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

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

And if she knew, what are the ramifications exactly? Its only an issue if something illegal took place, right?

If she knew and said she didnt...then she is bald face lying to her constiuents and indeed every Albertan...which is simply unacceptable particularly when she ran a campaign on transparency in government.

Are you suggesting thats its OK if she lied?

[karl262]

The thing about Katz making this kind of donation that should concern everyone is that the rules are in place to prevent corruption by not allowing any one entity from buying an elected official and influencing policy with money. So we have a $30k limit per person or company. Great.

Then we have transparency laws so all donations are public information, which is in place for this kind of a situation to stand up to public scrutiny. Did Katz make a deal with the PCs that if he is the single largest donor in their re-election campaign, they will put up the rest of the money for the new arena, which will generate millions of dollars in revenue for his company? Or did Katz simply donate the money because he likes the party?

It's difficult to tell right now exactly what the whole story is, but one thing for sure now is the province will not be putting money towards the new arena. If they did, it would be obvious they were bought and would have a tough time getting elected again.

Sorry Oilers, looks like you might have to settle for a little bit less of a new arena.

[GP_Matt]

I think he is saying that it is okay to lie if it turns out that she was lying about something legal.

It is a common first response from her though to say that she had no idea. She claimed the same thing when it was revealed that Gary Mar was exonerated and sent back to work. She also didn't know that her party planned to bring back the transition allowances.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by transplant99

You dont care so much...that you typed all that out eh? Laughable....and so transparent.

Yep, responding to your post to answer your question is really laughable. That doesn't happen all the time on this board.



Honestly, what's laughable is the fact that you jumped in, perpetuating the situation. But you`re too dense to see that.

Originally Posted by transplant99

And "Tran-o"? Really?

Yep. You mad, bro?

Originally Posted by transplant99

Your agenda is to see someone else admit their agenda...hmmm....strange at the very least and creepy too.

Nope. What`s creepy is you asking me a question, I boldly answer to it, and then you attempt to twist my answer. What you should have done, if you think you`re so high and mighty, is not perpetuate the situation.

Creepy from you, indeed.

Originally Posted by transplant99

So FL is pro WRA...so what? Will you feel better about yourself if someone admits their political leanings? If so, here go enjoy your day...im very pro WRA.

I didn`t ask you what your political leanings are. But, it looks like you have an agenda to tell me that. Congratulations, hypocrite.

Originally Posted by transplant99

Thing is its all to obvious what your issues are, but you wont admit it...yet you insist others do. Double standards are fun eh?

Admit what? Quit making stuff up.

[Slava]

I'm not condoning the lying (if there is any here, nor in general). All I'm saying is that if that's the biggest issue though, its hardly newsworthy. A politician lied...OMG! I think you would agree that's nothing new. I guess I don't really care if she knew or not. If it's one cheque and later they had to try to cover their tracks, I think they ought to face prosecution as a party. If its distasteful but not illegal though, thats about it.

I do wonder about this though: what if Katz just genuinely didn't want the Wildrose and wanted to contribute a lot of cash as a result? What if the arena is legitimately a side issue (which clearly makes the optics look bad), but he and his family, etc. were contributing based on their not wanting a Wildrose government?

Before anyone jumps on me here, I've already said that I think these types of contributions show the exact issue with the state of electoral finance in the province. Frankly, the personal limit is a joke at $30k, and that should be cut to $1000 in my opinion.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Muta

Yep, responding to your post to answer your question is really laughable. That doesn't happen all the time on this board.



Honestly, what's laughable is the fact that you jumped in, perpetuating the situation. But you`re too dense to see that.



Yep. You mad, bro?



Nope. What`s creepy is you asking me a question, I boldly answer to it, and then you attempt to twist my answer. What you should have done, if you think you`re so high and mighty, is not perpetuate the situation.

Creepy from you, indeed.



I didn`t ask you what your political leanings are. But, it looks like you have an agenda to tell me that. Congratulations, hypocrite.



Admit what? Quit making stuff up.

LOL...touched a nerve did I?

Good.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not condoning the lying (if there is any here, nor in general). All I'm saying is that if that's the biggest issue though, its hardly newsworthy. A politician lied...OMG! I think you would agree that's nothing new. I guess I don't really care if she knew or not. If it's one cheque and later they had to try to cover their tracks, I think they ought to face prosecution as a party. If its distasteful but not illegal though, thats about it.

I do wonder about this though: what if Katz just genuinely didn't want the Wildrose and wanted to contribute a lot of cash as a result? What if the arena is legitimately a side issue (which clearly makes the optics look bad), but he and his family, etc. were contributing based on their not wanting a Wildrose government?

Before anyone jumps on me here, I've already said that I think these types of contributions show the exact issue with the state of electoral finance in the province. Frankly, the personal limit is a joke at $30k, and that should be cut to $1000 in my opinion.

Fair enough i guess...but now i will pull a Slava on you and make things hypothetical

If Danielle Smith was premier, and stood up in the legislature proclaiming repeatedly something you soundly believed untrue...would you still have the same opinon?

Honest question.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Muta

Yep, responding to your post to answer your question is really laughable. That doesn't happen all the time on this board.



Honestly, what's laughable is the fact that you jumped in, perpetuating the situation. But you`re too dense to see that.



Yep. You mad, bro?



Nope. What`s creepy is you asking me a question, I boldly answer to it, and then you attempt to twist my answer. What you should have done, if you think you`re so high and mighty, is not perpetuate the situation.

Creepy from you, indeed.



I didn`t ask you what your political leanings are. But, it looks like you have an agenda to tell me that. Congratulations, hypocrite.



Admit what? Quit making stuff up.

You're like the school yard bully who sees he's losing face in front of his friends, so he resorts to verbal and physical abuse over his opponent. Keep it up. The more you do it the more pathetic you look.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Fair enough i guess...but now i will pull a Slava on you and make things hypothetical

If Danielle Smith was premier, and stood up in the legislature proclaiming repeatedly something you soundly believed untrue...would you still have the same opinon?

Honest question.

The thing is whether she knew or not is somewhat irrelevant. I have no doubt that someone in the party knew, and would expect the same for a similar situation with the Wildrose.

The premier knowing or not knowing is just window dressing and either way its either legal or illegal regardless of whether she condones it. In either case though there are paid people who ought to know and answer. If the leader finds out and asks "Is that even legit?" and the reply is "Oh ya, our CFO John Doe has it all set, so were fine." you can't blame the leader. In a campaign they have enough to deal with and that's why they have these paid positions in the first place.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by transplant99

LOL...touched a nerve did I?

Good.

Huh?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Rerun

You're like the school yard bully who sees he's losing face in front of his friends, so he resorts to verbal and physical abuse over his opponent. Keep it up. The more you do it the more pathetic you look.

Losing face? Lol. Verbal abuse? Lol. Whatever rerun, I haven't done any of that. Stop making stuff up. It's childish. Quit being butthurt about this thread.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Muta

Losing face? Lol. Verbal abuse? Lol. Whatever rerun, I haven't done any of that. Stop making stuff up. It's childish. Quit being butthurt about this thread.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Rerun

You're like the school yard bully who sees he's losing face in front of his friends, so he resorts to verbal and physical abuse over his opponent. Keep it up. The more you do it the more pathetic you look.

Him and a couple others did the same thing to me in the Occupy thread too.
IIRC it was locked twice due to that. Best just to ignore.

Back on topic; I've added an update to my blog piece regarding this.

http://janemorgan.blogspot.ca/2012/1...-question.html

[Stranger]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not condoning the lying (if there is any here, nor in general). All I'm saying is that if that's the biggest issue though, its hardly newsworthy. A politician lied...OMG! I think you would agree that's nothing new. I guess I don't really care if she knew or not. If it's one cheque and later they had to try to cover their tracks, I think they ought to face prosecution as a party. If its distasteful but not illegal though, thats about it.

I do wonder about this though: what if Katz just genuinely didn't want the Wildrose and wanted to contribute a lot of cash as a result? What if the arena is legitimately a side issue (which clearly makes the optics look bad), but he and his family, etc. were contributing based on their not wanting a Wildrose government?

Before anyone jumps on me here, I've already said that I think these types of contributions show the exact issue with the state of electoral finance in the province. Frankly, the personal limit is a joke at $30k, and that should be cut to $1000 in my opinion.

I was thinking the exact same thing. The limit should only be $1000 per person or company. If someone want to donate huge amounts of money they can donate it to charity rather than a political party.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Him and a couple others did the same thing to me in the Occupy thread too.
IIRC it was locked twice due to that. Best just to ignore.

Back on topic; I've added an update to my blog piece regarding this.

http://janemorgan.blogspot.ca/2012/1...-question.html

Herding Katz?

Clever.

[Rerun]

Perhaps some kind of 3rd party clearing house should be set up for all political contributions to all parties. Say you want to donate $100, 000. You write a cheque to company ABC who in turn deposits it in their bank account and then writes a cheque in their name to the political party of your choice.

That way the political party would never know who the donation came from.

Would something like this work?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Muta

Losing face? Lol. Verbal abuse? Lol. Whatever rerun, I haven't done any of that. Stop making stuff up. It's childish. Quit being butthurt about this thread.

really?

I dont usually see someone calling others a hypocrite, dense, high and mighty, and creepy in a single post as everyday terms that wouldnt qualify as abusive...but whatever floats your boat.

I couldnt care less what you said, but dont try and play it off like you didnt do so, particularly in a post where you accuse others of making stuff up.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Stranger

I was thinking the exact same thing. The limit should only be $1000 per person or company. If someone want to donate huge amounts of money they can donate it to charity rather than a political party.

I agree with the limits but $1000 is pretty low. If you kept it that low at the riding level I don't think we would see very many opposition parties running legitimate campaigns. If you are in power it is easy (relatively) to find 50 business men to donate $1000 a piece. That would be enough to run a decent campaign with lawn signs, some larger signs, an office, rent a few halls for speaking events, send out a single letter to your riding, maybe a few radio spots and of course robo calls. For someone who is running a long shot campaign though it is a lot harder to identify supporters and convince them to give you a few bucks. More likely the majority of your donations will come from yourself, a few relatives and a friend or two. If you are limited to $1000 a piece you will have no way to get your name out there and will instead spend the entire campaign trying to find people to donate money to you.

The current maximum that a candidate can take in is $3000 in an election year. $1000 before the writ is dropped (to the CA) and $2000 after. This means that a married person can finance a bare bones campaign with a donation from herself, her husband and her mother. you won't run radio ads, but you will get your name and idea out there. The alternative is a complete steamroll by the party in power and possibly one runner up party.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Rerun

[Muta]

Originally Posted by transplant99

really?

I dont usually see someone calling others a hypocrite, dense, high and mighty, and creepy in a single post as everyday terms that wouldnt qualify as abusive...but whatever floats your boat.

I couldnt care less what you said, but dont try and play it off like you didnt do so, particularly in a post where you accuse others of making stuff up.

Abusive? You`ve got some soft skin if you think anything like that is abusive. It worries me to think how you operate in the real world if that actually bothers you.

Nevertheless, I do apologize if that is abusive to you. You should also acknowledge the abuse I am taking too here, including from you for exactly what you have called me out on.