More sign controversy

There are some interesting discrepancies within Liberal MP Anne McLellan’s 2004 election expense report (source: Elections Canada)

First, McLellan claimed $14,861.50 in sign advertising (purchased from her EDA). Curiously, McLellan claims $16,467.83 in “Amounts not included in election expenses”.

Click to enlarge

What did that $16,467.83 in “amounts not included in election expenses” go towards?

Click to enlarge

Anne McLellan claimed $16,467.83 in “Damaged signs”. Signs are an advertising expense so how can one declare more in broken advertisements than one declared for their total sign advertising budget?

Also, how many damaged signs cost $16,467.83? That’s a lot of signs.

Another important questions is: Aren’t damaged signs an election expense? How are damaged signs included in the “amounts not included in election expenses” category?

Does writing off “signs damaged” in the “amounts not included in election expenses” category allow McLellan to spend more on her Electoral Campaign Expenses balance sheet? Her total in campaign expenses was $79,849.83, just shy of the $83,344.40 ceiling for each candidate. Did the writing off of “signs damaged” keep McLellan within the limit? Did she overspend her limit and then write off part of her advertising budget as a non-campaign expense by declaring over $16,000 worth of signs “damaged”?

Is this another example of questionable Liberal accounting practices?

The SPCE has more