Lefty Lawbreaking Goes Unreported

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

"Curtman" said
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

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

"Smacle" said
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

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

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

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

"sandorski" said
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.