Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Lack of Accountability

I've spoken quite highly of the accountability act in the past, both during the election and since then. I think there are a lot of good policies in it, even if a lot of the Act needs tinkering (200 amendments and counting...) and the lobbyist aspects of it will create some major problems. Plus, from a political perspective, it's absolutely brilliant since voting against something called the "Accountability Act" is like voting against the "I love Canada Act".

However, one aspect of the Act is really starting to irk me. The Tories (and NDP) are insistent on bringing the Act into law as soon as possible and on including convention delegate fees in the limit. Coincidently enough, the regular delegate fees for the Liberal leadership convention are 995$ which is going to create several huge problems. Since these fees don't include hotel or meals, my understanding of the law is that the entire fee minus however much the Liberal handbag (which I always carry around downtown Calgary) costs would count as a donation. It's also my understanding that the Liberal Party won't be making any money off this convention which tells me that someone on the organizing committee got ripped off royally. But that's besides the point.

The real point is that this law is going to play havoc with the Liberal Leadership race and some doom and gloom scenarios would prevent delegates from even attending the convention if people who are already maxed out for the year aren't allowed to spend the delegate fees. These donations were made and these rules were set under the old system and it just boggles my mind that the rules could be changed mid-course.

I hate to accuse politicians of playing politics because, well, that's what they're supposed to do. But this is a crass partisan maneuver (and, as a Liberal, I know a crass partisan maneuver when I see one). When Chretien's fundraising laws came into effect January 1st, 2004, the Conservative leadership race was exempt because it had been called in December of 2003, even though the convention wasn't held until March. With that in mind, I don't think it would be at all unreasonable to exempt the current Liberal race or even to wait until January 1st to bring the Accountability Act into law.

There obviously isn't a lot of sympathy for the Liberals these days but Harper and Layton's tag team effort on this is just wrong. Maybe even more so from Layton who often likes to paint himself as a deity who is always above "playing politics".

20 Comments:

  • Nope, not a lot of sympathy. Making the entire thing "exempt" might be a bad idea if this convention money is just another Liberal run-around-the-law a la Volpe. But hey, resonable people can negotiate. What would be an acceptable compromise?

    By Blogger The Rat, at 7:32 p.m.  

  • It's also my understanding that the Liberal Party won't be making any money off this convention which tells me that someone on the organizing committee got ripped off royally.

    The reason they're not making any money despite the high fees is because of the travel subsidy. The further away from Montreal you live, the higher a travel subsidy you get deduted from the fees. (If you get a subsidy, your tax deduction goes down). The people living nearby don't get a subsidy, but they do get a substantial tax deduction back on their taxes.

    The idea is to make it more fair and possible for people accross the country to attend.

    By Blogger Jeff, at 8:13 p.m.  

  • It is ridiculous, especially coming from Stephen Harper - who in his NCC days would be running around like a chicken with his head cut off over such a law - and Jack Layton - who likes to pretend that he's better than the other politicians.

    By Blogger Ryan Ringer, at 8:50 p.m.  

  • great post. like one of cerberus' "Friday smiles".

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 8:51 p.m.  

  • I think the Globe and Mail, and the Liberal Party of Canada, have made a mistake on this point.

    Only the donation portion of the $995, ie; the portion you receive a tax receipt for, would be considered a donation to the Liberal Party of Canada and subject to the limits in the Federal Accountability Act. If they are receipting you the entire $995, then it would cost them absolutely nothing to put on the Convention - which can't possibly be the case. If the Convention itself has costs of say $500, and you are being charged $995, then you would receive a donation receipt of $495, and still be allowed to donate $505 during the year to the national party.

    Somebody's got the rules wrong - I would suggest the Liberals get clarification soon.

    By Blogger WillBlog, at 11:44 p.m.  

  • willblog; That's where the confusion obviously rests. If you only get receipted for the profit off the convention, then I don't have a problem at all. Maybe people who pay the full 995$ are overpaying a bit because of travel subsidies and youth rates, but then the party is only netting 2 or 3 hundred off them and that's not really an issue (unless you say that if they've already given over 1000$ in the year they can't go, which would still create problems).

    The Globe and a lot of politicians seem to believe that it's only what people get (ie. food) that gets deducted and that expenses for hall rentals, etc, aren't included.

    Obviously some clarification on the exact rules would be very helpful.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 12:09 a.m.  

  • As I mentioned in my own post on the topic, either the Liberal party is arguing that we're getting nothing for the $995, or they're playing politics. Frankly, the idea that the use of a convention centre in downtown montreal for a few days costs nothing seems a tad... incorrect. The fact that the Liberals, and now CG, are playing this up as an attack on democracy is therefore a tad... deceitful.

    By Blogger Gauntlet, at 12:51 a.m.  

  • gauntlet; I'm just going on the Globe article. If the rules state that only material goods received (like food) are deducted from the price, then the post stands.

    If everyone is mistaken on this and it's cost which is what's deducted, then I don't have a huge problem with it.

    The one objection would be if they say that anyone who is already over 1000$ for the year can't make any more donations. If that's the case, anyone who has already donated 1000$ or more to the Liberals this year would be ineligible from attending and, to me, that would be ridiculous since they made those initial donations under a different set of rules.

    It's obviously a very complicated law which will need some straightening out.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 1:04 a.m.  

  • Can't you transfer the convention fee to another Liberal or two to cover he contribution portion (say $700) to avoid the personal limit?.

    Tax deductions are: 75 percent of the first $200; 50% of anything between $200 and $500.

    A $350 donation would cost $100 so two donors would cover the cost. Assuming this is not prohibited by tax law.

    By Blogger Psychols, at 3:19 a.m.  

  • I have to admit that contrary to most conservative and even some liberals blogging here, that I do feel a tad worried about changing the rules mid-stride a leadership campaign.

    Mostly just because I think its a bit mean. But since we're not in Harper's mind, I don't think its fair to say he's trying to wreck havoc. He could feel that Liberal complaints concerning this are simply another ploy to call him a 'harpocrit'.

    Nevertheless, the fact that CG is complaining about it carries a lot of weight in my books. Cuz I respect him even if I disagree with him.

    By Blogger Eric, at 9:16 a.m.  

  • Any party that charges $995 to be at its convention can hardly be considered one that is open to all Canadians.

    By Blogger BR, at 10:14 a.m.  

  • I believe that the high cost is actually to cover the travel subsidy.

    By Blogger Jason Cherniak, at 10:25 a.m.  

  • The Conservative party did not receipt any of its Convention fees to delegates - there was not donation included in the Convention costs.

    If the Liberal Party is building in a donation that is over and above the costs of running the Convention, then that is a donation and is receiptable.

    Before going any further on this train of thought, someone should speak with Elections Canada and find out their interpretation of the act.

    As I've said, the rule of thumb is that only the money collected above and beyond costs is a donation. At a fundraising dinner, if the ticket is $100, and the meal/venue/etc.. costs $70, then you receive a tax receipt for $30. Your contribution would only count for $30.

    By Blogger WillBlog, at 11:40 a.m.  

  • Charging of 995 for attending a convention is exactly why the Liberal party needs a renewal, and from the grassroots. You are restricting members who cannot pay that money (which is most of us) from participating. I already paid $16.95 to be a member of the party for the year, why should I have to fork over 1G to have the priviledge of electing my leader? That's not democracy.

    I hope the law passes. I hope this is the last convention leader selection the Liberals do. Something like the Tories, a one-member-one-vote with equal representation of ridings is the way to go.

    I want politicians to get as less money from a few as possible. I want campaigns run on a shoe-string budget, across the board. Already for the municipal elections, I heard on radio most mayors and councillors have upto 90% of campaign funding from builders, developers and contractors.

    By Blogger mezba, at 12:21 p.m.  

  • James Halifax; What retroactive firearms legislation did the Liberals pass? The gun registry had something like a 5 year window for people to register their weapons.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 1:33 p.m.  

  • Sean and co: Oh yeah, it's great politics. Like I said, Tories are for accountability and the Liberals are against it. And the issue is far too complicated for the Liberals to make a compelling case (especially with the ridiculously high 995$ fee)

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 1:34 p.m.  

  • "The gun registry had something like a 5 year window for people to register their weapons."

    I suspect he is referring to the requirement to register weapons owned at (or prior to) the time the gun registry was enacted.

    By Blogger deaner, at 2:55 p.m.  

  • jason cherniak is right -

    montreal delegates will be subsidizing the whole thing by being the ones stuck with the $995 fee.

    its progressive - or is it regressive because the fee shrinks the farther away you are from the convention?

    Anyway - fiscal imbalance be damned, Quebec's subsidizing Ontario, for once.

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 8:56 p.m.  

  • Oh the whining....

    One of the essential parts of the renewal of the Liberal Party is learning how to raise money from hard-working play-by-the-rules taxpaying Canadians like all the other parties do.

    20 million adults in Canada time $1000 per adult. $20 billion in potential dollars out there each year. For a political party with the right message, it should be that difficult to raise whatever funds necessary.

    By Blogger godot10, at 10:16 a.m.  

  • The amount of the political donation is the amount you receive on the post-convention tax receipt, which the party is free to set at whatever level it chooses (see bcer in Toronto's comment, re: travel subsidies).

    This means that the federal Grits can deduct any legitmate convention costs (meals, hall rentals, security, etc...) from the $995.00, provided they are itemized on a per delegate basis in the post-convention report to Elections Canada. For example, when I was a delegate to the last federal PC leadership convention (Mackay/Orchard), the delegate fee was $595, but the tax receipt was only for $360.00. Individual delegates can further deduct convention related expenses (airfare/hotels) from their taxes (mit receipts) but these are not subject to donation limits as the money doesn't flow to the parties directly.

    Why hasn't this distinction been reported in the media? When was the last time anyone saw a reporter pay their fees at a political meeting? I doubt they even pay for their meals.

    BTW. Congrats on snagging David Orchard for your party. I'm sure he'll do for the Grits everything he did for the old PC party.

    By Blogger herringchoker, at 11:04 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home