The Libranos

I am saddened to see that they didn't go bust. The Liberal party must take a firm, strong stance on the economically incompetent.

It seems the Libranos are no better at managing their own money than they are at managing ours.

Treated as campaign contributions....which exceed the limits....doesnt this mean that there are fines imposed on the people or organizations who "overcontributed".....who can enlighten us as to the letter of the law here.

Are there fines for accepting an overcontribution? This is exactly why loans should be banned to finance political contributions. Prevents a person from lending themselves the money

Why don't they just ask Obama to print them up some money? You know. liberals helping Liberals.

Kinda makes a person long for the good ol' days when there was debtors prisons.

libs - always good at spending other peoples money, not quite so good when it comes to their own pocket.

Loans from 2006. Going into year 4, and still waiting for repayment. How outstanding is that?

Liberals seem to have a tough time paying bills when they don't have the advantage of using taxpayer's money distributed in brown paper bags like the good old sponsorship days. No wonder they are so desperate to get back into power and get at Canada's purse strings.

What Peter B. said.........

Never a more deserving bunch.

Liberal juxtaposition: The Star's headline today; and the Star on Sun Oct 14 2007 mentioning in passing Honest Jean's prorogation of Parliament to screw Paul Martin:

Chrétien is unrepentant as well about how he handled the transition of power to Martin, which saddled the new Liberal prime minister with releasing the explosive auditor-general's report on abuses in the sponsorship program in Quebec. Chrétien insists that Martin let him know – through Privy Council clerk Alex Himelfarb – that he wanted to take over in late 2003, not February 2004, as Chrétien had planned. So Chrétien decided to shut down Parliament early.

"Though I had neither seen Sheila Fraser's report nor been briefed about it, I knew, like everybody else in Ottawa, that it was going to be tough. But I didn't prorogue Parliament because I was afraid to face it or wanted to pass it like a kiss of death to my successor. It had always been my intention to receive Fraser's report, thank her for her good work, and say what I had been saying over and over again for a year: If there is evidence of theft or fraud, let the police catch the crooks and let the courts put them in jail."

This version of events appears to be at odds with Martin's, according to his spokesperson.

"Undoubtedly there are clear differences in recollection between the two men – not the least of which would appear to be Mr. Chrétien's decision to prorogue Parliament, and not accept the auditor general's report on sponsorship personally," Pimblett said.

A commenter at the Star wrote that Trudeau prorogued Parliament four times and Chretien three times. I'm searching the Net now for confirmation.

It seems to me there is something ridiculous about this campaign finance law, and I can't quite put my finger on it... oh yeah, it's the fact that a) they ignore it and b) there are no repercussions.

andycanuck: For Chretien it's pretty easy... head over to Parliament's website, check out chamber business and count the number of breaks in sessions while Chretien was PM. I count four (Feb 96, Sep 99, Sep 02, and Nov 03), the last one, of course, ending in Martin's ascendancy to the Prime Ministership as you mention.

I get the feeling 2010 will be a good year.

Elections Canada does seem to have a track record of getting it wrong:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/01/04/12343546-cp.html

Thank you, Eugene, I had only found blog comments about Honest Jean (and four times, as you point out, and not the three times I misremembered) as with these two comments:
http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/83355-shocking-insult-democracy-harper-prorogues-parliament-6.html#post914512

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/forums/post83545.html#83545
"Jean Chretien prorogued Parliament four times during his time as Prime Minister: February 5, 1996; September 18, 1999; September 16, 2002; and November 12, 2003."

This is what happens when you don't have principles or policies that inspire people in large numbers and that they want to support. By "support" I mean "give money to their proponents."

The same thing could happen to the Conservatives if continuing minority status persuades them to govern as conservative-lite. Right about now I'm hoping for a majority and a hidden (strongly conservative) agenda.

Nothing good for real conservatives can come from the path that the government is currently on.

Kelly McParland rescues Iffy's Dream Team:

"So here's what they do:

Get the 20,000 enraged Facebook pagers to scrape together the money to pay off the debts. It shouldn't be that hard: $20 each should go a long way, and if you're not willing to pony up $20 to get rid of the Tories, how can you call yourself an enraged grassroots progressive activist? Once their debts are paid off, the six Liberals will be able to quit worrying and devote themselves full time to a national campaign of vilification against the Tories. Imagine: Hedy Fry and Joe Volpe together, out on the road denouncing the secret Conservative scheme to replace the Olympic crest with a big stimulus cheque featuring a portrait of Stephen Harper. Oh, it will be great.

So there you go, problem solved. Thank you Toronto Star. Thank you national grassroots campaign of rage. I'm already feeling better about prospects for 2010."

"Kelly McParland: Facebook campaign means Ignatieff can stay home and save on emissions"

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/05/km-on-facebook-rage.aspx

Still waiting for them to payback every cent that they stole (from us) via adscam as they promised to do.

Hedy Fry for Liberal leader! Lizzy May & her would make a great tag team!! A cross on every lawn & a windmill on every corner...

as a former banker my experience has been that with no repayent over four years these would be considered bad debts.

but then what else would you expect from a liberal

"and Hedy Fry were all given extensions that expired on New Year's Eve."

Foreclose on Hedy. Every time I see Dr.Fry suffer an embarrassment I feel a moment of schadenfreude for the bigotted bitch,who called citizens of Prince George a bunch of cross burning racists.

That she is still an MP after that outrage is a testament to how dysfunctional our political system really is.

Are there fines for accepting an over contribution?

This will be pivotal on the campaign finance law. If the fine is low, then the contributors will just ignore the law and finance to their hearts content. I

Poor Hedy. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Joe Volpe needs money!?!?

Do the nine year old twins know?

"the recurring possibility of another election meant they couldn't meet the date."----WTF,I can hardly wait to tell my bank that I can't pay my mortgage because I am thinking of buying another house.I am quite sure the manager will appear to be very understanding as he reaches for the foreclosure papers. Will this make the cbc?

So what are the consequences for these Librano$ who haven't paid back their campaign loans FROM 2006? Surely Elections Canada will levy some penalties?

If not, what the H*ll use is Elections Canada?

This situation will be pivotal in whether the Liberals can circumvent the current election laws with the help of Elections Canada.

If there are not big enough fines and various penalties to make it a very bad thing to do, they'll take the hit for over contribution and bank the rest. It may be the loophole that needs plugging.

Oops! Didn't see my earlier post had registered. Just ignore one or both.

Pat

Elections Canada....Election Canada, oh yeah I remember that's the people who had to bring cameras with them when they went to the CPC headquarters, the ones who are reluctant to accept payments from the CPC but eh the libs are good for it, really how long can Canadians be foolish enough to vote for those Neocons, who cares we have our pensions, eat cake!

There isn't a better time to resurrect the legislation for killing the $1.95/vote subsidy.

I think the time is ripe.

And a restructuring of elections Canada, as in FIRE THEM ALL

MSM has done a service to Canadians with this report.

Iffy is probably en Provence, France, at his villa suffering though a long, cold Europeeing winetertour.

Is there a mole/saboteur within the Liberal Party? Bob Rae’s mole?

Sample Iffyism:

“Ignatieff’s office refused to say precisely where the leader is, other than to say that he’s “away with his family.”
…-

“Liberals mock PM for being on vacation – while Ignatieff’s on holiday

By: Joan Bryden, THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA – It was a lesson in why politicians in glass houses shouldn’t lob stones.

The Liberal party made a light-hearted attempt Tuesday to poke fun at Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s decision to impose a three-month parliamentary vacation and wound up instead raising questions about the whereabouts of holidaying Grit Leader Michael Ignatieff.

The Liberals launched an online contest challenging Canadians to come up with brief suggestions for the automatic “out of office” reply that would explain Harper’s decision to prorogue or suspend Parliament until March 3.

They offered a few samples, such as: “Hi. My pollster advised me to lay low until the Olympics bring me back into majority territory. Sorry for the inconvenience.”"

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/80750387.html

Hedy Fry for Liberal leader! Lizzy May & her would make a great tag team!!
Posted by: DougInPA

You must mean a great HAG team!!

or maybe BAG team. OK I'm done now.

I might argue that political parties are private organizations that should not be regulated by government bodies. How the Liberals choose their leader and how much money candidates in the race spend isn't anybody's business except the party's. The public will have the opportunity to decide at election time whether it disapproves or not. Of course, the party's MPs voted for the law they've fallen foul of, so they're hoist with their own petard.

Re: "There isn't a better time to resurrect the legislation for killing the $1.95/vote subsidy."

There's never a bad time to repeal a bad law. Same reason: political parties are private organizations that should not get "public" money. The alleged "coup" attempt in 2008 over this very issue was done for reasons of greed and nothing else (although frankly I didn't think it was unconstitutional).

It is notable that the donation limit is per campaign and doesn't reset annually. This is going to make it increasing difficult for any of these debtors to repay.

The real issue is why they were allowed to borrow in the first place when there was no practical way that the loans could have been repaid.

But surely I'm entitled to my entitlements???