Liberal 2006 Leadership Deadline Passes; Quarterly Subsidies Paid
As mentioned at the top of the 2010 Calendar, the year in news really kicked off with a deadline occurring on the last day of 2009: the last day for 2006 Liberal leadership candidates to repay loans taken out to finance their leadership campaigns under extensions legally grantable by the Chief Electoral Officer.
Glen McGregor of the Ottawa Citizen followed up with many of the key figures in a story on this morning's front page. He reports that Scott Brison has now joined Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, and Carolyn Bennett in paying off all outstanding loans, making his last payment in early December. As we mentioned before, Ken Dryden had been given until the end of June, 2010.
This leaves the following leadership candidates (with mostly unknown loan balances) having to seek the permission of a judge to continue raising funds to pay them off, or else the loans become one or more deemed contributions potentially putting the lenders over the legal contribution limit (the amounts shown below are the amounts reported in the candidates' last public filings with Elections Canada on June 3, 2008, as reported in the Hill Times):
We'll have a list of the final contributions at the end of January, as part of the parties' quarterly contribution filings with Elections Canada.
Meantime, the parties' quarterly allowances ("public subsidies") were paid out yesterday. Here's the history of payments:
Follow the Pundits' Guide on Twitter for all the latest fun with numbers.
Glen McGregor of the Ottawa Citizen followed up with many of the key figures in a story on this morning's front page. He reports that Scott Brison has now joined Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, and Carolyn Bennett in paying off all outstanding loans, making his last payment in early December. As we mentioned before, Ken Dryden had been given until the end of June, 2010.
This leaves the following leadership candidates (with mostly unknown loan balances) having to seek the permission of a judge to continue raising funds to pay them off, or else the loans become one or more deemed contributions potentially putting the lenders over the legal contribution limit (the amounts shown below are the amounts reported in the candidates' last public filings with Elections Canada on June 3, 2008, as reported in the Hill Times):
- $627,860 (loans outstanding on June 3, 2008 filing with Elections Canada) - Stéphane DION - McGregor reports that this balance was down to $80,000 plus 6% interest as of July, 2009
- $395,890 - Ken DRYDEN - June 30, 2010
- $322,361 - Gerard KENNEDY
- $269,378 - Maurizio BEVILACQUA
- $184,460 - Martha HALL FINDLEY
- $160,290 - Joe VOLPE
- $104,000 - Hedy FRY
- $0 - Carolyn BENNETT
- $0 - Scott BRISON
- $0 - Michael IGNATIEFF
- $0 - Bob RAE
We'll have a list of the final contributions at the end of January, as part of the parties' quarterly contribution filings with Elections Canada.
Meantime, the parties' quarterly allowances ("public subsidies") were paid out yesterday. Here's the history of payments:
Annual Allowances to Registered Parties, by Payment Date
| Period | Lib | NDP | Grn | BQ | Cons | Paid |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 - Q4 | $1,815,230 | $1,256,701 | $468,455 | $689,478 | $2,602,581 | 04-Jan-10 |
| 2009 - Q3 | $1,815,230 | $1,256,701 | $468,455 | $689,478 | $2,602,581 | 01-Oct-09 |
| 2009 - Q2 | $1,815,230 | $1,256,701 | $468,455 | $689,478 | $2,602,581 | 02-Jul-09 |
| 2009 - Q1 | $1,773,903 | $1,228,089 | $457,790 | $673,781 | $2,543,328 | 01-Apr-09 |
| 2008 - Q4 | $2,187,074 | $1,264,370 | $324,231 | $758,350 | $2,623,890 | 05-Jan-09 |
| 2008 - Q3 | $2,187,074 | $1,264,370 | $324,231 | $758,350 | $2,623,890 | 02-Oct-08 |
| 2008 - Q2 | $2,187,074 | $1,264,370 | $324,231 | $758,350 | $2,623,890 | 03-Jul-08 |
| 2008 - Q1 | $2,140,040 | $1,237,179 | $317,258 | $742,041 | $2,567,462 | 07-Apr-08 |
| 2007 - Q4 | $2,140,040 | $1,237,179 | $317,258 | $742,041 | $2,567,462 | 03-Jan-08 |
| 2007 - Q3 | $2,140,040 | $1,237,179 | $317,258 | $742,041 | $2,567,462 | 02-Oct-07 |
| 2007 - Q2 | $2,140,040 | $1,237,179 | $317,258 | $742,041 | $2,567,462 | 05-Jul-07 |
| 2007 - Q1 | $2,096,926 | $1,212,255 | $310,867 | $727,092 | $2,515,737 | 04-Apr-07 |
| 2006 - Q4 | $2,096,926 | $1,212,255 | $310,867 | $727,092 | $2,515,737 | 05-Jan-07 |
| 2006 - Q3 | $2,096,926 | $1,212,255 | $310,867 | $727,092 | $2,515,737 | 04-Oct-06 |
| 2006 - Q2 | $2,096,926 | $1,212,255 | $310,867 | $727,092 | $2,515,737 | 07-Jul-06 |
| 2006 - Q1 | $2,282,186 | $974,374 | $266,686 | $769,708 | $1,841,145 | 06-Apr-06 |
| 2005 - Q4 | $2,282,186 | $974,374 | $266,686 | $769,708 | $1,841,145 | 01-Jan-06 |
| 2005 - Q3 | $2,282,186 | $974,374 | $266,686 | $769,708 | $1,841,145 | 01-Oct-05 |
| 2005 - Q2 | $2,282,186 | $974,374 | $266,686 | $769,708 | $1,841,145 | 01-Jul-05 |
| 2005 - Q1 | $2,240,772 | $956,692 | $261,847 | $755,740 | $1,807,734 | 01-Apr-05 |
| 2004 - Q4 | $0 | $956,692 | $261,847 | $322,846 | $0.00 | 07-Jan-05 |
| 2004 - Q3 | ($49,646) | $12,958 | $261,847 | $0 | ($563,630) | 07-Oct-04 |
| 2004 - All | $9,191,054 | $1,914,269 | $2,411,022 | $8,476,872 | 01-Jan-04 | |
Follow the Pundits' Guide on Twitter for all the latest fun with numbers.
Labels: Party Finance
posted by The Pundits' Guide at
5:00 AM
11 Comments:
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/248647--mcfadden-runs-again-for-city-council
Looks like you might have to change your info.
"It was explained to me by a senior official on one of the campaigns that the contribution limits were changed from $5,400 to $1,100 in the middle of the campaign"
The rules were changed on January 1, 2007, but the actual leadership vote was held in December 2006, so how can anyone say the limits were changed in the middle of the campaign ?
Well, you got me there, jad, because I don't know a lot about this subject, and may have paraphrased that explanation incorrectly.
It still seems reasonable to me to interpret it as follows: assume I intend to contribute the limit of $5,400 to the candidate of my choice, but I can't manage the entire amount in one fell swoop. I might say, well I'll give you $2,700 this year and $2,700 next year, but then the change comes in, and I'm stuck because now I've already given the nerw lower limit.
Perhaps it might have been more accurate for me to say "in the middle of the fundraising period" rather than "in the middle of the campaign". Does that seem more reasonable, based on your better knowledge of that legislation?
Oh, and thanks, Top Can, for the clipping. I ran out of steam last night on nominations updates, but as ever will try again tonight.
Alice, I think it's just a cop-out.
When the leadership race started, allowable contributions were $5,400. When the leadership race finished, ie the vote was held, the allowable contribution was still $5,400. So all contributions should in theory have been made by the date of the vote.
Now if you committed to donate $5,400, but only gave $2,700 before the vote, certainly the extra $2,700 would be over the new limit in 2007. But Elections Canada seems to view the critical date as the start of the contest, not the date the money was actually paid, in which case you would be OK. I think this is because they see leadership races as a single entity, not based on calendar years as regular contributions are.
Of course, that scenario begs the questions as to why you would donate to a leadership campaign when the race was over, particularly if your candidate lost. The "fundraising period" would seem to me to start the date the race is called, and end on the day of the vote. Agreed, there would likely be some odds and ends to tidy up post vote, but that should not be substantial.
IMO, this is just a cheap attempt to say it's not really the Liberals fault that they couldn't raise the money. The Conservatives changed the rules in mid-stream.
I hope you know by now, jad, that I try to examine things from the perspective of the practitioners of politics in each of the parties, according to the external rules and their own internal rules and norms, and then find a way to outline the facts in a way that creates a common basis for comparison.
In my experience, the two things that drive political practitioners the craziest are: (a) when the playing field is not even; and (b) to be given one set of rules, and then find out halfway through an endeavour that those rules are being changed. I think that's a large part of what's behind the Conservatives' anger around the "accounting for advertising" issue.
In a smaller and less well known case, it was also the source for irritation in the matter of whether fundraising costs were election expenses or not. They didn't used to be, but then suddenly just before the last general election, it was ruled that they were, to the immense inconcenience of some key folks who had set up their strategy based on the old assumption. You can notice the effect on central fundraising by both the Liberals and Conservatives during the campaign period in my blogpost examining last year's so-called "Ignatieff Effect" on fundraising by date.
Now, you might assert that people *should* have considered the end of the campaign period to be the end of the fundraising period, but the fact remains that they were certainly allowed to raise funds afterwards, although suddenly from fewer people, and in lesser amounts.
One might also argue that those campaigns were neither frugal nor realistic in their spending, but that would again be another value judgement coming from me. My policy here is to lay out the facts as best I can, and let folks like you (or my own evil partisan twin who I keep locked up and far away from this website) come to their own conclusions.
Now, of course I love to hear those conclusions, as well, but I actually take it as a point of pride that people don't come to my comment boards to spew partisan invective, but rather to discuss technical minutiae of campaigns and campaigning.
And, as with today, I often learn something from them as well.
Your continuing to read and comment is most appreciated, jad. Happy New Year.
Alice, I was not in any way trying to infer that you were partisan on this issue, or in fact on any other. I was simply saying that the "senior official" was spinning this issue as hard as he could. The major reason that the various former candidates find themselves in difficulty is because they got in way over their heads and simply canot raise money. Whether the limits were $i,000 or $5,000 would be immaterial, since most of them owe about $250,000.
I do take your point about partisan invective. One of the reasons I come here is that you provide fact-based posts, and as a result you are (fortunately) ignored by the sort of commenters who populate the more rabid websites.
Many thanks for your work.
I think PG is right- it has always been the norm that a lot of the money for leadership races is raised after it is over.
And given that even the $5,400 limit brought in by Chretien was already a big change.... that made it all the more certain that a LOT of the fundraising was planned to happen after the race was over.
That said, I agree that the excuse is a bit of a cop-out. Even if they had been allowed to pull in what remained of every $5400 pledge, they would still have been in over their heads.
And while I don't remember when the Accountability Act that changed it to $1100 was in committee, I'm sure it was discussed and known to be inevitable long before the end of the leadership race. So they knew what was coming as they made decisions to continue spending the money.
If individual campaigns were worried about cutting back their spending while the others didn't, they could have petitioned the party to impose new limits in light of the changes.
But the Liberals are way too divided, and way too used to assuming they are going to float through everything.
The Green Party is going to be a very close watcher of what comes next in this uncharted territory of private loans.
They have successfully skirted away from contravening the Act by having a revolving fund of private loans. When private lender Jane Doe's term comes due, she is replaced by new lender Joe Blow. Etc.
But hat system was built with the personal touch of Jim Harris. He isn't doing it now, and replacing him is light years beyond the capabilities of the May crowd.
Meanwhile, fundraising is sliding back and also gets unfocused attention, and cash flow issues make the bank loan payments dicey, let alone paying off the private loans that they have never actually had to do.
Furthermore, May and the GPC have gone out of sight from the national media while they throw EVERYTHING into her winning the seat in Saanich - Gulf Islands. A drop in their national vote share is highly likely with the next election, and with that a drop in the subsidies that are their primary revenue source.
Tick, tick, tick....
So what happens when just like those Liberal leadership campaigns, the GPC can no longer even nominally pay off those private loans?
it doesn't surprise me these former liberal candidates have raised little to no money as there party in general doesn't seem to be that great at fundraising and i'd expect there would be very little interest during a recession to donate to a " former " leadership candidate .
Hi everyone.
You know, I think you need a bit of optimism to run for public office and leadership positions. Perhaps that makes people reach a bit higher than in retrospect they ought to have. But I hate to stamp out optimism in people who want to serve the public.
My impression is that those candidates are trying hard to raise the money required to pay back their lenders, but as Anon says, it is hard to do as a former candidate, and with other events like by-elections and general elections intervening and competing for those funds.
I gather that a judge can grant them extensions, and I guess we'll see what happens soon enough.
Its worth noting that Elections Canada itself has noted in policy/discussion papers that the situation around private loans in untenable.
In the end, some or all of those contenders are going to acknowedge they can never pay off the loans. And there is no good enforcement solution to that.
Because the private loans are in practical conflict with the strict limitation of individual donations, EC wants to see the Act changed and private loand banned.
Legislation to do that has been tabled and died- I believe twice even.
I think that the Green Party never being able to repay some of their private loans is now inevitable.
And when/if that happens, what is Elections Canda supposed to do about it?
I agree with PG that ultimately you cant really blame the leadership candidates or their campaign teams for what happened. The rules were all new, and they did even change mid-way.
If anyone is to be faulted for being slack, its the Liberal Party.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home