Money for Nothing
Craig Chandler is none too happy today:
Forget a lawsuit. Given the cruel and unusual punishment that's been inflicted on Chandler, I think he should be taking this one in front of the Alberta Human Rights Commission.
Delayed Hat Tip because he insists upon it to the GPOitHotW
Rejected Tory candidate Craig Chandler says he plans to sue the Alberta Progressive Conservatives for the $127,000 he claims he spent on his campaign to secure the party's nomination in Calgary-Egmont.
[...]
Chandler said he now wants his money back.
"Why didn't they let me know beforehand that they weren't going to let me run," said Chandler. "I think it's cruel and unusual punishment to allow me to spend $127,000 and six months of my life on the campaign," he said.
Forget a lawsuit. Given the cruel and unusual punishment that's been inflicted on Chandler, I think he should be taking this one in front of the Alberta Human Rights Commission.
Delayed Hat Tip because he insists upon it to the GPOitHotW
Labels: Craig Chandler
posted by calgarygrit at
10:55 p.m.
18 Comments:
Try to collect c***sucker.
By
Anonymous, at 11:38 p.m.
Uh, excuse me, but how common is it for somebody to spend $127,000, not on a federal election campaign, not on a provincial election campaign, not even on a single riding campaign, but on the nomination to get on a party's ticket _within_ the riding.
Who the heck was his competition that he needed $127,000 to beat them?
By
James Bow, at 11:57 p.m.
Karlheinz somebody
By
Anonymous, at 12:55 a.m.
The amount Chandler uses probably includes the salary he likely took from the committee to elect.
That would account for a big chunk of it.
By
Concerned Albertan, at 1:03 a.m.
I can believe that number. I live in the riding and, as you can imagine I'm certainly not on any Tory membership lists. Despite this, I got demon dialed, and two pamphlet drops, trying to sign me up for Chandler's nomination battle. He delivered close to 1000 votes, which is pretty impressive (provincial ridings are about 1/3 as big as federal ones here).
By
calgarygrit, at 1:41 a.m.
Maybe Chandler will get support from Jim Hawkes. ;)
By
The Invisible Hand, at 1:44 a.m.
Oh, and before anyone asks, I do kind of agree with Chandler on this one, as much as it pains me to say so.
He should have been DQ'd before things got this far. All of this was on the record when he started running for the nomination - Stelmach should have stepped in long ago rather than blindly hoping Chandler would lose.
By
calgarygrit, at 2:06 a.m.
And for those of us opposed to Chandler's agenda, Stelmach stating firmly, right at the start, that he was not welcome in the PC party would have been a strong, positive statement. If Chandler had lost, it would have left the impression that he is welcome in the PC party. Stelmach didn't do himself any favours here.
However, I couldn't give a crap about Chandler's loss. He's been fleecing gullible bigits for years with his "Concerned Christians" which is not an association or lobby group. It's a for-profit business.
By
Reality Bites, at 8:16 a.m.
Sounds like he might have violated some election law there, salary or no salary, I believe that 127,000 is well over any nomination spending limit. If it's all his money as well that was spent, that too would a violation of the election act, or does he consider political donations, "his money" for hs pocket, another violation of election law.
Please Please Please, someone who lives in Alberta forward these comments to the appropriate governing body and law enforcement agency so this man can never run for office again, is seriously fined, and hopefully goes to jail.
Please
By
Anonymous, at 9:40 a.m.
LMAO. Election law in Alberta. Anonymous - you make me laugh. Anyone remember Ezra Levant's $200,000 plus in Calgary Southwest?
Ezra Levant & Craig Chandler. There's a SSM I can really get my head around!
By
Carter McRae Events, at 11:45 a.m.
How does one spend that much money on a nomination campaign? I thought Chandler was a conservative!
It's scary to think how much he might have spent on an election campaign or in office if he was give a portfolio to oversee.
This all supports my theory he's just interested in the "power" of being an MLA. (The thought of an MLA being "power" still makes me giggle.)
By
DJ Kelly, at 1:21 p.m.
I agree with him too. It's not fair to disqualify him AFTER he's spent the time and money to run (and win). I think Stelmach even said as much, and they'd look to introduce measures to disqualify people earlier.
You guys are only loving it because you dislike him. It wouldn't be funny if you liked him (or had no opinion).
By
Robert Vollman, at 1:31 p.m.
I don't believe there is any nomination spending limit, as is the case in most provinces (and federally until 2004), nomination contests are not regulated in any way shape or form by the government.
I agree with CG here too. Chandler is a scumbag, but he submitted nomination papers and was allowed to stand as a candidate and won. The party can't disqualify him after the fact based on information they knew, or should have known, which was in the public record when they accepted his nomination candidacy.
By
nbpolitico, at 5:24 p.m.
nbpolitico,
Actually, you have it wrong, and this is the problem with the thing. They CAN disqualify him after. They COULD NOT disqualify him before (as I am sure they would preferred), according to the Alberta PC party constitution as it now stands. I can only assume that the Chandler saga lights a fire under the party executive to submit some sort of amendment at the next AGM. This is an internal party matter, and the executive and the members (as opposed to the elected MLAs) should be the ones to deal with it.
By
Anonymous, at 5:55 p.m.
He ran against Jonathan Denis, a young Calgary lawyer, and Rick Smith, an insurance executive.
Well, I agree in principle with all of you who posted that it's not fair to disqualify someone after the nomination race. The PC party constitution states that the Premier only reviews the nomination afterward... Why should he meddle with democracy unless absolutely necesary? -I think that his veto provision has only been used 2x in the past 10 years...
By
Anonymous, at 2:57 a.m.
Perhaps the party leader can't veto someone before they are nominated, but he can certainly say that in the event they win, he will not be signing their nomination papers.
Does anyone seriously believe Karla Homolka would be allowed to contest a nomination for the Alberta PCs or any other major party in Canada? I'm not comparing her and Chandler, but using her as an obvious example of someone who would not be allowed to run, rules or no rules.
By
Reality Bites, at 12:24 p.m.
Wow!
Comparing Karla Holoka to Craig Chandler and then saying you are not comparing?
Wow!
By
Anonymous, at 3:43 a.m.
This will not have effect in fact, that's exactly what I suppose.
By
mejor sexshop, at 3:18 a.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home