[Curtman]

From the article you posted.

$1:

The party invited candidates to participate in a joint “regional media” campaign to purchase radio and television ads that would run in their local riding, according to the ruling. The party wired the candidates money for the ads and within minutes transferred the money back to the party headquarters. The party told candidates they could claim the money as campaign expenses, with the government reimbursing them for 60% of the cost from taxpayer funds.

It was attempted robbery.

[CanadianJeff]

As a member of CUPE I can promise you that I will be looking at my locals books to ensure we had no part in this scheme.

This kind of nonsense is exactly why I think unions need to start learning how to redefine themselves and refocus themselves to be wealth generators for the middle and lower class rather then simply blind supporters of one political group.

[Smacle]

Curtman Curtman:

It was attempted robbery.

Right after that, it explains;

$1:

The court noted the ads that eventually ran were all identical and promoted leader Stephen Harper with only a tag line stating they had been approved by the official agent of the local candidate. Candidates claimed widely varying expenses for the ads, from as little as $1,092 to as much as $30,000, amounts the court of appeal said closely mirrored amounts left in their personal election spending limits.

The money to run the adds came from local candidates to promote federal candidates... Then they tried to claim a portion of it as a write off under the assumption that their local funds could be used for federal advertising, since there was a "contribution" from the federal party.

It's just a way of trying to use unspent local candidate money for federal advertisement. Hence, a scam within the party. They were told to claim it as incentive to go along with this federal advertising but, given the history of such plans as you pointed out, it was clearly a false promise.

[Curtman]

The lesson to be learned from all this is, its fine to exceed the limits for spending, and its fine to exceed the limits for contributions. Its only a misinterpretation. You say contribution, they say its sponsorship. Pretending that one is worse than the other is hilarious.

[Smacle]

No. Conservatives duped their own people into spending their own local money on federal advertisements, not exceeding the Federal spending limits. The confusion I think is when each local candidate tried to claim a few thousand dollars that they spent on it as "local" advertisement, they were denied and apparently branded as robbers.

NDP on the other hand blatantly changed the wording around from "campaign contribution" to "sponsorship" and had unions give them money.

NDP broke campaign contribution laws whereas the Conservatives used their local candidates to advertise for Harper. Big difference.

[Curtman]

Smacle Smacle:

No. Conservatives duped their own people into spending their own local money on federal advertisements, not exceeding the Federal spending limits. The confusion I think is when each local candidate tried to claim a few thousand dollars that they spent on it as "local" advertisement, they were denied and apparently branded as robbers.

NDP on the other hand blatantly changed the wording around from "campaign contribution" to "sponsorship" and had unions give them money.

NDP broke campaign contribution laws whereas the Conservatives used their local candidates to advertise for Harper. Big difference.

So you're not willing to admit that spending limits are important (forget the attempted robbery for now), but contribution limits are supposed to be? keep in mind that contribution limits were brought in when the per vote subsidy was brought in. They should have gone out with them as well.

[Smacle]

Where else is that extra money supposed to go? If you can't use all of your contributions to advertise, should you just give yourself a bonus? Each person is only allowed to give $1,100 so if one party has more support then they have more voice, no? That's how it works for making laws anyways.

Meanwhile, the NDP can just launch BS info assaults against the Torries and force them to waste their budget on defending themselves, limiting their ability to advertise about their platform.

[Curtman]

I'm also curious what people think about this?

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/08/08/elections-canada-investigating-allegations-contributors-to-del-mastros-re-election-campaign-reimbursed

$1:

Elections Canada is now investigating allegations donors who contributed about $20,000 to MP Dean Del Mastro’s 2008 re-election campaign were reimbursed by a company owned by the MP’s cousin.

And how wide-spread that scam is..

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

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.

You're the definition of the human 'facepalm'.

The NDP can't fight something they haven't been charged with.

That's the entire point of the article.

Why was the NDP excluded?

It's wrong no matter what party does it!

Curtman Curtman:

that the Conservatives invented.

Were you born in 2006 or just fail to see anything else that took place before that?

Your a disaster.

[Curtman]

Smacle Smacle:

Where else is that extra money supposed to go? If you can't use all of your contributions to advertise, should you just give yourself a bonus? Each person is only allowed to give $1,100 so if one party has more support then they have more voice, no? That's how it works for making laws anyways.

Meanwhile, the NDP can just launch BS info assaults against the Torries and force them to waste their budget on defending themselves, limiting their ability to advertise about their platform.

I say give it to charity. The "Just Visiting" ads were a complete waste of money, and they are the reason that they blew the spending budget in the early days of the campaign. There was no way that Iggy could have defended himself of the barrage that they unfairly dealt, and still played within the rules.

[OnTheIce]

Smacle Smacle:

No. Conservatives duped their own people into spending their own local money on federal advertisements, not exceeding the Federal spending limits. The confusion I think is when each local candidate tried to claim a few thousand dollars that they spent on it as "local" advertisement, they were denied and apparently branded as robbers.

NDP on the other hand blatantly changed the wording around from "campaign contribution" to "sponsorship" and had unions give them money.

NDP broke campaign contribution laws whereas the Conservatives used their local candidates to advertise for Harper. Big difference.

That doesn't matter to Curtman.

If the NDP did it...it's OK...just 'bending' the rules.

If the Conservatives did this (again) we'd see post after post from Curtman with cut-and-paste articles from all the media outlets.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

I say give it to charity. The "Just Visiting" ads were a complete waste of money, and they are the reason that they blew the spending budget in the early days of the campaign. There was no way that Iggy could have defended himself of the barrage that they unfairly dealt, and still played within the rules.

\

A waste of money that defined the candidate and ran him out of politics?

The NDP needs you on the campaign. You're a genius.

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

If the NDP did it...it's OK...just 'bending' the rules.

If the Conservatives did this (again) we'd see post after post from Curtman with cut-and-paste articles from all the media outlets.

I don't think it's ok. They should get a punishment in-line with the punishment the Conservatives got for doing much worse. The contribution limits need to be re-evaluated though, they don't make sense without the per-vote-subsidy.

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

You're a genius.

Thanks buddy. You're pretty swell too. Not intellectually, but I bet you're really good at hockey.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

I don't think it's ok. They should get a punishment in-line with the punishment the Conservatives got for doing much worse. The contribution limits need to be re-evaluated though, they don't make sense without the per-vote-subsidy.

Great, so why didn't they? If this was the CPC, you'd be calling for charges.

If you were in the position of the CPC with tons of grass-roots support, would you change the rules? Would the NDP do the same for the CPC if they were in power and the CPC was hurting for money?