Angry in the Great White North

Here is the full text of the letter from Rocco Rossi and Steve MacKinnon, dealing with the controversy surrounding donations to Michael Ignatieff's leadership campaign fund:

March 30, 2009

Letter from the Liberal Party of Canada and the Michael Ignatieff Liberal Leadership Campaign on Donations to the Leader's Dinner in Toronto

Dear Friends,

On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and the Michael Ignatieff Liberal Leadership Campaign, we would like to set the record straight with respect to a recent email you may have received regarding the upcoming Leader's Dinner in Toronto on April 1.

The email suggested that it might be possible for interested donors to purchase tickets to this event by making a contribution to one or both of the Liberal Party of Canada or the Michael Ignatieff Liberal Leadership Campaign.

While this might ordinarily be entirely appropriate, the email went on to incorrectly state that the Leadership campaign account is in surplus, and to suggest individuals could direct a donation to the Liberal Party, over and above a contributor's annual $1,100 limit, by contributing to a surplus in the campaign account that would ultimately revert to the Party.

In our view, any suggestion that an individual could exceed their annual donation limit is unacceptable and this approach will not be followed either by the Liberal Party of Canada or the Leadership Campaign.

Tickets to the Leader's Dinner on April 1 will no longer be made available other than through direct contribution to the Liberal Party of Canada. Contributions for the benefit of the Michael Ignatieff Liberal Leadership Campaign will no longer be an acceptable means of ticket purchase for this event.

Although the Leader is the sole candidate at the upcoming convention, the Leadership Campaign continues to be the only permitted source of funding for expenses related to the leadership selection process, including costs associated with organizing delegates and events related to the convention. Liberal Party funds are not used to promote even an uncontested leadership candidate in this manner. Until the convention concludes in May, the Leadership Campaign still needs to meet these costs and will continue to raise funds on a break-even basis.

As always, all Liberal Party and Liberal Leadership Campaign donations and expenses continue to be fully reported to Elections Canada, and this information is shared publicly by Elections Canada online.

We look forward with great anticipation to a successful Leader's Dinner at the beginning of April and to an energizing Leadership Convention at the end of the month.

Thank you for continued support and we look forward to seeing you soon,

Rocco Rossi
National Director, Liberal Party of Canada

Steven MacKinnon
Michal Ignatieff Liberal Leadership Campaign

Many interesting points are raised in this letter:

• There is an admission that Alfred Apps' email suggested what everyone thought it suggested, and that was that Liberal supporters could funnel extra donations to the party through the leadership fund.  Alfred Apps might not have intended to say that, but that's what a lot of people thought he was saying.  How did this letter get out without someone flagging the dangerous ambiguity?  Or was there really any ambiguity?
• There is no surplus, despite what Alfred Apps said.  But no numbers are provided.  So we have to believe that Rocco Rossi and Steven MacKinnon are right, and Alfred Apps was wrong.  It might help if Alfred Apps explains just how he was so wrong on the status of the fund.  Without numbers, we really don't know who to believe.
• Tickets will no longer be made available except by donations to the Liberal Party directly.  So if a potential attendee has donated to his or her limit already, he or she is out of luck for the dinner.  A donation to the leadership fund is not an acceptable proxy.  Is that the correct interpretation?
• If tickets are no longer available to people donating to Michael Ignatieff's leadership fund, then it implies that the intent prior to this change was to equate donations to the party and donations to the leadership fund.  Who signed off on that?
• What of people who have already donated $2,200?  I know of at least one such person.  I bet that money isn't going back.  But then the argument is that money will be needed for leadership costs.
• I might be cynical, but I wonder if this change to the rules came only after everyone who wanted to donated $2,200 split between the party and the leadership fund had already done so.
• I wonder if there are people who had hoped to get access to Michael Ignatieff by donating to the leadership fund (donating $1,100 gets you face time with the leader), and are now out of luck because of this change.
• Though there is a generic explanation regarding the ongoing costs of a non-race with exactly one contestant, there is still a lack of quantified detail.  How much money is likely to be needed?  What are the costs that will be incurred if there is no other contestants?   Common sense suggests the uncontested 2009 "race" will be much cheaper than the 2006 battle that saw Stephane Dion beat both Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff.
• The fund-raising will be on a break-even basis.  Great.  Um, how do you manage that?  I suppose there are ways.  Presumably passive donations are low.  Donations probably happen in surges when there is an email blast to donors or a fundraising event.  When the fund is topped off, you can simply stop asking for money, and the flow drops to a trickle.  I guess we'll see.
• Is Bob Rae also raising funds on a break-even basis?  How far in the hole is he?
• How about a statement from Alfred Apps?  Just asking.
• Did Elections Canada get involved in this yet?  Is Elections Canada still planning to check into this despite this public clarification of the rules?
• How much did the Liberals hope to get by getting $2,200 donations as per the Alfred Apps letter?  How much is the costing the Liberal Party?
• The Big Question: Why issue this letter in the first place?  I can't imagine the Liberal Party was bothered by some blogger following the story.  The media tracked it for a bit, but it certainly hasn't been a major focus.  For some reason the Liberals decided they needed to say something.  I'd love to know what that reason was.  Was Elections Canada sniffing around?  And if so, what did the Liberals fear would be revealed if they didn't close this controversy down once and for all?

I doubt we'll get answers to most, if any, of these questions.

Lucky break: Good thing for Alfred Apps no one is running against him to be president of the Liberal Party.  This episode could have made that race very interesting.

Check out other stories from the Liberal Leadership Fund Donations archive.