New Allegations of Conservative Financial Shenanigans Surface in Montreal
Update: Shame, shame, Postmedia. Unless more evidence is forthcoming, I consider the matter settled and the “innocent explanation” I referred to to have been provided. I’ll keep the story up anyways because it was a good-faith summary of a Postmedia report. I am deeply sorry to my readers and to the Conservative Party.
When the Harper government elected not to discipline ranking MPs Dean Del Mastro or Peter Penashue or Peter Van Loan when serious allegations about financial improprieties were raised with respect to their campaigns, critics yet again asked the question: “What does it take for a male Cabinet minister to be fired by Harper?” This was the wrong question. The real question was: “How common does electoral malfeasance have to be in the Conservative ranks, such that it isn’t seen as a termination-worthy offence?”
We’re getting closer to an answer to that question. This week Postmedia reported (h/t Dammit Janet) that a rather suspicious group of donations were gathered over a multi-year period in the Laurier-Sainte-Marie riding, in Montreal. That was Gilles Duceppe’s riding until last year; now it’s represented by the NDP.
Straight from the source:
The unexplained donations… fall mostly into three groups: a group of donations of $666.66, totalling $99,999; a group of donations of $733.33, dottalling $32,999.85; and a group of donations of $333.33, totalling $14,333.19.
Postmedia tried to contact all the donors… Some sayd they couldn’t recall making donations, and others declined to discuss thee issue. But 11 said they definitely did not make donations, and would like to know how their names ended up on the list.
I’d kind of like to know, too. I’m sure there’s an innocent explanation.
Tweet
Beijing York
I really don’t get the blasé reaction to all this election fraud, SE. How dare we send observers to the Ukraine or Honduras to ensure that they have fair elections when we obviously didn’t? Why won’t the international media share a spotlight on Canada’s election fraud? It’s almost as if there is some shared entitlement and racist thinking at play – election cheating only happens in the developing world and the western ‘democracies’ would never resort to foul play.
Sixth Estate
Well, in fairness, I think the international media has other reasons to be upset about Canada these days, aside from our democracy shenanigans. The ones that don’t simply ignore us entirely are rightly more upset about our climate agreement obstruction.
The more interesting question is why the Canadian media is so unconcerned about it. They seem intellectually incapable of grasping that there is an actual serious problem going on, as opposed to just more opportunities for endless pointless chatter.
ktron
Isn’t the most important point of this story that those “with money” feel they should control democracy and that those “without money” feel that those “with money” are subverting democracy?
How long before people realize that candidates should run on their merits not their ability to raise capital, or their affiliation with a capital raising machine?
Time for some serious fighting words . . .
Political fund raising should be illegal. Period.
Candidates should only be allowed to campaign in person, in one of two places: all candidates meetings in public school auditoriums, or in person door to door. No proxy candidates pestering people at dinner time, no phone calls, no radio/print/television advertising, no lawn signs.
Public libraries and schools will clearly display who is running in which riding and when their all-candidates appearances will be.
Moreover, if a candidate fails to attend an all-candidates meeting, they should be banned form door to door campaigning.
N’est pas?
Sixth Estate
I don’t know about some of that, but there is a strong argument for banning loans and restricting donations to say, $100 instead of $1200.
Toe
It seems most of the 11 donors suddenly remembered they did in fact make donations, the Cons produced the cheques. NTL, the Cons know the media can take down their gov’t, which is why of course so many journos are purged for dissent.
lagatta à montréal
Another odd thing is how very much a fringe party the Cons are in this riding: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurier—Sainte-Marie It is ludicrous to think there are many Con donors living there. I’d be inclined to think most business types to the right of the NDP and the Bloc hereabouts would tend to support the Libs, not the Cons.
I suppose it is legal to make contributions in a riding where one does not live or own property, but it is very fishy.
Sixth Estate
lagatta — It could be a fundraiser put on by that riding association which invited people from around the city. Not unheard of.
kootcoot
“Moreover, if a candidate fails to attend an all-candidates meeting, they should be banned form door to door campaigning.”
Why does this make me think of Joan Crockett, the Con candidate in Calgary Centre by-election Monday? Oh yeah, cuz she doesn’t have time to attend all candidates meetings because she is “too busy knocking on doors.”
Unfortunately in Calgary Centre and Canada overall the over 2/3 of voters who dislike or actively even hate Harper are split into too many factions so the HarperCons could conceivably rule Canada for the rest of my life. What a disgusting thought!
ktron
Unfortunately in Calgary Centre and Canada overall the over 2/3 of voters who dislike or actively even hate Harper are split into too many factions so the HarperCons could conceivably rule Canada for the rest of my life.
Disenfranchisement of 2/3 of the populace is indeed a debilitating scenario for Canada and Canadians, and certainly not something most intelligent people would define as a goal of the democratic process – but, maybe we really need to sit down and establish what the democratic process is, then enshrine that process and its goals in clear, plain-language laws. Its time we put the ambiguity back over there, in its box.
I don’t know about some of that, but there is a strong argument for banning loans and restricting donations to say, $100 instead of $1200.
Why donations at all? Most people can’t afford $1,200 but regardless, why should people who can’t even afford $100 be reduced to a lower tier of influence?
There’s a primary question to be dealt with here: are we talking about a democracy, or a meritocracy? Do we return to the original Greek concept where only landowners can vote, or are we willing to move on and define what we mean by democracy?
Sixth Estate
A $100 donation is only $25 cash after the tax refund.
Sorry, but I doubt that any party is going to seriously divide the population into people who can afford to fork over $25 and people who can’t afford to.
ktron
A $100 donation is only $25 cash after the tax refund.
A concept all of our major news providers will be trumpeting all over as they to educate the low-income populace about it, at the same time providing free instruction on completing tax returns and helping them find interest free $100 loans until they get their tax rebates.
Sorry, but I doubt that any party is going to seriously divide the population into people who can afford to fork over $25 and people who can’t afford to.
Au contraire: at least two of our current major parties have already established that division – it’s quite evident in their policies toward poverty and employment.
Sixth Estate
Look, I know where you’re going with this, but it’s just not there. Reducing the donation limit to $100 means it’s pretty tough to buy a political party. Just getting unemployed and working-class people to vote in their economic interest is the actual challenge, not deciding where to draw the line between who can afford $25 and who can’t afford $25.
Whereas the people who can afford to donate $1200 a year to a political party, before tax refunds, generally know exactly where their economic interests lie, and vote accordingly.
Sixth Estate
Or $650 per year, to maintain the comparison.