[Newsbot]

Title: Lefty Lawbreaking Goes Unreported
Category: Political
Posted By: OnTheIce
Date: 2012-08-28 11:50:51
Canadian

[Freakinoldguy]

Maybe it's time the Conservative Goverment restaffed elections canada with semi honest people. It's things like this that disgusts people unless of course you're one of those special ones whose politics favor the end justifying the means method of electioneering, legality be damned.

But but but the Conservatives did __________________________.

[TheFonz]

Ezra Levant? Really?

[Smacle]

More of the story.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... laint.html

[Curtman]

This is not a parallel to the robocall scandal as indicated in the article. It's a parallel to the in-and-out scheme that the Conservatives invented.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/06/conservatives-drop-appeal-of-in-and-out-ruling/

Quote:

The Conservative Party of Canada says it is “agreeing to disagree” with Elections Canada and is dropping an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada of the federal agency’s interpretation of election spending law.

The move is connected to the so-called ‘in-and-out’ scandal which saw the party plead guilty in late 2011 to overspending on advertising in the 2006 election campaign and violating Canada’s electoral law.

“The Conservative Party of Canada plays by the same rules as everyone else; we acted under the law as it was understood at that time,” said Fred DeLorey, Conservative party spokesman, in an email.

“We are agreeing to disagree and will be dropping our appeal to the Supreme Court. We are amending our return under protest to reflect this.”

The party has also agreed to repay the public purse $230,198 for its role in the scheme, Postmedia News has confirmed.

What was the fine? Zip. Repay the money. So why would it be different for the NDP?

At least the NDP didn't waste millions of tax dollars fighting about it in court.

[Smacle]

Curtman wrote:

What was the fine? Zip. Repay the money. So why would it be different for the NDP?

I think that article is more pointing out the difference in public outcry and notoriety of the scandal than the actual punishments.

Curtman wrote:

At least the NDP didn't waste millions of tax dollars fighting about it in court.

The 2 scandals aren't even comparable. NDP was raising clearly illegal money from unions while the Conservatives looked for a loophole to spend more of their legally raised money. The conservatives scandal was much more debatable and pointed out how stringent Canadian laws are on election spending. I still don't see why you aren't allowed to spend the money that you've fairly raised...

[Curtman]

Smacle wrote:

Curtman wrote:

What was the fine? Zip. Repay the money. So why would it be different for the NDP?

I think that article is more pointing out the difference in public outcry and notoriety of the scandal than the actual punishments.

Curtman wrote:

At least the NDP didn't waste millions of tax dollars fighting about it in court.

The 2 scandals aren't even comparable. NDP was raising clearly illegal money from unions while the Conservatives looked for a loophole to spend more of their legally raised money. The conservatives scandal was much more debatable and pointed out how stringent Canadian laws are on election spending. I still don't see why you aren't allowed to spend the money that you've fairly raised...

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/former-tory-mps-speak-out-against-in-and-out-campaign-financing/article1929865/?service=mobile

Quote:

The Conservative Party wanted them in, but they wanted out.

Two former Tory MPs say they refused to join the party's "in-and-out" election financing scheme, adding to the number of Conservatives who say they had misgivings about the system.

Inky Mark, who resigned his Manitoba seat last year, said his staff was contacted by party officials during the 2006 election campaign. He said the officials asked if they could deposit several thousand dollars in his campaign account and withdraw it later to buy advertising.

"I said, 'Why would you give me money and give it back?'" It didn't make sense. So I said, 'No thanks.'"

Independent conservative MP Helena Guergis - who was turfed from Tory caucus last year over rumours of wrongdoing that were never substantiated - also says her campaign was approached and rejected the plan.

"I was asked but I said no. Something in my gut told me no," Christine Brayford, Ms. Guergis's sister and campaign manager, said in an email.

Elections Canada alleges the scheme allowed the party to exceed its 2006 campaign spending limit by $1.3-million. That included letting 67 candidates claim about $800,000 in public rebates to which they were not entitled - riding cash that went toward radio and TV ads that had little regional or local component to them.

What you say is not true. This was theft of tax dollars by Conservatives. The NDP accepted money that was freely given.

[Xort]

I got to wonder if leaving investigation and the forwarding of charges upto the employees of the union that are in violation is a conflict of intrest.

The in and out doesn't realy match to this. This is just clearly an end run on the law and I think people should see fines and some time in jail for it. Punishment in line with the law that was broken, that's all I'm asking for.

[sandorski]

This is why Public Campaign Funding makes so much sense. Let the Platform/Ideas determine the results, not who can finagle the most money together, by any means Legal, Illegal, or questionable. It will benefit the Parties by freeing them up to deliver the Message, rather than the Money.

[Smacle]

Curtman wrote:

Elections Canada alleges the scheme allowed the party to exceed its 2006 campaign spending limit by $1.3-million. That included [b]letting 67 candidates claim about $800,000 in public rebates

Quote:

The plan was derailed when Elections Canada refused to allow the candidates to claim the money as a local campaign expense

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/03/02 ... g-scandal/

They put in a claim for the money but were denied.

[Curtman]

Smacle wrote:

Curtman wrote:

Elections Canada alleges the scheme allowed the party to exceed its 2006 campaign spending limit by $1.3-million. That included [b]letting 67 candidates claim about $800,000 in public rebates

Quote:

The plan was derailed when Elections Canada refused to allow the candidates to claim the money as a local campaign expense

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/03/02 ... g-scandal/

They put in a claim for the money but were denied.

So, attempted robbery is what you're saying. Nice.

[Smacle]

Curtman wrote:

So, attempted robbery is what you're saying. Nice.

Misinterpretation of the rules is what I'm saying. In the army I can claim lunch and travel expenses but I don't always get them. I just claim what ever I thin I deserve and let them decide what is legit.

[Curtman]

Smacle wrote:

Curtman wrote:

So, attempted robbery is what you're saying. Nice.

Misinterpretation of the rules is what I'm saying. In the army I can claim lunch and travel expenses but I don't always get them. I just claim what ever I thin I deserve and let them decide what is legit.

I wonder why Vic Toews didn't go for it? Probably because he was convicted of it here in Manitoba. The exact same scam, except here, there was actually a punishment handed out where he was barred from provincial politics.

They knew full well this wasn't above board, there is precedent with the Bloc doing this, as well as Progressive Conservatives here in Manitoba. Neither of them got away with it either.

[Xort]

sandorski wrote:

This is why Public Campaign Funding makes so much sense. Let the Platform/Ideas determine the results, not who can finagle the most money together, by any means Legal, Illegal, or questionable. It will benefit the Parties by freeing them up to deliver the Message, rather than the Money.

How does PCF match up with private activity? Could I take out an add for a political party as a private citizen?

[Smacle]

Then if anything, it was a scam within their own party. Members spending money under the understanding that a portion of it would be payed back but wasn't.