I think this story has been blown out of proportion, but for the sake of argument, I want to consider what is being reported in the worst possible light.

The Globe and Mail is reporting on a fund raising drive originating inside of the Prime Minister's Office that is causing some heartburn:

Senior political staff in the Harper government say they have been asked to donate $1,000 to the Conservative Party, a move that has sparked resentment among some of the most stalwart supporters of the Prime Minister's Office.

“The kids are not happy,” said one senior official who agreed to make the donation. “People really are not impressed.”

The official said some of those who have been asked feel pressured to donate and are concerned for their professional future if they fail to do so. The request was not an order, The Globe and Mail was told.

I have to say I'm sympathetic. When the United Way donation drive was going around the office at a previous employer, sanctioned by the company including the option to donate through paycheck deductions, I was very irritated. I don't give to the United Way. I give time and money to other charitable causes on my own. But most of all, telling this well-meaning but somewhat intense co-worker that I was not interested seemed to me to be an opportunity to be labeled as a Scrooge or worse.

I doubt that's what happened, but I couldn't shake the feeling that some people would set my refusal to participate in the worst possible light. Fortunately the opinion that others have of me matters little to me (which is why I can blog), but I wonder if other people at the office, more concerned for how they are perceived by others, felt compelled by their own insecurities to participate in the drive, essentially against their wishes.

The cynic in me wonders if the United Way uses in-office pledge drives deliberately for that reason.

In other ways, though, this is different. The request for donations went out to political staff. As such, they are tied to the party (as opposed to a government bureaucrat), and they do owe their jobs to the success of the party.

But having said that, these people are already working for the party. They provide labour for the party, whereas other supporters of the Conservative Party provide cash donations (they being the thousands of Canadians who make political donations while holding day jobs that have absolutely nothing to do with either political parties or even government).

It seems to me that people who work for the party, especially at that senior level, ought to be given a pass on the hat-passing. I suspect that the extra hours they put in is donation enough.

In any case, the actual people targeted seems to be limited:

According to sources, three or four executives in each minister's office are targeted for the contributions. They include senior political staff such as chiefs of staff, communications directors, senior policy advisers and directors of parliamentary affairs.

At least four such people told The Globe they have received requests, although the message has not permeated throughout all cabinet offices since some said they have not been approached.

The Liberals did it too, which doesn't make it right, but does make it a non-partisan issue:

When in government, the Liberals also encouraged their chiefs of staff to join the Laurier Club, a fundraising arm of the party that costs $1,000 to join for those over 30. Most agreed, said a former Liberal official, although some balked out of principle.

In that situation, I might balk out of principle too. Still, the Prime Minister's Office is saying that there is no pressure:

Mr. Harper's director of communications, Sandra Buckler, said no one in the PMO has asked staffers in any way, shape, or form to make $1,000 contributions.

“Not true. Categorically deny,” she said Tuesday.

Ms. Buckler said it is up to individuals to make their own decisions on contributions.

“If people were going to donate to the party, that would be their decision and their decision only,” she said “If people elect to make a charitable donation, then it's up to them.”

Those are the right words, but still some people seem to be worried:

Another official said that senior ministerial staffers make good money, “but we work 24/7”

He added that he is uneasy at the prospect that party officials will “do cross-checks” to see which ministerial staffers respected the request.

The skeptic in me wonders whether that last quote came from an official who was not directly asked to donate, and who might not even be a Conservative, but a lower level government official who has some knowledge of the donation request but little else. This official is not unambiguously identified as someone who received the request to donate. No one has said there will be cross-checks -- that statement sounds a bit alarmist and perhaps even designed to cause trouble.

Let's assume the worst, though, and that people were indeed asked to donate.

Should they be worried about not donating?

The whole argument falls apart on the notion that the Conservative Party would make decisions on promotions based on who kicked in a thousand bucks during what amounts to be a pledge drive instead of basing the decisions on merit. This government has been in power for a mere 18 months. I'd give it a good twelve or more years, maybe more, before you even start to see that sort of corrupt behaviour**. People both inside the party and those from the outside looking in ought to be fitted with tinfoil hats if they think this is really some sort of loyalty test.

The people who make the hiring and advancement decisions are not going to look at the donor list to decide who is going to get this job or that, no more than being labeled a Scrooge would have had any effect on my work future. I think we can safely lower the panic level here. What it does boil down to is asking people who already give so much to give even more. They know they can donate, and they don't need to be reminded. Personally I would just leave them well enough alone.

Really, do these guys need even more stress in their lives? But like I said, I have my doubts about the true nature of the donation request.

** I'm a realist. People in power for a long time lose sight that they are not owed that power. I don't like institutionalized one-party states, even it is my party in power. It's not healthy for either the Party or the State.