Billionaire Oilers owner Katz gave $430,000 to Alberta PCs

[octothorp]

This part of the article is interesting to me.

But Elections Alberta spokesman Drew Westwater said the provisions of section 34 are “in effect and would be applied” if an individual donor “asks for receipts to many names or companies.”

Now, there's nothing in the Election Finances Act section 34 that specifically states this, and I doubt there's much of a precedent of any family donating this sort of money. What exactly defines 'many'? Is it 5 or 15 or 50, and where is this communicated to parties? If that's not actually stated anywhere (and it's not in the EFA) and there's no precedent, then it's really hard to make a solid case that the Tories knew they were in violation, even if it smells completely fishy to every detached observer. Pretty easy for the PCs to play dumb here.

My own sense (and this is entirely going on what 'seems' right, since as I said there's nothing in the EFA that specifically addresses cheque-splitting), is that immediate family cheque-splitting should be allowed, while business associates pushes it too far. (Meaning roughly half the Katz contribution would be okay.) I would support an Electoral Officer investigation, because even though I suspect it would be unable to punish the Convservatives very much for this incident, it could at least clarify the rule for the next election.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Dion

How can you say the WR was going to be a worse party when they haven't had a chance to govern?

Just listen to their leader. If they want a slim chance next election they should dump her now.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Just listen to their leader. If they want a slim chance next election they should dump her now.

Listen to what in specific?

[woob]

Originally Posted by Dion

How can you say the WR was going to be a worse party when they haven't had a chance to govern?

Rerun already revealed this, the sneaky guy - My crystal ball!

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by Dion

Listen to what in specific?

Her being an idiot. You won't have to listen for long.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by woob

Rerun already revealed this, the sneaky guy - My crystal ball!

You have no answer then - thank you.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by octothorp

This part of the article is interesting to me.



Now, there's nothing in the Election Finances Act section 34 that specifically states this, and I doubt there's much of a precedent of any family donating this sort of money. What exactly defines 'many'? Is it 5 or 15 or 50, and where is this communicated to parties? If that's not actually stated anywhere (and it's not in the EFA) and there's no precedent, then it's really hard to make a solid case that the Tories knew they were in violation, even if it smells completely fishy to every detached observer. Pretty easy for the PCs to play dumb here.

My own sense (and this is entirely going on what 'seems' right, since as I said there's nothing in the EFA that specifically addresses cheque-splitting), is that immediate family cheque-splitting should be allowed, while business associates pushes it too far. (Meaning roughly half the Katz contribution would be okay.) I would support an Electoral Officer investigation, because even though I suspect it would be unable to punish the Convservatives very much for this incident, it could at least clarify the rule for the next election.

Elections Alberta sends out a lot of information; pamphlets, reminders, etc. They conduct training and are always available to answer questions.

One of the main points in all education material at the party level reads like this.

Contributions by any person, corporation, trade union, or employee organization to a
registered party shall not exceed
• $15,000 in any calendar year, or
• $30,000 in a campaign period less any amount contributed to the party in that
calendar year.

So if you get a cheque that exceeds those limits, you need to look into it. Is it a case of husband and wife? Or did one person donate too much? In latter case it would need to be reported to EA and returned to the donor.

If you get several cheques from same family, all within the limits, you likely wouldn't ask any questions.

However, that doesn't prevent EA from coming back to you at a later date and start asking questions.

There is at least one prior case of this nature that was investigated.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Elections Alberta sends out a lot of information; pamphlets, reminders, etc. They conduct training and are always available to answer questions.

One of the main points in all education material at the party level reads like this.



So if you get a cheque that exceeds those limits, you need to look into it. Is it a case of husband and wife? Or did one person donate too much? In latter case it would need to be reported to EA and returned to the donor.

If you get several cheques from same family, all within the limits, you likely wouldn't ask any questions.

However, that doesn't prevent EA from coming back to you at a later date and start asking questions.

There is at least one prior case of this nature that was investigated.

I'd love to get some more information about this. Was there literature specifically saying how many people involved cross the line on cheque-splitting, and whether there's anything that differentiates between splitting amongst family-members vs. non family-members? Or anything saying that all instances of cheque-splitting or cheques in excess of $30,000 need to be reported to Elections Alberta?

Do you know any details of the previous case? In particular, how many people were involved, how much money, were they family or associates, and what did the electoral officer rule?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I'd love to get some more information about this. Was there literature specifically saying how many people involved cross the line on cheque-splitting, and whether there's anything that differentiates between splitting amongst family-members vs. non family-members? Or anything saying that all instances of cheque-splitting or cheques in excess of $30,000 need to be reported to Elections Alberta?

This was the document I quoted from. http://www.elections.ab.ca/Public%20...Dec_5_2011.pdf

I honestly don't recall anything using the term cheque-splitting. Generally people tend to give one cheque for their own donation; even spouses will write separate cheques to avoid any confusion.

If someone sent a cheque to a party and said; "this donation is from me and X, Y and Z" (unrelated people) - I think most CFO's would return the cheque and ask them to each write individual cheques.

Do you know any details of the previous case? In particular, how many people were involved, how much money, were they family or associates, and what did the electoral officer rule?

Yes, I have first hand experience with it. You'll have to buy the book when it comes out, or maybe you can piece it together with this tidbit.

Over the summer of 2006 I was in discussions with senior representatives of the then, Alberta Alliance Party, regarding being appointed as their Chief Financial Officer. It would be a volunteer role, with no training or remuneration. Talks also included moving their office, from a space in Red Deer they could no longer afford, to my business office in northeast Calgary.

The move and my appointment as CFO were completed by mid September. Before the end of that same month, unbeknownst to me, three RCMP officers would descend upon my office. They would comb through every piece of paper ever generated by the very young Alberta Alliance. They took copies of hundreds of pages of documents. In some cases they took possession of the originals and left us with the photocopies.

The RCMP recorded audio statements from me on matters that occurred before I was even involved and I would sign off on a number of written statements as to my role with the Party, specifically in relation to the financial matters.

[Slava]

I just want to step in and defend FL a bit (she can handle herself of course, but consider it a bi-partisan good deed for the day!). Sure, she has an agenda, but so does almost everyone who posts in these political threads. I get that when she makes a thread about provincial politics its probably not going to endorse a PC or Liberal policy before I open it; just like ones I create about probably not going to talk about my excitement for a Wildrose policy/platform.

I have a lot of respect for her though. She has put her name on the line a couple of times and was pressing for the Wildrose before they were relevant at all. That's far from easy. She comes here and discusses the issues without resorting to personal attacks or slights and while losing every single argument (IMHO). Other posters in this thread accuse her of acting naive or having a bias. What's the point of that? Of course she has a bias...get over it and discuss the issues at hand.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Iginla

Rerun isn't a WR supporter, he's a FL supporter.

I happen to be both!

[woob]

Originally Posted by Dion

You have no answer then - thank you.

Don't be obtuse. Me replying to your question with the same type of smart ass reply I got to one of my previous replies does not mean I have no answer. Ask yourself how you came to vote for the party you did and you'll likely have the answer you seek.

[Fire]

The PCs are also trying to boost their RRSPs on the back of the taxpayers. Not a good week for them. Wonder what the "PC Apologists" say about this one.

It's not a surprise the PCs do these things. They have become corrupt over the years and yet were rewarded with another 4 years.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by woob

Don't be obtuse. Me replying to your question with the same type of smart ass reply I got to one of my previous replies does not mean I have no answer. Ask yourself how you came to vote for the party you did and you'll likely have the answer you seek.

Judging by your first cooment is this thread, "Oh you Wild Rose supporters. You're a silly bunch!" it's hard to take anything you say seriously.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Slava

I just want to step in and defend FL a bit (she can handle herself of course, but consider it a bi-partisan good deed for the day!). Sure, she has an agenda, but so does almost everyone who posts in these political threads. I get that when she makes a thread about provincial politics its probably not going to endorse a PC or Liberal policy before I open it; just like ones I create about probably not going to talk about my excitement for a Wildrose policy/platform.

I have a lot of respect for her though. She has put her name on the line a couple of times and was pressing for the Wildrose before they were relevant at all. That's far from easy. She comes here and discusses the issues without resorting to personal attacks or slights and while losing every single argument (IMHO). Other posters in this thread accuse her of acting naive or having a bias. What's the point of that? Of course she has a bias...get over it and discuss the issues at hand.

Valo403 and Muta have a personal agenda against FL. She can do no right in thier eyes. I think she adds alot to these politcal disccusions.

[woob]

Originally Posted by Dion

Judging by your first cooment is this thread, "Oh you Wild Rose supporters. You're a silly bunch!" it's hard to take anything you say seriously.

Aww shucks. And that was one of my most serious comments in here!

[Jacks]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle4647260/

But a source close to the campaign told The Globe and Mail that Mr. Katz provided a cheque for $430,000 to the PCs, a donation that was broken up into smaller pieces.

The maximum allowable donation to a political party in Alberta from an individual person or company during an election campaign is $30,000. Elections Alberta said splitting donations is allowed in some circumstances.

Mr. Katz declined requests for comment.

Premier Alison Redford said Thursday she didn’t know whether Mr. Katz did or did not write a cheque. "I have no idea about that,” she said, later explaining she was busy campaigning during the election. Pressed on how she could be unaware of such a large sum, she replied: “Well, I’m absolutely telling you the truth. I’m absolutely telling you the truth.”

Does anyone actually believe that Redford didn't know about a cheque worth 1/4-1/3 of their total donations?

Mr. Katz’s money came when party polling suggested that some voters, especially in Calgary, were turning back to the Conservatives after political missteps by Wildrose candidates.

Alberta’s Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act has several sections about the maximum donation and divvying up donations.

Section 19 of the act states that parties aren’t allowed to “knowingly accept any contributions in excess of the limits imposed.”

Section 34 states that parties cannot “solicit or knowingly accept any contribution” that doesn’t actually come from the contributor’s pocket.

Elections Alberta said some forms of cheque-splitting are allowed, using the example of a married couple who donate $60,000 with one cheque and ask for two $30,000 receipts.

The people defending this amaze me.


And the personal attacks on First Lady are pathetic.

[Azure]

Well if you look at it that way I see a problem as well.

Interesting where this will go.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Dion

Valo403 and Muta have a personal agenda against FL. She can do no right in thier eyes. I think she adds alot to these politcal disccusions.

And FL doesn't have an agenda? You bet she does. Maybe you should call her out on that, Dion. It`s incredibly obvious. Of course, you probably won`t admit that, but honestly, I don`t care an iota what you think.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Muta

And FL doesn't have an agenda? You bet she does. Maybe you should call her out on that, Dion. It`s incredibly obvious. Of course, you probably won`t admit that, but honestly, I don`t care an iota what you think.

If you don't care what I think, why then did you ask? Do you want an answer or not? Let me know when you decide.