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

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Slava

I thought that the reason they were fighting this was different. Basically people made a donation (by buying a ticket to an event of one kind or another) and then expensed that purchase to their employer. I have no idea how you can control that. If I accept a cheque from someone how would I know whether they in turn submit it as an expense to their employer? How can any party be sure they didn't have this happen to them?

If it's found to be illegal then one has to return the money. The PC don't want to give it back as it will hurt the war chest they've be compiling for the next election.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Jacks

And now the real reason behind it all.

Though I don't rule out the possibility of that being true, I think we play a dangerous game when we decide on speculation alone. Mason may know more than us but he may also know just as little. If the latter is true, then what makes his opinion so important? He even says it's a theory (as it's a "believes" statement). Unless he professes high evidence, it's speculation and nothing we should be settling as done fact. Is it possible? Yeah. Is it the real reason? I don't know. I don't think any of us know yet.

(Sorry. The use of "real" when we speculate is a bit of a pet peeve of mine)

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

I thought that the reason they were fighting this was different. Basically people made a donation (by buying a ticket to an event of one kind or another) and then expensed that purchase to their employer. I have no idea how you can control that. If I accept a cheque from someone how would I know whether they in turn submit it as an expense to their employer? How can any party be sure they didn't have this happen to them?

Probably one of your more reasonable posts where I don't get the feeling you and I will end up on a merry-go-round.

Here are a couple things to consider.

1) The PC's wrote this law. This is first time it has been enforced, thus making some potential flaws evident.

2) I think they may have intended it as a punishment to the party. As in: you associate with individuals and groups that break the law; you will get burned too. (little did they know, it would be themselves)

3) It has been rumored for years that the PC's actually counselled these organizations by saying it was "okay". We now see people willing to come forward and confirm this.


They really should man-up and just accept the punishment; bring forward constructive amendments and move on.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Probably one of your more reasonable posts where I don't get the feeling you and I will end up on a merry-go-round.

Here are a couple things to consider.

1) The PC's wrote this law. This is first time it has been enforced, thus making some potential flaws evident.

2) I think they may have intended it as a punishment to the party. As in: you associate with individuals and groups that break the law; you will get burned too. (little did they know, it would be themselves)

3) It has been rumored for years that the PC's actually counselled these organizations by saying it was "okay". We now see people willing to come forward and confirm this.


They really should man-up and just accept the punishment; bring forward constructive amendments and move on.

The PCs wrote it and it's just plain dumb. You've been a CFO for a campaign as have I. Taking off our partisan hats here, let's be completely honest; we wouldn't have the foggiest clue whether these things are expensed after. We couldn't be expected to have that kind of knowledge, and unless someone explicitly asked whether they could do it, how could you guess that?

I know this comes across as me defending the PCs, and I'm really not. The thing is that while the intent here is well meaning, its virtually impossible to comply.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Dion

If it's found to be illegal then one has to return the money. The PC don't want to give it back as it will hurt the war chest they've be compiling for the next election.

No, the PCs don't want to give it back because they claim they had no way of knowing it was illegal in the first place.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Slava

No, the PCs don't want to give it back because they claim they had no way of knowing it was illegal in the first place.

You may want to read this.....

A leaked telephone call between Progressive Conservative party executives and riding presidents indicates the Tories plan to hold on to $40,000 in illegal campaign donations.

Party executive Kelley Charlebois is heard saying on the call that a need to keep the money to fight the next election outweighs any negative publicity.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02...ign-donations/

“Repaying the money does us no good in the court of public opinion,” said Charlebois during the call. “It may help us at election time, I appreciate that.”

“Obviously I have to look at the bottom line and I'm concerned about us repaying thousands and thousands of dollars that we need for 2016,” he added.

http://www.globalnews.ca/alberta+tor...933/story.html

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

The PCs wrote it and it's just plain dumb. You've been a CFO for a campaign as have I. Taking off our partisan hats here, let's be completely honest; we wouldn't have the foggiest clue whether these things are expensed after. We couldn't be expected to have that kind of knowledge, and unless someone explicitly asked whether they could do it, how could you guess that?

Completely agree.

I know this comes across as me defending the PCs, and I'm really not. The thing is that while the intent here is well meaning, its virtually impossible to comply.

So long as you aren't defending the part where independent people have stepped forward and stated they were actually advised by the PC party that this was kosher.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Completely agree.

So why would a party pay this money back?

Yes, I would have the same question if this was the NDP, Liberals or Wildrose. Its not a partisan discussion, it's about useful electoral finance laws.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

So why would a party pay this money back?

Yes, I would have the same question if this was the NDP, Liberals or Wildrose. Its not a partisan discussion, it's about useful electoral finance laws.

Because the law states they must.

Yes - it's flawed, but that doesn't mean you can take matters into your own hands.


Furthermore, it should be paid back so the person who (possibly unknowingly) broke the law can then return it (the taxpayers money) to the institution who reimbursed them.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Because the law states they must.

Yes - it's flawed, but that doesn't mean you can take matters into your own hands.


Furthermore, it should be paid back so the person who (possibly unknowingly) broke the law can then return it (the taxpayers money) to the institution who reimbursed them.

Well I'm not sure who they're paying back to...I assume the minister of finance though? I agree they probably will end up paying, but if it were me I would also want to fight this bases solely on the sheer stupidity of the written law.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well I'm not sure who they're paying back to...I assume the minister of finance though? I agree they probably will end up paying, but if it were me I would also want to fight this bases solely on the sheer stupidity of the written law.

Yeah, you are right; I'm not sure who they would pay back either.

If they pay the donors - the government has no way of know if they did.

They also have no way of knowing if the donors pay back the expense they claimed.

They also have no way of knowing if the tax receipt was ever claimed with CRA.

It likely would go to Min of Fin; but at least it's back in taxpayers money pool where it started out.

What an f'ing mess.

[Slava]

I can't say that I would be at all surprised if other parties took money in this fashion without knowing though. I mean, sure its a surprise that anyone donates to the NDP or Alberta Party to begin with, but aside from that initial surprise!

[Resolute 14]

Well, the PCs can fix their own stupid law at any time (and as is always the case with campaign finance laws, one wonders if this was intended to hurt the opposition parties. Ironic if they were the only ones to get burned by it).

But there are a lot of words to describe telling people that what they are doing is okay when you wrote the very law that says it is not. Depending on how extreme your viewpoint on the matter is, those words range from incompetent to corrupt. In this case, I suspect the former is closer to reality.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Well, the PCs can fix their own stupid law at any time (and as is always the case with campaign finance laws, one wonders if this was intended to hurt the opposition parties. Ironic if they were the only ones to get burned by it).

But there are a lot of words to describe telling people that what they are doing is okay when you wrote the very law that says it is not. Depending on how extreme your viewpoint on the matter is, those words range from incompetent to corrupt. In this case, I suspect the former is closer to reality.

Again, my point isn't about whether the law was contravened though. Its a ridiculous law because the parties have no way of knowing whether they have contravened anything. The part about an employee claiming these events on their expense accounts is completely out of their control. Clearly if they provide advice and say "you can just do this..." then it's a different story. I have no idea how that could be proven though.

[Azure]

Yeah, but what would the WR Party do?

Huh? Huh?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yeah, but what would the WR Party do?

Huh? Huh?

Lol, that's the point. I know you're just goading me, but no party can control this.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

Lol, that's the point. I know you're just goading me, but no party can control this.

I agree. But don't you find it a tad incredible that the PC's were the only ones who managed to get into this situation?

As to the other scenario of direct illegal contributions, the Wildrose did have a case like that.

A nominated candidate (Maryann Chichak) discovered she had taken in an illegal donation. Upon discovery she returned the money and reported it accordingly. Thus avoiding an investigation and charges.

She took a lot of heat at the time. With people saying things like "...never would have returned it if it hadn't been caught." etc.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I agree. But don't you find it a tad incredible that the PC's were the only ones who managed to get into this situation?

As to the other scenario of direct illegal contributions, the Wildrose did have a case like that.

A nominated candidate (Maryann Chichak) discovered she had taken in an illegal donation. Upon discovery she returned the money and reported it accordingly. Thus avoiding an investigation and charges.

She took a lot of heat at the time. With people saying things like "...never would have returned it if it hadn't been caught." etc.

Sure, but the Tories getting caught stands to reason really. A lot of these donations are from a few years ago. At that point they were the only serious party in Alberta politics so they had bigger fundraisers with more people of importance thinking they should attend. If Brian Mason is in say Lethbridge I don't know if that has the same cache for civic employees as say Ed Stelmach?

It sounds more ominous when you say its only the Tories, but its not entirely surprising based on that alone.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

Sure, but the Tories getting caught stands to reason really. A lot of these donations are from a few years ago. At that point they were the only serious party in Alberta politics so they had bigger fundraisers with more people of importance thinking they should attend. If Brian Mason is in say Lethbridge I don't know if that has the same cache for civic employees as say Ed Stelmach?

It sounds more ominous when you say its only the Tories, but its not entirely surprising based on that alone.

These are from 2010/2011 and represent the completed investigations.

In 2010 WRP raised nearly 2 MIL compared to the PC's at 3 MIL

In 2011 WRP raised 2.7 MIL compared to the PC's at 3.4 MIL


If the PC's can rack up 45 confirmed violations surely the rate of illegal donations would be close for other parties raising high dollars amounts....

The WRP should have logged about 30.

[Slava]

I thought that these were from 2008, 2009.