Sunday, March 26, 2017

-The B.C. Liberal party is returning nearly $93,000 in political donations after identifying 43 indirect contributions that are illegal under the B.C. Elections Act.----------Julie Ali · University of Alberta At least the Liberals haven't got a Tapcal Trust fund like the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta had. It's amazing to me the innovative ways the political parties manage to acquire funds for their dynasty making. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/.../tapcal-trust-fund_n... Premier Hancock Ask For End To Tapcal Trust Fund CP | By Dean Bennett, The Canadian Press Posted: 04/07/2014 6:43 pm EDT Updated: 06/08/2014 5:59 am EDT The Tapcal fund was established in 1977 as new financing rules took effect requiring all party assets to be open to public scrutiny. The government of then Tory premier Peter Lougheed grandfathered the fund in, exempting it from public disclosure. But while PCs did not have to publicly disclose the assets in the fund, they still had to divulge all transactions in the fund. The party failed to do so for two decades until Elections Alberta ordered it to in 2007. The Tories have used the fund for campaign spending and as collateral for loans for elections. Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith says there are still a lot of questions about the fund, including who contributed to it. "This is the problem you have with the PCs," said Smith. "They only do the right thing when they get caught doing the wrong thing. "It seems we like we have to continue to dig around, trying to see what sort of things they're hiding. I don't think that engenders much confidence from the public." Liberal Leader Raj Sherman said the money from the fund should not be allowed to be used by the PCs for campaign purposes. "I believe the funds in that secret fund should not be allowed to enter into the next election. It's not fair, it's not right," said Sherman. **** Who paid into this fund? Why was it exempt from the new rules set by the PCs exempting it from public disclosure? Why did Elections Alberta never ask for an accounting of transactions for two decades? The PCs in Alberta seem to have been the most innovative campaign fund folks around. Next to the PCs in Alberta--the Liberals in BC seem rather tame. Since this sort of junk seems to occur in all political parites the best thing for voters to do is to change political parties at every election. We did this in Alberta with the PCs. And we will do this with the NDP folks in the next election. Every time the parties fail, simply change them without become attached to brands. They are all the same. Like · Reply · Just now

All political parties are the same. Best to change the political party in power at every election. This ensures that we don't have entrenched folks milking the system too long and we get refreshing ideas like the carbon tax that we never expected in Alberta.
The B.C. Liberal party is returning nearly $93,000 in political donations after identifying 43 indirect contributions that are illegal under the B.C. Elections Act. In…
THEPROVINCE.COM
LikeShow more reactions
Comment

http://www.theprovince.com/news/local+news/liberals+refund+2493+2c000+illegal+indirect+political/13187048/story.html


B.C. Liberals to refund $93,000 in illegal indirect political donations



The B.C. Liberals are returning nearly $93,000 in political donations after identifying 43 indirect contributions that are illegal under the B.C. Elections Act.
The B.C. Liberals are returning nearly $93,000 in political donations after identifying 43 indirect contributions that are illegal under the B.C. Elections Act.PHOTO BY NICK PROCAYLO

The B.C. Liberal party is returning nearly $93,000 in political donations after identifying 43 indirect contributions that are illegal under the B.C. Elections Act.
In a statement issued late Friday afternoon, the B.C. Liberal party said these were cases where individuals made donations with personal credit cards on behalf of their organizations, and were reimbursed by those organizations, which constitutes a prohibited donation.
“These individuals and organizations have indicated that they were unaware that reimbursements were not permitted under the act,” said the statement released by B.C. Liberal Party spokesman Emile Scheffel.
The party said another 30 individuals had come forward to say that “clerical” errors resulted in contributions being reported inaccurately. Individuals were listed as the contributor when the donation had come from their employer.
The Liberals did not provide a dollar figure for the “clerical” errors.
The revelation by the B.C. Liberals comes as an investigation is underway by the RCMP into the issue, sparked by a Globe and Mail story about indirect political donations to parties in the name of lobbyists who were later reimbursed, which contravenes the elections act.
A Postmedia story published Friday highlighted the issue of individuals being reported as donors when their employers had made the contribution through a corporate credit card.
The amount being returned — $92,874.36 — is a small fraction of the approximately $65 million the B.C. Liberals have raised since 2011. That includes about $2 million raised this year and $12 million in 2016, a greater per-capita amount than raised in any other province.
Dermod Travis, executive director of the political watchdog group IntegrityBC, said he believes if the B.C. Liberals keep digging there will be more indirect donations and other errors to be found.
“Quite a few,” he said.
The B.C. Liberals said their review is ongoing.
NDP deputy campaign director Glen Sanford mocked the B.C. Liberals for putting out the illegal donation figures late on a Friday afternoon to try and bury the story.
“I do think their statement leaves a lot of questions,” he said. “Number one, who were the donors? Number two, they didn’t really address the major issue which is what about the cases where the Liberals received donations where the true donor was deliberately hidden by lobbyists?”
Sanford said the Liberals are admitting they don’t intend to return all of the improper donations, by labelled 30 of them as “clerical errors.”
The NDP have returned several donations totalling about $10,000 after a review back to 2013.
In response to the NDP’s criticism on the clerical errors, Scheffel said in an email they will be reporting the clerical errors to Elections B.C.
In Postmedia’s story from Friday, B.C. Liberal candidate Kim Chan Logan asked her party to correct about $18,000 donations listed from her that she said was money spent on corporate credit card from Telus, her employer. She did so only after she was contacted by Postmedia.
It is unclear how many individuals have been listed as donors where the company should be listed.
Michelle Romero, vice-president of corporate at Pretium Resources, made a donation of $5,000 in 2017.
However, she said Friday the money came from a corporate credit card and should have been listed as a donation from the company.
She said the money was used for a table at a Liberal fundraising event. “I guess we’ll just have to be careful to make sure it’s clear the designation is for company,” said Romero.
Listing corporate donations under individual names reduces transparency as it under-represents the amount given by companies, one of several political-contribution issues under scrutiny in the run-up to the May 9 provincial election.
The NDP and Greens have called for an end to corporate and union donations, while the B.C. Liberals, under increasing pressure, have said they would strike a panel after the election.
CLICK HERE to report a typo.
Is there more to this story? We’d like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Email vantips@postmedia.com.


Julie Ali ·
At least the Liberals haven't got a Tapcal Trust fund like the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta had. It's amazing to me the innovative ways the political parties manage to acquire funds for their dynasty making.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/.../tapcal-trust-fund_n...
Premier Hancock Ask For End To Tapcal Trust Fund
CP | By Dean Bennett, The Canadian Press
Posted: 04/07/2014 6:43 pm EDT Updated: 06/08/2014 5:59 am EDT
The Tapcal fund was established in 1977 as new financing rules took effect requiring all party assets to be open to public scrutiny.

The government of then Tory premier Peter Lougheed grandfathered the fund in, exempting it from public disclosure.

But while PCs did not have to publicly disclose the assets in the fund, they still had to divulge all transactions in the fund.

The party failed to do so for two decades until Elections Alberta ordered it to in 2007.

The Tories have used the fund for campaign spending and as collateral for loans for elections.

Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith says there are still a lot of questions about the fund, including who contributed to it.

"This is the problem you have with the PCs," said Smith. "They only do the right thing when they get caught doing the wrong thing.

"It seems we like we have to continue to dig around, trying to see what sort of things they're hiding. I don't think that engenders much confidence from the public."

Liberal Leader Raj Sherman said the money from the fund should not be allowed to be used by the PCs for campaign purposes.

"I believe the funds in that secret fund should not be allowed to enter into the next election. It's not fair, it's not right," said Sherman.

****
Who paid into this fund?
Why was it exempt from the new rules set by the PCs exempting it from public disclosure?
Why did Elections Alberta never ask for an accounting of transactions for two decades?

The PCs in Alberta seem to have been the most innovative campaign fund folks around.
Next to the PCs in Alberta--the Liberals in BC seem rather tame.

Since this sort of junk seems to occur in all political parites the best thing for voters to do is to change political parties at every election. We did this in Alberta with the PCs. And we will do this with the NDP folks in the next election. Every time the parties fail, simply change them without become attached to brands. They are all the same.
LikeReplyJust now

No comments:

Post a Comment