Neither did they declare third-party sending/financing'publications during the election:
http://bestandbetter.blogspot.co...ere-
scheme.html
The rule of law is, you publish it during an election you put your name on it and declare it.
Eugene, before you wear yourself out posting that useless link, you may want to do some more research on what the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada actually had to say on the subject. Welcome to Web 2.0
So what do you have to say about your party illegally accepting millions in campaign contributions BBS?
*crickets chirp*
Read my blog, it's all there.
Thanks for this. I've done a round-up blog post to catch the morning cycle.
*crickets chirp*
Nothing there on his site
... crunch ... crunch... sound of CPC walking across grass with $1.7 million in the bag.
Section 408 of the Elections Act:
If a fund-raising activity is held for the primary purpose of soliciting a monetary contribution for a registered party, a registered association, a candidate, a leadership contestant or a nomination contestant by way of selling a ticket, the amount of the monetary contribution received is the difference between the price of the ticket and the fair market value of what the ticket entitles the bearer to obtain.
As long as the convention cost more than $600 per head, there was no donation, ergo there was no breach of the funding laws.
Go to the Elections Act. Find the portion that says that the party must make a profit from the convention for the ticket prices to be considered a 'contribution'.
Find me the word profit in the act?
You seriously want to claim that after charging 2900+ $600 to $750 each, with the assorted other efforts to fundraise that the CPoC actually lost money during it's convention? That it cost more than 1.7 Million dollars + merchandizing + the ritzy parties held by various candidates to promote themselves and the party, that the CPoC did not actually come out ahead?
Fine.
All the CPOC has to do is prove it.
Publish the financial reports from the convention for everybody to see.
And by the way, why hasn't the CPOC submited it's final financial statements to Elections Canada for 2005 yet?
Hmmm, money that is spent is no longer a donation..... Boy, we should revoke all those tax receipts from those who have had their money spent on campaign trips et al.
Until the CPC decided it didn't count, all the moneys gathers at such an event that didn't directly go to a service provided(i.e. hotel room included in the fee) was purchasing nothing of intrinsic value except political capital and therefore *IS* a donation.
Bah, don't even try to justify it, you're just making yourself look bad.
CPoC convention delegates paid their own transporation, lodging, meals, and misc costs… the convention fee was nearly all profit to the CPC… and as Election Canada has now judged, the convention was an undeclared political donation to the CPoC… there was no commercial value to the attendees… the attendees paid extra for anything of commercial value… and those are the facts.
Actually, I'll grant that the Cons may have a couple of arguable defences - either that they were right in saying that they didn't profit from their convention, or at least that they acted reasonably if they were wrong.
But even if those defences apply, there's no excuse for the issue to have come out in the way that it did. The only way to resolve the questions now will be through a thorough investigation of the type that will likely lead to months of speculation before anything gets resolved. And as PMPM learned, even somebody who's largely vindicated personally by such a process is far from immune from its effects.
Jurist,
You are entirely wrong. See post 53 and 54
http://myblahg.com/?p=983#comments
The CPoC knew entirely the costs and the tax donation issue surrounding the convention registration fee.
The only thing they were actually worried about was how to get receipts for additional expenses beyond the registration fee.
Eugene: Interesting material for sure, but I'm not sure it makes the defences any less arguable for anybody but the people responsible for the e-mail. Note also that I'd see a huge difference between "arguable" and "undoubtedly successful"; it'll ultimately all come down to who's believed as to what.
Jurist,
As far as scope of responsibility... most are from CPoC board execs and national councillors or former councillors (they have legal accountability and responsibility), the audience is National Councillors, MPs, constituency pres, members, and official party spokesperson, which generally is often the same as the writer....
When it is in "black and white" in the law, "black and white" in party e-mails, the had confessed to an "error", they are apparently did worse to gain tax receipts, and worse to over spend during the election... the only people believing CPoC spin doctor press are the CPoC spin doctors... Elections Canada has already spoken!
I see a cabinet shuffle, another press team change, and more war talk for the summer.
There should be a rev can audit of the 3000 attendees and the CPoC.
Commenting by HaloScan
