Roundup: A two-fingered fix for fundraising

Posted on by

After months now of interminable questions about the perfectly legal fundraising practices of the Liberals, it was let known that they will be a tabling a bill in the near future to…do something about it. Not really clamp down. Not really stop. Just add more disclosure, and ensure that events don’t happen in private homes, which many people argue is not really the point, but I think is more of the government giving two fingers to their critics and making some cosmetic changes to shut people up.

Kady O’Malley rather astutely observes that this is really setting a trap for opposition parties, particularly with the proposed provisions around party leaders and leadership candidates being subject to the same new rules, waiting for them to oppose it so that they can be accused of hypocrisy. I would add that there’s an element of payback in here for the way in which the Conservatives and NDP got together in 2006 to screw the Liberals in the middle of their leadership contest by changing the fundraising rules right in the middle of it, meaning that some of those candidates were unable to raise enough money to pay back debts that they would have had little problem doing beforehand.

Of course, it all goes back to the fact that this whole story has been overblown from the very start. These fundraisers were never really “cash for access” as they were billed – they were only termed so because the journalists at the centre of this were trying to piggyback on the kind of mess that was happening in Ontario where cabinet ministers were largely blackmailing companies that were trying to lobby them for tens of thousands of dollars in order to get a hearing, which is absolutely not what was happening in this context, nor, and this bears repeating again and again, can you buy meaningful influence for $1500. And even if you get your five minutes with the PM and want to give your pitch to him, do you honestly think that it would really sway his opinion when he’s got people who want pitch him all the time? I’m not convinced. And, as they’ve said (and as this “listening tour” has again demonstrated), they’ve shown a remarkable degree of openness to regular Canadians and are constantly consulting. It’s not like the only time you can see them is at a fundraiser. But ooh, scary Chinese businessmen! Anyway, I’ll let Howard Anglin take it from here.

Oh, and one more reminder about how overblown this has all been: Transparency International has us as one of the cleanest, least corrupt countries in the world. Given the pearl-clutching you hear from our commentariat, you wouldn’t actually know that.

Incidentally, the Conservatives are already howling at the moon about this, and the NDP’s Alexandre Boulerice says it’s not enough and he’ll table his own bill – except that’s an empty threat since he’s so far down the Order of Precedence that it will never see the light of day.

Good reads:

  • Remember when Rona Ambrose railed that Trudeau “showed all his cards” when he said he was willing to talk about NAFTA? Now she’s saying it can be improved.
  • Canada and the Netherlands will provide increased funding for reproductive services (including abortion) as part of foreign aid since Trump cut American aid.
  • Here’s a look at the impacts on Canada after the first week of the Trumpocalypse.
  • A group of national security experts wants the government to accept the amendments to Bill C-22 on creating the oversight committee or parliamentarians.
  • The RCMP have launched a new internal awareness campaign about sexual misconduct and are trying to better train managers to deal with complaints.
  • The National Energy Board has reset the Energy East process to zero.
  • Kevin O’Leary is claiming a successful membership and fundraising drive, and then went on ET Canada to get teary about getting his children’s support.
  • Kevin Carmichael mulls over where Canada should be looking to trade in the era of the Trumpocalypse.
  • Andrew Potter offers some thoughtful critiques of the Shattered Mirror report on the state of civic journalism.
  • Colby Cosh disabuses the notion that Trump is bringing in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, and gives a great reminder about the book’s actual lessons.

Odds and ends:

There are yet more calls to rename Langevin Block because of its namesake’s connection to residential schools, rather than use it as a learning opportunity.

3 thoughts on “Roundup: A two-fingered fix for fundraising”

  1. Always enjoy the roundup.

    About the fundraisers You wrote: “… nor, and this bears repeating again and again, can you buy meaningful influence for $1500.”

    That is self-evident, I agree.

    But it raises the unanswered question: Why would a busy businessperson part with $1500 and an evening of her precious time if there’s no benefit? It doesn’t make sense.

    Unless we start thinking about these fundraisers not as a bribery scheme but rather as a very effective protection racket.

    Imagine receiving a telephone call from “the office of Anna Gainey, the Prime Minister’s friend and head of the Liberal Party” inviting you to a small intimate gathering with the PM, a small donation to help defray costs being required.

    I don’t know about you but, the implied threat is pretty clear (“Nice relationship you have with the government… too bad if something were to happen to it.”).

    I’d pay.

    • Were that to be happening, then sure, you could say that. But there’s never been any evidence of that, and for the most part, people who have business with ministers are barred from attending fundraisers with them; most of the “examples” that have been brought up to date (the guy with the bank, the CEO of the drug company) are overblown examples that Trudeau wouldn’t have really had much influence over anyway, so again, I’m trying not to create conspiracy theories or wild accusations.

  2. I would subscribe to the “giving two fingers to their critics” theory, rather than theorizing about “payback” for fundraising rule changes by the Conservatives that impacted 2006 Liberal leadership candidates. Anyone who believes that the current government gives a moment’s thought about Liberals active in that era hasn’t been paying attention — just ask Stéphane Dion.

Comments are closed.