Angry in the Great White North

The Conservative government is looking to further limit means by which money is raised for political purposes. That has some Liberals looking into the past, dredging up Stephen Harper's fundraising at a time when the rules did not exist:

Pollster Darrell Bricker, of Ipsos Reid, said Harper's refusal to divulge the names of the donors to his pivotal Canadian Alliance race also plays into some voters' lingering fears he has a hidden agenda.

"The question is, why aren't you disclosing?" Bricker asked. "It opens up questions like: Is there a hidden agenda? Who are his financiers? What are their agendas?"

Conservative party spokesman Ryan Sparrow said the story about Harper's support for the 2002 race is old and does not rate being retold.

Nobody suggests Harper broke any laws at the time; he didn't.

Boring.

Here's something more interesting, more relevant, and current, that is, actually in question with the laws as they currently stand.

Jamie Carroll loans $30,000 to Stephane Dion to finance Dion's leadership campaign. Jamie Carroll is 27. Where does a 27-year-old get his hands on $30,000 to just hand over? Did the money come from somewhere else? If so, who are his financiers? What are their agendas?

Under the law today, you cannot donate through a third party. Joe Volpe forgot that when he accepted donations from pharmaceutical executives funnelled through their grade-school children to help fund his leadership campaign against Stephane Dion.

Because the money Joe Volpe was accepting was in the form of donations, it was broken down into $5,400 chunks and distributed across 20 individuals, making it easy to spot the attempted subterfuge.

Loans, because they are paid back, are not limited in size, so this sort of suspicious activity is not apparent.

OK, let's be clear. I have no problems believing Carroll had $30,000 -- he's a smart guy and he could have made the money himself. I don't know the guy and can't be sure one way or the other, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But the Liberals ought to be careful about dredging up allegations against the Conservatives about activities that took place back when this was all legal, and should instead concern themselves with answering the question of why Jamie Carroll, who has alienated so much of the senior Liberal leadership, is being allowed to keep his job, protected by Stephane Dion. Is Stephane Dion protecting Jamie Carroll, or is he protecting people who funded Dion through Carroll?

Dion called Carroll’s comments “inaccurate”, and “immature”, but took no other action than to rebuke his National Director, who loaned the Dion campaign a whopping -- and much needed -- $30,000 during the Liberal leadership race. Carroll is one of a number of select individuals from whom Stephane Dion borrowed money to finance his Liberal leadership campaign.

Which begs the question: who is pulling the strings in the Liberal Party?

Suddenly that $30,000 loan looms large, and appying the questions they are asking of Stephen Harper to Jamie Carroll is not something they would want to be doing. Why? Because no matter what answer Stephen Harper gives, he didn't do anything illegal in 2002. In the case of Jamie Carroll and the way the laws were written in 2006, there is a way for the loan to be illegal.

That's because it would have been illegal for Jamie Carroll to have acted as a bag man for Liberal supporters looking to fund Stephane Dion's leadership campaign. If the Liberals insist on discovering where Stephen Harper got the money when it is clear nothing illegal happened, then I think it is fair turnabout to ask that Jamie Carroll furnish proof that his loan was not illegal, and that it was indeed all his own money. I would say there is a stronger case to ask after Carroll than to pursue Harper.

Check out other entries from the Jamie Carroll category
Results will open in a new window.