Browse

Quick Search

... by Riding
... by Candidate

Nominations now closed

Click here to see a list of all candidates, or click below to see the list by party:

* Lib

* NDP

* Grn

* BQ

* Cons

* PC

* Ind

* Oth

|
Home: Blog--Guide to the Pundits' Guide
41st General Election Nominations Progress Chart

Nominations Progress - 41st General Election

Seats with First-Time Incumbents
 YTNTNUBCABSKMBONQCNBNSPENLTotPctWomPct
Seats1113628141410675101147308  
Lib1113628141410675101147308100%9029.2%
NDP1113628141410675101147308100%12440.3%
Grn11136281414103759114730499%10032.9%
BQ        75    7524%2432.0%
Cons1113628141410674101147307100%6822.2%
PC   31  5     93%  
Ind   137242193  26120%11.6%
Oth 1 4120159845121 21570%4520.9%

BLOG -- Guide to the Pundits' Guide

Monday, January 18, 2010

Two Significant Court Rulings in Elections Law

Two significant rulings have been handed down in the last month relating to elections law, and particularly the provisions regarding election expenses.

For complete coverage of today's ruling on the so-called "in-and-out" case, consult Kady O'Malley's post for cbc.ca/politics (h/t for the link to the ruling), Glen McGregor's story for the Ottawa Citizen (which includes a fantastic graphic by Robert Cross), and Tim Naumetz who covered the political reaction in greatest detail for Canadian Press. Commentary from the blogosphere has been light so far, but includes Stephen Taylor and Steve Janke from the Conservative side of the spectrum, and the Jurist at Accidental Deliberations for a more NDP orientation. Typically Impolitical blogs on election law cases from the Liberal corner, but she hasn't written on this one as yet, although I'm told to stay tuned (ah, here we are now).

Inside the 'in-and-out' scheme, by Robert Cross for the Ottawa Citizen

I still haven't had the time to read the ruling in sufficient detail to absorb all the important legal, political and strategic points it raises, but here are two versions of the ruling (HTML and PDF), and my preliminary take on it from the comments on an earlier blogpost:

Campbell v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) (2010 FC 43) T-838-07, Date: January 18, 2010

L.G. (Gerry) Callaghan et al. v. the Chief Electoral Officer (PDF version; and, no, I don't know why the case is titled differently here than in the above citation; Campbell was the candidate and Callaghan was his official agent)

My superquick reading of the court ruling says that in-and-out transfers of funds per se are fine, as they always were, and that the content of a candidate's ads can promote the candidate OR the party OR the leader, as always used to be the case. The Chief Electoral Officer was trying to argue that the ads *had* to promote the candidate in order to count as a candidate's election expense.

On the other hand, the court ruled that there has to be a reasonable basis for allocating costs of regional ad buys between the local campaigns, based on their market value to the campaign (not on the basis of how much room they have left under their spending limit); and that the difference between what the candidate's campaign paid and the market value of those ads to the candidate's campaign is to be considered a contribution in kind (and thus counts towards the candidate's spending limit; note that only paid expenses are rebatable under the Elections Act).

Judge Martineau asserts that if a candidate's official agent paid the expense, that in and of itself is sufficient evidence that the candidate's campaign approved of the expenditure.

Also, the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) is not forced to issue a certificate pro forma. But the differing statuatory roles of the CEO on the one hand, and the Commissioner on the other, are discussed. It's also clear that the Commissioner's investigation is on-going, and there may be other developments to come in this story.

Overall, I think the points were worth litigating, and the ruling will provide a lot better guidance to both the CEO as well as to all the political parties. I have no idea whether it will be appealed. However, I would like to see a bit more clarification as to what the courts believe the difference is between a national party's election expense and a candidate's expense, as I think there must be some (less restrictive) way of deciding which category an expenditure fits into. Otherwise why would we have separate national and candidate spending limits?

Parties and candidates can currently transfer funds to each other at will as often as they like, and riding associations can transfer funds back and forth with either parties or their own local candidates. The only kinds of transfers that aren't permitted are from one candidate to another. Yet, the regime apparently enabled by provisions of this ruling would seem to allow *election expenses* to be transferred from one entity to another, rather than just funds. Although, this might be the subject of the investigation by the Commissioner of Elections, so I guess we'll just have to be patient.

The other ruling which we discussed before, relating to whether GST rebates on their 2004 and 2006 campaign election expenses, which were received by the Conservative Party by virtue of being a non-profit organization, ought to reduce their reported election spending for those campaigns, has now been published here:

Conservative Fund Canada v. Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, 2009 CanLII 72340 (ON S.C.), Date: December 31, 2009.

Happy reading, all you legal beagles.

Labels:

Monday, November 30, 2009

2008 Candidate Financial Returns: Latest Data

I've just finished making a pass-through, updating the database with the latest version of each candidate's 2008 financial return information from Elections Canada. Both the Bloc Québécois and Conservatives are substantially through the review process, while the Liberals, Greens and NDP returns are taking longer for Elections Canada to get through.

This increases substantially from last time the number of 2008 candidate returns in the Pundits' Guide database, meaning that the summary financial data on the Browse Parties page for this election is starting to be a lot more reliable. For example, we can now see that:
  • With 9 returns yet to be filed or entered into the Elections Canada database, the Liberals seem to have spent around 50% of their 2008 candidate spending limits overall, which is down roughly 10 percentage points from 2006, and down 25 percentage points from 2004. Fewer than 1 in 3 of their candidates spent over 75% of the limit in 2008, unlike 2006 when over half their candidates ran fully-funded campaigns. And while just over 50% of their candidates spent over 50% the limit in 2008, that metric is down from 87% in 2004.
  • With 7 returns yet to be filed or entered into the Elections Canada database, the NDP was on track to spend around 25% of its 2008 candidate spending limits overall, roughly the same as in both 2004 and 2006. 36/308 candidates spent over 75% of the spending limit in their riding, while 66 spent over 50% (up slightly from 54 in 2004 and 61 in 2006).
  • With 12 returns yet to be filed or entered into the Elections Canada database, the Green Party looks to have more than doubled its candidate spending in 2008, moving from 3% or so in both 2004 and 2006 to some 7% in 2008. 4/303 candidates spent greater than 75% of the limit, while 7/303 spent 50% or more.
  • All the Bloc Québécois returns are filed, and all but 15/75 have already been reviewed. Their spending patterns were not significantly different in 2008 from 2006.
  • With just 1 return yet to be filed or entered into the Elections Canada database, the Conservatives again dominated candidate election spending, and in fact increased their own percent spent from 69% in 2006 to 72% or more in 2008. Fully 170/308 of their candidates spent 75% of the riding spending limit or more (the same number as in 2006), with 248/307 spending 50% of the limit or more.
As more returns move from "as submitted" to "as reviewed" status and I get a chance to enter the amended figures, we'll have an even clearer picture of what the candidates spent and where.

Remember that this is candidate spending, according to the candidate financial returns, and is in addition to the central spending done by party headquarters and already reported by them six months after Election Day. In the Browse Parties financial table, the national spending is on the left, and doesn't change as you drill down further by region, while the candidate spending is found on the right, and does show regional subsets as you drill down.

# of Candidate Returns by Status, by Party, 2008 General Election

PartyParty NameNot
In
As
Sub
As
Rev
Ran in
2008 GE
LibLiberal Party of Canada9
183
114
307
NDPNew Democratic Party7
213
88
308
GrnGreen Party of Canada12
199
92
303
BQBloc Québécois
15
60
75
ConsConservative Party of Canada1
118
188
307
PCProgressive Canadian Party1
4
5
10
IndIndep/No Affil13
34
24
71
1stFirst Peoples National Party2
4

6
AnmlAnimal Alliance Environment Voters Party
1
3
4
CAPCanadian Action Party4
8
8
20
CHPChristian Heritage Party2
32
25
59
CPCCommunist Party of Canada
24

24
LbtnLibertarian Party of Canada2
14
10
26
MarjMarijuana Party
1
7
8
M-L
Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada
15
44
59
N1stNewfoundland and Labrador First Party1
2

3
PPPPeople's Political Power Party
2

2
RhinneoRhino.ca
4
3
7
WBlkWestern Block Party1


1
WrkLWork Less Party
1

1

Labels: ,

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

In-and-Out Hearings: Send Pain Meds Urgently

If you haven't been doing so already, I'm recommending that readers who are or have been active participants in the electoral process check out the detailed coverage the Ottawa Citizen's Glen McGregor has been giving, on Twitter, of the Federal Court hearings into the so-called "in-and-out" accounting for advertising issue.

Poor Glen; he doesn't spend his days and nights pouring over minutiae in the Elections Act and the changing versions of the Candidate Manual the way many of us do. There's not exactly a mass audience for that kind of detailed coverage; but I'm guessing that if there's a niche audience, it probably overlaps with the readership of this blog quite a bit.

And for someone not steeped in all the background the way a practitioner might be, he's doing yeoman service covering the arguments being presented by each of the lawyers, the questioning by Judge Martineau, and filling in some of the background as required (although he's finding some of it a bit arcane, and jokes that he's willing to entertain sponsorships from suppliers of pain medication).

If you haven't explored Twitter before, just click on this link: http://twitter.com/CPCvsElxCan, and then scroll down to the bottom of the page, and click on the "More" button. Keep repeating until you get to his first post (or "tweet" as they're called), and then read upwards to get the detail in chronological order. The hearings have been on for two days already, and continue tomorrow morning. To follow them live, visit the same page, and reload it periodically.

This is the future of journalism, and if you've ever found yourself complaining about the lack of detail or substance in mainstream media coverage of a story you care about, then you'll be pleasantly surprised. Glen does a lot within the 140-character limit each "tweet" is confined to.

For some documentary background on the so-called "In-out-Out" accounting for advertising dispute between Elections Canada on the one hand, and the Conservative Party and official agents for 67 of its candidates in the 2006 general election on the other, please see my blogposts from the spring of 2008 where:
  • I transcribed the list of affected Conservative candidates, along with links to the financial metrics page for each of their ridings (which then contains direct links to their financial returns at Elections Canada), followed by
  • a listing of the candidates named in the affadavit of the organization director of the Conservative Party, as having met one of three criteria the CPC has argued were in wide use by other parties at the time (part I, part II, and part III of the so-called "Donald affadavit")
Thanks to Glen for providing this very interesting live and detailed coverage. I'm willing to chip in for his pain meds in return ... who else is in?

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Party By-election Spending Limits Released

I just noticed that Elections Canada has now published the spending limits for registered political parties running candidates in the four by-elections.

The limits are set according to an arithmetic formula, based on the number of electors on the list in each riding, the indexing factor in effect, and the number of candidates being endorsed by a given party across the 4 by-election ridings (see the Elections Canada fact-sheet for a detailed explanation).

We can figure out how much each riding contributes to the total limit, by doing some subtraction using the smaller parties who are only running in 1 or 2 ridings. The candidate preliminary spending limits were already announced earlier in the campaign.



NWC, BC
'Chlag, QC
MIKR, QC
CCMV, NS
Electors on List82,22678,26077,88667,789
Regis. Party
Limit ($)
$72,004.43$68,847.53$68,204.77$59,362.83
Prelim. Cand.
Limit ($)
$89,079.96$86,734.83$86,257.35$86,242.26

This breaks down by party as follows (also shown in the top table on this database page):


Lib, NDP,
Grn, Cons
BQCHPCPC-ML,
neoRhino.ca
# of Candidates4 ea.
2 (both QC)
1 (CCMV)
1 ea. ('Chlag)
Regis. Party
Limit ($)
$268,419.56$137,052.30 $59,362.83$68,847.53
Prelim. Cand.
Limit ($)
$348,314.40$172,992.18 $86,242.26$86,734.83

Parties report their by-election spending on Part 3a of their annual returns. Looking at the returns from 2007, for example, we see that, given a registered party spending limit of $171,997:As this demonstrates, unlike candidates, the parties are under no obligation to distribute their spending across the by-election ridings equally, or to stay under the allotment based on a riding's population in their spending on that riding. In fact, a party might be at an advantage if it were only targetting certain of the by-election seats, and could focus all their central resources on them, as compared with a party that targets and therefore spends equally in each one. In the case of the 2007 Québec by-elections, the Conservatives picked up a seat for all their targetted spending, and nearly picked up another. On the other hand, central spending alone did not help keep Outremont in Liberal hands that time.

In other by-election news, Advanced Voting starts this Friday.

Labels: ,

Monday, October 12, 2009

By-Election News and Updates

There's been a fair bit of regional news coverage about the by-elections in the past week, and for folks who might not have time to scour the web for it, here's a rundown on what's been happening.

Candidate Spending Limits

First of all, Elections Canada announced the candidate spending limits for each of the 4 ridings yesterday. I've added them into the database now, but 3 of the ridings have limits on the order of $86K, while NWC with its higher population is set around $89K. Once nominations officially close, Elections Canada will announce the parties' overall spending limits for the 4 ridings, based on the number of ridings in which they have duly nominated candidates.

Party Web Watch

Next up, 2 of the 5 political parties have already devoted significant real estate on their websites to the by-elections: Friday morning, the Bloc Québécois added Daniel Paillé in rotation with Nancy Gagnon in the top right-hand corner of their home page ...

BQ 2009 By-election Site screen 1

BQ 2009 By-election Site screen 1

... while the NDP returned to its "Unite 4 Change" theme of the last parliamentary session ("Le Pouvoir de changer" in french) to set up a pair of by-election specific websites that went live late this Friday afternoon in both english and french, and which are being promoted from their home page as well.

NDP 2009 By-election Site english

NDP 2009 By-election Site french

As I said, to date there is no mention or link to the by-election campaigns from the home pages of the Conservative, Liberal or Green Party websites, but we'll check back every so often and report when that aspect of their campaigns gets under way. Meantime, I've updated the candidates' database entries with all their website addresses, albeit that the Green Party has yet to announce a candidate for MIKR, and no websites have been located as yet for the 2 Québec Liberal candidates (but if you have the addresses, please do get in touch so I can update the site).

Riding Newswatch

While most folks already follow the main national news outlets (and one of the best ways to do so is via National Newswatch, if you're not familiar with the site), everyone knows that all politics is local politics. So I thought I'd run down what the local coverage is saying about the by-election campaigns in each riding, starting with Nova Scotia. The others will follow in later blogposts.

Cumberland – Colchester – Musquodoboit Valley, NS - The main news outlets are the Amherst Daily News in the north, and the Truro Daily News in the south. Anecdotally, some readers are complaining that the latter has too Tory a focus in its coverage, but as I'm not familiar with the news sources, I guess we'll just have to see over the course of the campaign how the different parties fare in terms of quantity and quality of coverage from the different outlets.
  • Byelection could prove interesting - [Amherst Daily News - Editorial - Oct 9, 2009] - Like it or not, voters in the federal riding of Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley are going to the polls in 32 days and the results could prove ...
  • Hot seat: Liberal candidate looking to capitalize on anti-Harper sentiment in byelection - [Amherst Daily News - Dave Mathieson - Oct 8, 2009] - How much resentment is still coarsing through the veins of the Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley electorate over the Bill Casey affair could determine ...
  • Retired military officer eager to serve as Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley MP - [Amherst Daily News - <no byline> - Oct 8, 2009] - Christian Heritage Party Leader Jim Hnatiuk became the first candidate to register for the byelection call in Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley ...
  • Byelection candidates hit the trail - [Truro Daily News - Jason Malloy - Oct 7, 2009] - Candidates are criss-crossing Cumberland Colchester Musquodoboit Valley looking for votes. From the New Brunswick border to the Pictou County line and ...
  • Armstrong hopeful of Conservative support in riding - [Amherst Daily News - Raissa Tetanish - Oct 5, 2009] - Winning over Bill Casey’s former supporters will be key to capturing Cumberland Colchester Musquodoboit Valley in the Nov. 9 byelection, says Conservative ...
  • Tories punishing riding for support of Casey, Liberal candidate says - [Amherst Daily News - <no byline> - Oct 5, 2009] - Taxpayers’ money should be spent fairly across the country regardless of who represents voters in the House of Commons, says the local Liberal candidate ...
  • Blanch to present Green option - [Amherst Daily News - Darrell Cole - Oct 5, 2009] - Jason Blanch is hoping to give the voters of northern Nova Scotia another option when they go to the polls sometime later this year to elect a replacement ...
  • Vote will delay news on federal funds for civic centre - [Truro Daily News - Jason Malloy - Oct 4, 2009] - Colchester County residents will have to wait at least another five weeks before hearing if the federal government will provide funds for the region’s ...
  • Federal byelection set for Nov. 9 - [Truro Daily News - Jason Malloy - Oct 4, 2009] - Central and Northern Nova Scotia will have its new member of Parliament in five weeks time. Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced four byelections, ...
  • Calling all voters - [Amherst Daily News - Darrell Cole - Oct 4, 2009] - Voters in Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley are going to the polls in early November to fill a vacancy created earlier this year by the resignation ...
  • Federal byelection called for Nov. 9 - [Truro Daily News - <no byline> - Oct 4, 2009] - Colchester County residents will have a new federal politician by mid November. Four byelections, including Cumberland Colchester Musquodoboit Valley, ...
  • By-Elections Called - [CKDH Amherst - <no byline> - Oct 4, 2009] - As expected, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has called four by-elections. One of those ridings is the Cumberland Colchester Musquidobit Valley, the seat ...
  • Green Party names candidate for vacant seat - [Truro Daily News - Darrell Cole - Oct 2, 2009] - Jason Blanch is hoping to give the voters of northern Nova Scotia another option when they go to the polls sometime later this year to elect a replacement ...
  • Austin acclaimed as NDP candidate for local riding - [Truro Daily News - <no byline> - Oct 2, 2009] - ...
  • Old Barns man to run for NDP in byelection - [Truro Daily News - <no byline> - Sep 27, 2009] - There are two qualities Mark Austin feels a member of parliament must possess. He feels he has both. The 50-year-old resident of Old Barns will run ...
  • Austin to run for NDP in federal byelection - [Truro Daily News - <no byline> - Sep 27, 2009] - Mark Austin, a 50-year-old resident of Old Barns will run for the NDP party in the Cumberland Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley byelection, which has yet ...
  • Liberal candidate wants federal byelection already - [Amherst Daily News - Jason Malloy - Sep 22, 2009] - The time has come for the Harper government to call a byelection for Central and Northern Nova Scotia, says the local Liberal candidate. Jim Burrows ...
  • Austin to represent NDP in federal vote - [Amherst Daily News - Darrell Cole - Sep 20, 2009] - Mark Austin will represent New Democrats in the upcoming federal byelection for Cumberland-Colchester-Mus-quodoboit Valley. The Old Barns resident has ...
  • Liberal wants federal government to call byelection - [Truro Daily News - <no byline> - Sep 18, 2009] -
  • Burrows will carry riding’s Liberal colours into next federal election - [Truro Daily News - Monique Chiasson - Sep 13, 2009] - Green Oaks dairy farmer Jim Burrows is the Cumberland Colchester Musquodoboit Valley Liberal candidate for the next federal election. Burrows, 51, operator ...
  • Liberals vote today for local candidate in next federal election - [Truro Daily News - Brad Works - Sep 13, 2009] - Local Liberals will choose between a campaign of experience and that of determination today when they select the party’s next candidate for the next federal ...
  • Burrows easily wins Cumberland Colchester Musquodoboit Valley Liberal bid for the next federal election - [Truro Daily News - <no byline> - Sep 13, 2009] - Green Oaks dairy farmer Jim Burrows will represent Cumberland Colchester Musquodoboit Valley Liberals in the next federal election. Burrows received ...
  • Federal Grit candidate wonders where civic centre funding is - [Truro Daily News - Jason Malloy - Sep 10, 2009] - A local Liberal is concerned funding for Colchester County’s regional civic centre is being delayed for political reasons. Jim Burrows said it is important ...
  • Liberals set to choose next candidate - [Amherst Daily News - Brad Works - Sep 10, 2009] - Local Liberals will choose between a campaign of experience and that of determination when Saturday they select the party’s next candidate for federal ...
  • Liberals holding nomination meeting for federal riding - [Truro Daily News - <no byline> - Sep 8, 2009] - A New Brunswick Member of Parliament will be the guest speaker at Saturday’s Liberal nomination meeting for Cumberland Colchester Musquodoboit Valley. ...
  • Federal Grits to select local candidate Sept. 12 - [Truro Daily News - <no byline> - Aug 17, 2009] - The federal candidate nomination meeting for the Cumberland Colchester Musquodoboit Valley Liberal Association will be held on Saturday, Sept. 12. Two ...
  • Liberal nomination meeting next month - [Truro Daily News - <no byline> - Aug 14, 2009] - Cumberland Colchester Musquodoboit Valley Liberals will decide who will represent them in the next federal election. Official candidates are Green Oak’s ...
  • Christian Heritage Party leader looking to replace Casey - [Amherst Daily News - <no byline> - Aug 12, 2009] - The leader of the Christian Heritage Party will be a candidate when voters in Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley go to the polls this fall to elect ...
  • Parsons seeking Liberalnomination for next federal election - [Truro Daily News - Monique Chiasson - Jul 23, 2009] - Tracy Parsons is taking another shot at federal politics. The 45-year-old Bible Hill resident officially announced her intention to seek the Liberal ...
  • Parsons preparing for another run at federal politics - [Amherst Daily News - Darrell Cole - Jul 22, 2009] - Bill Casey is not running in the next election, but Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley Liberal candidate Tracy Parsons feels he will still be a ...
  • Bible Hill's Tracy Parsons seeking federal Liberal nomination - [Truro Daily News - <no byline> - Jul 22, 2009] - Tracy Parsons is taking another shot at federal politics. The 45-year-old Bible Hill resident officially announced her intention to seek the Liberal ...
  • Burrows seeking federal Liberal nomination - [Amherst Daily News - Darrell Cole - Jul 19, 2009] - With an election coming in the fall, Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley Liberals are preparing for what they feel will be their best opportunity ...
  • Burrows seeking Liberal nomination - [Truro Daily News - <no byline> - Jul 18, 2009] - A Beaver Brook farmer wants to represent the Liberal party of Cumberland Colchester Musquodoboit Valley in the next federal election. Jim Burrows, 51, ...
  • Federal Tory candidate says don’t worry about civic centre funds - [Truro Daily News - <no byline> - Jul 10, 2009] - Colchester County residents should not be concerned about Halifax’s problem getting federal funds for a rink project, says the local Conservative candidate ...
  • Armstrong gets federal Tory nod - [Truro Daily News - <no byline> - Apr 30, 2009] - Scott Armstrong will carry the Conservative banner in Cumberland Colchester Musquodoboit Valley the next time residents go to the polls for a federal ...
  • The right thing to do - [Truro Daily News - Jason Malloy - Apr 29, 2009] - Cumberland Colchester Musquodoboit Valley is losing the member of Parliament they elected only six months ago. Bill Casey’s long run as the federal representative ...
  • Armstrong after Tory nod - [Amherst Daily News - Jason Malloy - Apr 21, 2009] - Scott Armstrong was in elementary school when he started helping Tories get elected. Now he is hoping the party will return the favour. The Truro resident ...
  • Truro educator seeking Tory nomination for next federal election - [Truro Daily News - Jason Malloy - Apr 20, 2009] - The man who wants to turn central and northern Nova Scotia Tory once again will announce today he is seeking the party’s nomination for the next federal ...

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

2006 Candidate Rebates Finally Posted at Elections Canada

It appears that Elections Canada has finally finished reviewing the candidate spending reports from the 2006 election, and has now posted the list of candidate 2006 rebates in the Election Finance section of its website.

Regular readers of the Pundits' Guide will recall that four candidates overspent the limit in 2006 (2 Liberals and 2 Conservatives), but all 4 of them have been issued rebates according to this list. Only one so far has signed a Gazette'd compliance agreement with the Commissioner of Canada Elections (who is responsible for enforcing those provisions of the Elections Act).

Meanwhile, it also looks like the list of 2004 rebates is posted there now too, along with the list from the 2005 by-elections (see first drop-down): which means another data entry project for yours truly in her spare time. You'll know when I'm done because the totals will appear under the column "Cand $ Rebate" in the summary table at the top of a party's profile on the "Browse Parties" page, such as this one for the Liberals, this one for the Conservatives, or this one for the NDP. By the way, anything that appears there now for 2008 is a typo, and I'll be fixing that right away (probably a candidate's personal expense that got pasted into the wrong field by me).

Labels: ,

Sunday, May 24, 2009

A Look at Candidate Election Spending: Part II

The article below is reprinted with the kind permission of the Hill Times, from their Monday May 11 edition. Part I can be found here.

Money and votes: the effects of election spending by candidates in federal elections, 1997 to 2006

Increased competitiveness in a federal riding associated with increased spending for candidates who are serious contenders.

By ALICE FUNKE and W.T. STANBURY

In this piece, we examine the relationship between candidates' outlays on "election expenses" and the percentage of votes they obtained, and use some statistical techniques to answer some interesting questions: 1. How closely is spending related to outcome? 2. How is spending different in close races? and 3. How much of an increase in a candidate's share of the vote could be expected for an increase in spending? As noted in our previous piece in The Hill Times (May 4, 2009), candidate (and party) spending on election expenses has been subject to legal limits since 1974.

The relationship between campaign spending and votes

To examine the relationship between candidate spending and vote shares, we used a simple correlation. A correlation coefficient is a number that shows whether two things are related, and if so how strongly, but it can't tell you which caused the other. Higher correlations (which vary in absolute terms between zero and one) indicate stronger relationships. Negative numbers mean they are related but move in opposite directions (i.e., more of one means less of another). And a value near zero means there is very little relationship at all.

When we combine all candidates for each election there was a fairly high positive correlation (0.84) between the per cent of the limit spent and the percentage of votes obtained (Table 1). We must be careful not to jump to conclusions about why, i.e., we can't conclude that higher spending levels led to more votes based merely on the observed positive correlations. It could be instead that the perception of "win-ability" influenced spending levels, or even that strength of support influenced fundraising capacity which, in turn, affected spending. To further analyse the nature of the relationship we used regression analysis, the results of which are reported below.

If we look at the correlations by party, combining all four elections, we find that the correlations were lower except for the NDP (0.84). For the major parties, the lowest correlation coefficient was for the Conservatives (0.44 for two elections) and the Liberals (0.51) and the BQ (0.52). By comparison, the correlation for Reform/Canadian Alliance was 0.75 for two elections (Table 1).

When we consider the correlation between election expenses and votes for each party and each election separately, we find it varied greatly. In 1997 for the Liberal candidates it was only 0.23. In 2006 for the Conservatives, it was 0.26. Yet in 1997, the Liberals won a majority government (155 of 301 seats) and in 2006, the Conservatives won a minority government (124 of 308 seats).

At the other end of the spectrum, correlation between spending and votes for the Progressive Conservatives in 2000 was 0.81. Yet they won only 12 seats! This could suggest that had the low level of average spending (23.7 per cent of the limit) been increased, the PCs might have won more votes and perhaps more seats. Or it could mean that PC candidates planned their campaign spending based on their perceived chances of winning the seat.

In each of the four elections the correlation between spending and votes for NDP candidates was 0.85 to 0.89. Yet the NDP elected only 13 to 29 candidates in each election (average of 21). The problem for the NDP is that, on average, its candidates spend only 20.1 to 28.4 per cent of the limit. Again, more spending might have resulted in more votes, and possibly more seats. But it might equally be true that the NDP was very good at focusing riding-level spending where candidates had a good chance of being elected.

We interpret the results in Table 1 as follows: The higher the correlation (especially where overall spending levels are lower), the more targeted the parties were in their campaign efforts. This is based on our reading the correlations together with the average per cent spent and its standard deviation (not reported here). We found that if there was a low average per cent spent and a high standard deviation, there was a high correlation between per cent spent and percentage of votes obtained. This could be described as the campaign model of a smaller party targeting ridings in the hopes of winning seats in a first-past-the-post electoral system.

In cases where the average per cent spent was higher, with a low standard deviation, we found a low correlation between per cent spent and per cent of vote obtained. That could be described as the campaign model of the winning party: if the money is available, spend as much as possible, in as many ridings as possible, in the hope of seat gains or to make it harder for opponents to compete.

The lower correlations for the Liberals in 1997 and the Conservatives in 2006 suggest that they had such well-funded campaigns they could spend a lot everywhere. The Bloc Québécois elected more candidates in 2004 and 2006, even though they spent a lot less. The details of the so-called "sponsorship scandal" and the subsequent Gomery inquiry certainly gave them a good issue to run on in those two elections. Furthermore, most of the BQ candidates were by that time longstanding incumbents (the benefits of incumbency were discussed by us in The Hill Times, April 27, 2009), and few of them found themselves in close races.

The Greens are a puzzle. There is only a weak correlation (0.57 to 0.64) between their candidates' election spending and outcomes (defined as percentage of vote) over the period studied, and we did not find any intermediate explanatory variables based on data available to us. Their own members are closely studying the relationship between spending and outcomes, but perhaps the answer is that they do not yet have sufficient history and data to target properly, have not maximized the effectiveness of their spending, or else cannot agree on a "rising tide" versus a "beachhead" strategy in the first-past-the-post context.

Note that since the public subsidies for parties came into effect on Jan. 1, 2004, there is also an incentive for parties to try to increase their total popular vote, even if they win no more seats. Thus, there is a reward for increasing your raw vote even in non-winnable ridings. The strategic question for parties is whether the cost of higher spending to get more votes exceeds the increased subsidy over the period to the next election. Moreover, it may pay safe incumbents to spend less, in order to maximize the return on investment for their party in their ridings.

Spending and outcomes for incumbents and challengers

Incumbent MPs who chose to run again had a high rate of success (average of 86.1 per cent) in the four federal elections between 1997 and 2006. (For more detail on the re-election rates for incumbent MPs, see our piece in The Hill Times, April 27, 2009.) In each of the four elections between 1997 and 2006, incumbents who were re-elected spent on average slightly less (from 2.1 to 4.2 percentage points) than did challengers (i.e., non-incumbents) who were elected. (Note that the data in Table 2 combines the two categories of successful challengers: those who defeat an incumbent seeking re-election; and those who win an open seat for their party.)

Challengers who were unsuccessful spent an average of only 21.1 per cent to 28.7 per cent of their limit on election expenses. This was typically less than one-third what winners spent whether Incumbents or Challengers (Table 2).

Spending in close races

It is reasonable to expect that in close races the leading candidates will spend a higher percentage of the limit on election expenses, and indeed this is what we found. We defined three types of mutually exclusive close races: two-way, three-way, and four-way. See the definitions below Table 3.

Over the four federal elections between 1997 and 2006, there were 121 (9.9 per cent) close two-way races, 80 (6.6 per cent) close three-way races, and 24 (two per cent) close four-way races. Thus "not close races" comprised 81.5 per cent of all races (Table 3). Note that for all four elections combined, each race had an average of 5.6 candidates, but there were some races with as few as three candidates.

Looking at all 1,218 races without regard to how close they were, the winner spent 77.7 per cent of the limit compared to 66.4 per cent for the second place candidate and 31.8 per cent for the third place candidate (Table 3).

In all four types of races, the winner still on average outspent all rivals, although the difference between the winner and the second place candidate was minute (81.5 per cent vs. 81.1 per cent of the limit) in close two-way races. In the 121 close two-way races, the tiny difference in average per cent spent means that in many cases (65 of 121), the winners were not the highest spenders.

In the close three-way races, the third place candidate spent, on average, 66.7 per cent of the limit compared to 73.2 per cent from the second place candidate and 78.2 per cent by the winner (Table 3). These differences were small enough that again slightly more lower-spending candidates were able to win in the close three-way races (45 of 80). Interestingly, when we broke these numbers down further (not reported here), we noticed that an incumbent was more likely to be reelected in a close three-way race with two high-spending opponents, but was slightly less likely to be reelected with just one high-spending opponent.

Close four-way races (only two per cent over the four general elections studied) did not result in those winners spending more on average than in close two-way races, but they did spend just slightly more than the winner of close three-way races (78.4 per cent vs. 78.2 per cent) (Table 3). Close four-way races did not result in a high per cent spent by all of the top contenders. The winner and #2 were close (78.4 per cent vs. 72.7 per cent), while #3 (56.5 per cent) and #4 (43.3 per cent) were far behind, although their spending was significantly higher than the average unsuccessful challenger. And in 13 of 24 of the close four-way races, the winner was not the candidate who spent the most.

As expected, the winners who spent the least to win were found in "not close races": 77.2 per cent of the limit on average. And in such races, the gap between the winner and the second place candidate was greatest (13.3 percentage points), with the highest spender winning the race much more often (614 of 993). Included here were Conservative incumbents in Alberta, Bloc incumbents in Quebec, and longstanding incumbents of several parties in the Atlantic provinces. By comparison, in close three-way races the spending gap between the winner and the third place candidate was 11.5 percentage points (Table 3).

What factors determine vote share, and by how much

To separate out the effects of several variables, we used a linear regression equation for all candidates in the four general elections combined (N=6799, R squared=.832, Standard Error= .076) with "Per Cent of the Vote" (the percentage of the valid ballots obtained, a.k.a. "vote share") as the dependent variable (Table 4). Details of the regression analysis are explained below the table, but here are the major findings.

All other things being equal, for every percentage point increase in election expenses, candidates can expect a 0.28 percentage point increase in their share of votes obtained (significant at .001 level) (Table 4). This is higher than a previous estimate of 0.21 in the 1980s (D. Keith Heintzman, "Electoral Competition, Campaign Expenditure and Incumbency Advantage," cited in Laschinger & Stevens, Leaders and Lesser Mortals).

Being an incumbent is worth an additional 0.19 percentage points in the percentage of votes obtained (significant at .001 level) (Table 4). This seems small when we consider that the simple re-election rates for incumbents averaged 86 per cent for the four elections. However, the regression result is taking into account five other variables simultaneously, and note that this includes both first-time and long-time incumbents, as well as incumbents in close fights versus those who were easily reelected with large pluralities.

Running for a party which had MPs in the House at dissolution, all other things being equal, adds 0.071 percentage points in the percentage of votes obtained (significant at .001 level). Again, this seems a small advantage compared to the minute election rate for candidates who were not a member of a party with Commons representation.

Where a race was close (the winner getting less than five per cent more votes than the second place candidate), the effect is to add only 0.079 percentage points to the votes obtained by candidates (significant at .001 level). But remember that winners can win close races with smaller vote shares than many challengers obtain in non-close races. In fact, when we computed correlations for different kinds of candidates (not reported here), we obtained insignificant but negative correlations between per cent spent and per cent of the vote received by winners (whether incumbent or newly-elected), indicating that candidates running to win in all but the safest seats typically spend at least 75 per cent of the limit, regardless of the vote share it takes to win in their riding (see Table 2).

The year of the election and hence the number of major parties contesting it (we set 2004 and 2006, the post-unite-the-right elections, as zero and 1997 and 2000 as 1), had a negative effect on vote share (significant at .001 level). This makes sense when you consider that fewer parties dividing the electorate translates into higher vote shares for candidates.

We assume that the rest of the variability in vote share is explained by the usual demographic variables, party loyalty, candidate attractiveness, campaign effects and regional voting patterns.

Summary and conclusions

From these results we conclude that increased competitiveness in a riding is associated with increased spending for candidates who are serious contenders. Becoming a contender costs money, but once dominant (i.e., an incumbent) in a riding that candidate can scale back on "election expenses" somewhat.

The data do not support a simplistic prescription that says "spend more to improve your vote share," since if everyone followed that advice everyone's vote shares would decline, and in our first-past-the-post system only one candidate gets to win in each riding. Larger parties who are dominant in an election will spend more everywhere (even in ridings they don't win), partly because they can, and partly to make it harder for their opponents to challenge them financially. Smaller parties win seats by targeting their spending to ridings with good growth prospects.

Candidates who are not trying to win, but are trying to raise their party's vote total, can improve their vote share somewhat through increased spending. However the resulting benefits of an increase in the public subsidy goes to the party rather than the candidate. Further, this will work only where some candidates in a riding raise their spending relative to others. The return on investment for that strategy is a 0.28 per cent of the vote increase for every additional per cent of the expense limit spent.

Using 2006 as the example, spending an additional one per cent of the limit in each of the 308 ridings would have cost a party approximately $250,000, resulting in additional roughly 41,500 votes, worth approximately $315,300 in additional public subsidies over four years (assuming an average of $1.90 over the period following 2006), for a 26.1 per cent return on investment. However, if the next election were held after just two years rather than four (as in fact it was), the same additional 41,500 votes would have been worth only $157,600 in added subsidies, for a negative 36.9 per cent return.

Simple formulae about spending and results will never replace the acumen and experience of political parties and their strategists. However, we hope we have contributed some interesting findings for them to consider in their efforts.

Alice Funke is the publisher of the Pundits’ Guide to Canadian Federal Elections (punditsguide.ca). W.T. Stanbury is professor Emeritus, UBC. He conducted research on party and election finance for the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform & Party Finance (Lortie Commission).

------------------------

Table 1: Average Percent Spent, and Correlations Between Percent of Limit Spent and Percent of Total Vote Obtained for Candidates by Party for Four Federal General Elections, 1997 to 2006

Table 2: Average Percent of Election Expenses Limit Spent by Candidates in Relation to Outcome for Four Federal General Elections, 1997 to 2006

Table 3: Analysis of Percent of Elections Expenses Limit Spent by Candidates by Type of Race in Four Federal General Elections Combined, 1997 to 2006

Table 4: Regression Results, All Candidates in Four Federal Elections, 1997 to 2006

Labels:

Thursday, May 7, 2009

A Look at Candidate Election Spending: Part I

The article below is reprinted with the kind permission of the Hill Times, from their Monday May 4 edition.

Money, money: candidates' spending and federal election expenses limits

Only a small percentage of all federal candidates spent more than 90 per cent of the limit on election expenses.

By ALICE FUNKE and W.T. STANBURY

This is the first of two pieces on the relationship between candidates’ “election expenses” and the legal limit on such outlays, based on the four federal elections between 1997 and 2006. We focus on “per cent spent,” the ratio of actual election expenses to the legal limit.

The next piece will examine the relationship between election spending by candidates and the percentage of votes obtained and electoral outcomes. Later, we will examine federal candidates’ revenues, their personal expenses, and their surpluses (including their disposition).

Limits on election expenses

Since 1974, the federal government has set limits on the election expenses that may be incurred by both candidates and registered political parties. The legal limit for candidates is not the same for all electoral districts. It is based on the following formula: $2.07 for each of the first 15,000 electors (on the preliminary electors list created soon after the writs are issued) plus $1.04 for each of the next 10,000 plus 52 cents for each additional elector. Then three adjustments are made: (i) for districts with fewer electors than the national average; (ii) for geographically large districts; and (iii) for the change in the Consumer Price Index.

The limits for candidate election expenses for the past five federal general elections are reported in Table 1. The average limit increased from $62,624 in 1997 to $88,097 in 2008. (Note that the balance of the paper deals with the four elections between 1997 and 2006, since a complete dataset for 2008 is not yet available.)

The “lowest” and “highest” columns reflect the variation in the limit due to the differences in the size of electoral districts in both geographic terms and the number of electors. Note that the ratio of the highest to the lowest limit has increased from 1.59 in 1997 to 1.80 in 2008.

Distribution of per cent of limit spent

For the four federal general elections between 1997 and 2006, all candidates combined spent an average of 33.6 per cent of the legal limit. This varied across the four elections: from 31 per cent in 2000 to 37.5 per cent in 1997 (Table 2).

The data show that for the four elections, almost two-thirds (65.6 per cent) of all candidates (n=6,799) spent 50 per cent or less of their election expense limit. Over 55 per cent of candidates spent less than one quarter of the limit (Table 2).

Only 10.5 per cent of federal candidates spent more than 90 per cent of the limit, and only 5.5 per cent spent over 95 per cent (Table 2). As a practical matter, given the difficulties of managing election expenses during the typical five-week campaign period, even high-spending candidates cannot expect to spend over 98 per cent of the limit. In fact, our data indicated that seven candidates exceeded the limit (one in 2000, four in 2006; and apparently two in 1997, although the 1997 data is only available in “as submitted” form at Elections Canada, and may have been subject to later corrections). (Bill Curry, the Globe and Mail, April 1, 2009, reported that one of the four MPs who exceeded their spending limit in the 2006 election recently signed a “compliance agreement” with the elections commissioner.) [UPDATE: see postscript below]

Average per cent of limit spent by party

While all candidates spent an average of 33.6 per cent of the limit on election expenses for the four elections combined, there was a huge variation across parties. The Liberals and the BQ had the highest average (just over 70 per cent) while the Green Party had the lowest (2.5 per cent) (Table 3).

Note that the “Other” category includes all other parties, non-affiliated candidates and independents. Recall that after the 1997 and 2000 elections, five parties were represented in the Commons and that after the 2004 and 2006 elections four parties elected MPs.

The average per cent of the limit spent by over 1,500 candidates in the “Other” category for the four elections was 3.1 per cent.

The BQ (which contested only the 75 seats in Quebec in all four elections) experienced a dramatic decline in the fraction of its candidates who spent more than 80 per cent of the limit in 2004 and 2006 compared to 1997 and 2000. Yet it elected more MPs in 2004 and 2006 (54 and 51, respectively vs. 44 and 38 in 1997 and 2000). In 1997 and 2000, 48 and 55 BQ candidates spent over 80 per cent of the limit, compared to 17 and 16 in 2004 and 2006. Note the decline in the average percent of limit by the BQ candidates in Table 3 (from a high of 82.1 per cent in 2000—the highest of any party—to 57.9 per cent in 2004 and 61.3 per cent in 2006).

The candidates of the new Conservative Party (created in December 2003 by the merger of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives) spent a higher percentage of the limit than either of its two predecessors. The Conservatives spent 60.7 per cent of the limit in 2004 and 69.7 per cent in 2006. In the 1997 and 2000 elections, Reform and Canadian Alliance candidates spent 46.7 per cent of the limit. Progressive Conservative candidates, on average, spent 47 per cent of the limit in 1997 but only 23.7 per cent in 2000 (Table 3).

Among the “major” parties, the NDP candidates spent the least, averaging only 24.6 per cent of the limit over the four elections. The range was from 20.1 per cent in 2000 to 28.4 per cent in 1997 (Table 3). Modest spending was associated with modest results. The NDP elected 21 MPs in 1997, 13 in 2000, 19 in 2004 and 29 in 2006.

High-spending candidates

We define “high-spending” candidates as those who spent over 80 per cent of the limit on “election expenses.” As expected, these candidates were concentrated in the major parties, i.e., those able to elect MPs. Over the four elections, 18.5 per cent of all candidates were in this category.

The two parties with the highest percentage of their candidates spending more than 80 per cent of the limit for the four elections combined were the Liberals and BQ, both at 45.3 per cent. The Conservatives had 43.8 per cent in this category (based on two general elections). The comparable figures for Reform/Canadian Alliance candidates was 21 per cent and for the Progressive Conservatives, 12.3 per cent (again, both based on two elections) (Table 4).

Over the four elections, 374 candidates spent more than 95 per cent of the limit and 354 spent 90.1 to 95 per cent of the limit. Note that there was a total of 6,799 candidates for the four elections combined (Table 4).

Among the candidates spending 95-plus per cent of the limit, over the four elections were 11.7 per cent of Liberal candidates, 15 per cent of BQ candidates, 14.4 per cent of Conservative candidates, but only 2.7 per cent of NDP candidates (Table 4). As noted above, seven candidates exceeded (or appeared to exceed) the limit over the four elections.

Summary and conclusions

First, only a small percentage (10.5 per cent) of all federal candidates spent more than 90 per cent of the limit on election expenses. Second, in nearly all cases, high-spending candidates represented parties able to elect MPs. Third, over one-half of all candidates (55.6 per cent) spent less than one-quarter of the limit. This was due to the large number of candidates outside the major parties. Fourth, the average percent spent by major parties varied greatly for the four elections between 1997 and 2006: from 24.6 per cent of the limit for the NDP to 70 per cent for the BQ and the Liberals.

It is clear that the spending limits do not effectively limit the spending of most of the candidates who spend nowhere near the limit. They do affect the candidates who are, comparatively, big spenders and could be bigger ones. The limits also reduce the gap between big spenders and low spenders.

Without spending limits, we might see different patterns in the relationship between spending and outcomes. For example, it might be in an incumbent’s interest to raise and spend a great deal, in order to make it harder for challengers to be competitive. (There is evidence that this occurs in the U.S.) In Canada, it appears that as incumbents are re-elected more often, their spending goes down a bit. This makes it worth raising the question whether the Canadian rates of incumbency re-election are lower than those in the U.S. in part because the spending limits make it financially easier to challenge an incumbent.

In the next piece, we will describe the relationship between election expenses and the percentage of votes obtained and electoral outcomes.

Alice Funke is the publisher of the Pundits’ Guide to Canadian Federal Elections (punditsguide.ca). W.T. Stanbury is professor Emeritus, UBC. He conducted research on party and election finance for the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform & Party Finance (Lortie Commission).

------------------------

Table 1: Limits on Candidate Election Expenses for Five Federal General Elections, 1997 to 2008 in Nominal Dollars

Table 2: Distribution of Percent of Limit Spent on Election Expenses by All Candidates for Four Federal Elections, 1997 to 2006

Table 3: Candidate Spending on Election Expenses as a Percent of the Limit by Party in Four Federal General Elections, 1997 to 2006

Table 4: Candidates Spending Over 80% of the Limit for Four Federal General Elections Combined , 1997 to 2006

---------------------------------------

Postscript:

Professor Stanbury and I received an email from someone who would know in response to this story:
What the authors do not know is that one candidate, Mr. Khan, in the 2004 election was charged and convicted in February 2008 for overspending in the amount of $31,000. The details can be found in the sentencing digest on the Elections Canada website www.elections.ca. Please pass this along to the authors.
Indeed, when I last checked the Elections Canada database for Wajid Khan's 2004 spending in March, the file was still in "as submitted" form, and showed him spending about 97% of the limit. And in fact his "as reviewed" return still has not been posted at the Elections Canada financial website. Recall that Wajid Khan was first elected as a Liberal M.P. in the riding of Mississauga – Streetsville, ON in that election.

The sentencing digest referred to above, however, lists Mr. Khan's 2004 election expenses as $109,112.04, exceeding the $77,923.66 limit by $31,188.38 (some 40% over, in other words), for which he received a $500 fine on February 1, 2008. One other individual (a riding official), as well as a business in the constituency, also received fines for related offences on the same date.

Thanks to that reader for drawing our attention to this additional piece of information.

Labels:

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Record NDP Campaign Spending in 2008 Still Fell Short of Limit

The NDP's campaign return has now been posted at the Elections Canada website, and shows national campaign spending of 83.8% of their party election expense limit -- higher than the party has ever spent in a general election, but still some 16 percentage points short of their previous commitment to spend the national limit.

The NDP spent more than the Liberals on Broadcast advertising, and a remarkable $4 million dollars on Jack Layton's Leader's Tour, up from $3.6 million in 2006 and more than even the Conservatives spent for the Prime Minister's campaign travel plans. The NDP reportedly planned to purchase the most expensive carbon offsets (their 2006 tour required some $60,000 worth), but the amount of those offsets like other details of any party's campaign spending is not contained in their election campaign returns, so we have no way of knowing how much of the increase they accounted for. The party also spent a sizable chunk of its election budget on opinion research, consistent with its previous campaign budgets.

I also need to make a big Mea Culpa here, because I've just realized that in my rush to complete the previous post, I accidentally transposed a few numbers in my reporting of the categories of spending by the Liberal party. I previously wrote:
Liberal spending on both Broadcast Advertising and Polling in 2008 represents a substantial decline from 2006, although National Office costs increased. Salaries declined in favour of Professional Services, a similar trend to that already noted for the Conservatives.
... which should be revised as follows ...
Liberal spending on both Broadcast Advertising and Polling in 2008 represents a substantial decline from 2006, although Other Advertising expenditures increased. Salaries declined in favour of Professional Services, a similar trend to that already noted for the Conservatives.
I apologize for any inconvenience this error may have caused, and have written separately to alert several bloggers who wrote about these figures (Steve V at Far and Wide, the Jurist at Accidental Deliberations (twice), and Mark Taylor at Report on Greens).

Note that the other parties return comparisons are also reproduced below (and corrected, where necessary) from two earlier posts.

National Campaign Expenditures by Party and Category, 2008 General Election

CATEGORYLib ($)
NDP ($)Grn ($)BQ ($)Cons ($)
Ads - Rad/TV5,827,6507,071,205
1,579,1042,377,41810,266,344
Ads - Oth2,213,0491,373,790
248,091402,646327,685
Leader's tour2,481,4304,043,031
83,960578,9062,474,333
Polls828,4471,303,09888,247168,136274,240
Salaries1,181,4791,701,003
115,404501,745866,261
Prof Services351,10452,537409,40579,1881,785,037
Travel439,143377,810
74,030371,34957,820
Natl Office650,007624,115
194,48820,709449,423
Other Off559,544267,301
3,070379,5072,917,437

TOTAL
(%)
14,531,853
(72.6%)
16,813,890
(83.8%)
2,795,800
(14.2%)
4,879,604
(96.3%)
19,418,580
(97.1%)
LIMIT20,014,303
20,063,430
19,751,4135,066,81119,999,231

National Campaign Expenditures by Election and Category, Liberal Party

CATEGORY1997 GE($)2000 GE($)2004 GE($)2006 GE($)2008 GE($)
Broadcasting970699662450


Television28380833508420


Ads - Rad/TV

757840681263055827650
Ads - Oth29590483522138258901713325722213049
Leader's tour16972422283346283678233873992481430
Polls

6415151057992828447
Salaries573160799542107630017096701181479
Prof Services143974197021252967138261351104
Travel453586429913468934364856439143
Natl Office547897382620313532645978650007
Rent, etc7844657227


Admin698278426455


Fund-raising284597253466


Misc21312576


Other Off

847075684097559544

National Campaign Expenditures by Election and Category, NDP

CATEGORY1997 GE($)2000 GE($)2004 GE($)2006 GE($)2008 GE($)
Broadcasting44103288344


Television19657501268563


Ads - Rad/TV

438823348163757071205
Ads - Oth33001385705104446410853001373790
Leader's tour10566381612521245301936054204043031
Polls

136114612260711303098
Salaries924190907744125957212874741701003
Prof Services1510267245197025153752537
Travel143580206202307743264912377809
Natl Office6794654510039744071040412624115
Rent, etc5223881816


Admin879585931559


Fund-raising183072133883


Misc00


Other Off

210646148025267301

National Campaign Expenditures by Election and Category, Green Party

CATEGORY1997 GE
($)
2000 GE
($)
2004 GE
($)
2006 GE
($)
2008 GE
($)
Broadcasting00


Television00


Ads - Rad/TV

25,5686,4851,579,104
Ads - Oth0497150,366133,604248,091
Leader's tour0011,87396,45083,960
Polls

30,2281,49888,247
Salaries01,280217,374438,102115,404
Prof Services094420,27677,577409,405
Travel09479,41416,77974,030
Natl Office0033,081116,229194,488
Rent, etc00


Admin012,997


Fund-raising00


Misc01,082


Other Off

024,2553,070

TOTAL
(%)
0
(0.0%)
17,747
(0.4%)
498,179
(2.8%)
910,979
(4.9%)
2,795,800
(14.2%)
LIMIT3,154,376
4,888,177
17,593,925
18,278,279
19,751,413

National Campaign Expenditures by Election and Category, Bloc Québécois

CATEGORY1997 GE
($)
2000 GE
($)
2004 GE
($)
2006 GE
($)
2008 GE
($)
Broadcasting8,4300


Television10,6504,049


Ads - Rad/TV

1,443,4071,434,5612,377418
Ads - Oth375,472451,218977,687844,669402,646
Leader's tour109,572375,999389,041577,432578,906
Polls

56,76157,512168,136
Salaries478,805522,512678,143558,132501,745
Prof Services147,20762,609274,539145,36579,188
Travel47,04281,533108,603113,643371,349
Natl Office237,042255,09581,99780,93420,709
Rent, etc7,67114,466


Admin75,57276,787


Fund-raising132,034124,425


Misc00


Other Off

497,353715,382379,507

TOTAL
(%)
1,629,497
(54.0%)
1,968,692
(58.2%%)
4,511,087
(98.2%)
4,527,630
(96.8%)
4,879,604
(96.3%)
LIMIT3,019,087
3,383,175
4,591,7484,676,677
5,066,811

National Campaign Expenditures by Election and Category, Conservative Party (incl. Reform Party and Canadian Alliance pre-2004)

CATEGORY1997 GE
($)
2000 GE
($)
2004 GE
($)
2006 GE
($)
2008 GE
($)
Broadcasting7,0966,918


Television2,784,6156,248,111


Ads - Rad/TV

5,875,7648,786,10810,266,344
Ads - Oth411,0371,312,0421,402,240388,284327,685
Leader's tour1,157,7091,018,3633,780,4323,014,3672,474,333
Polls

341,260697,105274,240
Salaries113,670
179,655
549,975874,434866,261
Prof Services0
32,6973,900,1052,741,4131,785,037
Travel202,157377,50157,48590,35457,820
Natl Office153,68072,945467,964668,330449,423
Rent, etc13,460159,878


Admin21,545179,615


Fund-raising56,76481,923


Misc0
0



Other Off

909,033758,7832,917,437

TOTAL
(%)
4,921,733
(57.9%)
9,669,648
(76.5%)
17,284,257
(98.2%)
18,019,180
(98.6%)
19,418,580
(97.1%)
LIMIT8,503,058
12,638,257
17,593,925
18,278,279
19,999,231

Labels: , ,