‘No one is more surprised than I am’
By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, November 13, 2012 - 0 Comments
Peter Penashue has released a letter to his constituents.
I was very clear during the campaign that we would follow the rules. I specifically indicated that, in accordance with the law, we could not accept corporate donations. I was not aware of any problems or irregularities during the campaign.
No one is more surprised than I am at the allegations that have arisen since the campaign. No one is more disappointed. That’s why there is a new Official Agent in place to examine all of the paperwork and to work with Elections Canada to correct any mistakes.
-
Have the allegations the Conservatives violated campaign spending limits in 2006 changed your view of the government?
By macleans.ca - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 at 1:04 PM - 58 Comments
…
-
It ain't over till it's over
By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 20, 2010 at 8:38 PM - 39 Comments
Five months after a federal court ruling on so-called in-and-out campaign financing, it turns out an unpublicized portion of the judgment imperils the political careers of three cabinet ministers. And the commissioner of elections has apparently referred the matter to the office of the public prosecutor to consider criminal charges.
… in a little-noticed detail, he also found that one of the two candidates should have paid — but did not — an equal share of the full market value of regional advertising buys. Rather, the amount charged appeared to have been “purely arbitrary,” based on what the candidate could afford without exceeding his spending limit.
In documents supporting its motion to stay Martineau’s ruling, Elections Canada applies the equal share dictum to all 65 candidates involved in the regional media buys. The agency finds up to 10 of them would have exceeded their spending limits, including Cannon by $7,618, Verner by $13,304, Paradis by $10,188 and Bernier by $20,138.
In its appeal, the party suggests Martineau’s ruling violates freedom of speech guarantees in the Charter of Rights because it “effectively limits a candidate’s ability to run ads if other ridings in the same (regional advertising) pool are unable to contribute to the same level financially.”
The full federal court ruling in its entirety is here. This particularly issue would seem to be raised at paragraph 235.
-
In-and-Out is in?
By Aaron Wherry - Monday, January 18, 2010 at 12:28 PM - 129 Comments
A Federal Court judge rules in favour of the Conservative side, with a caveat of sorts.
Elections Canada had contended that the Conservatives effectively skated around the party’s $18.3 million spending limit by channeling the cost of the ads through its candidates’ campaigns, which have their own spending limits. There was no evidence, the electoral agency argued, that the expenses were legitimately incurred by the candidates.
In a ruling released Monday, Justice Luc Martineau disagreed, saying the two candidates did incur the expenses. He ordered Mayrand to approve the claims. Martineau said, however, that the decision does not necessarily bear on an investigation of the ad buying program currently being conducted by the Commissioner of Canada Elections, William Corbett.
“There is a fundamental distinction between legality and legitimacy,” Martineau wrote. “As far as the overall legitimacy of the (regional-media buy) program is concerned, this is a debatable issue, which is better left for public commentary and debate by all interested persons outside the courts.”
