Remember that Liberal “Sky's-the-limit” fundraiser back in February?
That was the one, held on Feb. 13, where Liberals were encouraged to bid on various auction items and they could bid as much as they want – the sky was the limit! After this poster raised some eyebrows, it became clear the sky wasn't the limit; Elections Canada does have, in fact, some limits: Namely $1,000 per calendar year.
The Liberals adjusted the rules for the event but, in calls I placed after the event, would not divulge how much was raised for the party.
Now I just crunched the most recent Elections Canada political contributions data and here's what we know:
- On Feb. 13 (the date of the fundraiser), the Liberals declared that eight people donated a combined total of $2,675.
- On Feb. 14, there are 9 contributors (not counting those who contributed to a leadership campaign) for a total of $4,300.
- On Feb. 15, there are 8 contributors for a total of $3,433.32.
Update: See an excellent comment below from The Explainer. Puts this in some good context.
And, for fun, here are some notable contributors as I very quickly glanced through the contributors list for the first quarter of this year:
- Author Margaret Atwood donated $1,100.
- Liberal MPs Stéphane Dion and Marcel Proulx each donated $1,000; Ken Dryden and Massimo Pacetti each donated $1,100; Francis Scarpaleggia donated $500; Ken Boshcoff, Anthony Rota, Mike Savage, Judy Sgro, Mario Silva, Belinda Stronach, and Tina Keeper each kicked in $250.02; Andy Scott wrote cheques for $300; Nancy Karetak-Lindell donated $250; Bob Rae donated $900 (his brother John was good for $1,100.); Geoff Regan donated $280.02.
- Bay Street bigwig Purdy Crawford donated $1,100.
- Rocket scientist Jaymie Matthews contributed $1,100.
- Liberal whip Karen Redman, who remained officially neutral during the leadership campaign, donated $1,100 to Dion's campaign.
- Beer baron John Sleeman donated $1,000.
More fun with contributors later (have to head up to the House to cover QP) but I did note that the Prime Minister was not among the contributors to the Conservatives in the first quarter although a certain Laureen A. Teskey Harper did kick in $1,000 to the party in the last quarter.
Thanks David! That was a burning curiosity in my mind ever since they first announced they were having one.
Still, $2,675 dollars……that's, well, that's a pretty poor showing. Obviously they were counting on being able to open the gates to their corporate friends and high-roller contributors to pony up.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the Old Guard is still very much in control of this New Liberal Party of Canada and they're re-cycling old methods that have either fallen out of favor or out of legal bounds. Maybe they didn't get the memo, or maybe they're just not listening.
Either way, with financial showings like that, it looks like what they're peddling, the average Canadian doesn't want.
But David, why will the MSM not touch the subject of the total outstanding leadership debts, currently at just under $3 million, which are supposed to be paid off by June 3rd ?
Or to put it another way, about three times the amount of money involved in the so-called in-and-out scandal that seems to be obsessing the PPG ?
Does the Elections Act not put a donation limit on the entire leadership race so that no one person could donate more than $5,400 for the entire event? A new calendar year does not create the opportunity to a donor who had already donated the maximum.
Did Dion not donate anything to his own campaign prior? A close examination of the donor's lists should be made by Elections Canada so that they can prove they will pursue all political parties equally.
Even in the original “auction” scheme, if they Liberals were right and the purchase price of an auction item was not a donation, the donation was made by the donor of the item and it's value is determined by the amount paid for it.
So Dion auctioning a lunch with himself for $1200 is a donation from Dion and violates his whole year's donation limit. Too bad they didn't go forward with this one.
Here's a thought: Stephen Harper, along with thousands of others, is likely going to have to pay to attend the convention in November, isn't this supposed to be counted against political contributions for the year?
The EB fee is set at $650, how many MPs, candidates and other supporters will need to reserve part of their annual limit for this?
It is also logical to conclude that many supporters of different parties would wait closer to the end of the year before maximizing their annual limit. During the course of the year there are dozens of events that go on, it would be pretty easy to get to the limit fast for many of the politicians, wouldn't it? Not that I'm in the financial situation. 😉
What did Harper donate last year, does anyone know?
This is a point often made by the Opposition but I think it's a fair one: The RCMP have not raided the offices of any Liberal leadership candidates. The RCMP have only raided the national headquarters of the Conservative Party. That — so far as anyone can tell — is the only time our police force has ever raided the national HQ of a national party. So I don't think we're “obsessing”. It seems to me an historic and unique event.
In defense of the media here (for a change) the issue of the debtload of the Leadership Candidates isn't really a story until June 4th, and even then, only if they're not paid off. There may yet be a “groundswell of political donations to retire leadership debt”. I don't see it happening myself, but stranger things…..
Even then, they may have to take out personal loans in order to repay the political loans. How they go about doing that would be a news-worthy story.
The difference with the so-called in-and-out scheme is that public money is involved in refunding the appropriate expenses from a General Election. Leadership Campaigns are an internal issue with a party and has nothing to do with public money.
George, this is yet another of those loopholes that the Liberals love to exploit. Political donations are limited to a calendar year, not to the lifetime of a single event. In Theory, one would be able to refinance their loan or take out a personal loan in order to be able to accept multiple donations within different calendar years. Sneaky sneaky….Heaven forbid that the Conservatives attempt anything like that, but then, we don't have the same problems the Liberals do at the moment, or at the atm.
The whole Donations in Kind issue was hashed out a while back when our Finance Minister held a Fundraiser during which time he was going to speak towards his goals and visions through budgets.
David, you need to be careful on these things…it is when you (and obivously many of your commenters) state these things out of ignorance that misconceptions and misleading impressions get left and often become lexicon.
The Feb 13 event in question was a riding level event, not a liberal party event, therefore the contributions would not show up in the party s quarterly report at any rate, but in that (those) of the ridings involved. Secondly given the time it takes to collect donations, prepare an event report, submit everything it is impossible for donations made on a day to appear in a report for that day. So you are off base on several fronts on this one and your conclusions, particularly with to amount of money raised and who the donors were, are completely wrong.
It's really not worth wasting time trying to explain all of the other misconceptions/mistatements that your commenters make (confusing and mixing limits for donations to various entities, as well as which donations are for calendar years and which are for entire events; confusing loans to cover expenses with contributions, etc, etc,) other than to say that this stuff is so complicated that everyone should realize that this is a major part of the problem with all things related to political financing in Canada.
People would be wise to not wade in on stuff they don't know about, at minimum not to state dumb erroneous things as fact.
By event, I meant leadership event. Even with an extension after 3 June, individuals are limited to that $5400 limit.
Thanks, The Explainer (that moniker sounds like a cool Marvel Comics super-hero – I like it!) — Excellent point about riding level vs party event …
I may have been misinformed on the nature of the event. I thought some of the funds raised were going towards different purposes. In any event — there would be less complexity and confusion if parties — in this case, the Liberals — could have answered the basic question in the first place: How much money was raised at that event?
Being intimately involved in riding level fundraising as well as convention fees and loans etc, I can assure you, I'm not one of those ignorant people you speak of. In fact, I'm very clear on the facts of such situations, as well as the amount of time it takes to record and return donation amounts which can easily be done on a weekly basis. To ensure that it's done quarterly should hardly be difficult unless you're dealing with an incompetent Financial Agent. In which case, I'd suggest a look at the books…but the bottom line is this. It's not as complicated as some people might like to make it out to be.
Oh, and last time I checked, riding associations are definately a part of the larger organization and in this case, that's the Liberal Party of Canada.
Best of luck to you in the next General Election!
That's why they delayed the convention from last year as the convention fee would have put many people over the limit.
It's another nonsense ruling from Elections Canada. I went to Montreal, the money I paid to rent the Convention Hall was declared not to be an expense paid for to conduct the convention but a donation to the Party by me.
Pure bureaucratic stupidity.
“The Explainer” is really “The Spinner” a supervillian with the power of surrounding us a flow of pointless verbiage which forms into a whirlwind of hot air designed to spin us around until we're too dizzy to pay attention to the original issue.
It is that it was at the EDA level as there is a donation limit of $1100 to all EDAs as well. Had a donor “touched the sky” and paid $2000 to go to a Sens/Habs game with Ken Dryden, he would be in violation of the law.
Elizabeth Whiting clearly stated:
“Goods and services provided by parties at Fair Market Value (FMV) are NOT donations. However, some goods purchased at an auction that have some unique value (ie an autograph), the FMV is what someone is willing to pay for it.”
$2000 minus the cost of tickets is only the first step. Ken Dryden's time has value, he is adding value to the cost of two hockey tickets and he is “donating that” to the EDA as a prize which is the same as if the two tickets were donated by a Liberal with season tickets.
Ken has a donation limit of $1100 to all EDAs that he donates to in 2008. Even if those tickets went for $100 more in value and thus under the $1100. Ken donated his time and the value in this case is $100.
The “Spinner” declines to be specific about all the other “misconceptions” as they would be all shot down.
When the Liberal leadership numbers are posted, I bet there will plenty of illegal acts exposed.
No, they can't take out loans to pay any remaining debts off as they are limited to donating $10,800 to their own campaign.
Well, Sean,
Riding Associations are , in this case part of the Liberal Party, but if you know so much you would also know that they report separately from the the Party, so my point to David was that he was looking in the wrong place. And, frankly when there are larger events, the filings can indeed take time, but again you missed the point on that one, which is a donation (cheque for example) received and dated on Feb 13, in this case, even using your weekly basis arguement, would not be listed on that exact date regardless, so again David looking for who was recorded as donating on that date was uninforming.
Okay, then Geroge, let's examine your position. If you can put a value on the contribution of Ken Dryden's time to attend a hockey game and deduct it in addition to the cost of the ticket to achieve the contributable amount for the donor (claiming that it is a contribution to boot), then why wouldn't you apply the same logic to each and every fundraiing event that say Steven Harper attends on behalf of the Party…if we use your logic/example of Dryden's time (again how in earth you determine that value is beyond me) at $100 for a two-hour hockey game and value Harper's time at the same hourly rate (surely it would be worth more!) if he attends a Conservative fundraiser for 3 hours he would be contributing $150…7 such events and he's over limit.
Just one example for you.
blockquote>…which is a donation (cheque for example) received and dated on Feb 13, in this case, even using your weekly basis arguement, would not be listed on that exact date regardless, so again David looking for who was recorded as donating on that date was uninforming.
Okay, I'll grant you that towards the specific dates. I'll even grant that you and I may be talking about separate issues.
However, I think David said it best when he said:
Providing that simple answer may have prevented a whole bunch of people peering into the Liberal fundraising books…As the Liberals have often said to the Conservatives, “If you have nothing to hide, open up your books.”
In this Dryden is adding value to a specific item, not a general event and in the words of the Liberal organizer, that value is determined by the willlingness of someone to pay the extra money.
This info will not be available for over a year in the EDA's 2008 filling of financial statements. We should be all closely examining every Liberal EDA's and candidate's filings, in particular regarding loans and how they were paid off afterwards.
We won't find the kind of overspending conducted by former Liberal MP Blair Wilson is stands accused of paying for election expenses “off the books” to hide his overspending.
I must call Sean on the pereived implication that the Conservatives are more transparent.
The day before the Liberals held this February fundraiser, an Ottawa-area riding Conservative riding association was, essentially, selling access to the Finance Minister, days in front of a federal budget.
A Conservative party spokesman declined to provide me with \ a guest list, a donor list, or the sum raised at this event.
I'll have more on this in a separate post …
It wasn't my intent to imply that David. I was just turning the challenge around. What I was implying, is that the Liberals behave in exactly the same manner they condemn the Conservatives for.
Liberal (and NDP) members, have challenged the Conservatives in the past to open their books if they claim there's nothing to hide. Now, as a Conservative myself, I'm saying the same thing to Liberals; If you don't have anything to hide, why not just open your books for examination?