Follow the money

Politics is largely about the benjamins

Alice Funke has loaded the latest quarterly returns into her fundraising database, which helps put in perspective just how lucrative the fourth quarter of last year—and the year of 2013 in its entirety—was for all four federal parties.

The New Democrats ($3.7 million*) and Greens ($1.2 million) had their best quarters ever (or at least since quarterly data start being reported in 2005) and the Liberals ($4.7 million) had their best quarter since the fourth quarter of 2006 (when the Liberals had their last competitive leadership convention). And the Conservatives ($5.4 million) still won the quarter, the 28th-consecutive quarter in which they’ve raised the most money. The Liberals also finished with the most donors for the third-consecutive quarter.

That was enough to give the Conservatives their best non-election year since 2005. The Liberals, New Democrats and Greens just completed their best years, period, since 2005. And if my math is correct, the four parties combined for the most-lucrative non-election year since 2003 (before fundraising laws were reformed).

The larger hauls of the Liberals and New Democrats might suggest that the other parties are slowly (belatedly) catching up to the Conservatives, but the Conservative haul, in a year that was otherwise supposed to be their worst since forming government, seems a reminder of the party’s continued strength. All of those numbers presumably have implications for the permanent campaign and the way politics gets done in this country.




Browse

Follow the money

  1. We have benjamins??

    • I do, lots of them. They be worth more and better returns on foreign markets.

      • Canada doesn’t though.

  2. How much of what the CPC raised though came from the likes of Deltro employees?

  3. Gee, this is interesting, eh? Nobody needs the MOST money
    to be effective. They just need ENOUGH.

  4. Just lobby money to buy politicians and we foot the bill.

    Why not ban lobby money and annually have those that pay taxes vote on the income tax on who they support? Then allocate a small amount of taxes to it. Be a more democratic method for sure.

    • We used to have a per vote subsidy, which definitely added a layer of fairness the CPC decided to eliminate.

      • Can you explain to me what was fair about the fact that I had to contribute to each political Party with the vote subsidy, even though I may have disagreed with all of them ?

        • When GFMD says “fair”, what he really means is “benefited the Liberals and NDP”.

          • Poor victim.

  5. Some would say that the conservatives will need their massive war chest to speak directly to the voters, as Justin has the Ottawa media acting as guardians. However, the CPC just needs Justin to be Justin. As the election draws near, voters become more attuned to Justin as a real choice to lead this country, and as Justin is forced to engage in substantive debates about real issues, all the Kings horses and all the Kings men won’t be able to put Justin back together again.
    In the meantime, let us marvel in the latest gift from Justin, the University arts lounge ponderer: devout, lifelong liberals who are completely “independent”. The idea is soooooo dreamy.

    • Again with that mancrush….very strange.

    • Hi Biff/Charles

      Conservatives will need their massive war chest to manufacture their lies about Trudeau. I know you are doing your best here on the blogs, but you are but one man/troll – you cannot reach the entire country!

      And yet, when people like you run around lowering our expectations for Trudeau, you will only serve to boost him in the long run.

      Meanwhile, as conservatives continue to whine about how everyone is picking on them, Trudeau continues to act responsibly and like a mature, decisive statesman.

      • In fact, from their emails that keep showing up in my inbox, the CPC are pretty honest that they win their elections on $. if another party becomes competitive in that area, it will be a huge blow to them.

      • Hi Gayle/ Emily/kcm/GFMD/Thwim/etc

        —So cute how you accuse Charles of having a hidden, but well paid agenda—-he must be a troll—- when this site has been a haven for liberal trolls for years.

        • He called himself Biff for years.

          He is also very articulate. So when he misrepresents things, or outright lies, as he has been caught doing several times, he is clearly doing so intentionally.

          I will not take him seriously, but I will call him out.

          • Then debate him in a mature manner.
            If he is unfairly critical of Justin Trudeau, then explain to us how Justin ” continues to act responsibly and like a mature decisive statesman. ”
            You may need some help with that little gem so I would encourage other liberals here to help out.

          • This is a comment site….not a debate. People will disagree from time to time….but everyone is aware of a gish gallop and the other silly things Cons call arguments so mostly no one bothers talking to people like biff/charles.

          • You`re not helping Gayle.

          • I was talking to YOU.

          • Whereas people take Emily with the utmost seriousness.

          • If they have brains they do.

          • Biff does not “debate”. He lies. I will not engage him. He is not interested in mature debate. He is interested in spreading lies.

            If it were up to me no one would engage him, and everyone would laugh at him.

        • The word is shill, not troll.

          And when I arrived the site was so rightwing it squeaked.

          • Ah, no, I think the word is troll.

          • More unintentional humour from Emily.

          • Post from the most confused person on this site….LOL

    • You really need to clue in…it’s not about Justin, it’s about ‘change’, regardless of what shape it comes in. When 60% of Canadians feel strongly that the country is headed in the wrong direction, and you don’t consider that important, then not much is gonna sink in. Hate him all you want, because it doesn’t make any difference to the fact that after 8 years Harper is running on fumes, the economy is slowing down to the barest of crawls, and good jobs are disappearing at an alarming rate. Unless Harper can turn this around quickly and extremely visibly, it’s over, Justin or not.

  6. There comes a time when money just can’t save you. Harper came into office with an attitude that ‘everyone is my potential enemy’, and after 8 years, he’s pretty much made an enemy of everyone who questions his policies, now including Veterans (who are basically one and the same with Senior voters). One senses that Harper has maybe crossed the line from someone who never gambles to one who now just can’t stop rolling the dice, hoping that his string of luck will change when he needs it most. All this money they have is useless if it’s meant for selling policies that no one wants to buy anymore. Sometimes it’s not the product that’s not wanted, but the salesman.

  7. Who knew that 5 years after the Conservatives proposed a change in Party funding from a vote subsidy where Canadians involuntarily contributed to all political parties, to a voluntary method now where Canadians choose which Party to contribute to, would be such a resounding success.
    Remember when Liberals and NDP`ers along with the Bloc wanted to overthrow the elected government because they were losing their free ride. Remember when PM Harper told them that they could make it on their own—just do your own fundraising. Harper treated them like little chicks, having to be pushed out of the nest to fly on their own.
    It`s good to see all the Liberals and NDP`ers now so happy with the new system—-swimming in cash. Many thanks Mr. Harper.

    • You realize that donations to parties come 75% to 87.5% from taxpayers, right?

      • And what percentage did the Vote Subsidy come from the taxpayers—that`s right—100%.
        And I do believe that the amount of the political contribution that can be put against taxable income is too high, but the fact that one has to voluntarily write a cheque to a political Party of his choosing is helpful in a Democracy as opposed to simply paying 2 bucks for every vote cast from general revenue.

        • No, it’s not helpful, because it gives disproportionate voice to those who have the funds to write said cheque. The point of democracy is that everyone is equal, not “those who can afford more are more equal”

          • Everybody is “equal” in that they’re allowed to give the same maximum donation. Democracy doesn’t have anything to do with everybody being equally rich, or wanting to spend their money on the same things. Lots of people could afford to give the maximum amount to a political party, but choose not to.

            How is it “democratic” to limit a person’s ability to participate in democracy just because another person can’t, or chooses not to in the same way?

            Should we limit the # of volunteer hours a person can contribute to a campaign, just because some unemployed, retired, or welfare bums have more time on their hands than working folks? Does that seem “democratic” to you?

          • Being allowed to do something does not mean the ability is there. That is entirely different from choice, something I realize you’re trying very hard to conflate, but which I’m not falling for.

            It’s democratic to limit a person’s ability where others are not capable of accomplishing the same thing.

            Would you say putting the voting booth in stations where only people who were 6’5 or taller could reach them is democratic? Everyone is *allowed* to vote, and some very tall people may choose not to, so obviously, that’s democratic right?

            What a bunch of hogwash.

            Unemployed people have no more time on their hands than working folks, they have the exact same 24 hours of every day. How a working person chooses to spend their time is their choice.

          • If you suggest it’s fair to make a working person choose between feeding their family and supporting a political party, why is it unfair to ask an unemployed person to choose between feeding their family and supporting a political party? Do you also think it’s “democratic” for Union employees to get paid time off to work on campaigns, but small business owners don’t?

          • I’m not suggesting anything of the sort. I’m saying they have the choice as to what to do with their time. A person without money simply doesn’t have the choice of what to do with it.

            Again, it’s a choice of the management if they want to let union employees have paid time off work, and of small business owners if they want to spend their hours campaigning. Again, they have the choice.

            I know, I know, it sucks that I won’t fall for you trying to deliberately confuse choice with ability because it points out what a pathetic partisan shill you are, but that’s just the way it is.

          • Someone who doesn’t have enough money to donate to a political party has the choice to go and make more money, or redirect some of their other spending to politics. It’s all choices…. which was kind of my point in the first place.

          • Ah. So you’re of the mind that anybody without a job is a lazy bum. A world where external circumstances do not exist.

            You’re wrong.

          • I`m well aware that not everybody makes enough money to contribute to political parties, so why would you force those who cannot afford it to pay increased taxes in order to fund the vote subsidy ?

          • Because when government funds stuff and dictates how other people’s money should be spent, it’s a good thing. When people are left to make choices about how to spend their money, that’s a bad thing. It’s really quite simple. Try to keep up.

          • They don’t pay increased taxes. They don’t pay any taxes.

Sign in to comment.