Throwing good money after bad? No longer
From a Sheila Copps column:
According to Elections Canada, in their last annual filing, the Liberal Party of Canada was $34,818,257.32 in debt, by way of 13 bank loans. The Bloc Quebecois has more than $10 million in outstanding loans, mostly from the Caisse Desjardins. The NDP has several modest loans outstanding, totalling a little more than $3 million. The Conservatives are debt-free.
When I called the Chief Financial Officer of the Liberal Party, Lloyd Posno, he denied the party had a debt anywhere near $34.8 million, saying it was "impossible." He said the reporting mechanism for Elections Canada must be wrong, because he knew absolutely that the party's debt was much less than the amount cited on the website. He would not put a figure on the amount, saying that he was not authorized to speak publicly on money issues.
I then turned to Elections Canada, asking if they might have erred on the year-end financial statements they published for all political parties. They investigated my request and returned with a statement that the figures they published were completely accurate and were actually pursuant to the financial statements filed by each party.
How are the Liberals going to pay for ad time, for jet fuel, for promotional material, while so deep in debt?
If I was banker, I'd be looking at the polls and figuring that the Liberals are head for a loss or a reduced minority, at best. Not a good risk, especially with all the other loans.
As for donors, than source of cash is drying up too, according to Warren Kinsella:
December 8, 2005 - As is well-known in the Liberal Party of Canada, a recent campaign for Laurier Club donations went precisely nowhere (cf. the big Laurier Club event with the Prime Minister on November 10 at the Arcadian Court was supposed to see 1000 new members attend and raise $1 million - and it, um, did not ).
Two Liberal insiders, Chretien supporters to be sure, each with a reason to loathe Paul Martin. But Copps source of information is public. Kinsella's observations aren't independently verified, but it is telling that the Laurier Club is an exclusive organization the gives members access to cabinet ministers:
Instead, the Grits increasingly rely on their "Laurier Club" fundraising strategy. A $1,000 donation buys club membership; a $5,100 contribution earns the donor a so-called Laurier Plus status. Liberal party national director Steven MacKinnon says Laurier Club membership has bloomed from 500 in 2003 to 2,500 today. For $5,100, membership privileges include exclusive access to cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister at small, intimate gatherings.
If the Laurier Club is drying up, it's worse than it appears, and right now it appears pretty bad. These people have paid a lot of money to get the attention of powerful Liberals. That they can't be bothered to do so any longer makes me wonder if they've decided that the Liberals aren't much longer for the circles of power. No point in throwing good money after bad.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
This is the kind of stuff that should be front page gnus in the MSM starting 3 January 2006. The left has fallen and can't get up......other than lyin, stealing and cheating the average Canadian. Get this on the front pages ASAP
Posted by: themaj at December 24, 2005 01:42 PM
With that kind of debt load, how is the Liberal Party Of Canada going to pay their debt to Canada, for all the funds stolen from the taxpayers (ie:Adscam)? I sure as heck hope that they aren't planning on working it off.
Posted by: Paul MacPhail at December 24, 2005 02:11 PM
Where did all the ADSCAM money go? You would think that ADSCAMER Jean Lafleur, who at this moment is partying it up in Central America would send up a nice grey enveloppe full of cheer.
Does anybody know if the Liberal Party has repayed any of the funds they stole from Canadian taxpayers?
Will Gomery give a report telling us if the Liberals have repaid to the treasury the stolen money listed in Gomery's first report?
Many questions, which we will never know the answers to.
Posted by: dorionhawk at December 24, 2005 02:13 PM
Santa has $$$$$$$$. Donna you worry. >>>
Tim Denton and Invited Guests :: What are Paul Desmarais ...
John Rae, Alfonso Gagliano, and the Line of Credit. The Gomery Inquiry turns up
... "Was Mr. Rae acting on behalf of Power Corp. in guaranteeing the Quebec ...
tim.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2005/5/14/858003.html - 26k - Cached - Similar pages
Gomery: Letting the big =fish swim away
... cash-strapped Quebec wing needed money, a call would be made to John Rae, ...
Was Mr. Rae acting on behalf of Power Corp. in guaranteeing the Quebec ...
www.canadafreepress.com/2005/duff051305.htm - 8k - Cached - Similar pages
A TOP TEN LIST OF GOMERY HYPOCRISY
But the Commission chose not to call John Rae. ... and yet the evidence that
demonstrated that the money power and the political power of the LPC (Q) was in ...
www.canadafreepress.com/2005/wajsman110205.htm - 34k -
Posted by: maz2 at December 24, 2005 02:39 PM
If I were a Liberal party spokesperson I would say that this is proof that the party didnt get the money.
However, I am not and I would say that what got donated in cash stayed in cash and/or that it went to individual campaigns and not the party...all the while never transforming itself from cash to electronic form in this country.
I suspect it is sitting in some home safes, mattresses or sunning itself in a tax haven somewhere.
Posted by: Stephen at December 24, 2005 03:06 PM
Or how about an alternative explanation? A party that has demonstrated its disregard for the laws is also a party that can ignore the law when it comes to future donations. It's just a question of laundering the money better this time.
Why doesn't Paul Martin answer Gilles Duceppe's question as to which Liberal MPs benefitted from the under the table donations from the corruption scandal? Perhaps because his name would top the list?
Posted by: Patrick at December 24, 2005 03:58 PM
Get Bowelinda to cover the tab, with some of the monthly allowance $$$ she gets from Papa...
Posted by: Raymond Hietapakka at December 24, 2005 05:22 PM
I wonder if this is why P-Dawg put the election in two electoral contribution cycles (2005-2006)? Maybe he thought he'd be able to raise more money?
I hope they go BRIZZOKE, but I'm sure they can shore up some PowerCorp, Magna, CSL cash to keep the campaign afloat.
~B
Posted by: Blogette at December 24, 2005 05:38 PM
Wonder this is why our trustworthy Prime Minister refused to proffer a copy of a validated cheque that the Lieberals had supposedly paid the Treasury as their pay-back identified (somehow, somewhere) by The Gomery report.
Only in a Banana Republic like this can a criminal gang decide arbitrarily the amount of money they were caught looting from the tax-payer, then SAY they paid it all back, but refuse to give proof.
Posted by: Alienated at December 24, 2005 06:23 PM
Well, at least the Libranos are consistent. They can't run their party finances any better than they can run the country's....
Please donate your time and money to the CPC or to your local Conservative candidate. Let's end the Librano madness now....
Posted by: Moving to Alberta at December 25, 2005 01:35 AM
Patrick,
You've asked the question that has been bothering me for SO LONG! Who are the Liberals who benefitted from Adscam (could Martin be one of them)? Because if he was that would blow his alibi all to crap.
And why hasn't Elections Canada investigated this? Don't they have a mandate to be involved do to the electoral issues and fund raising?
How many people are so immersed in this whole culture of corruption that we can't seem to get the simplest and most straight forward (i.e. commonsensical) actions on.
Hell, the National Citizens' Council gets taken all the way to the Supreme Court on 3rd party election issues (which involves it trying to spend its own money to advertise during an election) and the Election-folks seem incapable of even addressing admitted illegalities on behalf of the Liberals and their flunkies.
The only reason that I can come up with is that people in key places are intentionally closing their eyes to it all in the hope that it all goes away (or the Liberals get returned to power where/when they can go back to the way things were!).
I am of two minds:
a. the Conservatives win (will make me feel better); or
b. the Liberals win again. This will set off a whole chain of events here in Alberta that will involve a leadership review of the provincial Alberta party. Replacement of King Ralph by a charasmatic leader who is hell-bent on getting Ottawa out of Alberta or Alberta out of Canada. There will be an EXTREMELY strong undercurrent of resentment that I feel will lead to the loss of this jurisdiction from Canada. That is something that I would vote for and leave Ontario to live with the mess that they seem to desire.
Dear Santa Claus,
(I can only wish).
Merry Christmas,
Ed the Hun
Posted by: EdtheHun at December 25, 2005 02:55 AM
SDA has more on this subject. Ms Copps may have confused revolving loans to balance sheet debt. A review of the 2004 LPC A/R suggests that they were about $3M in debt, not $34M.
Posted by: anon at December 25, 2005 11:51 AM
"The Conservatives are debt-free."
You'd think that would tell people something.
Posted by: Jay at December 25, 2005 06:34 PM
 
|
|
