3

In and Out? That’s gone, too

Conservatives drop controversial election financing scheme


 

In a classic example of the “dog mysteriously fails to bite man” journalistic genre, the Ottawa Citizen reports today on the curious absence of any “in and out” transfers in the most recent campaign expense reports filed by Conservative candidates. Although the party still maintains that the practice of moving money between national and local campaigns was entirely legal, not a single one of the 192 candidate reports published to date include payments to the party for advertising. In fact, the average amount spent on advertising by local Tory campaigns dropped by nearly 40 per cent from the last election. That doesn’t mean that the In and Out controversy is over, however: Elections Commissioner William Corbett’s investigation into the contentious financing scheme is still ongoing, as is the legal challenge that the party brought against the agency in 2007.

The Ottawa Citizen


 
Filed under:

In and Out? That’s gone, too

  1. Small clarification is required which will show what a “non-story” this really is:

    The Conservatives insist the practise was legal “at the time”. Their argument however is the rules were later changed to disallow what they did and that this change should not apply retroactively.

    Therefore, it would only make sense that in the 2008 electiion the party didn’t do what they themselves agree is illegal.

    • Except the rules didn’t change. All that changed was the brochure explaining them.
      Ignorance of the law does not preclude the law from applying — even if you thought you knew it.

  2. So we’re in agreement then?

    The Conservatives believe that the rules as they applied during the 2008 election did not allow for an “in and Out” strategy, which is why they didn’t use it in 2008.

    Non-Story.

Sign in to comment.