Elections Canada granted extensions this week to each Liberal Party leadership contender who has failed to meet the 18-month deadline to retire outstanding loans, except for Stephane Dion himself.  His extension request and repayment plan is still under review.

But look at the loopy payback plans of some of the other contenders.

Ken Dryden's plan is a great example:

Consider, for example, MP Ken Dryden's plan to host fundraising events at venues no less impressive than the Air Canada Centre in Toronto and the Bell Centre in Montreal to help relieve the $354,000 his campaign owes him.

Mr. Dryden's official agent proposes that each of these events will raise $100,000, with "higher-end donors" forking over between $400 and $500 to pay down the tab.

Team Dryden also envisions a series of 24 smaller scale cocktail parties and dinners at which guests are asked to make smaller contributions of $100. These will keep Mr. Dryden busy into 2010 and net the campaign about $5,000 each, the agent estimates.

The proposal also outlines a humbling plan that will see the former goaltending great going cap-in-hand to supporters -- "a more rigorous direct solicitation campaign, which would involve direct solicitation requests from Ken Dryden himself," the document says.

"This initiative will also include a careful re-examination of past donors and identification of individuals who could potentially donate additional funds up to their maximum limit."

OK, it's a plan.  It's a detailed plan.  It's also unlikely to work, because nowhere in this description does "Team Dryden" consider how they expect to raise money to retire leadership debts in the environment in which the Liberals find themselves in. 

That is an environment in which Liberal supporters have been tightfisted when it comes to donations for two years running. 

That is an environment in which Ken Dryden will be competing with other leadership candidates for donations out of the same pool of tightfisted and skeptical Liberal donors.

That is an environment in which an election is looming -- as early as this fall, but in 2009 for certain.  And when an election is around the corner, the party itself will be looking to raise funds (and has been trying very hard to do so) and every candidate will be pushing hard on local Liberals to fund the riding efforts.

But then what choice does Ken Dryden have when it comes to a plan?

No, the real choice belonged to the Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand.  He could have deemed Ken Dryden's plan beyond merely optimistic to near hallucinatory, and so rejected it, converting the outstanding debt into an campaign contribution, with all the consequences that follow.

The same goes for the other candidates -- perhaps with the exception of Michael Ignatieff, who has retired the bulk of his debt already, has relatively little left, and has shown himself quite capable of raising funds from Liberal supporters -- at the expense of the other leadership candidates.

Remember last August?

Special Liberal fundraising events have so far failed to put much of a dent in the almost $4 million in debts racked up by 11 former leadership contenders.

The first event in Halifax two weeks ago _ a cocktail reception featuring Leader Stephane Dion and six of his erstwhile rivals _ attracted about 60 people who paid $250 each. After expenses, however, party insiders say the event netted only about $5,400.

The spoils were divvied up equally among the seven former leadership contenders who participated, leaving each with about $750. Insiders with several camps complain that the event didn't make enough to cover even air fare to Halifax for some candidates, much less help retire their combined debt of $3.6 million.

The only candidate who wasn't at this failed event was Michael Ignatieff.  He was off on his own raising great globs of cash -- leaving the other leadership candidates scrounging for scraps.

Don't believe me?  Look at these donation patterns around the failed August fundraisers:

This information is on the Elections Canada website.  It shows that with the exception of Michael Ignatieff (or perhaps because of the presence of Michael Ignatieff), fundraising by the other candidates is simply not likely to succeed at retiring their debts...ever.

Why does Marc Mayrand think things will be any different over the next eighteen months?  Indeed, I expect things to be more difficult for the reasons I've listed.  With all the reasons I've listed, how does Mayrand justify deeming these payback plans as likely to succeed?

And the worst is yet to come.  Stephane Dion has a large debt remaining.  He is also likely, by virtue of being party leader, to capture the most of whatever scraps of money Liberal supporters are willing to fork over (which is not likely to be much), leaving the other leadership contenders nearly empty-handed.

But then Stephane Dion has to act as party leader.  He has to sell his carbon tax.  He has to raise funds to the party in general.  He has to be at events that are not fundraisers to prepare for an election (media events, editorial board meetings, and so on).

Is Stephane Dion's plan as wildly optimistic as the others?  And is Marc Mayrand going to wave it through as well?

I suppose we'll be visiting this issue again in eighteen months, in all likelihood discussing leadership debts still outstanding.