“In a world where we didn’t have the sort of massively partisan anger machine backdrop on Twitter all the time, back and forth, you would normally be able to have a legal review of a decision … but the practical reality is that you will not be able to have a calm, rational discussion about that with all the sort of partisan back and forth that goes on nowadays,” said Ms. Funke.
The NDP recently returned $344,468 in advertising revenue it had received over the course of six years and three party conventions from selling ad space to a variety of unions and other organizations: $40,860 from the 2006 convention in Quebec City, $102,500 from the 2009 convention in Halifax, and $201,108 from last year’s convention in Vancouver.
Last August, Conservative Party lawyer Arthur Hamilton wrote to the Chief Electoral Officer asking him to investigate the presence of union logos at the NDP’s Vancouver convention. Elections Canada ultimately ruled that the money received by the party as a result of the sale of advertising to unions and corporations at their conventions was considered an ineligible contribution and gave the NDP 30 days to refund the money. As the party returned the funds within the timeline they have not contravened election laws; according to NDP national director Nathan Rotman, the money was refunded directly to the related unions and organizations and copies of the cheques were sent to Elections Canada.
Despite the NDP’s compliance with Elections Canada’s decision over the ineligibility of the more than $340,000 in revenue, the party maintains that it does not agree with the ruling.
“We decided that it was in our best interests to respect that ruling instead of fighting it. We decided that cooperation was the best course of action. We don’t always agree with Elections Canada on rulings but certainly respect them,” said Mr. Rotman.
Elections Canada’s decision effectively rules out the option for the NDP to bring in advertising revenue from unions at future conventions, but Mr. Rotman said the funds were only a “very small portion of our overall convention revenue,” He said the party isn’t worried about making up the difference.
“Fundraising is an always expanding operation here and certainly following the last election we are talking to many of those 4.5-million people who voted for us and we are finding that many, many of them are showing their support with more than just votes,” said Mr. Rotman.
In 2003, former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien introduced legislation to put restrictions on the ability of unions and corporations to make political donations, limiting them to a maximum of $1,000 in contributions and only to a local candidate or riding. The NDP has a historic relationship with unions, not just in terms of votes but in terms of finances. With this in mind, in 2003 the party wrote to Elections Canada—a correspondence that has since been made partially public—asking if the purchasing of advertising “on the party’s website or in a convention magazine” would be considered a “contribution” or just as “payment for services rendered.”
“Where a person or entity purchases goods or services from a registered party with the intention of economically benefiting the party, the payment for goods and services will not constitute contributions to the extent that the payment reflects the fair market value of the goods and services purchased,” read Elections Canada’s response.
With this response, the NDP said they hired a third-party consultant to determine a “fair-market value” at which to sell advertising at their conventions.
However, as indicated by testimony from Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand at an October 2011 House Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Committee meeting, ensuring fair-market value is paid is only the first step in staying within the law.
“If the money is provided in the context of a transaction of goods and services, and the amount corresponds to the fair market value of the goods and services, there is no contribution. In the case of advertising space allegedly sold by a party, the first question to be asked is whether there is a market for the advertiser such that it may truly be considered a commercial transaction. … The second question is whether the amount paid for the advertising space represents fair market value,” said Mr. Mayrand. “Determinations regarding the existence of a market and fair market value of goods or services are essential questions of fact.”
Elections Canada does not publicize the decision making behind its rulings. But considering the NDP hired a consultant to ensure fair-market value, the fact that they sold advertising to unions and the fact that the party already has a historically tight relationship with unions, it’s presumable that Elections Canada felt there was no genuine market for the advertising that was sold.
Duff Conacher, Democracy Watch founder, said the law doesn’t need to be formally clarified in order for parties to fully understand the limits of political contributions, instead he said Elections Canada needs to make their rulings public, “then everyone knows where the line is.”
Ms. Funke similarly said the sponsorship situation with the NDP doesn’t highlight a need to clarify political financing laws, and said the law just needs time to “mature.”
“Often a legislative regime can take decades to mature so that everybody understands all of the interpretive rules about it,” she said. “You pass a law and then there develops over time a body of sort of administrative law about how that law should be interpreted, precedents and so on, and often times its just that the basis of interpretation gets clarified over time. … Just because something is unclear in the short term it doesn’t necessarily mean that it needs to be amended.”
Ms. Funke said the NDP likely chose not to contest Elections Canada’s decision on a “communications basis” after witnessing what happened with the Conservatives during their lengthy legal battle with Elections Canada in the party’s 2006 in-and-out scandal.
But not all observers agree. Conservative pundit Tim Powers, vice-president of Summa Strategies, said if someone believes they are in the right, they stick to their position.
“I think the NDP are trying to protect their holier-than-thou reputation that they’re trying to build,” said Mr. Powers.
Liberal pundit Rob Silver said he thinks the NDP has shown “they’re a political party like all the other political parties and they’re aggressively trying to win elections,” and they’re more willing to play close to the line.
Mr. Powers said with the NDP’s run-in with Elections Canada over sponsorship and the recent CRTC fine imposed upon Liberal MP Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Ont.) should serve as a reminder to parties to “look before you leap.”
Mr. Conacher echoed a similar sentiment and said all political parties looking to act with integrity should have a system set up to double check that they are acting within the law.
On Aug. 24, the CRTC fined Mr. Valeriote $4,900 for a pre-recorded phone message used in his 2011 federal election campaign that contravened CRTC rules. In its announcement, the CRTC said it was fining Mr. Valeriote for using a phone message that anonymously criticized his Conservative opponent’s stance on abortion.
Mr. Valeriote, who said he reported the call himself once it came to his attention, said he wasn’t previously aware of the mistakes with the call and felt the CRTC’s decision was fair. Mr. Valeriote, who won the Guelph, Ont. riding by almost 6,000 votes, has said he will work with the CRTC to design a program to teach campaign how to make a proper automated call.
In a statement to media, Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre (Nepean-Carleton, Ont.) said that both issues are important to take note of. “The opposition parties seek to evade and weaken finance laws. It concerns me that had the Conservative Party not alerted Elections Canada, the NDP would continue to provide a loophole to corporations and big union bosses,” he said. “Our government will continue work to remove big money from politics, and it was the Conservatives who banned corporate and union donations.”
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: LAURA RYCKEWAERT
No comments:
Post a Comment