Conservatives in Court Battle

[jdobbin]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

Elections Canada is now locked in a court battle with 37 of the candidates who want the government - which returns 60 per cent of the election expenses of candidates who get at least 10 per cent of the votes in their riding - to reimburse them for the costs.

Barbara McIsaac, a lawyer for the chief electoral officer, says in a court document that they are not entitled to the money because what the Conservatives call a "regional media buy" was "not an expense of the candidates who claimed it but an expense of the party."

I don't think we have heard the last of this. It may be that the Tories overspent by a million dollars if Elections Canada wins this court decision.

According to the Ottawa Citizen:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story....123&k=20967

Elections Canada contends that official agents acting for Tory candidates claimed expenses for advertising they cannot prove were for the candidates, as required by the Elections Act. Instead, the agency's lawyer says Elections Canada inquiries suggest some expenses were for the national party.

The Conservatives have taken the case to Federal Court and want an order setting aside Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand's decision to reject their expense claims.

The stakes in the legal dispute are potentially high. Unless the Tories can prove the expenses were legitimately incurred by their candidates, the payments could push the national Conservative campaign over its $18.3-million spending limit, in violation of the election financing law.

Edited August 24, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

I don't think we have heard the last of this. It may be that the Tories overspent by a million dollars if Elections Canada wins this court decision.

For every ad in the regional buys the name of the candidates paying for the ad was listed on the ad.

Much ado about nothing. Convenient how the OP omitted the fact that the case was initiated by the LPC.

[bk59]

For every ad in the regional buys the name of the candidates paying for the ad was listed on the ad.

Much ado about nothing. Convenient how the OP omitted the fact that the case was initiated by the LPC.

It would be convenient except that the case was initiated by members of the Conservative Party and has nothing to do with the Liberal Party.

The Conservatives, who point out that it was the financial officers for the candidates who have taken Elections Canada to court, and not the other way around, respond that they have done nothing outside the rules.

I guess we'll see how it goes, but I'm not a big fan of political parties attempting to get around election rules.

[jdobbin]

It would be convenient except that the case was initiated by members of the Conservative Party and has nothing to do with the Liberal Party.

I guess we'll see how it goes, but I'm not a big fan of political parties attempting to get around election rules.

Yes, I think it was the agents for the Conservative party trying to be re-reimbursed. I have never seen any indication that any other party except the Tories brought this forward to Elections Canada.

It certainly looks like an end run around the rules.

[Michael Bluth]

It would be convenient except that the case was initiated by members of the Conservative Party and has nothing to do with the Liberal Party.

I guess we'll see how it goes, but I'm not a big fan of political parties attempting to get around election rules.

My bad, it was the Liberals who spoke to the media.

The case was initiated against the rule of Elections Canada.

Exactly what election rules were the Conservatives trying to 'get around'?

[bk59]

My bad, it was the Liberals who spoke to the media.

The case was initiated against the rule of Elections Canada.

Exactly what election rules were the Conservatives trying to 'get around'?

The linked articles make it pretty clear:

In the 2006 campaign, the cash-flush Tories spent the $18.3-million they were allowed under Canada's electoral law - a limit imposed to even the playing field between rich candidates and those that were not so rich.

The court documents show that, largely through local candidates, the Conservatives also spent $1.2-million plus $121,000 in production costs to purchase what they call a "regional media buy."

If they funneled money in an inappropriate way then the national party went over its spending limit. We'll have to see how it plays out in court, but if they did go over their limit then that is a problem. Particularly if they are then trying to be reimbursed for the money they spent over the limit.

[Michael Bluth]

The linked articles make it pretty clear:

If they funneled money in an inappropriate way then the national party went over its spending limit. We'll have to see how it plays out in court, but if they did go over their limit then that is a problem. Particularly if they are then trying to be reimbursed for the money they spent over the limit.

There is the rub.

Which limit is applied in this case?

In a Federal campaign the party has a limit and the local candidates have a limit.

If the money spent by the local candidates are considered to be a local expense then they have not overspent their limit. There is no question the money came from local candidates, but Elections Canada has tried to rule they should have been national expenses.

If these expenses are considered to be national expenses then the Conservatives won't get their money back.

[jdobbin]

If they funneled money in an inappropriate way then the national party went over its spending limit. We'll have to see how it plays out in court, but if they did go over their limit then that is a problem. Particularly if they are then trying to be reimbursed for the money they spent over the limit.

It is probably why the party wants the Election Canada ruling that it was a national party ad tossed. If not, the Tories overspent by a million dollars. I honestly don't know what the penalty for that is.

[geoffrey]

The CPC wouldn't take this into the light unless they were clean.

[jdobbin]

The CPC wouldn't take this into the light unless they were clean.

It wouldn't be the first time they didn't get it right on party financing. Remember about the convention fees issue?

I don't think the Tories thought they would have to go to court to fight for this.

[geoffrey]

Nor should they. I don't see much of an issue with what they did? A regional ad can surely be a local expense.

[jdobbin]

Nor should they. I don't see much of an issue with what they did? A regional ad can surely be a local expense.

I think Elections Canada has made issue of where the money came from which is from the central campaign. It wasn't from each individual campaign's own fundraising efforts.

[jdobbin]

More in the National Post on the court battle.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ca...c7-11b02bdbd680

Jean Landry, a former Bloc Quebecois MP who placed second as a Tory candidate in Richmond-Arthabaska, said that, after Elections Canada challenged his financial statements, he asked the party for bills proving $26,000 his campaign paid the party for advertising expenses were incurred on his behalf.

"Directors of the Conservative party called me to tell me not to talk to Elections Canada again because there were others dealing with the problem," said Mr. Landry, who added that Elections Canada investigators grilled him for three hours earlier this summer.

Mr. Landry says he will have nothing more to do with the Conservative party.

Elections Canada contends that official agents for some Conservative campaigns listed advertising expenses they weren't entitled to claim. Candidates are not allowed to post expenses for advertising that does not directly promote their own campaigns, or that they do not incur themselves.

If Elections Canada's decision stands, the national Conservative campaign could be forced to bring the cost of the ads onto their books, potentially pushing the campaign over its legal spending limit in violation of the Elections Act.

And by increasing the amount of money they reported spending, the local campaigns boosted the amount of rebate they could claim from Elections Canada, which reimburses 60% of allowable expenses.

And a little more on the "in and out" formula that the Tories used according to their own internal memos.

Election expense reports show that campaigns for several other prominent Tories also paid the party for radio and TV ads, although they have not been identified in the court case.

For instance, the campaign of Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier received $5,000 from the party on Dec. 30, 2005, and four days later paid the same amount to the party for broadcast advertising. Mr. Bernier's campaign later received another $11,985 in party transfers.

The campaign for government whip Jay Hill paid the Conservative Fund of Canada $14,999.97 for radio or TV advertising, after receiving a transfer from the fund in the exact same amount four months earlier.

Heritage Minister Jose Verner's campaign paid $9,363.67 to the party for radio or TV and received four transfers totaling more than $32,000. MP Daniel Petit, who was among the Tories' breakthrough candidates in Quebec, contributed over $37,000 through his campaign. He received transfers totaling more than $46,000.

But the Conservatives who won their seats account for only a fraction of the campaigns that paid the party for advertising. Many of the candidates ran token campaigns in ridings where the party had little chance of winning. They include:

-Neil Drabkin, a lawyer who ran for the Conservatives against former justice minister Irwin Cotler in the Liberal stronghold of Mount Royal, Pierre Trudeau's old riding. Mr. Drabkin is now chief of staff to Mr. Day.

-Ian West, a candidate appointed by Stephen Harper to run in the Northern Ontario riding of Algoma-Manatoulin-Kapuskasing. Mr. West finished third and was later named a senior policy advisor to Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn.

-Andrea Paine placed second to a Liberal in Lac St.-Louis after losing badly in another Mont-real-area riding in the 2004 election. She is now a legislative advisor to government house leader Peter Van Loan.

-Aaron Hynes placed a strong second in the Newfoundland riding of Bonavista-Gander-Grand Falls. Mr. Hynes is now a special assistant for regional affairs to Environment Minister John Baird.

Edited August 26, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Update on the election ad controversy.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070905/..._ad_controversy

he Conservatives defended themselves Wednesday against allegations they broke election spending laws by invoking their right to free speech, the same argument used by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in past battles with Elections Canada.

Opposition parties, meanwhile, began clamouring for a parliamentary review into the controversy.

The commissioner of Canada elections is currently investigating whether dozens of Tory candidates improperly claimed advertising expenses that should have been declared by the national party. If the TV and radio ads in question were in fact national in nature, the party may have blown past its legal spending limit by more than $1 million.

Tory MP Pierre Poilievre, the parliamentary secretary to the Treasury Board President, said it all boils down to freedom of speech. He maintained all rules were followed and Elections Canada does not have the right to weigh in on the content of ads.

"We are in the right, we are going to defend our freedom of speech to determine what kind of ads we're going to run," Poilievre told reporters.

So the argument now is that they broke the law but they did it because it is free speech?

[Michael Bluth]

The CPC wouldn't take this into the light unless they were clean.

Exactly.

The CPC riding associations will get their money back.

What are the odds the OP here stays mum when that happens?

Edited September 6, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[jdobbin]

Latest on the issue of the 67 Tory candidates and election spending.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics...459&k=90200

A Commons committee hearing into more than $1 million worth of controversial Conservative election expenses ended in confusion Thursday after the Conservative committee chair banged his gavel to end the meeting and quickly disappeared without telling MPs when the next session would be.

Opposition MPs milled around the committee room for a half-hour after chairman Gary Goodyear scurried from his chair when time expired on the session.

Conservative MPs had successfully delayed opposition attempts to reach the main agenda — an inquiry into $1.2 million of Tory advertising expenses under investigation by the federal elections commissioner — but failed in an attempt to divert attention to Liberal Leader Stephane Dion’s 2004 election returns.

Looks like the committee won't get to deal with this again until October.

As for the Elections Canada investigation, it is still ongoing.

[Michael Bluth]

Looks like the committee won't get to deal with this again until October.

As for the Elections Canada investigation, it is still ongoing.

Looks like you are going to bang the same dead issue until October.

As for dobbin's futile raging against anything associated with the Conservative Party of Canada, it is still ongoing.

[daniel]

Latest on the issue of the 67 Tory candidates and election spending.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics...459&k=90200

Looks like the committee won't get to deal with this again until October.

As for the Elections Canada investigation, it is still ongoing.

Don't worry, I'm sure there's a clause in the Accountability Act that says Conservatives are exempt from the law.

[jdobbin]

Don't worry, I'm sure there's a clause in the Accountability Act that says Conservatives are exempt from the law.

Increasingly, the courts and outside bodies are acting on Conservative measures to move unilaterally or contrary to the guidelines as set out in legislation. The Wheat Board move was completely shut down by the federal court. Elections Canada has not paid out local candidates using the "in and out" formula to bypass national rules on election spending and the Trade Tribunal has given the government till the end of the month to explain the CF-18 contract bid or have the whole thing done over again.

[Michael Bluth]

Don't worry, I'm sure there's a clause in the Accountability Act that says Conservatives are exempt from the law.

Yes Daniel, there probably is.

The Conservatives have questioned a ruling of Elections Canada thus you accuse them of writing illegal laws?

Good contribution to the discussion!

[jdobbin]

It would appear that the Tories are getting upset with the Liberals bringing up the Elections Canada issue.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...25?hub=Politics

The Conservative Party of Canada is threatening legal action against the Liberals over language they've used to describe an investigation into Tory spending practices.

Lawyers fired off a letter to the president and executive director of the Liberal party, saying a number of Tory staffers have been defamed in a recent opposition press release on the so-called "in and out'' scheme being examined by Elections Canada.

The electoral watchdog is investigating whether several dozen Tory candidates and their official agents improperly claimed local advertising expenses during the last campaign for ads that were national in nature. The Liberals have hammered the Conservatives on the issue daily since Parliament returned this fall.

"This letter is . . . intended to serve as notice that it is defamatory to suggest or imply that these individuals have engaged in illegal conduct,'' writes party lawyer Paul Lepsoe. "In particular, it is defamatory to suggest or imply that the positions these individuals have or have had on Ministers' staffs are 'rewards' for having engaged in illegal conduct.

"Our clients reserve their rights to take such action as they deem appropriate against the Liberal Party of Canada and others . . . .''

The Liberal release, attributed to MP Dominic LeBlanc on Tuesday, refers to an "apparent scheme to violate election spending limits'' and "serious allegations.'' It also underlined that 11 former candidates and agents went on to find government positions.

"One has to wonder if there is a connection between their willingness to participate and employment by this Conservative government,'' LeBlanc said in the statement.

LeBlanc said Thursday he has never said that anybody broke the law.

"What we have said is that Elections Canada has found that 66 Conservative filings did not, in their view, respect the election legislation,'' LeBlanc told reporters. "That's why they have begun an investigation and rejected a series of refunds that the candidates have claimed.''

[old_bold&cold]

The fact that the Liberal party has taken to only saying things where they can not be sued for it, speaks loads as to just how strongly they feel about this issue. If they were sure they would not hesitate as the truth is the best defense against lible charges.

As usual the Liberal party is down to its same old tricks and things. I guess it mostly comes from the party backroom. They never have anything positive to input, and Liberal platform is CPC bashing and that is it? My my, they still do not get it, that after all this time they had to change leaders and clean up the party, they have even more corrupted the members and the party is fighting each other, almost as much as nit picking Harper for things. Even this so called update to a post a month ago, does nothing more then try to refloat the old news. But I am sure the members here can see that. It just semms so desperate.

[jdobbin]

The fact that the Liberal party has taken to only saying things where they can not be sued for it, speaks loads as to just how strongly they feel about this issue. If they were sure they would not hesitate as the truth is the best defense against lible charges.

I suppose the same could be said about Harper who is hiding behind privilege in the House of Commons in regards to the lawsuit originating in Ottawa from the 2006 election. He should just come out and say what he really means outside the House.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

Prime Minister Stephen Harper benefits from parliamentary immunity and does not have to deal any time soon with allegations that he defamed a onetime Conservative candidate, the Ontario Superior Court has ruled.

This month's ruling upholds the Conservative Party's assertion that Mr. Harper, like all MPs, benefits from a centuries-old privilege that allows elected officials to avoid judicial proceedings when Parliament is sitting.

Edited October 26, 2007 by jdobbin