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

Money goes in, money goes out

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, March 8, 2011 1:24pm - 125 Comments

The CBC looks at how in-and-out impacted public reimbursements.

Another riding that appears to have received some of that money is the Conservative riding association in Hull-Aylmer, Que. That association spent only about $12,000 of its own money in the 2006 election, according to numbers from Elections Canada, but received almost $34,000 in reimbursements because of the “in-and-out” tactic.

Tags: advertising, election, Election 2011, elections canada, Hull-Aylmer, in-and-out

More by Aaron Wherry

alfanerd

Stuff Aaron Wherry doesnt report on:

“Hi Phyllis, We are told by communications folks in BC that these were radio ads with the Candidate’s personal tag on the end — therefore a local expense to be reported under the Candidate’s expense ceiling, regardless of who pays. For rebate purposes, we were asked to bill each campaign — in the case of VanEast, $2,612.00. The good news is that the Federal Party will transfer $2,600 to the Federal Riding Association as we agreed to pay for the ads. We hope that you are able to squeeze this in under the ceiling. Some expenses are not considered election expenses subject to spending limits, such as fundraising costs. Please have a look at the totals and get back to us if you think we have a problem.”

Who wrote this email? Stephen Harper? Some devious conservative operative? No, it's from the NDP. http://www.thejohnrobson.com/2008/07/18/the-case-…

There is nothing wrong with the in-out scheme even as described in this post of AW. The money reimbursed came from the party, it was not stolen. So the party gives money to the candidate (legal), the candidate buys local ads through the party (legal) and the candidate receives a refund (legal).

Jan

Read the charges.

danby

From today's G&M

During the Chrétien government years, I reported extensively on malfeasance by the Liberals. To do the math on the Harper government is to conclude that, while it has no sponsorship scandal on its books, it’s already surpassed its predecessor on a range of other abuse-of-power indices.

The government’s arc of duplicity is remarkable to behold. And there are more revelations to come. It may not happen in the next election, but there will be a tipping point and the PM and his ministers will pay the price.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opin…

Thwim

Oh please, you and I both know they won't pay the price. At worst, they may not get elected again, but by then I'm certain it will have been the Canadian Taxpayer who paid the price many times over.

practical mom

So why don't they have legitimate invoices?

alfanerd

that's a good question which I've been trying to figure out since the beginning. so far, i havent read or heard anyone explain what it is that was illegal (people try, and usually fail spectacularly), and why the conservatives would have phony invoices

tedbetts

You are obviously not really trying to figure out or being entirely disengenuous.

It's simple. Ad company, say, ABC Ad Corp., submitted invoice to federal party for, say, $100,000. Local candidate submits an invoice to Elections Canada so they can get taxpayer funded refunds. Problem is the invoice local candidate submits is an ABC Ad Corp invoice and it is for $4,000.

In other words, they falsified the invoice in order to try to hide their criminal activity.

Had they a shred of honesty about it, or if they actually didn't think it was illegal (unlike the many candidates who refused to participate because they knew it was illegal), they would have submitted a copy of the real invoice and claimed only their share of it.

alfanerd

You are obviously not really trying to figure out or being entirely disengenuous.

Please leave my motives out of this. If you cant argue on straight up facts, go back in kindergarten where you will feel more at home.

It's simple. Ad company, say, ABC Ad Corp., submitted invoice to federal party for, say, $100,000. Local candidate submits an invoice to Elections Canada so they can get taxpayer funded refunds. Problem is the invoice local candidate submits is an ABC Ad Corp invoice and it is for $4,000.

Well, if the federal party paid 100k for advertising, let's say for producing an ad. And this ad is also broadcast by the candidate as part of a regional media buy, it is proper and fair to allocate a portion of this production expense to the candidate. So the 4k is, according to the law as it currently stands, a proper and legitimate candidate expense, and it should be refunded.

Now since the candidate doesnt actually deal directly with ABC Ad Corp, they should not have a receipt from ABC, but from the Conservative Party for their share of the production costs of the ads. But, the 4k expense is still legit and does not constitute theft if reimbursed.

In other words, they falsified the invoice in order to try to hide their criminal activity.

WHAT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY?
practical mom

I'm sure I read that ONLY the candidate or his named financial official can incur legitimate (suitable to be refunded by overtaxed Canadian taxpayers) campaign expenses. Therefore, to be legitimate, there should be invoices issued by the ad company to each of the campaigns involved. There weren't individual invoices, or "nvoices". There was just one, issued to the party for a party buy. The candidates cannot claim for an expense that was not incurred by either themselves or their financial official.

So this was not done legitimately and Elections Canada should not refund the money.
MostlyCivil

"Now since the candidate doesnt actually deal directly with ABC Ad Corp…"

(Let's finish that sentence with what the nice people at Elections canada told me those years ago when i ran as an independent, lost my deposit, and learned a lot).

…that means that no receipt can be issued to the candidate from ABC Ad Corp. And since third party expenses aren't eligible, I can't claim the expense.

And that's the problem, right there.
alfanerd

you clearly dont get it. nice try though. that's not a 3d party expense, it's an expense incurred directly by the campaign on behalf of the candidate, and passed on to the candidate.
Jenn_

But it wasn't directly by the campaign. Because each candidate has his own campaign chair and official agent. And every single penny must be approved by the candidate's official agent. No one can approve something ON BEHALF of the official agent–that's exactly why the official agent is there.
alfanerd

i didnt say approved on behalf, i said incurred on behalf.
Jenn_

Yeah, my bad on that I think. Because this is not at all the issue anyway, since they did approve it (even if after the fact) in any case.
Keith in Brampton

You keep arguing the same thing, and people keep giving you rational explanations. Clearly, you either are incapable of understanding, or are willfully playing dumb. Give it a rest and wait for the court's verdict.
alfanerd

this is a complicated issue, and every armchair expert around here suggests im playing dumb. im not. they are simply not grasping that the issue is far from black and white. when someone alleges the conservatives did something which is truly illegal and different from a straight up in/out scheme, then I acknowledge it. for example, ted betts said the following:

How about the candidate in Quebec City who "paid" for regional ads that were only seen in the GTA?

If this is true, it's clearly illegal. However, this may have occurred through the in/out scheme, but it's not the in/out part that's bad, it would be bad even if the quebec candidate had bought ads in the GTA out of his own pocket.

anyhow, I asked Ted for a source for this allegation, and got 0 replies -20 rating. typical.

you cant ask a liberal for a source it seems.

i havent seen any allegations of this kind in any of the news reports or articles on the topic – everybody focuses on the in/out part – which IS NOT ILLEGAL.

but, if true, then that is a rather blatant and brazen violation of the law. no arguments from me.
James Connors

WHAT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50199688/Charge-Sheet-f…
Keith in Brampton

Before alfanerd jumps all over the technicality, let's make it clear that we're talking "criminal" in the vernacular sense, and are aware that the correct usage would be "quasi-criminal".
James Connors

Okay.

But if the named defendants are found guilty I think both Finley and Gerstein would like to see them serve a full year of hard time?
Jan

Didn't we have this exact same discussion last week allnerd, where you did this dumb as a post routine and tried all our patience by pretending not get it. It is beyond annoying.
alfanerd

hey dumb@ss, try participating to the discussion before criticizing those who do. and if you find me annoying, here's an idea: dont read my posts.

John D

The Conservatives claimed that local candidates incurred expenses that they did not (Note, no other party has done this). This is what was against the law.

tedbetts

The money that was reimbursed came from TAXPAYERS!!

In and out is not illegal, per se.

In and out so you can defraud electors and spend way more than you are allowed is illegal.

In and out so you can steal a million dollars or so of TAXPAYER money for expenses you did not incur is illegal.

Submitting falsified invoices so you can steal a million dollars or so of TAXPAYER money for expenses you did not incur is illegal.

alfanerd

The money that was reimbursed came from TAXPAYERS!!

yes i know. but that's how the Elections Act works – candidate expenses are reimbursed up to 60% under certain conditions. Take it up with the legislature if you want that to change, and ask yourself why you're not outraged the other parties are doing the same thing.

In and out so you can defraud electors and spend way more than you are allowed is illegal.

What, SPECIFICALLY, distinguishes 'in and out per se' and 'in and out so you can defraud…' ?

In and out so you can steal a million dollars or so of TAXPAYER money for expenses you did not incur is illegal.
The expenses were incurred, they were incurred by the candidate using money received from the party.

Claudia Lemire

In the spirit of transparecy, you are going to love this my "anything but Harper" friends
http://twitpic.com/47jrst

Even I don't know what to say about this…

Bad minister, bad….

Claudia Lemire

Oops, transparency : )

The picture above is not defendable at all!
Jan

Kenney's giving out awards to restaurants? Is that what that is?
ZestyMordant

Check out the giant logo in the middle.
Stewart_Smith

Damn you people making something out of nothing. Sure there is a C in the middle. However what does the Yang Sheng Restaurant specialize in but: CANTONESE CUSINE! All you Liebral hacks assume that the C means Conservative always as if a C can NOT just be a C!

Ahh, but all you Sherlocks say "what about the maple leaf?". Nice try Einstein, the Yang Sheng also serves delicious Canadian food.

Cantonese & Canadian…. C & maple leaf

This is simply a little symbolic issue, the natural way to say Cantonese & Canadian is with a giant C and a maple leaf. Why do you guys hate the maple leaf so much.

Why our Conservative Minister of Immigration & Fundraising for Citizenship in Harper's Canadian Government has to put up with this mudslinging is beyond me. Is he not Conservative? Is he not the Minister? It would be a lie of omission to leave either out, and in Harper's Canada we don't do that!
We ARE CANADIAN! WE ARE PROUD! Vote for Us and YOU CAN BE CANADIAN TOO!
.
.
.
.

brought to you by Harper's government… converting Canadians of Convenience to TRUE CANADIANs one dollar at a time.
Keith in Brampton

LOL! Best post on this thread!

And thanks, Claudia, for the link!
MostlyCivil

The "Minister's Award of Excellence", laid overtop of the giant Conservative logo.

In a frame.

Under the tiny house of commons logo.

Above the Minister's signature.

Must have used the wrong letterhead. And print shop. And framer. And whoever at the Minister's office, the one who supplied the digital logo file to the printer. Meant to call the party office guy to do that.
Mike T.

Don't be ridiculous. Kenney was out of the country when he awarded that plaque to a Canadian business.
lgarvin

Ethnic restaurants… Very Ethnic.
lgarvin

Apparently he doesn't like to tip from his own pocket.

Kenny's Tipping Guidelines
- For Outstanding Service; 10% + Minister's Award of Excellence
- For Good Service; 5% + Minister's Award of Excellence
- For Average Service; Minister's Award of Excellence
- For Poor Service: Minister's Award of Excellence (Unframed)
bennji1977

Wow, I actually thought that you were pulling out leg with this, but it is actually on the restaurant in question's web-site http://www.yangshengrestaurant.ca/

The "C" in the middle is not nearly as pronounced as in the pic you posted, but it is still there.

WOW!!!!!!
danby

Click on the image at the restaurant site and you'll get the expanded view

….awarded to the Yang Sheng restaurant for creating an authentic multicultural dining experience

Do they do take out?

Could this be the Conservative dine in-out scandal?
Jan

This is up there with the Logo on the large cardboard checks.
auntie-em-m

cheques
Jan

You are correct – cheques.
danby

I wonder what the criteria is for getting the Minister's Award of Excellence?

Is Tim Hortons eligible? How about Golden Griddle? McDonalds?

Do they not provide a multicultural dining experience?
Jan

International House of Pancakes clearly the leader of the pact.
burlivespipe

I think they just have to validate parking, and provide 'nvoices'…
TimesArrow

Jeez i wonder if there's a trail of these things right across the country? Jason's been a bad bad boy; no more free buffets for him.

Meanwhile over at ground zero [ JK's office]

JK: " I don't care how long it takes! Send an email out to all those restaurants and ethnic associations – GET THOSE BLOODY CITATIONS BACK! PRONTO!…

Newbie aide: " Do we use the GoC letterheads again or the parties?

JK: "%$#@!..freaking morons, that's all they ever send me, morons .!!!
M_A_D_world

Ouch, at some point someone has to give their head a shake. The shameless party self-promotion has crossed some lines in the past but they don't even try to hide anymore.
Jan

I thought Shelley Glover handing out water bottles with the Conservative logo to school children was low, but this is definitely in the same neighbourhood.
LdKitchenersOwn

I wonder if awards from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration come with a free membership in the Conservative Party of Canada.
Halo_Override

I wonder if awards from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration come with a "free" membership in the Conservative Party of Canada.
Dave

Free? Are you kidding? From the Send Money Fast Party of Canada?
TimesArrow

Free? Hell no! These guys would probably put in an invoice for a tax sub.

alfanerd

Submitting falsified invoices so you can steal a million dollars or so of TAXPAYER money for expenses you did not incur is illegal.

There is no question that falsified invoices are illegal. But unless the advertisements in question were never purchased (I dont think that's the case), there is no theft of a million dollars.

lgarvin

This is true.

Most of the illegitimate claims were actually rejected by EC so the 60% rebate was not actually paid out to those candidates on those expenses. If all claims had been fully reimbursed the scam would have netted the party $800,000 in fraudulent claims. As it stands they probably only got $200,000 or so. If my experience with Conservative fundraisers is any guide, they've probably already sobbed their way to another $2,000,000 in donations on the strength of the whole episode.

So, just like Charlie Sheen, they are still WINNING!

Stewart_Smith

Is there any truth to the rumor that Charlie will be showing up in our senate sometime soon. If Harper was serious about senate reform, this is exactly the type of appointment he would make.

gottabesaid

I'm as suspect of the in-and-out scheme as anybody, but I don't think the party's goal was to 'steal millions of dollars', it was to get around the national spending limit. In fact, wasn't it $800,000 that was in question?

tedbetts

Elections Canada refunded a little over $100,000 before they noticed the recurring pattern, stopped refunding, did an investigation that eventually led to the criminal charges.

Approx. $800,000 is how much taxpayer money Conservative candidates have claim they are entitled to and have not been refunded by Elections Canada.

So a million more or less.

And I say steal because they knew it was illegal to overspend, they knew they had not incurred those national ad expenses locally and yet they made the claims for taxpayer money anyway.

burlivespipe

Ted, have you learned nothing from past CON outrage?
Milions is always rounded off to a billion boondoggle…

gottabesaid

That reminds me… uh, back in 2006, I spent, like, $10,000 on election advertising and expenses for, uh, one of the political parties, so, um, by my calculations… the way I see it… I should get back $28,333. Y'know, if you want to just round it off at $28,000, I'm totally cool with that.

MostlyCivil

As the returning officer (hee hee) for that guy over there, I just wanna say he forgot to include the $26,000 we spent on pizza. ISure, I'll take a check for that. Heck, I'll be generous and take just the %50 back.

Richard_S_Argent

Ordering from Pizza GiGi I see.

Mostlycivil

Dude. Green party. Greeeeennn, man. Munchies. Pizza Gigi, one stop shopping.

tedbetts

And that is where the theft part comes in.

And shows the lie that is the Conservative talking point that this is only about an accounting dispute in which only Conservative donors paid their own money to the Conservative Party.

In fact, they were using this scam to not only to defraud electors by spending way more than they were allowed, but to also get taxpayers to finance their war chest.

As we already know, Conservatives are the most taxpayer subsidized party by far. They feel entitled to their taxpayer subsidy entitlements. But how on earth does any Conservative justify tax rebates from taxpayers equal to 3X the local candidate's actual spend??????

alfanerd

That's because the candidate actually spent more then that, because he received money from the party, legally. That's because the CBC – in their usual objectivity and neutrality for which they are well known – doesnt count money received from the party as the association's own money.

No theft, no electoral fraud. The only scandal is the deviousness and disgusting behavior of Elections Canada, and that of the taxpayer funded CBC.

ZestyMordant

They're all out to get you!

alfanerd

Well, that CBC is biased against the Conservatives is pretty obvious.

As for EC, it's a tougher case, and one where a finding of bias would have severe repercussions.

But how else, other than anti-conservative bias, do you explain that they would all of a sudden, and uniquely for the Conservative party, not allow a candidate to receive $ from the national campaign in order to buy advertising?

tedbetts

Because it was illegal.

And it wasn't Elections Canada that brought the charges. It was the independent Public Prosecutors Office, the one Harper set up and the one to which Harper made all appointments, and the one who said the conduct was clearly "illegal" and the one that said they had "voluminous" evidence of their deliberate illegal conduct.

But believe bias all you want.

Facts and reality do tend to have an anti-Conservative bias and heck of a lot, don't they.
alfanerd

what is different between what the conservatives did and what the other parties did?
tedbetts

The other parties weren't trying to get around strict campaign spending limits.

The other parties didn't try to force this on nearly 100 candidates.

The other parties didn't have a nationally orchestrated scheme that many of their candidates said was illegal.

The other parties didn't try to claim taxpayer funded refunds for expenses they did not incur.

The other parties didn't have a cabinet minister like Toews who was tried and convicted for doing this very same criminal activity in Manitoba before trying it at a national level.

The other parties when they pooled for regional ad buys allocated shares appropriately based on value of the benefits received instead of based on who had the most spending room left in their campaign, something specifically pointed out by all 4 judges at the Court of Appeal.

And so on and so on.
Lucky Luke

Agree…agree…agree…I'll only add that the Bloc apparently did the same thing in 2000.
Jan

Amd the law was changed after that.
lgarvin

I hesitate to get into this one because a) I think it all should be illegal and b) because it's pretty complex and therefore time-consuming to discuss fully and fairly.

Bottom line, I think Elections Canada decided that some small instances of creative rule-bending – if they were even noticed – were deemed to be acceptable. But the same rule-bending done on a centrally-organized & massive scale was flouting the rules too brazenly and crossed the threshold from shenanigans to serious infraction. This is particularly so when the net effect of the transfers was to allow the Conservatives to exceed their national spending limit by more than $1,000,000.

It's not just about the money to Elections Canada, they are very serious about the spending limits they set and -even though Harper is not – he still needs to respect the law of the land. If the Cons had had the common humility to simply accept the ruling of Elections Canada, instead of opting for outraged defiance, probably no charges would have resulted. But this government – showing it's usual good judgement – can't resist acting like some sullen teenager in a roid rage itching for a fight.

So they got one…

And they lost…

And now they're back to whining and sniffling about how mean everybody is to them.
Orson Bean

That's a very fair post, Igarvin. A cut above the partisan drivel (from both sides) that we usually see on here. I think you're right about the fact that some aggressive stuff was allowed by EC in the past, but that the Tories essentially tried to drive a Mack Truck through the loopholes in the rules, and EC essentially said enough is enough.

Having said that, I'd actually like the Supreme Court to hear the CPC's appeal of their case, because I think it would benefit everyone if the rules (and their proper interpretation) were clarified once and for all.
LdKitchenersOwn

I agree with that last point except to add that I think the SCOC refusing to give leave to appeal would also make it pretty clear where they stand (not that I think they'd do that in this case).
canon70

Perhaps this statement from the Federal Court of Appeal judgement will clairify matters, unless you think that four federal court judges have an anti-conservative bias.

"We agree, however, with the Judge and the CEOC that the amount reported for a candidate’s share of a pooled advertising expense cannot be arbitrary, or based solely upon the available room under each candidate’s spending limit, but must be reasonably related to the value of the benefits received."
Mike T.

That will indeed be the killer for the CPC.
OriginalEmily1

It's only 'obvious' to dyed-in-the-wool Cons….nobody else sees it that way. The CBC was founded by conservatives, and has been funded by them….and there are times when they bend so far over backwards to be 'balanced' it's hard to tell what exactly happened. But in general they respond to their audience, as does every network.

If you're now claiming that Elections Canada….and presumably also the courts ….who found Cons guilty, and have charged others….are also biased…..perhaps it's time you questioned your own bias. How are you expecting to win elections if you think all Canadian institutions are against you?

Candidates did not receive money from the national campaign to buy advertising….it was in and OUT, remember?
Keith in Brampton

"How are you expecting to win elections if you think all Canadian institutions are against you? "

I don't know about the strategy for winning, but based on behaviour to date, once in power with a majority, you rebrand, undermine &/or dismantle all the existing departments and fire everyone who fails to kowtow. Those few remaining institutions will be firmly under their overlord's thumb and too afraid to offer any opposition. Or so the blueprint reads.
OriginalEmily1

Behavior by who??

tedbetts

How about the candidate in Quebec City who "paid" for regional ads that were only seen in the GTA?

How about the candidate who spent only $10K or so, who's share of this kind of "regional" ad buy was only about another $5000, but got $34,000 of TAXPAYER money back?

Keep firing away with your blanks AlfaNerd. You are only highlighting how bad this is.

alfanerd

How about the candidate in Quebec City who "paid" for regional ads that were only seen in the GTA?

These are the kind of allegations which actually point to something illegal. THANK YOU. All this BS like AW's post doesnt even suggest anything illegal. That's my point.

do you have a source for this and do you have further allegations of that kind?
Olivier

It's really not that bad, the over spent by very little (in the grand scheme of thigns) and it's more than likely that it didn't affect the outcome of the elections.

It's important to uphold the law, that much I agree with. Extremely important even.

The only thing that's rotten about this is the "defense" people like alfanerd put up: crying and claiming they're being picked on. IT's always someone ele's fault: it doesn get much more pathetic.

Mike T.

They would have overspent by about %5 of the national budget, right?

Jan

Allnerd, you better hope your party's lawyers can come up with something better than that.

MostlyCivil

They haven't. They won't. They can't.

Olivier

Whoops, chery, not cheery!

Stewart_Smith

cherry?

Cam

If this was on the up-and-up then why did the Conservatives have to falsify invoices?

Reverend_Blair

That's the big question, isn't it? The RCMP need to investigate that, because that's where it crosses from electoral fraud to criminal fraud. Who falsified the invoices? Who ordered them to falsify the invoices?

danolson

I think Stephen Harper's CON government has already posted a job for the sacrificial foot soldier who's to lose his job over this…

John D

Speaking of yapping away nonsensically…
Richard_S_Argent

I think the reason why this is potentially a problem for the Conservatives is that while those who don't pay close attention to politics don't necessarily understand the minutiae of electoral financing, they do understand the idea of money laundering. And this sounds an awful lot like money laundering. Not that it actually *is* money laundering mind you, but it shares many elements in common with it.

This might be a time where the contemporary convention of dumbing down politics can come back to bite the governing party in the butt.

TimesArrow

Care to define the meaning of… *is*? :)

Halo_Override

It's the opposite of "NOT", one supposes.
Richard_S_Argent

Well I'd say that classic money laundering involves cleaning dirty money…in this case the money that was moved around didn't begin as the proceeds of criminal activity.

(I'm sure there's a witty remark to be made here…but danged if I can't come up with one tonight :)

LdKitchenersOwn

If the allegations are correct however, the money was "dirty", in a sense, in that it was "tainted" by having been spent on national expenses, and they had to "clean" it by making it look like local spending.

Richard_S_Argent

Fair point. Still it's not quite the proceeds from a missing truckload of Lucky Strikes is it? :D

NorthernPoV

Money Laundering (from wiki – sounds like a reasonable fit to me!)

Money laundering is the practice of engaging in a series of financial transactions to conceal the ownership, source, control or destination of illegally gained money. Ultimately, it is the process by which the proceeds of crime are made to appear to have a legitimate origin.

LdKitchenersOwn

The one difference being though that the money wasn't really "illegally gained".

NorthernPoV

and in further hair-splitting…
but in the end, ironically these rebates were (allegedly!) illegal gains
;-)

LdKitchenersOwn

Very true. The taxpayer-funded rebates are arguably "illegally gained" funds in that sense.

I do think that my point about the original funds not being "illegally gained" is more than just hair splitting though. After all, the issue isn't how they got the funds (all legally donated I'm sure) but how they SPENT the funds during the election.

John Smith

Money laundering Mafiosi.
chet

For those of you linking to the fact that other parties have done precisely the same thing, clearly evidencing that the magnifying glass is on the right, while the blind eye is turned from the left….

You are on the wrong blog.

This site is pure propaganda.

You'll never see an actual post of the variety the commenters here show.

Never.

All anti-CPC all the time.

While Wherry gives the Liberals all the free advertising they could ever ask for,

with a straight face, he chides the CPC for spending their own money on it.

Remarkable.
chet

So if Wherry is clearly an unabashed liberal supporter,

who utlizes the resources of this publicly held company to affect his personal political support for the Liberals,

and opposition to the CPC,

how much is that worth to the Liberals?

And is it counted?

All very awkward questions I know.
PP's Latest Dodge

as I wrote in the 'undaunted' thread:

About their latest 'But they did it, too' examples they were sing-songing about today in QP: the CBC's Chris Hall reports (albeit just by twitter, so far), that they're ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT, since:

"[a] quick review of Pierre Polievre examples of opp'n in/out spending shows all of those cash transfers took place outside election period" http://twitter.com/chrishallcbc/status/4523601239….
Loraine Lamontagne

OK Conservative supporters – I don't hate you and so I'm worried that some of you have been convinced by manipulative, sect-like political operatives that presenting receipts for reimbursement for sums which you haven't spent is fine. It is not fine. No one sees this as an accounting mistake. I am all for solid political debates, but this king of excuse is dangerous for our youth.
alfanerd

that's great thanks for your concern. but really, if you look at the details instead of the smoke screen that Aaron Wherry is so kindly setting up for you, you'd see there is nothing wrong with the in/out scheme.
tedbetts

Elections Canada (whose top bureaucrat was appointed by Harper by the way) vehemently disagrees with you. The independent Public Prosecutors Office (all appointed by Harper by the way) vehemently disagrees with you. More and more conservative commentators vehemently disagree with you.

And all you offer is avoidance and not addressing the issue.
Keith in Brampton

Really? a $34,000 ROI on a $12,000 outlay is perfectly fine? It IS taxpayer money, BTW, not CPC money, that they are being "reimbursed" with.
alfanerd

Im very saddened that these people vehemently disagree with me. But perhaps if you could explain to me why the in/out scheme is illegal for conservatives and legal for NDP/Bloc/Liberals, I would be most obliged. Otherwise, dont expect me to just sit back while this disgusting and vile biased behavior, by Elections Canada – the guardian of our democracy – is going on.
burlivespipe

Notice that even after gallons of koolaid intake, even the Alfanebbish couldn't refrain from labelling the in-and-out issue as a 'scheme'… Truly you are not an actual nerd but a gullible dweeb, sir.
brooster2

Your response so perfectly mirrors the Cons' strategy whenever they find themselves at odds with an arm's length government agency: invalidate the agency and/or impugn its motives by accusing it of partisanship and/or (if you can get away with it) fire its chief operating officer or make their job untenable.
NL_Expatriate

Only the candidates should be allowed tax exemption stats!
NotATory

If my wife, a friend and myself did this, we'd be considered to be a criminal organization and we'd be prosecuted for money laundering. How is the Steve Party of Harperland any different?
Mike T.

Some judges have said aspects of the scheme were legal – nobody ever called it laudatory. Even the original judgment which the Conservatives said exonerated them completely had a tone of "I can't believe they're allowed to get away with this…"
madeyoulook

Great! Let's kill off this ridiculous 60% expense subsidy, the totally unfairly generous political contribution income tax credits, AND the coercive buck-ninety-five per vote largesse. Who's in?
Richard_S_Argent

As I keep saying, keep the $1.95, but ban political donations and all political advertising – and 90% of our problems go away in the blink of an eye :)
James Connors

Decent suggestion but the IRA and the FLQ simply turned to bank robbery as a funding scheme.
Reverend_Blair

Why don't we just delist parties who break the law to get the rebate?
Not Stephen Colbert

Okay, except that if we're banning all political advertising, then what exactly is the $1.95 for?
madeyoulook

How is it that ordinarily sane people (who can be trusted with drivers' licenses, internet access, credit cards and the responsibility to care for their offspring) fail to see that showering the parties with our cash brings on this stupid advertising?

You don't need to ban free speech — you just need to stop encouraging them with our wealth that should have been deployed more usefully elsewhere, even towards popcorn & beer for Reid!
Richard_S_Argent

Oh, to pay for staffers, travel, etc.

(Not that my plan is fleshed out or anything :)
Reverend_Blair

I want my money back.
NorthernPoV

so chet, if we are a bunch of fools ignoring all this evidence you believe in…
why do you waste your time here on this blog?
Holly Stick

Let them each have one commercial to use during the election. So they had beter make it a good one, or the viewers will get sick of it and Rick Mercer will make fun of it.
Holly Stick

Yes!
Dave

Rick Mercer will make fun of it regardless.
Holly Stick

True. And thank you for not writing "irregardless".