't waste your time and effort.

WDW? is here to attack no matter what. Between the two of us we have explained a dozen ways how there was nothing nefarious about this adjustment. But the Harper-haters will make the point out of pure childishness than anything else.

I put him on ignore and it has made my experience here much better.

What a load of paranoid garbage. Where did I attack you this time you poor little boy?

Why don't you just keep your head up your arse where it seems it is the most comfortable for you.

Yes Thanks for putting me on ignore. If you put everyone else on ignore, they would all enjoy the forum alot more too. Besides if you have me on ignore just what the hell are you doing referencing my posts? That's a pretty shabby job of ignoring you are doing there. Again, I laugh at you.

[Who's Doing What?]

I responded to WDW? and you respond to me. Do you have two screen names here?

What are you doing responding to me? I thought you had me on ignore. Nice job of ignoring there RB.

[madmax]

I think the vast numbers of voters don't care about the money the parties have. They only care HOW they spend the voters money!!

I agree, only other party hacks get all ticked off over the abuse of the system. Especially when caught. :angry: