Friday, November 12, 2010

Tory Fundraising Juggernaut crushes grits

I recently posted the dismal numbers for iffy and the grits for the last quarter. The iffy tour if anything resulted in fewer donors and less money. Now they are going to hire fundraisers to try and catch up to the Tory fundraising juggernaut. Money they don't really have. Professional fundraisers are usually pretty expensive. It will interesting to see if they can catch up , since they are admitting their own pathetic efforts have utterly failed. It's also interesting that the globe has adopted my phrase Tory Fundraising Juggernaut.


The federal Liberal party has hired a team of professional fundraisers in a bid to catch up with the Conservative money machine.

The team has its work cut out for it.

So far this year, the Tories have raised almost three times as much money as the Liberals – $12.1-million versus $4.4-million, according to quarterly financial statements filed with Elections Canada.

4 comments:

CanadianSense said...

I have posted on this subject on a regular basis since the media hyped the Q2 2009 numbers that beat the Conservatives.
Once you get past the one time jump in the LPOC you more you realize the myth behind the Liberal party.

The math does not add up and the financial health and ballot box support are reflected in the very small crowds and poor financial returns in 2010.

They may not beat Dion's 2008 level of $5.8 million.

In depth post on history of fundraising.
http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/2010/11/pollsters-channel-alice-in-wonderland.html

Calgary Junkie said...

Here's some free advice for the Libs:

Get an inspiring leader. Someone who takes clear policy positions. Someone who works hard, and puts together a team who also works hard. And this has to be meaningful work (eg, recruiting candidates) that advances the Party. Not this pretend work of bus tours, conferences and open mikes.

Anonymous said...

How many Liberal MPs and 'also rans' still have unpaid debts? Will elections Canada be giving unlimited extentions?

CanadianSense said...

Election Canada was unable to give any more extensions from the leadership contests in 2006.

A judge was called in to give the Liberals another year to repay the loans.

Home | Financial Post | News | Opinion | Arts | Life | Sports | Homes | Cars | Blogs | Multimedia | Classifieds

Main | About | Contact Editor | Subscribe RSS

Lorne Gunter: Elections Canada's uneven playing field
Posted: February 05, 2010, 10:30 AM by NP Editor
Lorne Gunter, Canadian politcs

For the better part of 30 years, equity has been at the heart of Canadian election law. The goal has been to create a “level playing field” among parties and candidates, to make sure that money and influence play little role in the outcome of national campaigns.

But while we may have convinced ourselves that candidates who can dramatically outspend their rivals have an unfair advantage at election time, there is little empirical evidence that this is true.

The most recent proof of this is the recent special Massachusetts senate election in which Democratic Martha Coakley lost to Republican Scott Brown despite handily outspending him by an estimated margin of two to one.

Bradley Smith, a former chairman of the U.S. Federal Elections Commission, a law professor at Capital University and one of the world’s leading experts on election law and campaign finance, has determined that in no Western democracy have spending limits made election outcomes more “fair.” In less than 40% of the campaigns Prof. Smith has studied in which one candidate or party outspent rivals by 20% or more has the free spender won.

Most reforms aimed at increasing the fairness of elections spring from the notion that the proposer is smart enough to see the manner by which unregulated free speech skews the political marketplace of ideas; while his neighbours, being dunces, are not. They need to be protected from their own rashness and intellectual malleability. It is arrogance to think that current vote results can only be made fairer by limiting the information the electorate may and may not see.

But let’s assume for a moment that the goal of campaign equity is both attainable and desirable. How can it be achieved if the arbiters of our elections - Elections Canada - appear bent on favouring some parties and prosecuting others?

How is it “fair” that Elections Canada has given the candidates for the Liberals’ 2006 leadership campaign — the one that selected St├ęphane Dion — several extensions to pay back loans they took from wealthy donors while at the same time continuing to pursue the Conservatives in court for an ad-buying scheme the Federal Court of Canada has declared was not in violation of campaign spending limits?

Admittedly, the extension the Liberals received this week was granted to them by a court, not Elections Canada. But no one from the federal agency appeared in court to oppose the extension, nor did the agency file any protests with the judge.

Thanks to Elections Canada’s leniency, the six Liberals involved will now have more than five years to repay loans they were given by rich supporters.

The loans themselves violate the spirit of our election laws. Individuals may contribute little more than $1,000 to leadership campaigns, but if they package their donations as loans, they can give $10,000, $50,000 or more. Endless repayment extensions have the effect of converting these loans into huge donations that otherwise would be illegal.


Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/02/05/lorne-gunter-elections-canada-s-uneven-playing-field.aspx#ixzz158Cpj9T8

I Support Lord Black