[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

So recent news in BC is that Christy Clark - our premier and leader of the BC Liberal Party (which is more of a Conservative party when looking at federal alignment, but not completely so) has been receiving a bonus from the party based on the fundraising done by the party. Last year she got about $50,000, apparently tax deductible too.

BB and CC - I honestly don't have that much insight into that kind of detail in how political parties operate in Canada, so I'm curious on your take on this. Where on the scale of "this is egregiously scandalous and corrupt, she really ought to resign" to "meh, that's how things are done; it can be spun as a bad thing, but it's really not a big deal unless you're motivated by partisanship" do you reckon this falls?

I think there are two answers to this.  The way to look at this is her personal culpability.  In that regard I don't see much of an issue.  There is no suggestion that she is getting commissions based on the amount she brings in.  I that regard I disagree with Oex when looking at this from the perspective of the possibility of corruption on a personal level.  There is no indication that this is the same as what happened in Quebec.

However, the other way to look at this is the that it is the same problem that all democracies have regarding politicians raising money to fund their next campaign.  On a structural level, I agree that is a significant problem.  And I see no ready solution.

There is no political party who is clean on this.  In a variety of ways all parties exchange money for access - we used to joke about the rubber chicken fund raising events where the food was terrible but the cost was very high.  People are now taking the issue more seriously.  And I think rightly so.  But I also think it is a mistake to single out this one politician.

[viper37]

Where on the scale of "this is egregiously scandalous and corrupt, she really ought to resign" to "meh, that's how things are done; it can be spun as a bad thing, but it's really not a big deal unless you're motivated by partisanship" do you reckon this falls?

Square in the middle, it falls.

The symbolic of the gesture is irrelevant, it's what it leads to that is problematic.

The theory is that party leaders do work for their party, not just for democracy, as would be their role in Premier or Opposition leader.

In the past, when party leaders did not receive remuneration from their party, there was a tendancy toward givien them money off the books.  Now, it's done openly, in sight of everyone, and it's taxable income for the recipient.  That's certainly better than the alternative.

However, as Oex pointed out, it creates pressure on donors to sollicitate corporate donors and commit electoral fraud.
I don't know if corporations are allowed to  give money to political parties in BC, but it's been banned in Quebec a while ago.
I personally believe we should allow coporate entity to give money to political parties, within the legal limits, but do not allow them to deduce it from their taxable income.

I understand that it's hard to attract talented individuals to politics.  There's no job security, the pay is not that high, you have no private life, no family life and you stand to make more money as a lawyer/high level manager in any decent size private firm.

If it's really as problematic as the parties maintain, then there should be a serious discussion about raising the wages for the Premier and the opposition leader rather than having parallel system.  Imho, when you get into politics, you know what you are signing for, and the wage should be take it or leave it, not take it and negotiate some shady deal to make it ok.

Or even better, reform the entire political system and seperate the parliamentary work from the party work with two distinct person.

Oh, btw, BC was cited as an example here that a financing goal of 100 000$ per year was nothing since the objective over there was 500 000$/year.

[viper37]

So recent news in BC is that Christy Clark - our premier and leader of the BC Liberal Party (which is more of a Conservative party when looking at federal alignment, but not completely so) has been receiving a bonus from the party based on the fundraising done by the party. Last year she got about $50,000, apparently tax deductible too.

BB and CC - I honestly don't have that much insight into that kind of detail in how political parties operate in Canada, so I'm curious on your take on this. Where on the scale of "this is egregiously scandalous and corrupt, she really ought to resign" to "meh, that's how things are done; it can be spun as a bad thing, but it's really not a big deal unless you're motivated by partisanship" do you reckon this falls?

I think there are two answers to this.  The way to look at this is her personal culpability.  In that regard I don't see much of an issue.  There is no suggestion that she is getting commissions based on the amount she brings in.  I that regard I disagree with Oex when looking at this from the perspective of the possibility of corruption on a personal level.  There is no indication that this is the same as what happened in Quebec.

So far, there has been no proofs (for provincial politicians) that anything was done for personal benefits.  There are accusation against the former vice-minister, but it is not clear that she derived a personal benefit from what she is accused of.  So far, it seems to have been done for the party.  And her former party and associate seem to have sacrificed her, counting on her loyalty to preserve the party.  I don't know if she'll bite it or spill her beans once on trial.

Heck, back with Duplessis (1950s), he never put a penny in his pocket, yet contracts were exchanged for political donations.  There is no proof it is happening right now in BC, but as you raise the level of donations required by ministers, it leads toward this kind of system because the pressure is just too much.

There is no political party who is clean on this.  In a variety of ways all parties exchange money for access - we used to joke about the rubber chicken fund raising events where the food was terrible but the cost was very high.  People are now taking the issue more seriously.  And I think rightly so.  But I also think it is a mistake to single out this one politician.

well, so far, she has not done anything illegal, so I don't see why she should resign.  It is not unethical if done above books (if I learn that it was 50 000$ cash, undeclared, that's something else), it is certainly not illegal either.

The question is more as you say, what to do in the future.  Keep allowing parties to do it or change the rules?
I vote for changing rules on this.  Give a wage increase to party leaders and be done with it.

[Barrister]

So recent news in BC is that Christy Clark - our premier and leader of the BC Liberal Party (which is more of a Conservative party when looking at federal alignment, but not completely so) has been receiving a bonus from the party based on the fundraising done by the party. Last year she got about $50,000, apparently tax deductible too.

BB and CC - I honestly don't have that much insight into that kind of detail in how political parties operate in Canada, so I'm curious on your take on this. Where on the scale of "this is egregiously scandalous and corrupt, she really ought to resign" to "meh, that's how things are done; it can be spun as a bad thing, but it's really not a big deal unless you're motivated by partisanship" do you reckon this falls?

Well legally there is nothing wrong with the party giving its leader money.  That money belongs to the party and it can more-or-less do what it wants with that money.

What it does do is shine a spotlight on the issue of money in politics - how much of it there is, what parties have to do to raise that money, and what donors expect to receive in return for their money.  I don't know exactly what the answers here are.  Donation limits have just seen people get more creative in how they spread the money around to get around those limits.

Chretien brought in public financing for political parties, but I think that is equally problematic.  It inherently gave a huge advantage to incumbent parties, and the government party in particular (the amount of $$$ a party got depended on its votes in the last election).  That basically prohibits any new party from coming into existence (they get no public financing, and are prohibited from doing any other fundraising).  The ban on third party advertising is a complete violation of rights to free speech.

[Jacob]

Thanks for the answers

[Admiral Yi]

Are political contributions tax deductible in Canada?

And how the hell is the sales commission tax deductible?

The whole setup smells really bad to me.

[crazy canuck]

Are political contributions tax deductible in Canada?

And how the hell is the sales commission tax deductible?

The whole setup smells really bad to me.

A percentage of political donations are tax deductible.  It is more advantageous than charitable donations. 

I am not sure why you think sales commission might be but in any event, they are not.

[Barrister]

Are political contributions tax deductible in Canada?

And how the hell is the sales commission tax deductible?

The whole setup smells really bad to me.

POlitical donations are deductible on a sliding scale. 75% on the first $400, 50% on the next $350, then one third up to $1275.  It's a better rate than charitable deductions.

[Jacob]

A percentage of political donations are tax deductible.  It is more advantageous than charitable donations. 

I am not sure why you think sales commission might be but in any event, they are not.

I think Yi inferred - and it was, I think, vaguely implied in how I asked the question because that's how the reporting I'd seen had framed it - that Christy Clark's salary addition was related to how much she brought in from donations.

As you guys have explained (if I understand it correctly), she gets a bonus for the fund raising work she does ($50K/ year it seems) and she, and other politicians, have a quota of money they have to raise - but there's no direct link (so it's not like she gets 10% so if she exceeds her $500K by $200K she'll get another $20K).

[crazy canuck]

A percentage of political donations are tax deductible.  It is more advantageous than charitable donations. 

I am not sure why you think sales commission might be but in any event, they are not.

I think Yi inferred - and it was, I think, vaguely implied in how I asked the question because that's how the reporting I'd seen had framed it - that Christy Clark's salary addition was related to how much she brought in from donations.

As you guys have explained (if I understand it correctly), she gets a bonus for the fund raising work she does ($50K/ year it seems) and she, and other politicians, have a quota of money they have to raise - but there's no direct link (so it's not like she gets 10% so if she exceeds her $500K by $200K she'll get another $20K).

No, I did not mean to suggest that it is a bonus tied to fund raising nor did i mean to suggest that there is a quota.  I believe that was Oex's contention.

[Jacob]

No, I did not mean to suggest that it is a bonus tied to fund raising nor did i mean to suggest that there is a quota.  I believe that was Oex's contention.

Viper37's, I believe.

[crazy canuck]

No, I did not mean to suggest that it is a bonus tied to fund raising nor did i mean to suggest that there is a quota.  I believe that was Oex's contention.

Viper37's, I believe.

Speaking of Viper, I wonder how he feels about Bombardier now that they have secured the Delta contract. 

[Jacob]

Speaking of Viper, I wonder how he feels about Bombardier now that they have secured the Delta contract. 

Oh, I'm pretty sure I know: this show's what a pissant fraud Trudeau is.

[viper37]

No, I did not mean to suggest that it is a bonus tied to fund raising nor did i mean to suggest that there is a quota.  I believe that was Oex's contention.

Viper37's, I believe.

Speaking of Viper, I wonder how he feels about Bombardier now that they have secured the Delta contract. 

The Quebec government injected a fuckton of money to become shareholder of the plane division.
The Delta contract is not what is reported in the media because there are rebates of an unknown value.

I still think it was a bad deal from the Quebec government, because we took too many risks with not enough guarantees.

But now we wait of the Federal govt to see if they'll make a move.  At this point, they should give the momey, otherwise Bombardier will likely go bankrupt before delivering the planes.

And it has nothing to do with the other contract from Air Canada.

[viper37]

No, I did not mean to suggest that it is a bonus tied to fund raising nor did i mean to suggest that there is a quota.  I believe that was Oex's contention.

Viper37's, I believe.

nope, Oex's claim.  I only said it puts pressure on ministers&mps to raise more money and that eventually leads to problems. BC might be a richer province, but there's a limit to how much money you can legally raise.  People just don't give a fuckton of money to a candidate with nothing in return.