(The Liberal Party says the National Post got it wrong and they respond in the update)
That’s the conclusion one may come to if one reads Don Martin’s latest column in the National Post. However, it seems that Don doesn’t come upon the conclusion himself. The fundraising numbers for the last quarter of 2008 have come out and the story is the same, yet this provides fodder for political columnists since money is important in politics to build well-oiled political machines. The Conservatives are flush with cash rounding out 2008 with $21 million while the Liberals with about $6 million. Yesterday, I spoke with Jack Layton and the NDP leader was astonished that his party posted 90% of the Liberal total, though he sounded like he was chastizing the Liberals rather than bragging about his own party’s strength.
These particular paragraphs of Don Martin’s piece stand out,
The other glimmer of Liberal hope is political weaponry they have purchased from the Barack Obama campaign.
Specifically, they have purchased computer programs and donor-targeting technology at a discount from the friendly U. S. Democrats and plan to unleash hundreds of gigabytes at crafting a master list of donors while combing the country for new support.
It looks like the Liberals are starting to get their game in gear, or are they? Last summer, I met a member of Obama’s senior staff at a web 2.0 conference in New York City. The staffer told me that the Liberals had once contacted the campaign to adapt some of their fundraising capacity. The result? The Grits never followed up. According to Martin’s piece, Ignatieff’s team finally did and they got a discounted rate.
But it is this discounted rate which may pose a problem for the Liberal party.
What does the Elections Act say about discounts?
“commercial value” , in relation to property or a service, means the lowest amount charged at the time that it was provided for the same kind and quantity of property or service or for the same usage of property or money, by
(a) the person who provided it, if the person is in the business of providing that property or service; or
(b) another person who provides that property or service on a commercial basis in the area where it was provided, if the person who provided the property or service is not in that business.
“non-monetary contribution” means the commercial value of a service, other than volunteer labour, or of property or of the use of property or money to the extent that they are provided without charge or at less than their commercial value.
Ok, so the Democrats allegedly provided a non-monetary contribution because they sold computer programs to the Liberals at a discounted (less than commercial value) rate.
When an official agent receives a non-monetary contribution from a donor, the official agent must obtain complete documentation about the commercial value of the goods or services donated, and the name and address of the donor, so that the contribution may be (subject to its commercial value) reported in the Candidate’s Electoral Campaign Return (EC 20120) as a contribution and as an expense. “Gifts and other advantages” are reported separately in the Candidate’s Statement of Gifts or Other Advantages Received (EC 20053)
So, do the Liberals have to fill out some forms? No! Thankfully, they’ll save some time because the contributions themselves are ineligable.
404.(1) No person or entity other than an individual who is a citizen or permanent resident as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act shall make a contribution to a registered party, a registered association, a candidate, a leadership contestant or a nomination contestant.
The Liberals as a registered political party appear to be taking non-monetary contributions from foreigners to raise more money in Canada. If Don Martin’s account is true, the Liberals aren’t playing by the rules. This should raise some serious questions about the judgement of Michael Ignatieff.
Liberals receiving discounts from the Barack Obama campaign?
No, they can’t.
UPDATE: And they didn’t according to Liberal Party spokesman Daniel Lauzon. Daniel writes:
You should note that the Liberal Party has not, in fact, purchased software from the Obama campaign or any other supplier. Though we are currently exploring options for more powerful software – including products like those used by our friends to the south – we have not made a purchase, let alone at a discount.
The statement appears to stem from an interview granted yesterday, and I am in the process of clarifying this unfortunate misunderstanding.
I hope this clears things up. I appreciate your cooperation in clarifying this matter for your readers.
Stephen Taylor is a scientist, political analyst and a blogger. Taylor writes here regularly and is the founder of bloggingtories.ca. Taylor has contributed to Macleans, CTV, talk radio and has been a featured speaker on new media at numerous events including the Western Standard Cruise and the Forum for Public Policy. In December 2008, Taylor organized Rally for Canada, a series of rallies held coast-to-coast to protest the proposed coalition government.
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:39 am
Very good point. I hope Election Canada looks into this and takes the appropriate action.
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:47 am
Does anyone have an idea of how much the discount is worth?
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:47 am
Why should this surprise anyone? Isn't their MO, cheat and check later?
Then declare, “OPPS” and receive an understanding pat on the head from their “behind the scenes, butt-savers”
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:59 am
The flaw in your logic is that you assume the Liberals are subject to the same election laws as the Conservatives.
Clearly there are two sets of rules, and Elections Canada will never call the Liberals out on this one.
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:01 am
Well, we all witnessed in the last year how elections Canada feels about liberals. Look at how they have already been bending the rules for them on the leadership debts! I fear that they will not in any way 'look into this' either. But, rest assured if it were Mr. Harper or the CPC, they'd do their duty!
Leasa
PS. I was very disappointed with the new replacement for Mike Duffy…it was like a Liberal infomercial. Very sad.
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:13 am
If this fundraising software is sold as a proprietary piece of software — then I don't see what the huge problem is. It's a product, and up to the publishers discretion to price out volume pricing of the program, etc. (Free market ! :p)
Should we ban Microsoft from offering volume pricing to our government institutions, political parties because it's not the full commercial value per desktop? It's pretty muddy how it could be interpreted.
Either way, bravo for being ahead of the curve.
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:16 am
I know — I was a bit shocked myself to see some degree of neutrality return to CTV.
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:21 am
Considering that a couple of democrats for high office have their own OOPS moment re paying taxes, after being caught, the liberals are following/leading experts.
Where are they going to get new names for their data base.
I see Jason has popped in, so could he answer a question-what went on at the AGM with young liberals. Are you a young liberal. Following democratic ideas, did Acorn infiltrate your bunch, or were they invited.
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:21 am
So if my car dealership sells my wife a car for $1, I can turn around and sell the conservatives 308 cars for $308.
That is what you are saying, right Jason?
Typical Liberal.
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:24 am
OT, but Danny has won his fight with Iggy, those liberal NL mps will be given a one time only permission to disobey Iggy and vote NO tonight on the budget.
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:27 am
Craig Oliver looked like he was coming unstuck. Quite an attack. Me must be working on his future senate seat if Iggy gets to power.
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:47 am
Did the Liberal Party get a discount in exchange for something like sending Liberal Party members down to help Obama's campaigning in any way?
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:47 am
Elections Canada is too busy following up on your party's In and Out scheme .The Liberal discount is illegal? You wish.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:11 am
Too close to the Americans!!! You've gotta be kidding!! Their leader is one…well at least he's referred to himself as “We Americans”.
The question that we have to ask is “What is iggy's hidden agenda?”
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Big talk coming from the party of:
1. Cadman;
2. Plagiarizing John Howard;
3. NAFTAgate
4. Food inspection cover-up;
5. Julie;
6. McPhie;
7. In-and-Out;
8. Eavedropping;
9. Mulroney-Schrieber; and now…
10. Bill Casey….
and much, much more!
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:03 pm
No, just that same car….
Typical Con.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Did you actually read the rules?
Time extensions are allowed, in the rules….without bending!
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:08 pm
In order to be a successful communicator, you must talk to your audience…and let them feel like you're the same.
Ignatieff spent more time in Britain, and he has never had another passport. He has always remained 100% Canadian.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:19 pm
So the libs just wanted the optics of “getting a deal from the Democrats”………whats worse?
Secondly, can someone tell Bob Rae to either vote against the budget or shut his yap. He's out there railing against this budget….. but when it comes to voting in favour of it he will be there. The libs need to realize they can't have it both ways. This is their deficit as much as anyone elses. Can you imagine what Bobby would be saying had there been no stimulus pkg.
If you don't like it don't support it, can't have it both ways.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
I love how quick everyone is to damn the liberals, and talk about getting away with some shady dealings. The two false stories of today – (this 'illegal' contribution and the pay-equity statement in the budget) are both mis-reported. In this case there was no contribution or exchange whatsoever. Maybe check http://www.scandalpedia.ca/Scandals.html on the running list of Conservative scandals before you jump on false-news as a smoking gun.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
There you go Stephen. They didn't buy the software. There was no non-monetary contribution. There was no commercial advantage.
Do you have any documents to suggest otherwise?
If not, when will you apologize for accusing another person of a crime without basis?
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Not really my fault, wouldn't you say? One reads an article in a reputable newspaper by a reputable author and even then one writes sentences such as:
“That’s the conclusion one may come to if one reads Don Martin’s latest column in the National Post. “
“If Don Martin’s account is true…”
and that's the best one can do with words that are presented as facts.
I put the other side of the story up promptly as I received it.
We should also note that the Liberal response doesn't clarify things completely. Now we have two accounts. Martin's responsibility is to his readers who seek truth (and to his company which seeks a profit) while the Liberal Party's is to their membership which seeks electoral victory. This isn't to say I believe one over the other, but we now have two accounts of what happened.
“Do you have any documents to suggest otherwise?”
The National Post
“When will you apologize for accusing another person of a crime without basis?”
I have not done this therefore I will do no such thing.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
The update from the Liberals is worded very carefully. It only says that the software wasn't purchased. It doesn't say that the software wasn't acquired for free from (or, more accurately “donated by”) the Democrats.
I'm not saying it was or that anything untoward has happened. I'm just saying that the update from the Liberals does not categorically state that the Liberals did not receive a software donation from the Democrats.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Because of course the Liberals are planning to use the same license for the software that the Democrats are using? Riiiiight. Jason's justification (which turns out may have been a premature kneejerk “justify-anything-the-liberals-do-as-good”) is basically saying that the scheme I have proposed to provide “free” cars would be legal. Your rebuttal doesn't hold any water.
I also LOVE the justification and spin that the Libs did nothing wrong before the facts even came out. The response from the LPC would seem to indicate that they know this is wrong, but still, Jason was here spinning….
And I would like to revise my previous “typical Liberal” comment. I should have said, “typical Liberal lawyer.”
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
James B…
The conservative leader is not running around saying this is bad budget, …but we will support it, nor are any of his cabinet members. It is the liberals and some has been named Bob Rae pretending that he doesn't support the budget. Well someone should tell Bobby Rae that you can't just say you don't support the budget and then vote for it.
Again……if you vote for the budget to pass, YOU HAVE VOTED IN SUPPORT OF THE BUDGET.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:47 pm
stephen, you have now become a rumuor mongerer. Wnhy didn't you use your contacts instead of publishing this garbage or to be fair why not tell us where Harper got his funding back in 2003.
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Terry1, stop embarrassing yourself. This “rumour” was published as fact in a national newspaper.
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Stephen , remember that when someone publishes “facts” about your deity Harper instead of getting huffy as you like to do in typical angry tory methodology.
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:16 pm
The heading is a question not an accusation. The question is answered in the next line which links to the update. I did not leave the update buried.
I don't know what happened, there are two accounts. Right now it's Don said, Dan said.
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Written as fact: “Michael Ignatieff bought some software”
Written as opinion: “Stephen Harper has a hidden agenda”
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
BINGO!
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Steve Harper did have a hidden agenda we just found out about……he's a tax and spend socialist based on his recent budget!!!!
February 4th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
You and the Tories seem to be getting a little scared no? Worried about the next election?
February 4th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
You and the Tories seem to be getting a little scared no? Worried about the next election?