- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
Amazing that the national press don't play this issue a lot Shane. Imagine the coverage if it were the NDP. And a Liberal equivalent would have brought the house down. Literally & figuratively! Go figure! Where are the opposition spin meisters?
OK Shane, but we all remember Bingogate as well. At election time we don't always see the best of judgement when decisions are made on the fly. Like any other competition, the desire to win causes foolish decisions. It's a people thing, not a party thing.
Not surprisingly I’m going to throw my two cents in here because this entire postings shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the original story. Specifically, Mr. Tyson seems utterly confused as to what the numbers in the story actually represent.
As is clear from the story the CPC and the regulator differed on whether the convention fees should be considered a political donation. The CPC thought no but were informed that their interpretation was incorrect. When informed that their interpretation was incorrect they then had to calculate the cost of the convention and figure out how much of that cost was paid for in donations (convention fees that were now considered reportable) and what was covered through other means (cash and in-kind donations).
The Canadian press story indicates that The Conservatives have "reclassified revenue related to the 2005 convention," disclosing an additional $539,915 in previously unreported donations, an extra $913,710 in "other revenue," and an additional $1.45 million in "other expenses."
A quick flash of the calculator shows that what the CPC did was to calculate the cost to put on the convention (the $1.45 million in “other expenses”) and then offset the cost with $539,915 in convention fees (called in this case previously unreported donations). For accounting purposes they then had to come up with another number (the difference) which was the extra $913,710 in "other revenue". To add the “other expenses” with the “other revenue” as Mr. Dyson does is simply a mistake, these are values intended to offset each other for book-keeping purposes. There never was and never will be “huge pile of cash to try and hide” and to indicate such is a clear mis-reading of the story.
To make it simpler imagine that you pay $5 to buy a burger, you count that as an expense, the burger joint counts it as revenue. The $5 expense on one side of the ledger is offset by the $5 of revenue on the other. To add the two together and say there is $10 in “expense plus revenue” is a clear indication that someone doesn’t understand book-keeping.
As for why the press has not trumpeted out the $2 million value that so worries Mr. Dyson, LFP, well that would be because apparently they understand book-keeping.
My apologies Shane that should have read Mr. Dyson in the first paragraph....no ear biters here.
Commenting by HaloScan
