People like giving money to the Conservative party

The second quarter fundraising results


 

Alice Funke has the fundraising totals for the year’s second quarter and the Conservatives have once again taken in the most cash.

The Conservatives have raised the most money in every quarter since the fourth quarter of 2006 (when the Liberals held a leadership convention), a run of 26 quarters. And that’s the only quarter they’ve lost in the last eight and a half years.

One possibly interesting potential wrinkle: the Liberals drew from more donors than the Conservatives in the second quarter (38,014 vs. 30, 437). That’s the first time another party has bested the Conservatives in that regard since 2005.


 

People like giving money to the Conservative party

  1. Yes, amazing where all that money is coming from…..

    • Committed party supporters?

      • Polls and election results say there aren’t that many

        • Are you implying that there is a coordinated effort whereby large single donations are somehow separated and spread across a wider base, circumventing party donation laws?

          • Eeeeyup….said that outright for years.

          • Why does the name “Del Mastro” come to mind?

          • That`s an interesting theory.
            Now try applying it to the Party that had the most single donations in the second quarter—-Liberals
            The Party that historically has depended on Bay Street for funding.—Liberals
            The party that has always been known to make the rules work for them —–Liberals.

        • Recent polls show the Liberals ahead of the Conservatives by little more than the margin of error and the last election we had was in 2011, which if you’ll remember was enough to give the Conservatives a majority government,

          • And more than 60% of Canadians voted for other parties.

          • Yes, that’s true although I don’t see your point. Of all the Canadians who voted in 2011, 70% didn’t vote for the NDP and 81% didn’t vote for the Liberals.

            We have a first past the post election system, you can’t lose a hockey came and then tell everyone how you would have won if you were playing golf.

          • They didn’t vote for the SAME party….but they didn’t vote for the CONS at all.

            And huge amounts of money were coming in long before Harp got a majority.

            I’m sorry, but there is no back-up for that kind of money.

            In fact, even WITH the money, it took robocalls, fudging the paperwork, and other Tricky Dicky stuff ….to get in by 50 votes in some ridings.

          • FPTP is a terrible system for creating governments that reflect the broad will of the people.

        • And exactly when have the pollsters been correct in the last five years.

          Polling is obsolete. Big Data is in. Obama used big data, not polling, to identify his voters, and change the demographics of the people who showed up at the polls.

          Polling is so last century.

          • LOL oh now suddenly polling doesn’t count?

          • Deleted.

          • Amazing….it ALWAYS counted when the Libs were polling third.

            Low polls for Cons apparently don’t count though. LOL

          • Deleted.

          • You are never honest HI…and spamming the board won’t help you.

          • Deleted.

          • I’m aware you’re lying again about me being Liberal

            Maybe YOU are the Summer Temp. LOL

          • Maybe he is Pierre Poutine, though I believe Skippy is Poutine.

          • LOL I dunno…the Canadian Reform Alliance Party….or CRAP….has had so many identities, as have it’s members….I just call ’em all Cons.

          • CONS is the proper name. But never tories. They exist but now as the Progressive Canadian Party since McKAy sold out the conservative name to Harpoon and his trained seals.

          • Yeah, I know Joe….but will Red Tories return? Probably not.

      • Highly committed special interests. Gun owners, social conservatives, etc.

        • Is Justin planning to bring back the gun registry?

          • It doesn’t matter what Trudeau plans to do. It matters what the CPC email blast proclaims Trudeau wants to do. I am reasonably certain that there has been an email blast warnings about Trudeau re-creating the gun registry. I’ve been called by CPC operatives hoping to get me riled up about the gun registry. I told them I’m not a gun owner and I didn’t particularly care. They just kept reading off the script until I hung up.

          • “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” ~ Dr. Joseph Goebbels

  2. And you thought all those Economic Action Plan ads weren’t working, Wherry. Egg’s on your face now buddy, eh?

  3. We Tories get out the worker bees – we work hard and we give our time, energy and dollars (all small contributions) .. in my time I have been to countless breakfast meetings, speechifying, conventions and almost any political activity you can think of for all the parties from my first federal with working as a volunteer for Trudeau senior – then NDP provincially volunteering to get Dave Barret elected as premier through my federal years of Mulroney – then Chretien and now as a huge Harper supporter I have never in all that time experienced the importance of the grassroots like it is from 2005 to now! – the CPC is a grassroots party Harper has understood this from the beginning and acts on issues that we want him to – this infuriates his critics and pundits who just dont get why he makes a lot of the decisions the way he does BUT the answer is obvious we send our dear leader a message and if the grassroots wants it it gets put on his desk and becomes an action item – and it’s that simple – when the other parties start to realize that then they too will do better but in the meantime it must suck to not have a subsidy anymore as that is fading quickly

    • ALL the party donations are not small – are you truly postulating there is no one who gives the maximum donation allowable to the CPC? That is absurd.

      This also leaves aside of course the massive ($50,000+) donations for Stephen Harper’s party leadership campaign – the identity of the donors of which he has never ever ever been willing to share with even the party who you claim work so diligently for him…

    • Interesting you refer to him as ‘Dear Leader’

      But I think your whole thesis breaks down: its hard to think of many things from the grassroots that Harper has treated seriously as an “Action Item”. I think instead that Brent Rathgerber is much more attuned to the grassroots and look how hard Dear Leader has tried to retain him in the caucus.

      PS . . . how much of that fundraising is done via the model (or variants thereof) that Del Mastro is alleged to have used?

      • Funny, Brent Rathgerber was abandoned by his entire riding association as soon as he quit the CPC caucus, because it turns out they all wanted him to remain in the party.

        Brent Rathgerber is more in touch with Brent Rathgerber than anybody else. He’ll be replaced in the next election by another member of the CPC, because that’s what the grass roots want.

        • At least he’s honest instead of lying till he believes it like most Reformacons. Following the propaganda machine doesn’t make it less of a lie. The entire CON machine is built on this with it supporters here and elsewhere.

          “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” ~ Dr. Joseph Goebbels

          HEAVE STEVE 2013!!

      • You think it is a put-down to call Harper “dear leader” while Wayne sees it as a badge of honor. Meanwhile, you have women on these threads who admit to being “protective” of poor Justin Trudeau and don’t like anyone criticizing him. My goodness, these aren’t political stories, they’re love stories.

        • You are apparently unaware that ‘dear leader’ is what the people of N Korea call Kim Jong Un.

          And I’ve never seen anyone….male or female being ‘protective’ of Justin….he can more than take care of himself. LOL

          FW has been positively hot for him though, and you are beginning to sound the same way.

          • Deleted.

          • Hey if you want Harp to be equated to Kim Jung Un, it ain’t me that’s clueless. LOL

            Emily doesn’t like liars….and lying is what you do all the time.

            Hey…if you and FV want to pant, feel free.

          • This comment was deleted.

          • Now you’re lying AND spamming

            At least your friend Rick Omen doesn’t spam

          • This comment was deleted.

          • Spamming is posting multiple comments and filling up the board with posts, instead of just one or two

            Everything.

          • Deleted.

          • LOL clearing out my email box….it’s a mess.

            One or two answers….sum up. When someone goes berserk on here I don’t even bother with them…..I put one comment at the bottom and leave.

            All you are doing is annoying other board users.

          • you got to be kiding Emily – reread ytour response !!! sounds to me like you are being very protective

          • LOLOL nice try but no cigar. I’m not a Lib, sorry.

            Don’t make stuff up.

          • Who is FW??

          • LOL sorry….typo…..FV

          • You are still talking about me in your posts? Waw, I must have left quite an impression on you!

      • why I call him Dear Leader is because we Tories have a characteristic that eludes you wing nuts and especially the haters here – it’s called a ‘ sense of humour ‘ and it negates your ability to use that as an insult – as well you responding proves my point and dolllars willl get you timbits that you don’t get it whatsoever which again proves my point! most of us Tories started out being wing nuts like you but then we grew up moved out of our mom’s basement suite got a job and started paying taxes

        • I gotta tell you —-these lefties have absolutely no sense of humour. It was quite obvious to me that your ” dear leader ‘ crack was in jest—–the next thing I see are these humourless tracking down Kim Jong Un in North Korea to see if you might be referring to him.
          I suppose I should caution you that,like Wherry, his followers have only liberal humour.

        • Once again none of you are tories. You are are reformers and right wing nut jobs, but not Tories!!

          HEAVE STEVE 2012!!

    • This is what boggles the mind of NDP/LPC supporters. They simply can not fathom a party who’s wishes aren’t dictated from the top. They can’t fathom the idea of actually wanting to financially support a party that has your best interests at heart, and actually listens to the needs and wants of it’s supporters.

      No, to the NDP and Liberals, anybody who financially supports a political party must be some type of rube. God knows that money’s much better spent on a $10 latte at Starbucks.

      How many Liberals do you think believe that marijuana legalization should be the party’s #1 priority? Probably not a lot, but Justin thinks it should be. I don’t blame them for not financially supporting parties who’s policies come out of back rooms and polling firms in Ottawa.

      • CPC is run from the top. The past few CPC conventions have been farces of resolutions that were either shut down or ignored by the leadership. I think you’re deluded if you believe SH does anything SH does not want to do, regardless of what the base thinks.

      • Also, CPC has spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on polling services. Far more per year than any previous government.

    • There are no tories in the CPC, you are all reformacons. Not a real tory to be seen anywhere except for that Judas, McKay.

  4. I have read the fundraising emails the CPC sends out and the adage about a fool and his money springs readily to mind.

    • Yes, I really am amused by how they love to use the word ‘reckless’, that non-specific complaint is completely devoid of content and seems to appeal basically to gut feel on the part of those who feel some general level of judgemental anger toward those who tend to be different in some way or another.

      • The Soviets used the word ‘hooliganism’ as a catch-all for anything they didn’t like.

      • That’s kind of a reckless thing to say, isn’t it?

        • Maybe you’re right; OMG I am completely out of control

          • more liberal humour

        • liberal humour.

          • Indeed… I share it with everyone. I am very liberal with my humour.

    • The CPC has obtained my email address & I’ve been getting the fund-raising emails for the last month or so. I find the tone of these missives so offensive that I have to hope only the most partisan of fools are parting with their money :-)

      • I recall that Paul Wells or somebody like that once wrote a really good piece about fundraising letters in general, and why they’re so irritating. They are typically full of repetition, eye-rolling cliches and talking points, underlined, boldfaced and italicized passages topped off with multiple exclamation marks and so on. They seem aimed at a 5-year old intellect. But apparently, political pros insist that this is how a fundraising letter or email should be in order to get the desired result, i.e., so that the recipient will actually donate. Weird, though, because my reaction on reading them is to be insulted that anyone would address me that way or think that I want to be communicated to like that. But maybe it’s like what they say about spam scams, i.e., that they are really pitched deliberately to capture the stupidest people out there.

        • Yup, only stupid people donate to political parties. Intelligent people expect others to do it for them.

          • That’s about right.

          • Perhaps you should re-read my post, because you certainly didn’t comprehend it on the first pass. In the alternative, you could take a course from Evelyn Wood’s Reading Dynamics in order to improve your reading comprehension.

          • No you’ve got that wrong as usual. Only stupid people donate to the CPC. Intelligent people donate to the Liberals and NDP.

      • Kay, a “partisan” is a person who does the heavy lifting for a party. They stump for politicians, stuff envelopes, make telephone calls, volunteer untold hours….all on behalf of their beloved party. There are no real partisans on these threads. The partisans are too busy working for the good of the party to be spending time bemoaning the success of the fundraising efforts of their party vs. an enemy party on an online magazine website.
        As for offensive emails requesting money…I have neighbors who are in their 80’s that receive the same sort of emails from the Liberal Party of Canada. Politics is politics, no matter which party is involved.

        • there is likely some overlap between volunteer and partisan but it is not a pre-requisite. And I don’t think anyone would be surprised to find many political parties trying to influence their online presence, including, yes, ensuring comments on websites get posted.

          • Actually, where I got the information about the true definition of a partisan was in the same study that Aaron Wherry discussed a few weeks ago about the apathy of Canadians when it comes to parsing about politics in their everyday lives. I am afraid according to that study, a partisan is someone “who does the heavy lifting for the party”. Thus volunteering untold hours for the good of the party is a requirement. Sitting on your butt in front of the computer and being offensive to others, not so much.

          • then i wish you luck with your narrow and foolish definition.

          • I told you “dear adviser” that it wasn’t my definition. However, I will point out that if you are on here as a representative of your beloved party, you are hardly coaxing people to vote your way by being nasty and offensive. People join a political cause because they find it welcoming, not because those who are part of it, treat them with disdain.

          • You’ve got your own definition of partisan. That’s nice. Moses didn’t bring your definition down from a mountaintop engraved on a stone tablet or anything like that. There are alternative definitions which are just as valid and widely accepted as yours, if not more so.

          • I told you it isn’t mine. It is from a study done on politics in Canada. Aaron Wherry showcased the study in an editorial a few weeks ago.

        • CPC at least issues talking points for radio call in show listeners to read when the call in. The call in shows are such a ridiculous echo chamber. They are surprisingly effective as propaganda tools as you can outsource your lies to faceless citizens who repeat them back and forth to each other often enough that start to seem truthful.

        • WAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          • Deleted.

          • As you very well know that was a laugh….

            It was about your line ‘There are no real partisans on these threads.’

            BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          • This comment was deleted.

          • We all know what partisans are and what volunteers are. You are the only one confused

      • If you find them so offensive, why don’t you simply unsubscribe?

        • I don’t think they are so easy to get rid of, are they?

        • Actually I did unsubscribe from the voluminous unsolicited spam emails I was getting from one particular party. However, I have received completely unsolicited fundraising pitches in the mail from other groups which was just as obnoxious (e.g., Council of Canadians, certain environmental groups, animal rights groups). I’m sure that my experience in this regard is hardly unique.

  5. Social cons tithe at church. They have no problem kicking in to the CPC to fight for their cause: to inflict a theo-con nanny state on the public.

    The auto donation of about $3/yr per person is the smartest approach. Less than 10% of people donate and taxpayers have to pay $3 for everyone $1 they donate. Why let whack jobs decide the issue?

    Political donations turn political parties into televangelists, which makes most people keep away from getting involved (unless you want your phone ringing off the hook asking for donations.)

    • Operating on the assumption that the same general population
      also is the base of support ( small donors dontcha know ) for the
      conservative bench players at CTF, NCC, and Whatever, their
      dedication is awesome I tell ya …

    • Liberals tithe at church too. How do you think the Catholic church got so rich?

      • Catholics don’t tithe. They haven’t for a long time.

        Let’s be clear what we mean when we say tithe. It means dear pastor gets a copy of your notice of assessment and verifies that your donations were at least 10% of your reported income.

        • Oh I’m sorry. Yes, the Catholics send the parishioners 52 printed envelopes (one for each Sunday of the year) with a strong recommendation that they give 10% of their wages. Then during the mass, they pass a basket up and down the aisles for them to put their envelopes into. I guess that isn’t exactly tithes, is it. Just a strong encouragement to give generously.

          • I was brought up Catholic. I never saw any suggestion on how much you should give. Certainly no social pressure to give 10%. In churches where tithing is common, you’d be risking ostracization if you had means and didn’t tithe. You’re making false equivalencies. A tithe is a social-pressure enforced 10% tax on income. Entirely different from a call for donations. It’s like saying the Canadian Cancer Society tithes because they send fundraisers door to door. The term loses all meaning.

          • Andrew, I was raised Catholic. My grandmother was a former nun. You want to discuss the Catholic church and how it doesn’t pressure people? I have a relative who was a priest who just had a heck of a time trying to “retire”. Please. How do you think I know about the envelopes and the “suggestions” for donation amounts? I lived at home when my parents received the envelopes. You don’t want to believe it? Do not. Many don’t want to believe things about the church that have been proven to be true. It isn’t “false equivalencies” to compare the Catholic church to an evangelical church and THAT was the comparison here.

          • Maybe we had different experience. Far be it from me to defend the Catholic Church. I think all religion is pretty kooky. I definitely know that at least in my parish, the priest was not auditing family income to verify that donations amounted to 10% of income. If you think the Catholic Church is the same as these conservative churches in this regard, how do you explain the shabby condition of many Catholic churches in relation to the palatial mega churches with attached private indoctrination centres (sorry, “schools”). If Catholics routinely tithed, this would not be true.

          • I’m sorry, Andrew but apparently you haven’t visited St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City if you think Catholic Churches are shabby. As for where the money goes….sexual assault lawsuits left at least 8 dioceses including the Boston diocese bankrupt. The church has a lot of money it needs to recoup.
            Now, I never said that parish priests are “auditing” anyone. They still strongly encourage their parishioners to give 10% of their income.
            I am interested to know though how a Catholic School isn’t an “indoctrination centre” but an evangelical school is, given that in Calgary Bishop Henry won’t let the public health nurses into the schools to vaccinate for HPV saying it “promotes promiscuity”.

          • All I can say is that you’re cherrypicking. Yes. There are some old expensive churches. Visit the hinterland and see what the churches look like.

            I have never heard anyone involved in the Church refer to 10% ‘strongly encouraged’ donations. It just is not a common practice, at least in my area.

          • Andrew, I lived in the “hinterland”….Northern Alberta…6 hours drive north of Edmonton. We built a brand new church.
            In 2012, The Economist did a great story on the Catholic Church’s finances, especially those in the US. You don’t believe that the church encourages people to donate 10% but do you believe they solicited donations for priest’s pensions and then used those donations for something completely differently, leaving many priests with little or no pension?

          • There is no requirement on punishment of ostracization to tithe. It’s as simple as that. All your other points are irrelevant. The Catholic Chuch does not tithe any more than the Canadian Cancer Society. They both ask for donations. I do not defend nor endorse the Church in any regard, just stating facts.

          • Check out the webpage on tithing from St. Michael’s church in Charleston, South Carolina. You might want to re-think your pronouncement.

          • I don’t live in South Carolina.

          • No, you don’t. You also don’t live in Germany where the government actually levies a tax of 8 to 9 percent against all Catholics, Lutherans and other Protestants and then collects the money and disperses it to the churches.

          • Like I said, religion is kooky. I already disclaimed that I was talking about my experience.

          • Same thing as in Sweden the levie is 2 % but it goes only to the Church of Sweden the Lutheran church no sharing with other churches.

        • So sending 52 envelopes (one for each Sunday) with the name of the parishioner on it and recommendation that they give 10% of their income isn’t tithes?

      • Well it wasn’t through Peter’s Pence. It’s condos and apartment buildings and the stock market and hotels etc

        • So you don’t think Catholics tithe at church? Right?!! You know all about the Catholic faith. That is why you think it is okay as a non-Catholic to take the host.

          • Oh some probably do…but Peter’s pence has never supported Rome….investments do.

          • From the 1500 hundreds on, the Catholic church became rich by exploiting people’s superstitions and desires for power by selling relics and places of high position within the church for money. Of course the church got rich that way. People also left huge estates to them upon death. In the poorest countries in the world, people continue to give the Roman Catholic church more money than they can afford.
            By the way, you need to be baptised and go through confirmation in the Catholic church before you are supposed to receive “the body of Christ” which is what the host is representative of. It is called a “closed communion”.
            While, they are happy to have converts, they still make you take lessons and get baptized, etc.

          • Yup….and now they invest and have it on a business basis…..well sort of….the Vatican is being investigated for money laundering right now.

            I have been given wafers, and I have never been RC

          • Well they aren’t going to ask you to show them your baptismal and confirmation certificate during the mass but they expect you to know that as a non-catholic, you don’t take the sacrament. Did you go to confession too? Are you going to ask for last rites on your deathbed? These are all Catholic sacraments. Just like baptism. If you aren’t Catholic, you can approach the priest and he will give you a blessing but you don’t take the host.

          • They were quite aware I wasn’t RC

          • Hahaha! You wore a sign?

          • I told them.

            And you’re not a churchgoer anyway, so you said….so why worry

          • She probably hides communion wafers too, like that heretic Harper.

          • Hey in the old days they used to put the host right in the receiver’s mouth. If a person spit it out, the priest grabbed it up and ate it….after all, it IS the body of Christ. This is a sacrament…sacred. “Pagans” are not allowed to receive it without proper preparation. Even Catholics must be in “a state of grace” before they receive it (have confessed their sins). Obviously Emily AND Harper are both sadly uneducated in importance of communion in the Catholic church.

  6. LOL. I can hear @emilyone:disqus’s head exploding as I type! This has really got to anger the Liberal media. After months of attempting every hatchet job available on the PM, it looks like the CPC base is stronger than ever.

    Meanwhile, Trust Fund Trudeau is trying to explain to people why we need more potheads in Canada. Good luck, ya Liberal losers!

    • LOL yer related to Pollyanna Wayne arncha….

  7. Only idiots want to donate to the CON job Party of Canada.

  8. Number of donors is far more interesting than number of dollars. Donors equates to votes. Donors also equate to feet on the street as well as viral influence. Dollars equates to buying more misleading ads which Canadians are getting fed up with anyways.

  9. People give to the Party they believe will protect their best interest, usually financial interest. The NDP are a threat to everyone, and the Liberals are a threat to one’s intelligence, and the Conservatives are a threat to …well let me think on that one.