Is the NDP encouraging illegal political donations?
The new donations rules enacted by the Conservatives limit political donations. Only individuals can donate, not organizations, and there is a limit of $1,000 per year. No more donations from corporations and unions, and the old limit of $5,000 is out the window.
So how is it that the NDP has a page up encouraging donations from unions in excess of $1,000?
The main donations page for the NDP seems to follow the rules. But there is another page, the "Working Families Fund", that is quite different. You can get to it via the NDP newsletter.
The fund (copyrighted for 2007) is clearly a form of political contribution:
Stephen Harper has turned his back on Canada’s working families. Big business is benefiting, not ordinary Canadians like you. Maybe that’s why he gets so much money from his corporate friends.
Now you and your friends and co-workers can even the playing field for ordinary Canadians
Donations to the NDP are tax creditable. You get up to 75% of your donation back.
But here's the odd thing. The Working Families Fund encourages group donations via unions and other groups:
Sign up now, individually or as part of your union local or progressive team. Launch your NDP fundraising campaign today.
That is simply not allowed by the Canada Elections Act:
OTTAWA, Tuesday, January 2, 2007 — The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, announced today that Elections Canada is prepared to implement election financing changes resulting from the passage of Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act. The Act received royal assent on December 12, 2006.
The new legislation reduces annual contribution limits to political entities. Furthermore, only individuals (Canadian citizens or permanent residents) may now make political donations.
Amendments to the Canada Elections Act that came into effect on January 1, 2007
- Only individuals who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents can give a contribution to registered parties, candidates, nomination contestants, registered associations and leadership contestants
- A ban on contributions by corporations, trade unions and unincorporated associations to registered parties, candidates, nomination contestants, registered associations and leadership contestants
The NDP is offering for prizes for donations well in excess of the legal limit:
Top team or local by election day: Jack will present your top prize.
Over $5000 raised: Free black NDP shirts for all sponsors.
No mention is made that the number of sponsors must be sufficient such that the donation, split evenly, is less than the $1,000 limit.
But what is more disturbing is the role of unions. One of the top donors right now is United Steelworkers Eastern Ontario Area Council. The council has one sponsor (itself, I suppose), and a goal of $5,000. And it is clearly acting in its capacity as a union:
The United Steelworkers Eastern Ontario Area Council is proud to support Jack Layton, the NDP caucus members and the whole NDP team. The NDP truly works in the best interest of working families in Canada. The Party's numerous achievements on behalf of working families are outstanding, and their continued effort on Parliament Hill fighting for workplace fairness is remarkable. The whole NDP team truly is a friend to labour, and they deserve our support as they continue to make progress. Please make a donation.
A union is not allowed to make donations, and no donation can exceed $1,000 per individual. This statement by the Eastern Ontario Area Council appears on the NDP website. The NDP ought to know better.
Perhaps there is a spin on this that I don't see. But it certainly looks like donations from unions. At the very least, the site should explain how these donations conform to the law.
The Conservative Party donations page offers no prizes, and the form and accompanying text only asks for individual information. There is no notion of "teams". And there is certainly no question of the money coming only from individuals, as required by law.
And one more thing. Remember what I said about the donation page on the website conforming to the rules? This Working Families Fund page seems to be accessible only from the newsletter. I find that really interesting, since the newsletter presumably ends up in the inbox of supporters, while the website is far more public. So if I wanted to promote something shady, I wouldn't put it on the website where everyone could see it, but on a newsletter that is seen by far, far viewer people, the overwhelming number of them being motivated and loyal NDP supporters.
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
NDP New Democratic Party Canada Working Families Fund Canada Elections Act Federal Accountability Act Jack Layton United Steelworkers Eastern Ontario Area Council
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
This should be reported to Elections Canada! It seems that the NDP are still the party of unions, this is even worse than Volpe taking money from children and the dead.
Posted by: Hunter at March 8, 2007 01:03 AM
I don't see anything wrong here. This is no different than if, say for example, a Campus Conservative club decided to raise money for the Conservative Party. Stephen Taylor was attempting to do the same thing with his BT fundraising widget during the London-North-Centre by-election. While the NDP can't accept donations from unions anymore, they can certainly leverage the membership of those organizations to increase their fundraising. This is a tried and tested method of fundraising, including the prizes. I've seen Conservative offer "dinner with an MP" or a trip to Ottawa for the best fundraiser.
Posted by: BBS at March 8, 2007 01:16 AM
Thanks BBS for setting the record straight.
Maybe instead of making up nonsense about the NDP, Janke, you should be dealing with crap like this.
Posted by: Robert McClelland at March 8, 2007 01:22 AM
there there bobby mclala. its been a rough week having your own party disown you as an antisemite. doesn't do much for your credibility does it?
Posted by: joe at March 8, 2007 01:27 AM
I'm guessing but I don't think it's illegal for an individual or organization to undertake a fundraising drive. e.g. if Gwen Morgan went around to all his buddies in the oil patch bagging donations for the Cons that would be okay as long as each was under a grand and the names of the individual donars were reported.
Union "x" might "sponsor" a fundraising drive for the United Way with a goal of 5,000 K but when they turn over the funds individual names of the givers are listed so each gets a tax receipt.
I suspect that's all the Steel Workers are doing here. It's not a donation from their own bank account but they are trying to motivate members to give individual donations by turning it into a little competition the same way law firm "x" challenges law firm "y" to collect more money for the United way.
I wonder if the T-shirt sez " I gave a grand to the NDP and all I got was this lousy T-shirt" ?
Posted by: Nbob at March 8, 2007 01:32 AM
there there bobby mclala. its been a rough week having your own party disown you as an antisemite. doesn't do much for your credibility does it?
Hasn't it ever dawned on any of you rubes that you've been waging this non-stop campaign of hate against me for 3 years yet it has accomplished nothing?
Posted by: Robert McClelland at March 8, 2007 01:50 AM
I referred to the "sponsor" thing in my post, but the problem is that the page is never clearly states that the donations must be balanced by a sufficient number of sponsors to bring the donation level to under $1,000 per person. Second, you can't make a donation through an association, and yet it sounds like exactly what is going on. Finally, the page I grabbed for the United Steel Workers keeps referring to how the USW needs to support the NDP, not how Bob of the USW wants his buddies to help support the USW.
The whole thing is vague and certainly sloppy. A few clean-ups and some extra verbage, and it would be a lot clearer.
Posted by: Steve Janke at March 8, 2007 06:20 AM
BOB BLAWBLAW says:
"Hasn't it ever dawned on any of you rubes that you've been waging this non-stop campaign of hate against me for 3 years yet it has accomplished nothing? "
What is a RUBE You fool ???
Looking for another HateFest fight ?
The only one who's waged war against you is YOURSELF.
I wouldn't be surprised if the mossad is after your butt.
You're a sucker for punishment....... I can't even muster" What a Shame"
LOL
Posted by: banjotom at March 8, 2007 08:08 AM
WHERE'S FLIPPER?
Help find the Liberal's missing "non-leader" and priceless French asset! Bonus points for actual sightings! Gory details at:
http://www.thiscanada.com/2007/03/08/wheres-flipper/
Posted by: Erik Sorenson at March 8, 2007 08:09 AM
Looks like someone is feeling a little rejected. Understandable
reaction when your beloved party distances itself from your
hateful, over the top racist rants.
It's even worse when you still don't get it, don't know enough to
GET LOST.
Posted by: Liz J at March 8, 2007 09:00 AM
Black shirts....hmmm, where have we seen such a dress code before? A Fruedian slip perhaps?
Posted by: Citizen Wilson at March 8, 2007 09:09 AM
Keep at it, Steve! Articles like this afford the NDP the opportunity to respond to an imporetant question. Should they not, then I'll pick up your post via a link. Hopefully others will too. Not much, but it's worth a try.
And ignore RM. As he admits, he's very dense and a slow learner after 3 years of being told he's an idiot and a racist. Just your ordinary pond scum with a bigger ego than his brains.
Posted by: Erik Sorenson at March 8, 2007 09:17 AM
No different then Bnai Brith raising all that money from its members for Jason Kenney and John Baird.
You are off base with your accusation.
Posted by: steve at March 8, 2007 09:28 AM
I showed this to a friend - a former Steelworkers local president. His reply: " Ah, steelworkers are just as rotten as the other unions."
Posted by: Ron at March 8, 2007 09:51 AM
Robert McRacist:
Hasn't it ever dawned on any of you rubes that you've been waging this non-stop campaign of hate against me for 3 years yet it has accomplished nothing?
Ever heard of the principle of sowing and reaping? I could type slower if you don't get it.
Posted by: Slider at March 8, 2007 09:54 AM
Steve the Racist,
Who are you? Do you honestly think that anyone gives your opinions a moments thought. You are kid that picks his nose and eats it that no one wants to play with.
Go play somewhere else.
Posted by: northbaytrapper at March 8, 2007 12:11 PM
My goodness, Steve. I think you just may have hit a sore spot.
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at March 8, 2007 12:20 PM
Yes, just where is Dion? I thought he was on a cross country
get to know me type tour.
Heard he had a secret trip to Toronto but no one knows where or
why. There were no sightings.
If the Liberals think they can sell this poor fellow I think they'd
have more luck trying to smuggle the Dawn past a Rooster.
Posted by: Liz J at March 8, 2007 01:05 PM
Navdeep's fundametalist roots are well known by everyone in the apne community.
TDH Strategies via Jason Cherniak comments
Posted by: Anon009 at March 8, 2007 08:39 PM
Who the hell cares about Navdeep Bains in the grand scheme of
things? Is he someone special? Or should we be paying special
attention to his meanderings?
Posted by: Liz J at March 8, 2007 09:04 PM
Is the NDP encouraging illegal political donations?
YES
Is the LPC encouraging illegal political donations?
YES
Is the CPC encouraging illegal political donations?
YES
Does a socialist state which makes it difficult to make an honest living and extremely easy to make a dishonest living encourage illegal political donations?
DUMB QUESTION
Dude(tte)s, you have a government which grabs about half of all the wealth created in the country, and makes that wealth available, free, to anyone who has the impudence of a monkey and the moral restraint of a tomcat. Stealing all that wealth from people and then pretending that you can make "rules" so that the stolen wealth is given away to people who didn't earn it "fairly" is just about the stupidest idea ever.
Posted by: at March 8, 2007 09:17 PM
The neither new nor definitely not democratic party will extort money anyway they see fit, after all they thrive on demagoguery. The working families fund sounds really warm and fuzzy, until you get sucked in, it is sort of akin to the ‘Invasion of body snatchers”, once you are in, you loose your will or they will make you loos it. You see, the socialist totalitarians can’t do things democratic way. They have to force things to collective so that those who don’t agree with the Diktat are pointed out and are marginalized. That is why unions when they vote for strike or some such, have this hurray system where the chief Diktator will have somebody in the hall say something like never mind ballot lets show hands.
As for that characterless who thinks that people care what he says, well not really
Posted by: Bolshevik at March 8, 2007 09:25 PM
By the way - wasn't this rule about donations not exceeding $1,000 and only from individuals dreamt up by Chretien? It isn't a CPC rule, but a Chretien-Liberal rule. It effectively cut the ground out from under Martin and his Liberals, who were heavily funded for years by big business. And that, I presume, was Chretien's intention.
Posted by: ET at March 9, 2007 01:00 PM
Right, the $1,000 dollar rule came from Chretien not far from his
end time, when it would have no effect on him. It was another
whack at Martin.
The irony is Martin whacked back with the Adscam Inquiry which
backfired. But hey, Martin was highly overrated, not so swift.
Sure he had balanced budgets but he also had 'Da Boss' at his tail
and he called the shots.
Posted by: Liz J at March 9, 2007 01:41 PM
To be fair, when first introduced by Chretien, the limit was about $5K. That limit was reduced by the Accountability Act passed by all parties last fall.
The dangerous game being played by the NDP (and any other Party which would create and/or promote a similar scheme) is not only whether those main provisions are being followed, but also whether Elections Canada might find anything afoul of the Anti-avoidance provisions of the Elections Act.
Posted by: Paul O at March 12, 2007 11:54 PM
 
|
|
