Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Ted Menzies talks (about wanting your money)

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:55pm - 60 Comments

The Conservatives have launched a feature on their website called “Canada Talks.” So far the conversation one might expect from a title like that mostly involves newly minted minister of state Ted Menzies looking off camera and reading a series of exhortations to donate money to the Conservative party, while tinkly music plays in the background.

Tags: campaign financing, conservative party, democracy, fundraising, Ted Menzies

More by Aaron Wherry

chet

How sinister.

Requesting voluntary donations from willing supporters.

Much better to have the coercive force of the state extract it from the citizenry and given to the parties, via "subsidy", eh?

TimesArrow

You mean like when the state extracts part of your 50-75% subsidized donation out of my pocket? We need to have to a talk about what voluntary means bud.

hollinm

Take them all away. It blows me away how the left supporters when they are faced with a real opponent call for doing away with anything that may be perceived as helping their evil competitor. Trust me it will be the opposition parties that suffer more than the Conservative party. However, I am in favour of eliminating any taxpayer subsidy.

EeeOar

Pot, kettle.

Amateur Hour

When anyone donates to a political party, they get a rebate of 75% of the first $372, plus 50% of the next $868, plus 33.33% of an amount exceeding $1,240, but not more than $2,821.

When Harper bangs on about a $1.95 voter subsidies for parties, he's blowing smoke. He's tossing out a red herring and you all are biting.

If he wanted real reform — if Harper were really opposed to public subsidies for political parties — he'd advocate eliminating the massive tax rebate for political donations (which is also substantially higher than the rebate for charitable donations).

He hasn't and will not, given that no party benefits more from this form of public subsidy for political parties than does the Conservatives, who lead all parties in individual donations.

Crit_Reasoning

I think your numbers may be outdated. Here are the rebates for 2010:

For contributions between 0 and $400.00, you will get back 75%;
For contributions between $400.00 and $750.00, you will get back $300.00 plus 50% of the amount over $400.00;
For contributions over $750.00, you will get back $475.00 plus 33 1/3% of the amount over $750.00.
The maximum credit is $650.00.

Amateur Hour

Yes, the source I had was from 2009.

In any case, the direct per voter subsidy is granted based on how voters behave and is transparent. The individual donations, on the other hand, are subsidized via (and encouraged by the promise of) a 75% income tax rebate.

If Harper were against political parties being supported by the public purse, he would come out against both subsidies.

But this is a game for Harper. It's always a game for him.

sourstud

The voter subsidy only applies to 5 political parties in Canada. It unfairly entrenches the current large parties at the expense of smaller parties. At the least the donation subsidy applies equally to all parties, no matter their size.

But I agree, both subsidies should be cut. Why doesn't Iggy take advantage of this opportunity to propose we go further? It'd surely be a vote getter.
Thwim

Interesting that you suggest the leader of the opposition propose this, but not the leader of the government.

Jan

Menzies is actually using the tax back as a selling tool. Talking about sucking and blowing on tax payer subsidies.

hollinm

Yes those nasty Conservatives have more grassroots support and as a result they benefit more than the other parties from the public subsidies. What a silly argument. You should wish that the Liberals had more grassroots support but until they change their leader and get real policies it isn't going to happen.

Matlock

How is it coercive? The $1.95/year only goes to a party if someone votes for them.

Hmm, how about if you don't want $1.95 going to a party… DON'T VOTE FOR THEM.

And if subsidy in general is the issue, I agree with Amateur Hour, real reform includes repealing both the $1.95 subsidy AND the 75% tax credit.

JamesHalifax

Matlock….those folks who choose NOT to vote…..also pay taxes.

Thwim

Those folks who choose not to vote are obviously fine with the system as it's set up. If they weren't, presumably they'd vote for some alternative.

dave

More importantly, those people who choose not to vote are, by definition, not seeing "their" tax dollars go to the per-vote subsidy.

tobyornotoby

But those who choose NOT to donate have to donate anyway.

Mike T.

And expense reimbursements!
hollinm

Harper helped by reducing the donation credit by reducing the allowable limit for political donations. However, those credits have been available for many years. The new voter subsidy was brought in by Chretien as part of his reforms. It is in your face and it shows how reliant the parties are on the subsidy. So rather than work to raise funds from their supporters they are lazy and are quite happy to take the money. Maybe if they didn't have this money they would be less prone to want an election every other week. Look at it on the positive side maybe some of the non cooperation would be removed.

LdKitchenersOwn

So rather than work to raise funds from their supporters they are lazy and are quite happy to take the money.

That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that we'd be better off if political parties were focused on coming up with ideas to make the country better, rather than spending all of their time working on raising money. If I wanted to live in a country led by professional fundraisers I'd move to the States.

hollinm

Are you suggesting that the public fund political parties entirely because they are so dedicated to developing policies? Sorry. Give me a break. That is one of the silliest comments I have read from you.
These are private clubs with lots of vested interests. They need to fund their own operations. While there are some generous rebates that have been in place for many years the per vote subsidy is obscene.
Jan

Obscene, holinm? That's over the top, even for you.
LdKitchenersOwn

I'm not saying that political parties ARE dedicated to developing policies, I'm saying we'd be better off if they WERE dedicated to that, instead of spending the majority of their time working on raising money.

I understand that political parties are "private clubs with vested interests" I just don't LIKE the fact that so much power in our system is vested in a bunch of private clubs with vested interests. I think we'd be better off if our system didn't invest so much power in a bunch of private clubs. We can't exactly eliminate political parties at this point (would that we could!) but I wouldn't mind looking in to ways in which we could make them a little less like exclusive golf clubs (not that the subsidy does this, or is some unimpeachable idea, but I think the SPIRIT behind the subsidy is the right one, so if the subsidy's bad, let's see if we can figure out some other way to accomplish some of the things I think the subsidy was meant to accomplish, i.e. getting our political parties focused more on the country, and less on raising war chests).
hollinm

Good luck with that! So because the Libs are weak and their leader is not being accepted by Canadians we need to change the whole political process so that the Libs can supposedly become competitive again. Look what you are saying. The country is how old? We have had political parties since it's founding. However, for some reason the lefties in the country cannot tolerate the fact that their favourite party is in dissaray and so we suddenly need to change the system. Yep we need to shut up those damn Conservatives. Yep we need to stop with the favourable tax treatment for political donations. Yep we need to keep the per vote subsidy. Yep we need to stop the PM from being able to prorogue parliament even though its been done 104 times previously. Do you get my drift. This is in essence what this whole discussion on this board is about.
Jan

I would have thought Nigel Wright would have had better talking points send out by now. Very disappointing.
hollinm

I told you before I have nothing to do with the party other than being a supporter. I have never met Nigel Wright. For better or worse I am my own person.
By the way I note that you did not disagree with anything I said. You simply attacked. Typical.
LdKitchenersOwn

I actually disliked the way our party system works in Canada LOOOOONG before 2006.

LdKitchenersOwn

Isn't the point more just that it's a little weird that the Tories have this under their "Canada Talks" section, and that this is currently the ONLY EPISODE in their "series of short conversations about Canada".

I don't have any problem with parties soliciting donations, just don't stick the pitch in a section of the website that seems intended to display "conversations about Canada". The appeal for money isn't the issue is it? I thought the issue was the bait and switch.

hollinm

You guys are really barking up the wrong tree. I guess it is all you got. Forget about just the $1.95 which is indexed to inflation but throw out everything. After all we have to defeat these Conservatives somehow. The fact remains Conservatives would support the party without the subsidies but guess what would happen to the Libs. You guessed it. They would go bankrupt. Even with the subsidies their "supporters" don't want to support the party.

Matlock

So, one party government is the goal, eh? Bankrupt the others?

I never gave much credence to the "Harper is undermining democracy" meme, but if his goal is not just to defeat his opposition but bankrupt them also, leaving no alternatives to vote for, that does not speak well for his true views of what democracy should be.

Beyond that, it seems to me more than a little silly to think that bankrupting the Liberal party would somehow truly end them. The 'party' would be gone, but the same people would remain, as would the volunteers…. wouldn't they just re-coalesce around a new organization? And if so, how is Harper any further ahead for doing so?

Bankrupting the Liberal party isn't going to make Liberals like Harper. It'd probably strengthen their resolve.
LdKitchenersOwn

Ummm OK. My comment actually had nothing whatsoever to do with the per-vote subsidy, but thanks anyway.

Jan

It should be re-titled 'Conservatives Ask'. And why do they ask for your first name? The last time I fell for that Mike Duffy started talking to me – I still have nightmares.
hollinm

It is the Conservative party's official website and it, like the libs, can put whatever it wants on the site. If you don't like what's there don't look at it. It is a free country. I seldom look at the Liberal party's website and that suits me just fine. I am not subjected to their propaganda. Likewise you can do the same with the Conservative party website.
All of you anti Harper commenters are just looking for something to b.tch about. Its really lame.

LdKitchenersOwn

Sure, the Tories can do whatever they like. My point to chet was simply that no one's complaining about the Tories soliciting donations, what's being commented on is that they've thrown a call for donations into a section of their site dressed up as being a "series of short conversations about Canada", and the ONLY short conversation there is a call for donations. I wouldn't say it's "wrong" (though it is a bit of a bait and switch) but it's WEIRD. I can see why a party would want to have a section of their site where they show Canadians talking about how great Canada is. I can see why a party would want a section of their website where they solicit donations to the party. It just seems weird when the second thing is the only thing that pops up in a section dressed up to look like it's about the first.

Leo

Go to the Liberal website – you get flashed with a big "join and donate" ad that you have to close before you can continue – very subtle, lol!!!!!

Patchouli

But is it labeled "Canada Talks?"

hollinm

Why does it bother you so much? Don't like it don't go to the website. If it was ignored few would know about it because I suspect people have more to do than troll political party websites. You guys always fall for Wherry's shenangins. With him raising the issue more people will visit the website.

Thwim

It's bothersome because it's another example of how the CPC is disingenuous and misleading, that's all.

hollinm

Of course Canadians are stupid and must be protected from the evil Conservative party. Do you not think someone is capable of looking at the website seeing what it is and if they are not interested move on? MOVE ON!
LdKitchenersOwn

He didn't say they were GOOD at being disingenuous and misleading, just that they're disingenuous and misleading. The fact that, as you say, Canadians aren't stupid and likely wouldn't fall for it is another matter all together. That the population at large isn't dumb enough to donate to the Tories simply because they fall in to a bait and switch doesn't make it not a bait and switch.
Thwim

Of course they are.

I guess what folks like me are looking for is that the CPC and/or its supporters have any sense of shame at all about the group being disingenuous and misleading.

Because until that is evident, there's no hope that things will get any better.
hollinm

Heh….Stephen Harper could invent a cure for cancer and you would yell he is a loser because he didn't find the cure for MS. Give me a break.
As for shame lets look at the Liberal party who was so devoid of potential leaders that they had to go to the States to trick a faux Canadian to come back to the country solely to become PM. How is that for shame, misleading and being disingenous.

LdKitchenersOwn

Isn't the point though that if I click on a "Join and Donate" button I expect to be taken to a page soliciting donations, whereas if I click on a link called "Canada Talks", described as a "series of short conversations about Canada" I expect to be taken to a page with, I don't know, conversations about Canada?

As I said above, the weird thing here isn't the call for donations, it's the bait and switch.

hollinm

There is a small x at the top right hand corner of the website. Click it and all will become well in the Liberal universe.

LdKitchenersOwn

OF COURSE I can ignore misleading Tory web links. That doesn't mean no one's ever going to comment on the fact that the Tory site includes a somewhat misleading link that takes you to a request for donations rather than to "conversations about Canada".

Is there a point at which you'd say this type of bait and switch link actually would be worthy of comment? What if instead of "Canada Talks" it said "Canada Loves Hockey" and promised "short conversations about hockey" and then took you only to a video of Ted Menzies suggesting that you donate to the CPC? Would that be strange enough for it to be appropriate for people to comment on?

hollinm

Good then ignore it. You will feel much better and your blood pressure will return to normal. If this kind of thing gets you all hot and bothered then you don't have enough to worry about.
Bait and switch. Come on. Get real. As I say those that look at the sight have the ability to close it up and move on.
LdKitchenersOwn

What's wrong with "bait and switch"? How else would you describe a hyperlink that suggests it's going to take you to X, and then takes you to Y? Isn't that the definition of bait and switch? Again, the fact that you can leave the place you end up at once the link takes you there doesn't really change the fact that the link is promising one thing and delivering another.

I'm really not at all hot and bothered about it, I just find it WEIRD and worthy of comment.

Jenn_

Okay, the guy is reading and not talking into the camera, but he wasn't yelling or throwing his arms around or something, so not too bad.

But how does a person get to see Episode 1? I just wanted to find out if there was any Canada or Talking instead of Reading, at this Canada Talks website. And what's with asking for my name before I can even get that far?
CAPS

Obviously Ted Menzies has gone to the Charles McVety School of Broadcasting.

Steve Blaney on the French side was quite a bit better (in presentation if not content). Perhaps a little too upbeat for my taste though.
Leo

Needs some site work. Not a big fan of entering a name.
Twisted_Mentat

My goodness… could he have been more blatantly reading cue-cards off-camera?

I mean, it's one thing to ask for donations with a heart-felt message, but to just woodenly beg with another person's words is another matter.

TimesArrow

Bet he's wishing he could have his old job back.
Jan

I think Helena Guergis would have done a much better job.
Twisted_Mentat

On a second and third watching, all I could think of was Greg Thomey saying, "Hi. I'm Ted Menzies…" while circling the outside of his desk.

hollinm

Thanks for letting me know. I didn't know it was on the site. I will check it out. God I love Wherry (sarcasm intended).
chet

I'm all in favour of getting rid of it all.

I'd love to see how the Libs respond to that.

Last I recall they were prepared to take the government down in order to protect their precious government booty.
Selena

It was the Dear Leader tinkling the ivories that gave Menzies the tingle.
Crit_Reasoning

Never underestimate the power of tinkly music in the background.
Dan

I am totally leaving that music on in the background for the rest of the afternoon. It reminds me of a video game I loved as a kid but can't quiet place.

Probably because all those old NES games had music that either sounded kind of tinkley or like a bad electronica loop sent through a Noise Gate pedal.
LdKitchenersOwn

Great, now I have to tinkle.
Jan

Uncle Steve really needs your money. The good news, is thanks to the generous tax rebate, you'll be geting a lot of your contribution back.