. . . that no one knows how donations are being spent is just one reason voters might be concerned.

Why? The only people that should be concerned are the people doing the donating, and why is it our responsibility to tell them how to spend their own money?

Elections Canada's finance rules are supposed to stop special interest groups from using big spending to promote narrow agendas, by limiting donation sizes and making contributions publicly known -- measures that don't apply to "de-elections."

These are the same spending rules that you have railed against in the past, right? Show a little backbone and either stand up for the principle that there shouldn't be rules about spending limits, or admit your own partisanship.

Shouldn't Vancouver-Kingsway residents know which groups are trying to influence their riding's politics -- even in a de-election?

Wow! Nanny-statism at its worst. Don't trust the voters to be able to make up their own minds -- the special interest groups are making them up for them, right?

Come on, Angry. If people want to spend their money on a movement to recall Emerson, what is it our business? Why are you defending anti-democratic, nanny-statist spending controls and behaviour modification rules? And why would you use Emerson as the hill to die on -- the guy was elected by virtue of the party he belonged to, and then switched.

Both he, and you, should show a little bit more respect for both the democratic process and for voters.

Posted by: bob at May 18, 2006 04:26 PM

---

True Investigative Journalism By Angry
When moonbats like these, or when the Polaris Institute publishes it pap, bloggers like Angry do the goog and find out how biased they are, and quiets the noise.

Posted by: Brian Lemon at May 18, 2006 04:44 PM

---

"If people want to spend their money on a movement to recall Emerson, what is it our business?"

You are absooutely right, bob. Of course, the same thing applies to general elections and byelections, too, doesn't it?

Posted by: DCardno at May 18, 2006 04:54 PM

---

It looks like a lot of the people named are on the left...just like 80% of the voters in Vancouver-Kingsway. Now I wonder what would get them all riled up?

Posted by: steve d. at May 18, 2006 04:55 PM

---

You are absooutely right, bob. Of course, the same thing applies to general elections and byelections, too, doesn't it?

You bet it does. But apparently some folks (Angry?) only want to argue against it when it is politically expedient.

Posted by: bob at May 18, 2006 05:42 PM

---

I also find it amazing that he is characterizing these as "hidden enemies" and that Brian is calling Angry's post "True Investigative Journalism".

As Angry points out, it was the guys who hired the airplane that, themselves, published the donor list.

This is hidden? This took investigation to uncover?

Puh-leeze.

Posted by: bob at May 18, 2006 05:47 PM

---

bob has a point, Steve.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 18, 2006 05:48 PM

---

"But apparently some folks (Angry?) only want to argue against it when it is politically expedient"

bob,
Could it be that, even if one disagrees with a particular legislation, we can all agree that there should be a level playing field? Despite what anyone thinks or wants, the liberals put the rules in place regarding election spending. The looney left are circumventing their own laws by acting as a coalition.

steve d,
You may be right about the politics of the majority of V-K constituents (but I sincerely doubt it. I'd be interested in seeing where you get your number from). There may or may not be a byelection in that riding. There will be a federal election sooner or later. Those 80% of which you speak can make their decision whether or not they want representation in the new Conservative government, at that time.

Posted by: Rob R at May 18, 2006 05:54 PM

---

Well David Emmerson was right about one thing -- they were partisan zealots. They can spend their money wherever they feel best.
Actually I couldn't care less who funded that particular stunt, however this horse is dead. I didn't like it when Scott Brison and Belinda did it, and I don't like it when Emmerson did it. However, it is not against the rules. It is the rules that have to change. I would suggest you send letters to your MP and get them to do something about it on the hill. Otherwise I guarantee it will happen again. I have sent at least 5 emails to my conservative MP over the last 2 months. Hopefully if it comes to a vote, he will vote the right way. Heck, put the bug in happy Jack's ear -- look how fast he got a debate and vote on troop deployment in Afghanistan!

Posted by: morison at May 18, 2006 06:22 PM

---

Like many people who are against the Election Canada spending rules, I -- and I imagine Steve is included in this -- simply point out that there is a dual standard being applied. Either Elections Canada should step in and apply the law to these people, or Elections Canada should acknowledge that the law is bunk.

Steve is not the hypocrite in this situation. Steve is only pointing out Elections Canada's hypocrisy via the Western Standard article. I would rather that Elections Canada's rules regarding what I do with my money to be overturned so that I could do whatever I want with my donations. But, if they aren't going to let me do whatever I want, they better be willing to stand up and do the same when other people step on the rules.

Is is hypocritical to point out a double standard? Or is that simply a person asking for fair treatment?

You know the answer Bob and Dawg... don't be petty and obnoxious.

Posted by: Surecure at May 18, 2006 08:16 PM

---

"But apparently some folks (Angry?) only want to argue against it when it is politically expedient."

Yes - but it's the other folks who get to call in the RCMP and throw you in the slammer. If you think that the 'de-elect Emerson' campaign is entitled to unlimited funding, then I expect to see you making the same argument for all political campaigns - not just when it is politically expedient for you

Posted by: Deaner at May 18, 2006 10:28 PM

---

I'm sorry Steve, let me clarify. You're saying that these people should not be allowed to express their opposition to a politician? Is that your position?

You may disagree with what they're saying, but please defend their right to say it. Whoever they are. Communists, Liberals, Palistinians, Greens, Executives, and anti-Olympians all enjoy the same liberties as you and I.

Posted by: Bowie at May 18, 2006 10:30 PM

---

Deaner,

I did already make that argument, in my response to Dcardno's question. I don't want spending limits anywhere. And neither does Steve (is my guess) -- I just wish he'd apply his own standard all the time.

Surecure. The point of Steve's article was not to point out that hypocricy -- that would have been a good article though. Alas, at no point does he complain about election spending limits during elections. Instead, he complains that such limits are not being applied outside elections, and that this is somehow hurting both Emerson and the voters.

Read his last two sentences. Does this sound like someone who doesn't want limits, or someone who wants them expanded? It sure sounds like the latter to me.

Posted by: bob at May 18, 2006 10:46 PM

---

Bob - while you are certainly right about the democratic process and free speech etc. etc. - Angry is simply bringing forward the facts that many of these "angry constituents" are in fact people who have an axe to grind with the Tory government for one thing or another. This is simply another example of activism.

It would be very interesting to see if the "anger" would have abated if these self-proclaimed "angry - constituents" were not using this matter as a platform to keep their agenda's front page.

Come on Bob - it is soooooo painfully obvious that this a partisan exercise - take off your rose colored glasses and take Angry's post for what it is - bringing forth information that shines a light on this tiresome exercise.

Posted by: Alberta Girl at May 19, 2006 06:40 AM

---

Geez, for a story the dextro-avian moonbats said had no legs whatsoever, you sure seem to be interested in keeping it running.

Must be something to it after all. Altogether now (singing), "Whatever Lola wants, Lola gets. And little man, little Lola wants you."

Posted by: McQuandary at May 19, 2006 07:28 AM

---

Angry is simply bringing forward the facts that many of these "angry constituents" are in fact people who have an axe to grind with the Tory government for one thing or another. This is simply another example of activism.

Gosh, to think that people opposed to an undemocratic action that effectively nullifies the franchise are left-wing! Who knew?

And left-wingers are activists! I hope Angry and Alberta Girl have had the good sense to alert Homeland Sec...er, CSIS.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 19, 2006 08:58 AM

---

Oh man, get real.

Steve didn't just publish their "lefty qualifications". Instead, he simultaneously argued--among other things--"... that no one knows how donations are being spent is just one reason voters might be concerned."

Balderdash! It isn't the voters money! It's the doners money -- all of whom identified themselves. Hardly "hidden activism".

I don't mind Steve complaining that all of these guys are non-riding partisan hacks that should mind their own business. Good on him for doing so. But I'm a bit confused why he thinks that Elections Canada should be stepping in.

He concluded: "Shouldn't Vancouver-Kingsway residents know which groups are trying to influence their riding's politics -- even in a de-election? Until Elections Canada says so, the best we can do . . ."

Get that? He is arguing that Elections Canada should institute rules and regulations on how people should be able to protest outside of an election. As if it isn't bad enough during an election. Now he wants us to have to register our names and keep our receipts in order to complain about the government at any time? Is this really what we want? If so, it's a strange breed of conservatism that grows around these parts.

Posted by: bob at May 19, 2006 10:30 AM

---

The government has rules for everything, including protests.

The groups can protest all they want. They can picket, heckle public appearances, write letters and spam. However when a group raises funds to undertake a mass media political campaign, Elections Canada, has the right to review the group's fund raising and spending... For all we know the ring leaders of this little circus could be granting themselves a salary... Which would be perfectly legal - but it does give them another motive to keep the issue alive.

Posted by: Curtis at May 19, 2006 11:48 AM

---

Actually the de-elect Emerson folks have become more than a joke. Kind of like the WWII Japanese soldiers who hid out in jungles for 20 years refusing to believe that the war was over. Everyone needs a hobby, and if they want to spend their time endlessly lobbying for something that's never going to happen, so be it. Observing their machinations is more entertaining than most TV sit-coms.

Posted by: Bruce at May 19, 2006 12:26 PM

---

The theme here sounds like the outside agitator complaint gone mad. Nobody is allowed to complain who has an interest, and if they do not, why then they are outside agitators and have no business sticking their nose in..;...

The sobering social fact that the saga of Emerson and other recent party jumpers illustrates is that politics in Canada is being hollowed out. One can see this in the numbers Statscan has produced based on the 2001 census on the distribution of income.

Of the people who file tax returns more than one half have incomes of $23000 or less. The share of that group in total national income has DROPPED between 1990 and 2001 from 19% to 16.9%.
And here is a true blow to the gut: The 10% of tax
filers who had the highest incomes saw their share of national income RISE from 31.7 to 35.7 % lin the same period. And those in between? They lost or stood still.
These numbers are absolutely devastating, given the short period covered. Where the poor are beling plunged deeper into despair, the middle classes are going no where, and the rich are becomeing outright bandits, there is plenty of cause for frustration and rage, but little for constructive political action. You can build or even maintain a democracy on numbers like that.

Posted by: garhane at May 19, 2006 12:50 PM

---

Error: last sentence should say "You cannot build..."
And the source is a statscan study called "Federal Personal INcome Tax; Slicing the Pie" by Martineau Cat no. 11-621-Mie --no. 024.
Data summary see page 7

Posted by: garhane at May 19, 2006 12:54 PM

---

BobR
Sooner or later the 80% will get what they voted for in Jan 06? That's a comfort to them I am sure.
Until the Spring of 08 the voters will just have to stuff it. I already know the Emerson plan. If he looks weak and unable to be re-elected he will end up the the Senate.
The 80%is the combined Liberal and NDP vote in Vancouver/Kingsway.

Posted by: steve d. at May 19, 2006 02:26 PM

---

Iam a statistical anomaly then. My income has gone from 18 000 to 35 000 in the past 2 years.

Iam a crook? because my income nearly doubled?

How about we try this on for size:

People with low incomes, largely have themselves to blame, they didnt attend any post-secondary education, they havent continued to upgrade their skills thru Adult Continuing Education. In short they havent kept pace with the skills that employers demand of the new workforce.

After finishing school it took me 7 years to land my first career related job. During those 7 years, I took every form of crappy dead end job I could find to make ends meet and pay off my useless student loans. Iam really sick and tired of those people who are stuck in the dead end life, blaming the world for their poverty, for their lack of achievement, for basically everything that has gone wrong in their sorry, pointless lives...

So stop whining about the lack of income growth in the low end of the scale, get an education and move up the scale... Dont demand the scale be moved so that your lazy ass can live a middle-class TV-sit-com lifestyle as a short order cook.

Posted by: Curtis at May 19, 2006 03:07 PM

---

Garhane:
Tax filing is complicated by the fact that there are reasons to file a return even when one is not taxable, typically to qualify for means-tested programs or credits, or to establish RRSP room. In addition, individual income is less relevant than household income - a low-income or non-earning person can enjoy a pretty nice life if they are a member of a household with adequate household income.

In another StatsCan study they determined the percentage of households living below the "Low Income Cut-Off" or LICO. The usual caveat applies; LICO is not a poverty line, since it measures relative income levels instead of absolute inability to obtain the necessities of life. At the same time, movements in relative indicators are still relevant. Look at http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060330/d060330a.htm - you'll have to scroll down about half to two-thirds of the page. There are two tables dealing with incidence of 'low income' (I'd paste them, but I am not sure how it would come out...): Low Income Rates by Family Types and Percentage of Persons in Low Income.

Every singe family type showed a decrease in the percentage living below the LICO between 1996 and 2004 every one - Economic families, two persons or more; Senior families; Non-senior couples without children; Two-parent families with children; Female lone-parent families; and Single persons. Similarly, the proportion of people in low income declined - again, across the board. I find it difficult to accept your contention that the poorest in Canada are doing increasingly less well, and in any event, do not believe that this represents "politics being hollowed out" or in any way reflects upon Emerson's decision to cross the floor of the House.

Posted by: DCardno at May 19, 2006 03:59 PM

---

Sorry - I should clarify one comment above: "Deaner" and "DCardno" are the same person -or at least they were the last time I checked. It was not an attempt to argue by sock puppet; just different "rememebr personal info" cookies on different machines. Apologies to bob (inter alia perhaps) for any confusion

Posted by: DCardno at May 19, 2006 04:14 PM

---

If this is the biggest thorn in Harper's side, I am quite happy to sit back and watch. When the Tories win a majority government next time, the Emerson issue will be put to bed.

I laughed when I saw the list of people. You gotta love BC. It's like a cereal, what isn't a fruit or a nut is a flake.

Posted by: jmo at May 19, 2006 04:36 PM

---

"Does this sound like someone who doesn't want limits, or someone who wants them expanded? It sure sounds like the latter to me."

Give it up Bob. Pointing out that a de-election campaign is as political as an election campaign is not hypocrisy. Pointing out that rules about political campaigns should be applied without exception is not hypocrisy.

It doesn't matter whether he explicitly said that they should apply the rules or cancel them. The point is that the law is not being applied. And thus, a law is broken. One doesn't have to explicitly call something hypocritical for what that person is saying to make that implication.

Did you never take high school English?

Posted by: Surecure at May 20, 2006 11:02 AM

---

LMAO jmo! I love that line!

Posted by: Surecure at May 20, 2006 11:08 AM

---

It doesn't matter whether he explicitly said that they should apply the rules or cancel them.

Except that sometimes he says they should cancel them and sometimes he says they should expand them -- depending on when it suits his argument. Not exactly principled.

The point is that the law is not being applied. And thus, a law is broken.

Ummm, what? Which law is being broken exactly? There is no law against protesting the government outside of an election, and nor should there be. Or are you actually advocating increasing the government's control over our democratic rights of free speach? Really?

Did you never take high school English?

Terrific argument. I'm not sure how it applies to anything that is being discussed, but at least it made me laugh.

Posted by: Bob at May 20, 2006 01:39 PM

---

Amazing how the advocates for "less government" want more and more of it when the government is acting for them. Today, a "recall Emerson" campaign should be subject to regulation; tomorrow, allow protest only if its licensed. What's next? A firearms registry? :)

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 20, 2006 01:49 PM

---

Er...that's "it's." Must be my lack of high school English.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 20, 2006 02:12 PM

---

Steved: 80% is not the combined Liberal/NDP vote in Vancouver-Kingsway; you must be adding Green votes as well. I get your point, though: you're claiming that everyone who voted for Emerson really meant to vote for a generic 'leftist candidate' instead, and is 'all riled up' that the candidate he actually voted for is a Conservative cabinet minister instead. It's not enough for you to claim that you do know these voters' minds and can speak for them; there's also a requirement on you to support a claim like that, for it to be believable.

bob: The Campaign to De-Elect Emerson has not identified its membership or the source of its funding. The group that disclosed that information was Manuel Pereda's breakaway faction Message in the Air - it's plausible that the same people are funding both groups, but that's only an inference as no one knows who's funding Mike Watkins' CDEE.

Dr. Dawg: You spoke of 'an undemocratic action that effectively nullifies the franchise'. Yet it seems that you are one of those calling for the Member of Parliament who was just elected to be thrown out and his seat be declared vacant pending a new election. How in the hell can you see that recommended course of action as anything but 'an undemocratic action that effectively nullifies the franchise"?

Posted by: George Dance at May 20, 2006 02:38 PM

---

Steved: 80% is not the combined Liberal/NDP vote in Vancouver-Kingsway; you must be adding Green votes as well. I get your point, though: you're claiming that everyone who voted for Emerson really meant to vote for a generic 'leftist candidate' instead, and is 'all riled up' that the candidate he actually voted for is a Conservative cabinet minister instead. It's not enough for you to claim that you do know these voters' minds and can speak for them; there's also a requirement on you to support a claim like that, for it to be believable.

bob: The Campaign to De-Elect Emerson has not identified its membership or the source of its funding. The group that disclosed that information was Manuel Pereda's breakaway faction Message in the Air - it's plausible that the same people are funding both groups, but that's only an inference as no one knows who's funding Mike Watkins' CDEE.

Dr. Dawg: You spoke of 'an undemocratic action that effectively nullifies the franchise'. Yet it seems that you are one of those calling for the Member of Parliament who was just elected to be thrown out and his seat be declared vacant pending a new election. How in the hell can you see that recommended course of action as anything but 'an undemocratic action that effectively nullifies the franchise"?

http://tinyurl.com/huyld

Posted by: George Dance at May 20, 2006 02:38 PM

---

GeorgeDance
I don't claim to know the voters minds. I do know they elected a Liberal. I think it is safe to say they expected Emerson to remain a Liberal. I do know that the riding has never voted Conservative. Although I cannot predict with absolute certainty that voters will opt for the Liberal or NDP candidate next time I would be bold enough to say it is likely.

Posted by: steve d. at May 20, 2006 03:05 PM

---

Dr. Dawg: You spoke of 'an undemocratic action that effectively nullifies the franchise'. Yet it seems that you are one of those calling for the Member of Parliament who was just elected to be thrown out and his seat be declared vacant pending a new election. How in the hell can you see that recommended course of action as anything but 'an undemocratic action that effectively nullifies the franchise"?

I assume you're serious, so let me note first of all that most people vote for the party, not the individual,* in Canadian elections. Suppose your man or woman, on getting elected, decided to sit with the party you'd just voted against before Parliament had even reconvened? NOW do you get it?

*Source: http://www.elections.ca/eca/eim/article_search/article.asp?id=123&lang=e&frmPageSize=&textonly=false

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 20, 2006 03:58 PM

---

Well one thing is certain: Emerson couldn't panhandle sucessfully in Vancouver-Kingsway let alone "win" another election.
Hard to say where in BC he could win a seat, even if he runs openly as a Tory this time.
It may turn out the way a poster above said, and Harper will just appoint him to Cabinet.
As a member of the loose-knit "De-Elect Emerson campaign" I can assure you that any money that is collected is freely given by people of all walks of life and many different ridings all across Canada for the purpose of trying to bring democracy back to V-K. People buy the buttons and lawn signs, and take the time to send our pre-printed postcards to their MP's and to Mssrs Emerson and Harper. Even some Conservative voters have given their support, which says a lot about how much damage Emerson and Harper did to democracy in V-K.
We won't quit. Though we may not win the battle to hold Harper and Emerson accountable for the pillaging of democracy in Vancouver-Kingsway, we will keep fighting. Anything less, and we all might as well roll over and let Harper, Emerson et al select who they want to "govern" Canada.

Steadfastly,
Locusta emersonia

Posted by: Locusta emersonia at May 20, 2006 04:03 PM

---

Steve d.

Wrong, the voters in V-K elected Emmerson to represent them, not a Liberal, not a NDP, nor a Consvative. That is the way our federal parliamentry system is suppose to work. That is way floor crossing should never be eliminated.

The fact that you and the de-elect Emerson campaign do not understan this fundamental of Canadian politics is typical.

The system needs to be reformed to break the power of the party.

Posted by: dkjones at May 20, 2006 11:19 PM

---

It's amazing... you guys simply don't have the competency to understand. Well, I guess there are some people who just can't add 2 plus 2 without getting 22.

I'll leave you to your little world.

Posted by: Surecure at May 20, 2006 11:46 PM

---

I also wonder where all the money went that was collected for lawn signs----because---I drive through that constituency almost daily and so far have seen ONE lawn sign.

So where does all the money go?

Horny Toad

Posted by: Horny Toad at May 21, 2006 02:29 AM

---

Oh, don't have any concern over that Horny Toad. As bob and Dawg like to point out, this isn't an issue of tracking political donations to see where the money goes.

Posted by: Surecure at May 21, 2006 08:23 AM

---

dkjones
I am all for breaking the power of the party. I understand that crossing the floor is also part of the game. However, like most other unfortunate occurences you never expect it will happen to you. When a voter enter the voting booth he doesn't think about whether or not their man is going to cross the floor or become corrupt, or any number of other negatives. They enter the voting booth in hope and good faith that the person is going to stand for the things he said he stood for. In this case Emerson said he stood for Liberal beliefs against Conservative beliefs. There is no getting away from that fact. To say a man had a change of beliefs a week after the election is laughable. To say he is a political opportunist would be more correct. Should we be electing opportunists or men of principle?

Posted by: steve d. at May 21, 2006 11:21 AM

---

It's amazing... you guys simply don't have the competency to understand. Well, I guess there are some people who just can't add 2 plus 2 without getting 22.

Wow! Another terrific argument. You're on fire in this thread.

Help me understand. You claim that a law has been broken, but you can't seem point to any such law. Failing that, you seem to believe that if a law preventing unregistered, unlimited, political demonstrations by private citizens using their own money outside of elections doesn't exist, it ought to -- despite the fact that you, yourself, don't like the law that prevents such spending during elections.

I guess you're right, I am confused.

Posted by: bob at May 22, 2006 12:46 PM

---

Hats off to you, bob. There's really nothing much left to say. Game, set and match.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 22, 2006 05:43 PM

---

"Suppose your man or woman, on getting elected, decided to sit with the party you'd just voted against before Parliament had even reconvened? NOW do you get it?"

Not all of it, Dawg. I can get that I'd probably be upset, and I get that some people in Van-King (some of whom voted for Emerson) are upset with his party switch; almost 1000 have been upset enough to do something like join a protest or put up a free lawn sign; a couple have been upset enough to vandalize Emerson's office. That's not news; some voters get upset whenever this type of thing happens.

What I don't get is your conclusion that, because these people are upset, that somehow makes Emerson's actions (unlike those of every MP who's done the same thing) undemocratic - and that therefore tossing the MP out of office, throwing out the votes of everyone who elected him, suddenly becomes the democratic thing to do.

Posted by: George Dance at May 23, 2006 06:21 AM

---

Everybody who voted for Emerson knew that as an MP he would have the right to cross the floor, and might do it. Just like any other successful candidate.

Posted by: ebt at May 23, 2006 01:36 PM

---