Although clearly not as important as the riveting tale of a teenager who felt “used” by the Liberal Party, yesterday’s news concerning the Tories ad scheme in Quebec being described as “illegal” is something that should make people sit up and take notice. Unfortunately however, it likely won’t and doesn’t appear to be doing so — such are the benefits (to the government at least) of intriguing stories like this unfolding during the dog days of summer.
In a court filing of cross-examination made in connection with the Conservatives’ litigation against Elections Canada it was revealed that:
Four-fifths of the cost of the Conservatives’ 2006 election-campaign advertising in Quebec was funnelled through local campaigns in a financing scheme that Elections Canada alleges was illegal, according to testimony provided in a court case.
Ann O’Grady, until April the chief financial officer of the Conservative Party of Canada, said Quebec candidates claimed about 80 per cent of the roughly $1-million in Quebec campaign advertising costs as their own, although the party gave them the money to spend.
The way Tory ad expenses were treated varied greatly between Quebec – where, in the 2005-06 election campaign, most Tory candidates were considered lost causes – and the rest of the country. Outside Quebec, local candidates only claimed about 7 per cent of Conservative ad costs as local expenses.
In other words, 80 percent of the money spent on Conservative advertising in Quebec came from the national party, was immediately transferred in to local campaigns, then transferred straight back out to buy national ads (along with miniscule local tag lines) allowing the party to significantly boost its ad purchases across the country with money that would have otherwise been squandered on hopeless local races. Subsequently, local Tory candidates then sought taxpayer refunds for the money that had essentially just been “laundered” through their accounts.
Although it’s possible that what the Conservatives might describe as merely a bit of “creative accounting” could yet be judged as having been perfectly legal, it certainly seems to violate the spirit of the regulations, if nothing else. Should it eventually turn out to be the case that the Conservatives are exonerated, can we then expect the other parties to follow suit with similar “in-and-out” ad schemes of their own? Sure, it would make a complete mockery of the spending limit regulations, but haven’t the Conservatives already done that?
10 Comments
July 24, 2008 at 9:52 am
Why does everything seem to happen in Quebec?
July 24, 2008 at 10:28 am
Mr. Wilson in B.C. clearly violates the elections act, admits that fact, then when does Elections Canada do? Nothing.
What is wrong with that picture?
July 24, 2008 at 10:59 am
Bud read Wajid Khan. Also there is a big difference between a 144 undeclared Unbrellas and allegelly spending 1.4 million over the legal limit. But maybe i’m just crzy.
July 24, 2008 at 11:37 am
Blues Clair: Of course there’s the only difference that matters: IOKIYAC.
RT: Thanks for the link, though this particular episode is just scratching the surface of the Cons’ manipulations. Probably the most damning factor so far was that the money wasn’t merely transferred to the local campaign then voluntarily given back (which would leave some room for choice by the individual candidates), but was transferred in only with legally binding instructions that it be returned to the party. Which takes the whole thing well beyond principles of accounting toward the terrain of calculated deception.
July 24, 2008 at 12:29 pm
So Blues Clair . . . the stealing isn’t the problem. It’s the amount that was stolen, is that it? Does Elections Canada have a cut off on how much you can steal?
July 24, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Hmmm… usually Conservative partisans say, but the Lieberals stole 40 million, adscam, adscam, adscam, adscam. Whatever… You got me Bud.
“An eight-month review by Elections Canada has cleared Blair Wilson of any serious financial wrongdoing, “
July 24, 2008 at 4:00 pm
..Tory candidates then sought taxpayer refunds for the money..
Is this not the crux of the matter? I don’t pretend to be solidly up on the ‘ins and outs’ of the ‘in and out scandal (swindle?)’, but it would seem to me that this is the more serious of the allegations in question. That political parties swish around monetary funds within their organizations during elections seems to be the least of the contentions, but if some Tory’s subsidized their election expenses through the federal tax system? As a taxpayer, I have more than a huge problem with that.
July 25, 2008 at 7:58 am
[...] Other News… unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptFour-fifths of the cost of the [...]
July 25, 2008 at 12:50 pm
At some point “creative accounting” becomes “money-laundering”.
July 26, 2008 at 4:16 pm
RT,
Still tilling this ground?
Good for you. Canadian’s need to know what sort of evil geniuses are behind the curtain of the Conservative Party of Canada. We’re talking “the Brain” here.
If Pinky is Harper, than who…?