"Methinks the proletariat doth protest too much"- King Iggy

He's got the memo boy on stand by.....and a few brown bags full of cash in the wings.

he's got the memo boy on stand by....and a stack of brown bags in the wings waiting to be stuffed with cash from the the taxpayer trough (courtesy of EEEEEEEVIL Alberta!).

Liberal leadership doesn't spend their money . . . that's their entitlement.

They Believe they are entitled to spend your money while they get paid by using your money . . you know, entitled to entitlements.

It is the Liberal way.

Proves most people are too smart or too cheap to donate to the party. Mind, they haven't done much to earn it so maybe the supporters are waiting 'till they unpark from a sharp stick and ask them what they want.

Harper should have slipped in the cut in taxpayer per vote funding , the lieberals probalbly read the bill as close as Taliban Jack. He didnt need to read it as he was voting against it anyway.

Danny Williams intrepretation,

All Equalization should be equal but some folks equalization should be more equal than others.( paraphase from George Orwell )

Liberal Party Recycling Memo:
Bring lunch to work in brown paper bag.
Do Not dispose of bag.
While fund raising, use brown paper bag by placing it on head before seizing taxpayer money.
Do not dispose of bag.
Use brown paper bag to distribute money to Liberal friends.
Do not dispose of bag.
Bring it back home for your next lunch.
NB: Do not use plastic bags. While it may keep CO2 from causing global warming, you may suffocate while seizing taxpayer money. Besides some places are now charging a nickel a bag.

Who cares where Iggy spends or doesn't spend his money?

I send my hard-earned money to causes and charities I believe in.

That's good enough for me.

If you're prone to find faults in others, start by looking in the mirror.

When you look in the mirror do you see a halo around your head?

Ghost:

No, I see an imperfect human being.

And you?

I see a liberal behind me with a gun to my head.

Ghost:

Wow! What an imagination.

You do have control over your own dignity, don't you?

Oh, I'll keep my dignity despite liberal efforts to steal that too.

Ghost:

Sounds like you have many positive attributes.

Those are what will define you and make you a successful human being.

The pursuit of undignified juvenile taunting, gossip and character assassination are best left to the left. They do immaturity pretty good.

SYF,

Do you even read what you write?

"Only sends money to causes or charities I belive in"

By your own comments you tell us Iggy does not beleive in the party he now leads. Yeah that'll work

"Only sends money to causes or charities I belive in"

lol point set match

My apologies for wandering off-topic so early in this thread, but I have to go out, and I just found this, and I simply must share it. (Apparently it's a "classic", but I missed it the first time.)

I suggest that you have a change of pants ready.

Islamic technology meets German engineering

At the very least he should be committing the maximum allowed under contribution limits which is actually not that much. If you believe in something you support it. The leaders of the other parties of done that (not sure about May) - $1,000 out of their pockets is not that much (given their salaries and benefits)

Perhaps any day now we'll see a marathon telethon on the CBC, raising funds for the Liberals, the air time paid entirely by taxpayers. Though there would of course be an outrage, I would actually love to see it happen ... as long as a broad spectrum of e-mails sent into them were published on-air. SDA regulars who have a field day!!

Just curious - how much did Stephen Harper donate to the CP? and where does this information reside? - it would be neat to see what others have donated.

Gord...check out the first link.

"Memo boy" (snicker). Add that to the CV, along with coffee-fetching. Probably sent out for some cat chow mein takeway the odd time or two.

Just a wild guess, but would seem likely that Iggy is putting any spare pennies against his leadership campaign tab.

Speaking of leadership tabs, Dion must also have a bit of a headache in that area.

Most asked question in sponsorship fiasco; "Will that be paper or plastic".

Ken:

My point being is what's it our business to tell Iggy where to spend his money?

If you accept the premise that we should tell Iggy where to spend his money, then Iggy would be totally justified in telling you where to spend your money

Capice?

"that we should tell Iggy where to spend his money"

You completely missed the point. Nobody cares where iggy spends his money, we're laughing at the fact he doesn't spend it on his party. I don't care if it's a flaw in his character, I'm just interested in what it says about him; matter of fact, i applaud his good judgment.
And, secondarily, this would be regarded as a great chuckle if it was Harper.

hudson:

When you laugh, does that make you superior ... or does is just make you FEEL superior?

Just asking.

My apologies for wandering off-topic so early in this thread, but I have to go out, and I just found this, and I simply must share it. (Apparently it's a "classic", but I missed it the first time.)

I suggest that you have a change of pants ready.

Islamic technology meets German engineering
Posted by: Darrell at February 4, 2009 4:08 PM

Thanks for sharing that Darrell. Bloody hilarious video. Does this make it official then? Is terrorism now officially funny? ;) (And, just so nobody takes me the wrong way, I'm making a reference to an old South Park episode when AIDS officially became funny).

oops...

in a related issue the maximum per person is far too low. The CP had a convention this year and the limit caused real problems for some people. $5000 - indexed - non-deductible and with no subsidy attached would be more appropriate.

(personally i think there should be no limit whatsoever (and no party loans) - with everyone's contribution being done by interac (no cash) and instantly published on a public elections canada website, but that isn't likely anytime soon.)

SYF,

I accept your premise, I don't want to tell him where to spend his money that is his choice and only his choice. But what does it say that he does not believe enough in the party he leads that he can't give even the meagrest(Sp?) amount.

On the second point, I as a voter and citizen of Canada have the express duty and responsibilty (through the voting process) to tell him where to spend my money, as he would be receiving almost 40% of it. If you don't want to beleive me, just ask Iggy; isn't that the excuse that allowed him to let his 6 NFLD members vote against this budget

Slainte

Not the brown envelopes again. Was there a difference in shade between the Karl Heinz envelopes and those to which you refer?

I don't know what you're gripeing about anyway.Change the sweater, and absorb the grimaces that pass for smiles, and what's the diff?

Both spent the bulk of their past lives philosophizing on how to maintain an Empire, without actually spending a day in the trenches. Think about it. Neither are leading in relation to the current global economic crises. That should tell people something. Both are simply waiting for others to lead so they can react and in some way that appears appropriate, and allows them to save political face.

Harper even had to take a time out. Purpose of which was to follow Obama's lead. I'm not criticizing that as such, but I think it would be good for Canadians to understand this for what it was. The tail waited for the dog to tell it when to wag.

Lastly, quit leaving your droppings on Obama, he is an ordinary guy like most of us, cepin' he is half black. Ya so? Give him a chance. You all thinks Harper is ok cause he isn't from the elite, well neither is Obama. You think the cards aren't stacked against him? You think this happened by accident?

You believe in fairies too?

SYF Firstly, I'm already free I don't need your help or your benediction. Secondly the Girl Guide Troop Leader would set a good example by not buying the cookies wouldn't they. CEO's recieve stock options so they have an interest in benefiting the organization. Iggy phfft.

A large number of the comments on this blog post you refer to seems to be indicating that the data is not accurate. Apparently the database only accounts $3.2 million of the $5.9 million the LPC received and many people are trying to find their own contributions, but are not able to. It seems like their is too much missing for the claim to be declared accurate - at best, it's a false rumour not worth spreading.

The only way this Country is gonna change is if Ottawa sinks into the Earth , never to be seen again. The Lost City of Tax Bandits.

Seems that Iggy knows a good investment when he sees one :(

Speedy:

Your strength resides within you.

It does not depend on scoffing at the weaknesses of others.

I spend my money where I choose. Iggy does not spend his money where he chooses.

I respect his choice.

The claim is false.

Even Bourque has taken it off his NewsBought site. None of the 2008 contributions through the Laurier Club are showing up.

But as we see with the Bill Casey smears, Stephen Taylor's lies yesterday about phantom software purchases, the Riddell smears when he turned on the party and they had to pay him, AECL, and so on and so on, Harper and his minions are not concerned about truth in the pursuit of attacking someone's character. Which is not even to mention the in and out scam, the "financial consideration" offered to Cadman for his vote, Flaherty's illegal sole sourced contract to a friend and donor, Harper mystery big business backers, Harper's convention fee "mistake", calling an election against his own law and promise, cancelling Parliament to avoid a confidence vote and so on and so on. They were right when they said they had accomplished more in 3 years than the Liberals had in 13: the Say-Anything-Do-Anything-for-Power Party strikes again with false claims about party donations!

And some wonder why we witnessed a record low voter turnout under the Conservatives.

set U free

apparently logic is not your forte

Iggy is the leader of the LPC, and hopes to one day be leader of Canada, so we have not only a right to scrutinize Iggy, we have a duty to do so. And as far as comments in here go, they are a way of communicating our thoughts, and to illicit other's thoughts, thusly helping our evaluation process, that is also a duty of the electorate.

A question for all you Psychologists out there;

Just what Classification Type of person is WK anyways ?? (Whom, BTW, I like a lot)

Ted:

Highest voter turnout for the Conservative Party, who gained a higher percentage of the vote than they did in the last elections.

Lower voter turnout for the opposition parties.

Hmmm. I guess the voters found the opposition parties had such unappealing platforms that even fewer voters cast ballots for them than they did for the Conservative Party.

Is that the way you see it?

Actually, SYF, that is a false claim too. What is it with you Conservatives these days and your dislike of truth? You are sounding way too desperate already and the Igster's only been on the job for 6 weeks!

The total actual Canadians voting for Deceivin' Stephen and the Say Anything Party were down almost a million votes. Not as bad as the Libs with their most hapless of all leaders, true, but down nonetheless, not up as you claim.

One, two, three, are you free?

So why are you censoring my posts? I'm not hateful like you, I just tell the truth.

Ted:

Why not deal with your question with facts and on a logical plane?

The Conservatives gained seats.

The opposition lost seats.

Therefore, there was less support for the opposition viewpoints.

If the opposition did, in fact, gain more votes than the Conservatives then they would be in government.

Any part of that you wish to disagree with?

I want to be the first American Prime Minister.

I apologize in advance if this discussion has taken place already but...

Does anyone remember a fella called Tom Long, who was running for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance in 2000? I recall that at that time the media made a huge deal of him having been a U.S. citizen even though he'd been a resident of Canada and a citizen of Canada most of his life, he had also gotten U.S. Citizenship at some point. I can remember many a comment by the media about his being unqualified for the job since he was a U.S. citizen. Seems to me there is a huge double standard here.

Discussion says CanuckInMI. What discussion? Party approved discussion? Harper/Ignatieff approved discussion?

As if this site wasn't already a bad joke.

Keep it up, Hugger, and you will be tossed. You managed to include a word tagged as spam, and the software automatically filtered you out.

Now, next time it happens, behave yourself like everyone else does, and wait until I have time to check the junk filter.

Kate:

Good catch!

My, my, hugger. Are you not feeling the love tonight? Have you and Ted put your puffin savior so high on a pedestal that you cannot fathom how some people may actually have an opinion contrairy to yours? Like the Great "O" down south, Iggy's halo will soon tarnish and the leftoid zealots will turn on him.

Leftoids really anoy me and the reason is because they are so blinded by their (flawed) beliefs, they think that to disagree is the sign of a _____ (fill in the blank with anyone of a hundred derogatory terms). Facts don't matter in the land of hemp and taxpayer honey.

Yeah, Hugger, flick off!! We all get caught in the filter at some time or other. Don't take it personally -- or do you have thin skin?

Hey, don't forget the $2 billion Liberal Millionaire Gun Registry Lottery.
A new Liberal Millionaire every day.

"known only to party insiders", Kate?

Now I don't expect you to read or remember everything written on your own website, but it has been referred to here at SDA at least a couple of times:

www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/004099.html#c80880
www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/002930.html#c34080

or to read that dreadful MSM: http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ACAW_enCA310CA310&q=%22laurier+club%22

But, in your own words (and many others), Google is your friend.

The Laurier Club has been around a long time and is well known and the membership fee counts as a donation to the party. For some reason, the totals shown for individual contributions at Electins Canada is showing about $2-3 million less than the total amount reported as donated to the Liberals for 2008. So it is not just the Laurier Club donors who are missing from the individual contributors list.

Iggy is cheap. I managed to scrounge up $100 for the CPC last year and his paycheque is likely quite a bit sweeter than mine.

Oh, Iggy, boyyyy, the blinkssss, the blinkssss are cawwwling.
Recall Dionky; STOPIGGY.
...-

"Ignatieff orders Nfld Liberals to support budget implementation"

"Some Liberals are privately grumbling that he "blinked" in a showdown with Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams, who had called on Liberals to vote against the budget. And they worry he may have set a dangerous precedent, encouraging other MPs to break ranks over bills that offend their provincial governments."
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/582483

DOH!.

I would call that 'flame war on'... if not quite over.

Ted is bullshitting everyone. The reason the individual contributions don't add up to the total is that you do not have to report the details of donors under $200.
So to be fair to Iggy, the Count could have given his party a whopping $199.
If I was a Liberal that would make me feel better.
[snort]
If Ted is correct and Laurier club donors ($1100) are underreported than the Lieberals broke the law.
Either way Ted, they are the proverbial creek and no paddle...

From WK.....

PUTTING NO MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTHS ARE
Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 06:40 PM
The Harper government is pushing a story around that Michael Ignatieff doesn't donate to his own party. Their simpleton payola guy at Dork Newsbought had that headlined today. So did a lot of the conservative bloggers.

The facts are as follows.

Michael Ignatieff has donated through the Laurier Club in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. Both Michael and his wife, Zsuzsanna Zsohar, have donated the maximum amount to the Michael Ignatieff campaign in 2009. And, in 2007, Zsuzsanna donated $1,000 to Michael’s riding and $1,000 to the Liberal Party. Our leader and his wife are doing their part to donate to the Liberal cause.

But how about those big-mouthed Conservative bloggers, many of whom are covertly paid by the CPC to spread crap around the Web? What did they donate to the Conservative Party last year?

Here, too, are the facts:

Pierre Bourque - $0
Stephen Taylor - $0
Kate McMillan - $0
Ezra Levant - $0
Steve Janke - $0
Craig Smith (Blogging Tories co-founder) - $0
Jarrett Plonka (KerPlonka) - $0
Damian Penny (Daimnation) - $0
Gerry Nicholls - $0
Victor Wong (Phantom Observer) - $0

At least two of those people receives monies from the Conservative Party; more than one of them get material/research sent to them straight from the Prime Minister's Office and/or CPC.

You'd think, for all that, they'd be putting their money where their mouths are, wouldn't you?

Heh.

I added nothing to the above except for 'From WK'.

"many of whom are covertly paid by the CPC to spread crap around the Web"

He just doesn't know when to quit. Still not as funny as the Youtube apology.......

uh, not quite, ITK.

Club membership fees are reported separately on a different basis. The aggregate number may be known but the value of any benefit in the membership must be deducted first from the fee and the balance is considered the donation. Election finance law 101. But of course, as the in-and-out scam shows, like your fellow Conservatives, you probably feel the election finance laws don't apply to you so why learn them.

I don't think that when a party member chooses to NOT donate directly to the party it makes them fair game for mockery.
Active members of all parties often donate a much greater value resource in time and effort than they are allowed to contribute in cash.

Iggy is probably already deep in personal debt and he will be DEEPer in it before long.

If he's not then you need to go find out who broke the law by bailing him out.

Which reminds me .... anyone heard from Dion ?? You think we'll have to extradite him from some France? Or hunt him down in some third world French protectorate?

Perhaps Count Iggula feels he doesn't have to support the party and country of his covenience, and he will just be magically inserted into the PMO's chair without the nuisance of an election, the same as he was inserted into the Liberal leadership role. Maybe Count Iggula feels he's entightled to not pony up any of his own cash because he feels Canadians should be grateful that this arrogant, pompous ass has come back to the country of his convenience to save us all from the non elites. Perhaps Count Iggula is to busy coming up with more homo-eroticisms like: "keeping Harper on a leash" or "he's gonna take the government down, take them down hard" Yuk. The MSM are going to have a terrible time selling the latest Liberal saviour to all us peasants. Vote for Count Iggula or he'll feast on you're intestines,or bore you to death with his outrageous pomposity.

Curious. I might be mistaken, but I thought only individuals could donate. If it's not true, it should be. If donations are allowed to pass through middlemen, like say, oh, some "club," how is it possible to know whether someone contributed just their own portion, or if they contributed a larger sum that was then fanned out through other individuals who either did not donate or were disinclined to donate? In order for donations to pass transparently through the hands of some club-types you'd first have to determine the value of any benefit in the club membership before deducting that iffy, contentiously-determined figure in order to determine the donation amount.

Pretty fudge-e-o, if you ask me.

Someone help Ted get the fishhook out of his mouth...

In order for donations to pass transparently through the hands of some club-types you'd first have to determine the value of any benefit in the club membership before deducting that ... figure in order to determine the donation amount.

Exactly, EBD.

Which is why it is reported on and you get your tax receipt for it after the end of the year when this is calculated. No different than a dinner event except as a membership it has to take into account the "benefit" portion through the whole year.

And the individual donations are recorded. Just look at any prior year. It is just that they are reported on a little differently which would explain why they are not up yet.

But why, Ted, would individual donations go through a club?

I'm confused, and you know more about this than I do -- are you saying that by joining the Laurier Club you're agreed that a portion of your membership fee goes to the Liberals? If so, why wouldn't someone just make the donation yourself? What possible merit or utility is there to passing your individual donation -- apparently, to some extent, based on what you've said, off-the-record -- through a middleman?

I don't know the facts, Ted, but perhaps, en route to defending Ignatieff, you may have inadvertently uncovered another Liberal scam.

That's got to be exciting, at least momentarily.

Now that cataquiddick is, in their minds, behind them, it's call your war room time again...

http://tinyurl.com/baanht (Tor*)

Having cast their protest vote Tuesday, a spokesperson confirmed that Ignatieff now expects the Newfoundland MPs to support the budget on all subsequent votes, including the budget implementation bill.

Moreover, he's told the MPs they can't attempt to amend the bill, which is to be introduced this week...

From the Western Star (Gerry Byrne's riding)earlier today from the comments...

Madhatter from AB writes: If the Liberals were serious about the damage the CPC budget is suppose to do to NL, as Iggy claims, why didn't they ask for an amendment to remove it or else they weren't going to vote for it?

It appears that what is important to the Iggy Libs is that the only amendment asked was for 3 confidence vote updates every quarter regarding implementation of the budget. This allows Iggy to follow polling data and when that data is in the margins whereby the possibility of Liberals regaining power strongly exists, only than will the government fall. It also means the LPC has to cheer on a recession so that it gets bad enough the natives get restless. Nice bunch eh.

Maybe the premier or NL Libs should begin asking Iggy to sign a contract stating that a LPC led federal govt. will revert the equalization payments to pre-2009 budget caps imposed by the CPC and voted for by the LPC. Otherwise this is just more grandstanding and feigned outrage.

http://tinyurl.com/bq6z7w

The implementation bill is the actual bill that removes the 50% O'Brien formula which is the most lucrative of all 3 options for all the have-not provinces and the one that has Danny and Charest upset.

Ted Quote:
"you probably feel the election finance laws don't apply to you so why learn them."
Liberals think all laws don't apply to them, including criminal law.

No, EBD. The Laurier Club is the Liberal Party, part of it at any rate, not something outside or separate. It is just a way to organize the party. You pay an annual membership fee to be a part of it and you get articles sent to you, events to attend, etc. It has been around a long time and as Kate points out (yes, Kate, I got the joke but clearly some readers didn't) it is known so nothing new is being revealed here. At the end of the year, the party calculates what what portion of the membership fee is attributable to the benefits through the year (i.e. what you "bought") and what portion is straight donation.

Like donating to the "Women's Wing" of a party or paying a fee to a convention. If you pay a convention fee of $1000 and the party pays $100 worth of meals for you, then your donation is $900 and you bought $100 of benefits. Elections Canada and Revenue Canada recognize the $900 as a direct donations to the party (and not the $1000 on your taxes), it is just reported on a little differently because it has to be calculated whereas just giving them a cheque for $1000 doesn't.

Oh gosh and you also receive a Laurier lapel pin. Yes indeed.

By the way, I think a rather more important financial issue is WHEN is the Liberal Party going to repay the more than 40 million that they stole from the taxpayers which they used to finance their election campaigns in Quebec? Well?

Now the funding system has changed; the system now takes money from the taxpayers..legally..and hands it over to the political parties. But the taxpayers didn't approve this Motion which was put through by Chretien in 2003.

However, the Liberal Party stole from the taxpayers. When is it going to return this money?

Thanks Ted, that's helpful. In light of recent history, though, do you see a problem with donations being made to the Liberal party that are -- apparently -- not attached to individual names, as required for the Elections Canada database?

Okay, one joins a club and a portion of one's fees go to the LPC. But shouldn't there be a name clearly attached to such a re-routed donation?
Surely the rules of the Laurier Club don't obviate Elections Canada rules.

I don't know, though; you know more than I do. it's the sort of thing I'd have to check up on.

That's what I'm trying to say, EBD. The individual's name IS attached to the donation. But because it is not a straight "here's the cheque" donation, just like with a dinner fundraiser or convention, the party is required to calculate the cost of any benefit you paid for (like a meal) since you will not get to deduct that portion as a political donation. So the reporting process for these sorts of things is a bit different.

Trust your instincts: given that this has been going on for so long, don't you think someone in the CPC would have raised the issue long ago?

"Both Michael and his wife, Zsuzsanna Zsohar, have donated the maximum amount to the Michael Ignatieff campaign in 2009. And, in 2007, Zsuzsanna donated $1,000 to Michael’s riding..."

So The Count and The Countess donated money to ... themselves. Well, that's generous. I think the last time I saw this kind of generosity on display was back when Al Gore bought some carbon credits from himself.

Ted:

The laurier club is either a wholly-owned subsidairy of the LP or it is not. If it is then ALL funds sent its way are donations and a part of the 1000 max - including meals etc..

If it is not then it is a type of money-laundering scheme that eliminates the tracing of the donation attributed to someone as actually having been paid by that person. Perhaps a bigwig (first letter whose last name starts with "D" perhaps) has written a massive cheque to the club and the rest of the members put in a pittance. Then the club somehow generates contribution rcts to the members as it sees fit thus enabling the big wig to go way over the contribution limit.

If the elections canada act permits this latter option the loophole should be closed forthwith (maybe someone in the CPC caucus could table it as a friendly amendment to the budget bill). And the only way for the RCMP to investigate is to check the suspect's rects and bank statements for money given to the club. If what has been posted above is true something north of 2 million this past year may be involved or at least is not accurately reported as who made the individual donation.

And the only way Iggy can prove that he was indeed the source of his attributed donation is to produce a receipt from the laurier club for the same or more amount.

But Ted, if the individual's name is attached to the donation, why doesn't it (apparently) show up on Election Canada's database? I understand that the party is required to calculate the cost of any benefit you paid for; this is a familiar gambit to those who've followed LPC funding procedures.

Are you saying that the reporting process for these sorts of Laurier Club things is a bit different from what's required by Elections Canada?

Thanks for your continuing explanations, and please bear in mind that my questions are entirely and exclusively spurred by information you've provided here in this thread.

Gord, you are barking up the wrong tree. The maximum cap is still the maximum cap. No one can donate more than $1,100 whether that is a straight up donation, a convention fee, a fundraising dinner or a party club fee. Period.

And the tax rules are the same for each too. If the Conservative Party sells you a t-shirt saying, oh, I don't know, maybe "Harper is God's Arrow" and they charge you $200 for this historic collectible but the market cost is $10, then you have donated $190 and cannot deduct the extra $10 from your taxes. But it is the party that must make that calculation and factor it in to the tax receipt it issues to you. The full $200 is a donation that the CPC must record, but you only get a tax receipt for $190 because you paid value for a good/benefit.

A club within a party is no different except you have to calculate all of the $10 goods/benefits throughout the whole year. Which is why it is no different than anything else except the returns can't be done and the tax receipts can't be issued until the end of the year.

EBD, I'm not sure about the exact process and forms and returns that need to be submitted, but convention fees, party club fees etc. all have to comply with Elections Canada requirements. So it may be that EC has a different form, additional supporting materials you have to provide, or takes more time to look at these things which would explain why the aggregate number is shown on its website but not the individual donations, yet. Donations to the party through the Laurier Club in prior years are fully reported on an individual basis, but they are up in any database that I can find at EC for 2008 yet.

Given how quick some in the CPC clearly are to accuse the Liberals of wrongdoing, whether or not they have a shred of evidence to back it up or rely simply on blog posts for support, you can rest assured that the CPC would have raised a stink if these weren't flowing through.

I think the only issue is a delay in putting up the numbers on the EC's own database.

Ted, with respect, you're missing the point: if a name isn't attached to a "straight up donation, a convention fee, a fundraising dinner or a party club fee," how does it follow that "no one can donate more than $1,100"?

In other words, if Elections Canada doesn't have a *name* connected to a given donation, i.e. if the donation is "attached to" some other fundraising mechanism that you, through a description of the process, describe as legitimate, how then could anyone know how much any given individual has donated? Surely if Michael Ignatieff, to pick a name out of a hat, donated through a "club," there must be some way of writing out the letters in his name and attaching it, on the record, to the donation.

"Laurier Club"??? LOL!!

SO. WHAT?

Ted:

If my riding association puts on a BBQ I cannot pay for it. It comes out of the ridings funds that are registered donations.

If each and every item is recorded and paid for then that's okay. But if the club members just kick in money and the get some kind of reconciliation back at the end of the year - that is either illegal or a loop hole because fat cats can then throw a wad of cash into the club and get back a political receipt for a 1000 and the rest attributed to club expenses (Or not at all?). T-shirt purchases and specific events (dinners) can be profit-making obviously, but at the ones i have been to you usually get a partial donation receipt if the meal was worth far less than the ticket. At least that's what i have seen.

Check that, on my last comment. The rule is that all of the meal is a donation.

So let me get this Laurier Club thing straight:

- Count Iggy is a member of the club
- the club membership is considered a personal political donation
- the amount of this personal political donation doesn't show up in Elections Canada database against Count Iggy

Do I have this right? So, although (heaven forfend) Count Iggy hasn't doubled-up on his maximum donation amount, apparently others could.

This doesn't seem to be honest and above-board.

"Someone help Ted get the fishhook out of his mouth...

Posted by: Kate at February 4, 2009 9:48 PM "
I would,Kate,but I am not into catch and release when it comes to Liebranos.

I belonged to a church once that had a "club" similar to the Laurier Club. The members insisted that their contributions to the "club," stacked with like-minded and rather nasty individuals, were to furnish "emergency funds" if the church ever needed them.

Sure. When the church did need them, they kicked and screamed that they were being asked to dip into their slush fund. In the meantime, they all got income tax receipts.

Eeyore: "This doesn't seem to be honest and above-board."

It wasn't. And their little cabal was eventually broken up, again with the "club" members kicking and screaming.

A pox on all the secret agenda/slush fund houses ...

How many members of this club made the maximum donation ( personally ) ? If they did , what happens to their .... cough , cough ..... membership fees at the laundry club ?

He's been gaffed out of the hole and is flopping on the ice.
Hand me the Laurier club.

Its not a Fishhook. Ted has a teeny weeny umbrella perched above his head because the Acme catapault for launching big rocks at the PC Roadrunner is crashing down on to his head.

Now would be a good time for that little white sign that says:

"help."

set you free:

When you play the role of the wise elder, does that make you superior ... or does is just make you FEEL superior?

Just asking.

an easy addendum to the budget bill that even the dippers could support

"that the Liberal Party of Canada pay back in full all funds stolen from the taxpayers of Canada in Adscam immediately and forthwith"

and Warren Kinsella could deliver the cheque to the GG while making his chinese food delivery as penance.