[Alberta Politics] Ever heard of the Tapcal Trust?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

And you as usual are defending everything PC. But you're not a supporter.

I'm only defending this because its totally legal. If you want my true opinion of electoral finance and disclosure, its a complete joke. But that is a whole other issue and whole other discussion. You seem to be against this purely on the basis that its the PCs. Where was this outrage when Harper and the federal CPC had the same fund come to light last spring?

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Dude you are too predictable. I don't see how anyone can be advocating for less transparency when it comes to political spending, but your position seems to be "well we don't know if it's bad, so it should be fine".

They were banned for a reason, likely due to lack of transparency and the party who banned them exempted their own trust. I don't know how you think this is okay, material amounts or otherwise.

I don't necessarily think its OK. I just don't know enough about it to really say. I don't why it was outlawed, but I do know that it was grandfathered. If the arrangement was so terrible and devious, why was it allowed to continue? If it was such an amazing vehicle that provided so much of a benefit, why didn't any other party hold one?

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

Where was this outrage when Harper and the federal CPC had the same fund come to light last spring?

Huh?

[Kjesse]

I really don't care that it's legal, that is not the problem here. Its legal because the party in power allowed themselves to keep it. Giving themselves advantages over other parties should not be allowed. They basically said, lets clamp down on these kinds of funds going forward, but we can keep ours forever.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Huh?

He's referring to the senate scandal and the fund that the CPC allegedly used to pay Duffy's expenses back with. It is, as usual, a deflection tactic. And if I go find the senate scandal thread, I wonder what Slava's opinion might have been? Something tells me that I wont find "meh, no big deal".

Besides, it's an apples to oranges comparison. If the Conservatives can operate such a fund federally, so too can the Liberals, NDP, Bloc, etc. They don't have a self-serving grandfathered fund that is illegal for everyone else like the provincial Tories do.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

If you secure a 1.6 million dollar loan against it, I GUARANTEE there's more than a couple thousand in there.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most business LOC's are only up to 70% of their asset value (depending on the institution).

Or even 50%, which is far more than the $8k people are suggesting they draw from it.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

He's referring to the senate scandal and the fund that the CPC allegedly used to pay Duffy's expenses back with. It is, as usual, a deflection tactic. And if I go find the senate scandal thread, I wonder what Slava's opinion might have been? Something tells me that I wont find "meh, no big deal".

Besides, it's an apples to oranges comparison. If the Conservatives can operate such a fund federally, so too can the Liberals, NDP, Bloc, etc. They don't have a self-serving grandfathered fund that is illegal for everyone else like the provincial Tories do.

There are huge differences here to be sure. I brought this up because Jacks mentioned that every political party in the country is disclosing everything, when clearly they're not! That was a blatant example.

I do think that parties should have to disclose a lot more than they do, but I also think that electoral finance should be a lot more regulated and reviewed than it is currently regardless of that disclosure.

I love that you noted that every other party could have that kind of fund federally, but ignore that other parties could've run the same kind of fund provincially. Why is that? Aside from the fact that it would've happened before 1977 why couldn't the Liberals, NDP or Socreds have set up a trust like this?

[smoothpops]

Originally Posted by Slava

There are huge differences here to be sure. I brought this up because Jacks mentioned that every political party in the country is disclosing everything, when clearly they're not! That was a blatant example.

I do think that parties should have to disclose a lot more than they do, but I also think that electoral finance should be a lot more regulated and reviewed than it is currently regardless of that disclosure.

I love that you noted that every other party could have that kind of fund federally, but ignore that other parties could've run the same kind of fund provincially. Why is that? Aside from the fact that it would've happened before 1977 why couldn't the Liberals, NDP or Socreds have set up a trust like this?

I agree with pretty much everything you said (in this post), right up until the last paragraph. While i'm completely not ok with this fund, more information needs to seen before judgement is made. so far though, the optics of it are terrible. Why other parties' collections of funds were made illegal and the pc's using their leadership position to secretly keep their (unregulated) fund going for the last 40+ years, is pretty ridiculous!

the whole party is a mess, It isn't just one person, it seems to systemic. I'm guessing this is what happens when power is unchecked for 40+ years. I just wish there were more viable options than just 2 parties in this province.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Slava

There are huge differences here to be sure. I brought this up because Jacks mentioned that every political party in the country is disclosing everything, when clearly they're not! That was a blatant example.

I do think that parties should have to disclose a lot more than they do, but I also think that electoral finance should be a lot more regulated and reviewed than it is currently regardless of that disclosure.

I love that you noted that every other party could have that kind of fund federally, but ignore that other parties could've run the same kind of fund provincially. Why is that? Aside from the fact that it would've happened before 1977 why couldn't the Liberals, NDP or Socreds have set up a trust like this?

Am I taking crazy pills? What is your point that other parties could have set it up before 1977? That still prejudices newer parties like the WRA, Green, Marijuana, whatever. It shouldn't exist at all.

I'm only defending this because its totally legal. If you want my true opinion of electoral finance and disclosure, its a complete joke. But that is a whole other issue and whole other discussion. You seem to be against this purely on the basis that its the PCs. Where was this outrage when Harper and the federal CPC had the same fund come to light last spring?

It's only legal because the governing party of this province for the last 50 years made theirs legal.

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

[smoothpops]

also, does anyone else see a running parallel between; their party finances and their secret fund and the provincial budget and the heritage fund?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Am I taking crazy pills? What is your point that other parties could have set it up before 1977? That still prejudices newer parties like the WRA, Green, Marijuana, whatever. It shouldn't exist at all.



It's only legal because the governing party of this province for the last 50 years made theirs legal.

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

I really don't know, so let me ask: was this grandfathered only for the PC's or was it for everyone and only applied to the PC's? That's the main question IMO.

Let me just say point blank that if it was outlawed for everyone except the PC's then I think it's totally wrong. If any party could've taken advantage of this but didn't, then how can you fault the PC's?

This doesn't change my view that the electoral finance act needs to be rewritten. I think that there are too many loopholes and issues waiting for exploitation in general.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by smoothpops

also, does anyone else see a running parallel between; their party finances and their secret fund and the provincial budget and the heritage fund?

Yup, and that will be an avenue of attack for the Liberals, NDP and Wildrose. As will questions of "what else are they hiding?"

[killer_carlson]

I think a lot of party supporters want to know how much the PC party paid to top up Redford's salary?

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Slava

I really don't know, so let me ask: was this grandfathered only for the PC's or was it for everyone and only applied to the PC's? That's the main question IMO.

Let me just say point blank that if it was outlawed for everyone except the PC's then I think it's totally wrong. If any party could've taken advantage of this but didn't, then how can you fault the PC's?

This doesn't change my view that the electoral finance act needs to be rewritten. I think that there are too many loopholes and issues waiting for exploitation in general.

There is more than that though. Did they wait for a moment when they had a ton of cash in their trust and then make all future contributions illegal?

As well, they are the ones who decided that the funds were not a good idea and proceeded to ban them going forward. So the PC party banned something that they use but it is okay because they were grandfathered in.

Either the funds are wrong and no one should have one or the funds are not wrong and everyone should have the option of having one. They can't stand up and make a law banning them while continuing to use them and tell everyone that it is okay.

[Jacks]

We don't even know if the fund is still being contributed to or if it solely exists off of the funds that were in it prior to the banning. If it is still being contributed to that would be a very interesting list of donors. It's bad enough that they are allowed to have this fund and nobody else can but it's even worse that Elections Alberta has no information about it.

Edit:
Just reading some of the documents now.
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/215...ew_mode=scroll
As of 2007 there hadn't been any new contributions to the fund since 1993.

[Slava]

Well you're right GPMatt, but this is seriously ancient history. It's almost 40 years ago, so it's not like this was something that the PC's just did.

I might as well disclose that I bought a membership in a party in the last couple weeks, and it's not the PC's. That said, I really can't fault them for this current situation. If they haven't been contributing then the rule says they don't have to disclose anything. It's a dumb law, and should be changed, but the same could be said about a lot of the electoral finance laws.

[taco.vidal]

Ancient history? They've been using it in recent election campaigns. Nice spin though.

Originally Posted by Slava

Well you're right GPMatt, but this is seriously ancient history. It's almost 40 years ago, so it's not like this was something that the PC's just did.

I might as well disclose that I bought a membership in a party in the last couple weeks, and it's not the PC's. That said, I really can't fault them for this current situation. If they haven't been contributing then the rule says they don't have to disclose anything. It's a dumb law, and should be changed, but the same could be said about a lot of the electoral finance laws.

[AndyL]

well... they're not using it... per-se...

They're using it's existence as collateral to borrow against... So they insure they get a pretty much <1% loan - as it's basically secured.

[Jacks]

They also transfer some interest from it into general party coffers.

[GGG]

I am a little confused by this issue?

Is this just an undisclosed amount of money that they had lying around from the seventies?

I assume that they cant continue to add to this fund. If people can still donate to it and not disclose then this is an issue. If this is just money that had no disclosure associated with it in the seventies and has been allowed to collect interest then why is it in an issue. It appears they have to disclose when ever they use the fund either removing money or borrowing against it so all benefits are disclosed.

As far as I can tell the PCs were a rich party in the seventies and had a bunch of money which they recieved prior to disclosure rules. So disclosure rules are added and the PCs have to do something with this money. They probably cant legally state where it came from without violating the privacy of the doner. So they could move it into general funds and it would be able to be used without anykind of oversight or it could be put into a fund where if it is used in any manner it is disclosed by the party. So provided that no new contributions are added to the trust as the PC party has said I see no issue.

This reeks of opportunism, where has this story been in the last 40 years. Everytime the fund is used it is disclosed so this information has been out there. To resolve this issue I think the PCs should disolve this trust and just put it into their general revenues. I suspect the opposition would object to this as it woukd give the PCs access to more money then they have no.

Edit: It appears the wild rose have known about the trust since 2012.

[GGG]

So I cant sleep so I dug out bill 24 from the 1977 legislature. Every bill ever is online. There are 57 pages which I didnt read but it appears section 2 addresses the trust.

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/ISYS/LADDA...4_bill-024.pdf

(2) Except as provided in subsecti'On (3), this Act does not apply to funds of a constituency associati'On
('a) held in trust at the commencemenrt of this section, 'Or
(b) raised not more than 30 days after the commence- ment Q1f this section at or in connection with a fund-raising function organized becfore the com- mencem'ent Q1f this section and that are placed in trust,
for the purposes of the constituency as'Soci~.;mon or the future candidacy 'Of any person at an el'ecti'On or a future election oomp!aign of any perslon.
(3) The trustee or trustees of each trust referred to in subsection (2)
shall, within 60 days after the c'Ommencement of this seCition, repQlrt in writing to the Chief Elec- toral Officer the existence of any trust the value of which exceeds $2,500,
shall m1aintain the funds remaining in the trust from time to time on depos'it with a financi'aJ insti- tution or invest those funds in authorized trustee investments under The Trustee Act, shiall not permit funds or other property to be added to the trust other than interest on the amounts 'On deposlit or the income from the invest- ments referred to in clause (b),

So based on the legislation, it copied poorly so go read the link. Money raised before 30 days after the bill passing could be held in trust but after that point in time no money aside from interest could be added. The existance of these trusts needed to be disclosed at the time. And whenever the trust is used it has to be disclosed.

What more disclosure do people want. Also if I can dig out the bill and read the requirements the media could do a lot better job.

Also in the bill it appears that the money a party has before it is formed is also excempt from disclosure and held in a similar type of trust. I might me reading part 2 section 5 of the bill wrong though. So it appears any new party can start with a trust from undisclosed donors.