Shorting Justin Trudeau's fundraising ability -

Shorting Justin Trudeau’s fundraising ability

Did the Liberals just have their best quarter since 2005?


Justin Trudeau enjoys a spring weekend counting money:

On Twitter, where the collective wisdom is what it is, everyone’s debating the Liberal leader’s pants. I’m struck by the numbers. Since he became Liberal leader, about three weeks ago, the party has raised “over a million dollars” from 14,000 donors, of which, apparently, 6,000 are donating for the first time. That sounds impressive.

How impressive is it? The excellent Pundits’ Guide site features searchable records for contributions to political parties since 2005. Assume (a hefty assumption) the Trudeau Liberals’ opening burst can be sustained over the 13 weeks of a budgetary quarter. The Liberals’ current pace puts them on track to take in something like $4.3 million from about 60,000 people.

That would be their best quarter since at least 2005, and probably in much longer: In Q2 2009 they made about $3.9 million, and in the last quarter of 2012 they received contributions from nearly 30,000 people. (Why was Q2 2009 such a good quarter? Because that’s when the Conservatives started running negative ads against Michael Ignatieff. The Liberals fundraised off the ads, as they always do when they are getting knocked silly. It produced the results it produced.)

The NDP peaked, so far, at about $3.1 million during Q2 2011 — the moment of Jack Layton’s election triumph — and maxed out at 24,000-ish contributors in the last quarter of 2012.

The Conservatives provide perhaps the most interesting comparison. They had nearly 60,000 contributors in the atypical election-campaign fourth quarter of 2005. Since then they’ve hit nearly 51,000 contributors in Q4 2006 and about 49,000 in Q4 2008. They raise prodigious amounts of money during election periods — $6.3 million in 2008, $8.2 million in 2011 — but they’ve never raised less than $3 million in a quarter since Stephen Harper became prime minister. In Q4 2012, when both the NDP and Liberals hit their largest-ever number of donors, the Conservatives still managed to raise $5.1 million from 39,000 donors.

The numbers Trudeau described today are nothing to sneeze at. But if sustained over the long term, they would merely put the Liberals back in a game they have been losing, more or less by default, to the Conservatives for as long as Harper has been leading that party.


Shorting Justin Trudeau’s fundraising ability

  1. All very impressive. But, what are those funds in Australian dollars?

    And then you need to express them all in 2013 dollars and per capita. And then account for the business cycle (we are in recovery now, huh?) Pct GDP even.

    And didn’t Mark Carney once wear shorts while staying at Scott Brisons? Where’s the incriminating photos?

    • Brison still has his critics position – I thought you 3 had more clout.

  2. Lefties are always generous with “other people’s money”.
    Not so much with their own.

    Note that Google and Apple who supported the left in the US are the same companies who have elaborate ways of running their profit through different countries so they pay effective tax rates of what 3%???? – I don’t pretend to know the true number but I do know that it is low. NOT WHAT THEY WANT OTHERS TO PAY.

    Paul Martin = Canada Steamship Lines = (good liberal)

    Then there was Brian Mulroney who forgot to declare $300,000 or some large amount of cash he received. BUT THEN AGAIN HE WAS FROM QUEBEC WHERE CORRUPTION RUNS SUPREME.


    • So, a story about political fundraising makes you conclude that Brian Mulroney is a lefty? You’re kinda reachin’ there, son.

    • Well as you are counting Liberals as “lefties” and as they balanced their books and paid down the national debt under their watch, while the CPC has been spending way more than they have been taking in, I ask – whose money, exactly, do you think Harper & Co are spending?
      (Hint: got any grandkids?)

      • The Liberal Party of Canada thanks you for your post.

        • It’s at least factual. What’s your point? Or did you have one?

        • And the CPC thanks you for yours.

          • Yes, given my support for legalized prostitution, legalized marijuana, and my opposition to Harper’s GST cut and Harper’s scrapping of the long-form census, clearly I’m a shill for the CPC. Ya got me there.

      • Harper paid down 30 billion of debt in two years, then the when he tabled a balanced budget the opposition went nuts and demanded huge spending increase and bailouts.

        The liberals bragged that they were responsible for the bailout spending. after the prorogue.

        • The structural deficit was in place before stimulus was needed. They very money they weren’t going to spend, but then decided to and advertise for millions and millions of dollars: The Economic Action Plan. The conservatives are very proud of how they managed the economy, which was driven by the opposition. The spending of this gov’t was very high in the beginning, bloating civil service, and destroying further the tax system with useless boutique tax cuts. The reduction of the GST created a structural deficit when 99% of economists said it was regressive, where lowering income tax would have been better. Shall we go on…. Foreign Worker Program suppressing wages….

          • No argument they spend too much.
            Which programs should we cut?
            CBC would be a good start, ending tax deductions for political donations would be another.
            Ending the corporate welfare that Ontario is addicted to would help immensely.

          • No argument with either/both of those cuts. But they only just scratch the surface (just over 1 billion combined). Got to do better than that.

          • How bout the Canada’s action plan propaganda…let the CPC pay for it’s own advertising thanks?

          • How about the stimulus advertising program?

        • You must have the draft copy of Harper’s new History of Canada book.

    • “Note that Google and Apple who supported the left in the US are the same companies who have elaborate ways of running their profit through different countries so they pay effective tax rates of what 3%???? – I don’t pretend to know the true number but I do know that it is low. NOT WHAT THEY WANT OTHERS TO PAY.”

      Too funny. As if each and every other company no matter the political persuasion of their respective executives voluntarily pays the top tax rate.

      Wow. That’s some (very selective) ‘evidence’.

      Oh, and nice to see that you don’t default to childish name-calling. Wait! What? Oh. Ignore my last sentence.

    • Wow! you’ve managed to assemble an amusing collection of astoundingly irrelevant or merely tangential trivia in support of a decidedly moot conclusion.

    • You know, Paul Martin is under your bed RIGHT NOW.

      I can hear him. He’s saying, “Let me be perfectly frank, you don’t vacuum under hear often enough”.

      • That’s a little creepy. Although it does explain the muffled, yet helpful advice my spouse and I have been getting in flagrante delicto.

        • That/s very good— a bit sick, but very good.

        • Advice? From under your bed? I hesitate to ask in what aspect of your behaviour?

          • Mostly related to our personal finances, actually. It’s a little distracting, but definitely helps with the stamina.

          • The state of my personal finances since harper took over, Voices muttering about them in flagrante delicto would have the opposite effect on me.

  3. So what does this say about the CPC’s ability to effectively manage money when double to triple the funding gives them only a slim majority in a system with two left-wing parties splitting the vote?

    • You can fool 37% of the people some of the time.

      • and the rest of the time you can only fool 25% of them, lol

    • I’d say they have done a terrific job of counterbalancing the billion bucks a year the CBC gets to slag everything right of Karl Marx.

      • Kevin O’Leary refutes you.

        • One vs a very large crowd of CBC Marxist loons…..

          • CBC would never have the nerve to put a real Marxist on…you’re out to lunch bud.

          • Two Words: David Suzuki, he of the put the climate offenders in the gulag

          • I understand the words “David Suzuki” to constitute the name of a long-time show host on the CBC – one who endorsed the BC Liberals (along with Stockwell Day and most Conservatives) in the last provincial election.

            Unfortunately, education seems to have failed you and the words you typed after “David Suzuki” are completely incomprehensible.

          • Hey that’s funny, or you’re an idiot. Take your pick?

          • Never heard of Avi Lewis or Naomi Klein?

          • Whatever they are they almost certainly aren’t Marxists.

      • and you would be saying something very very stupid when you did so.

  4. Weren’t the libs broke before? I wonder, just how many brown envelopes does it take to fund a lib campaign these days?

    • Given the suspiciously large amounts the CPC raises maybe they can answer that for ya!

      • Suspiciously large?
        Evidence please.
        Oh wait, you don’t have any, that’s why you have to embarrass yourself by making up lies!

        • The comment was in response to Frenchie, who was implying the Liberals are getting their newfound cash illegally (a snide attempt to tar Trudeau with the actions of former Liberals of a decade ago).
          Frenchie’s “evidence” is far more suspect than mine – though I fully admit mine to simply be a snark, not an evidence-based comment.
          Still, between in-and-out and things like Penashue’s creative financing, if anyone’s electoral funding has a questionable smell at present, it’s not the Liberals…

          • Trudeau already has been accepting huge speaking fees.
            Is that anything other than a blatant attempt to thwart the law?
            Who in their right mind would pay $20,000.00 to hear Zoolander/Justin speak?

          • The Ethics Commisioner refutes you. Maybe you need to read something, anything ,other than Sun news?

          • I’m sure with a little digging we could find CPC members charging speaking fees. If they aren’t commanding Justin’s fees, well, you shouldn’t be jealous. It’s very much in keeping with free market principles.

            BTW – what’s your take on CPC Senator Pamela Wallace charging her flights to CPC speaking / fundraising events to taxpayers?

          • Example please.

    • Ask around among the Cons about the number of “brown envelopes” required to fund a campaign these days. If you get any honest answers (and good luck with that), I suspect you’ll get a pretty accurate idea.

      • Sorry, we don’t use brown envelopes, too tacky. We switched to blue years ago.

        BTW, considering the amount of corruption that commenters here make wrt harper, then you are suggesting that the libs are in a similar magnitude. C’mon now, you are selling the lib corruption ability short – we all know that quebec corruption tops the list and there are very few harper supporters in quebec. By comparison, the cons are very much the apprentice!

        • Let’s wait ’til the investigations are complete into Del Mastro and Penashue before we draw any conclusions about Con propriety in fundraising. We may discover that the Cons have long since graduated from apprentices to masters, and that their diplomas in illicit fundraising also came in brown envelopes.

          As for interpreting the Cons’ hapless and virtually unsalvageable political status in Quebec as sainthood in a province of sinners, I believe that, by the time the Charbonneau commission wraps up, we’ll learn that the Cons’ hands weren’t entirely clean in Montreal politics, either. The construction industry was an equal opportunity corrupter and found willing and eager abetters among politicians of all persuasions.

          • Don’t forget that business with Soudas and Port of Montreal.

            And as far as corruption in general goes, it would not surprise me in the least that some jiggery-pokery is involved in the awarding of those EAP ads . . . too much money being spent, to whom is it all going? Any favours in return?

          • natch! the writing of articles and opinion pieces like this one fit the category nicely. Consider which publications and ‘news’ organisations are kept afloat by that money…

  5. What the Liberals need are dedicated, creative donors. Like Dean del Mastro’s extended family, for instance.

    • Like Joe Volpe’s preteen children who donated the max to his campaign?
      And his rich buddy whose children did the same?

  6. I get the sense that Justin Trudeau will be a better fundraiser for the Liberal Party than Michael Ignatieff or Stephane Dion. They had an occasional good fundraising period now and then, but people supported them more out of a sense of duty or obligation because that was the name on the ballot at the time. I’ve noticed that both during the Liberal Leadership race as well as since he became leader that Justin Trudeau seems more adept at improving the Liberal Party’s fundraising apparatus.

    It will probably be difficult to overtake the Conservatives anytime soon since they remain the best at bringing in bags of cash, but if Justin can maintain a strong fundraising pace he can remain ahead of the NDP, and that is a good start.

    • “It will probably be difficult to overtake the Conservatives anytime soon since they remain the best at bringing in bags of cash …”

      Sadly, bitter supporters (and most of Harper’s supporters are very bitter and easily manipulated with coded language) donate more, lending credence to the adage that negativity sells. That being said, it’s impressive that the Liberals can raise this much with a positive message.

      Stay positive.

      • why then is it that there appear to be far more bitter and hateful posts about Harper and the rest of us bitter Tories : than any other poltician and or party – look at the thumbs down here and the posts here – far more hateful bitter posts by you and yours? – could it be that us Tories are simply a happier lot than you frustrated left wing nuts? – consider this you being a frustratated left wing loonie is neither hateful or bitter just an accurate description opf soemone who darnk far too deeply of the ‘ progressive koolaid ‘ – I am sure you will respond with something that indeed will be bitter and hateful – try posting something that isn’t? – am curious =

        • darnk again.

      • Pavlov’s dog was never as predictable as the hate filled liberals here!

    • OK. I’m not normally one to accuse people of being paid plants here, but…

      Who are you? Rebecca Fine?

      Or Rosanna Lopez? (Note the profile photo)

      Or somebody else? How many somebody elses are you?

      • Huh, good eye john g.

        Rebecca/Rosanna – what’s the deal?

  7. I donated to the liberal party first time donating to a political party

    • Good for you! May I ask what prompted you to donate, since this is your first time?

      • Probably the fact that she’s a paid Liberal troll. Take a look at her profile.

        • Oh yeah and there are no CPC paid hacks around here, are there Ricky… or Wayne, or holimn or whatever name you use these days.

          • Now Dave that’s no fair…no one would ever pay Ricky for this stuff…not when they can get it for free.

          • Paid hacks?
            What are the liberals paying these days?
            I’m thinking of making a change.
            Those cheap conservatives only pay me 92 bucks a word, plus my hourly rate, and only give me double time and a half for weekends, Sundays, and after 6 hours a day…and only a measly 12 weeks paid vacation per year.

            How are you liberal hacks making out?
            Can you put in a good word for me?

        • I live in calgary and am appalled by the tfw program, the loss of 3.1 billion dollars..I used to be a conservative…I also resent like hell my hard earned taxes being spent on advertising nothing…so yes I am vocal as is my right in democracy even if it gets under the bully’s skin… We need to do something besides complain

          • Try facts.
            3.1 billion was not lost.
            Nice try though, ….could have used more cowbell…

          • Really? If they can’t find it then it is at best “lost”, unless Tony Bo Peep has discovered its location.

            And until he can account for the missing funds, you’ll excuse us for thinking the Cons are either incredibly inept bookkeepers or better at hiding those brown envelopes than the Libs were.

          • .I used to be a conservative..

            Sure you did, that the oldest Libera/NDP ploy in the books, but yes you do have the right to be vocal.

      • Never a member never cared that much until this year

    • Good onya Susan!

      I too am going to donate to the Liberal Party (also, first time donating to any political party). Every time I see or hear one of Stevie’s attack ads… I am going to donate $5.

      Heave Steve 2015!!

      • Gee good idea. I know that works for me. Every time someone calls my party (which happens to be the Conservative Party) amoral and by extension, calls myself amoral, I donate money to the party. In fact, every time I read a particularly pretentious or condescending comment on Macleans, I donate money to my party. Stephen Harper should really send some of your fellow bloggers a thank you card.

  8. I wonder if some day we’ll find out that not all those donations are coming from out of gran and grumps hard earned savings? It is remarkable how the CPC has been able to sustain this level of fundraising. I guess it’s a tribute to the lasting power of fear and smear. But i find it hard to believe that we’ve really gone from a system fueled by corporate and union donations to a soley voluntary private citizen based one. I particularly find it tough to believe the big business isn’t finding some other way to get its thumb on the scale. No doubt they would do the same thing were a liberal govt back in power. But there’s simply too much money on the table for them to be sitting back in the shadows and leaving it all to fate or SH’s charismatic and winning ways. And his party does have a track record of playing loose around the margins of electoral funding – why stop there?

    • “fear and smear”

      Succinctly sums up not just their fundraising tactics but their style of ruling – they don’t govern in the traditional and democratic sense.

    • Philosophy.
      As in conservatives live by a different philosophy than liberals.
      Conservatives give more money to charity, they volunteer more, and they donate blood more. (you can look that up)
      By any measure they are more generous and more socially conscious.
      Conservatives donate to political parties because they understand they need to to create a better society.
      Liberals on the other hand want someone else to pay the bills and do the heavy lifting.

      You can’t believe the conservatives raise that much money because you are narrow minded and blind to the culture of others right under your nose.

      All liberals have to do to is start to think like conservatives and contribute to society and to political paries…but then they would become conservatives and donate to a conservative party.

      Ever wonder why people say Harper plays chess?
      Ever wonder why he cut out the corporate and union donations, and eliminated the $1.75/vote subsidy?
      Ever wonder why the liberal elite went batsh!t when he did that?

      • Well i might not have any insight into what makes Conservatives donate, and i don’t believe i ever said i did. I presume they donate for pretty much the same reasons ss anyone else.But thanks for assuring me you’re the only ones who care or who have values…that’s a fascinating insight.And thanks for assuring me the willingness to donate politically equals not just commitment but superior virtue. And thanks for letting me know exactly what liberals think. It must be your long years of service to the liberal cause that gives you that insight.[ that’s sarcasm ok]

        And no i don’t ever wonder why Harper cut out corp and union donations, because he didn’t. He merely lowered the individual donation levels…for the good of all the parties of course.

        • Wrong, Harper eliminated corporate and union donations.

          Liberals talk about caring and their values, but don’t act on them.
          Bust out the cheque book, go volunteer at the same rate as conservatives, then we’ll discuss values.
          Anyone can tell the world how generous and caring they are, but when the rubber meets the road conservatives give more.

          • Sorry bub, but you still have your facts wrong.
            Can’t admit that though, can you?
            Man up….

          • I take it you didn’t follow the link. You said “Harper eliminated corporate and union donations.” kcm2 proved you wrong – Chretien did. But then the CPC likes to take credit for everything the Liberals did that they see as positive, and to blame their failures on others.

            To quote you again: “Man up…”

          • Except that Chretien allowed corporations to donate to politicians, he limited those donations to $1000.00.

            Harper banned them entirely.

            Game, set and match, as usual….

            Want proof?

            This is from Joe Volpe’s summary for contributions from CORPORATIONS for the 2006 election:

            Toronto Redi-Mix Limited Jan. 13, 2006 1,000.00

            Go to Elections Canada’s website yourself, it’s all there!

          • Oh, BTW, have any of you guys heard the expression, ‘Low Information Voter’?

          • The best part of this is that I believe that Stan truly thinks he’s right despite the fact that it’s a simple, well-know issue for which kcm has provided clear evidence. I’m fascinated to know how someone like this copes with the basic day-to-day necessities of life.

            Stan, do you also post as “s_c_f” or is whatever you suffer from widespread?

          • “…..Once the bill came into effect in January 2004,
            corporations and unions could only give no more than $1,000 annually, with adjustments for inflation….”


            What part are you having trouble understanding?
            I’ll help with the big words!

            Need more?

            “Per-vote, taxpayer-funded subsidies for federal political parties were introduced by former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in 2004 to compensate for new limits placed on donations from individuals as well as from unions and corporations.”


            Chretin’s bill allowed, but limited, corporate donations to politicians.
            Harper’s bill eliminated that.
            Pretty simple…

          • It’s beyond disingenuous to credit Harper with eliminating corporate and union money from politics.

            Chretien ended all corporate and union donations to political parties.
            There was still a small amount allowed for contributions to candidates. This was the elimination of corporate and union funding of political parties to all but the most pendantic.

          • Actually you are the one being disingenuous.

            Facts are facts.

          • What’s the matter? Don’t know how to open a link? Or are you simply allergic to facts you don’t like?

          • Sorry, the fact is that it was Harper who eliminated the corporate and union donations.

            Can’t you use google?

            Admit it sweetheart, you were WRONG!

            What else your you confused about?

          • Prove it then. I wont wait up.

          • Oh dear, I did some more sleuthing at the Elections Canada website and it seems some evil corporations called COMMUNITY NATURAL FOODS gave $1000.00 to Harper for the 2006 election!

            Do you want to call the cops, or should I?

      • “Conservatives give more money to charity, they volunteer more, and they donate blood more.” I have looked it up. Many people have. It’s long been discredited as a “fact” but it is nevertheless presented as a fact ad nauseam.

        So you personally give money to charity, volunteer and donate blood? That’s wonderful but it means nothing in this context and certainly has nothing to do with this topic.

    • Big business funds the ‘not for profits’ like the Manning Centre, the National Citizens coalitions and the like. They publicise CPC issues, and collect petitions of potential donors for the CPC. Then the political fundraisers work the phones, and collect the money. Have no fear, the 1% is on the job.

      • Ah but CBC shills for the liberals right. So that makes it acceptable. Can’t blame big business for pushing back can you![sarc]

      • Any proof of any of that?

        How about Justin using the set of Degrassi to film his ad?
        Seems like a donation in kind, from a corporation, if he didn’t pay rent for it.
        And it’s not available for rent according to the manager…

        A hard working young journalist could look into that, if he wasn’t too busy worshiping at Justin’s feet.

        • The CBC has nothing to do with Degrassi. It is produced by Epitome Pictures. It hasn’t aired on CBC for years, except perhaps in syndication, – the rights of which to air are licensed from the rights-holder. Which is probably Epitome or a seperate distro arm.

          From their site:

          “Our acclaimed flagship production, Degrassi, has existed in various incarnations since 1980. The current
          series has just finished airing its eleventh season, and airs on MuchMusic in Canada and TeenNick in the
          United States.”

          So, yes, your overworked imagination is seemingly factually challenged as well.

          • Must be your imagination that is running wild, since I never mentioned CBC…..


    • “I particularly find it tough to believe the big business isn’t finding some other way to get its thumb on the scale.”

      Bay Street was always funding the Liberals. It looks like their back to their old tricks with this bump in donations to the LPC. Big Business has always loved the Liberals because they’ll happily regulate small competitors out of the market. I think Bay Street’s found their guy.

      • Power Corp approves this message!

      • Some evidence for that maybe? Thought not.

        Bay Street always funded both the liberals and the old PCs…thought i might correct that for you.

        • Who was giving Justin huge sums to speak?
          And why?
          What would Zoolander have to say that would be worth more than 5 cents?
          Was it just another method of funneling corporate money to the liberals?

          • Well, where did Stephen Harper get funding for his leadership campaign? Still has never been answered.

          • What were the laws when he ran?
            Clearly he followed them.
            If you wanted those laws changed you should vote for a politician that will change them…oh, wait, that would be Stephen Harper!

            How are those liberal leader hopefuls making out?
            Have they paid back their 2006 debts yet?
            The deadline was 18 months…..

        • Wrong, the majority of corporate money went to the liberals.

          You can look that up!

          May I suggest the Elections Canada website?

          • We weren’t talking about the majority Einstein.

    • kcm2 you provided a source article (below) relating how Chretien ended corporate donations. The article clearly outlined how the Liberal party rather than the Conservative party was going to suffer due to Chretien’s actions because it was the Liberal Party that depended on Corporate Donations whereas the Conservatives got most of their money from “thousands of small private donations”. Yet here you are insinuating that the Conservatives are somehow breaking the rules and getting donations from “big business”. Why would you use an article as a source document in one place and then disregard what it says?

      • I haven’t disregarded anything. The link was for Stan, who continues for some reason to deny Chretien ended corporate and union donations. Harper further ratcheted down individual contributions later, he had nothing to do with changing the system.[ other than of course ending the per vote sub]
        I’m well aware of how the liberals were the main benefactors of corporate donations – although not the only party.
        I merely pointed out that there was a massive jump in these small donations in just a couple of years. I’m not at all convinced that big business isn’t still finding a way to contribute. But i agree given the scrutiny of EC it is a bit of a stretch to insinuate that is what has inflated those tory numbers.

  9. Justin was born into Canada’s 1%, he collects enormous MP salary and occasional shakedown of public schools when he needs some extra $$$, surely Trudeau can afford to buy some proper clothes.

    My partner says Trudeau is thinking woman’s crumpet, he’s a Chippendales wannabe, so maybe we see Justin in fewer and fewer clothes as we get closer to election?

    • Just so long as Harper keeps his on.

    • Zoolander…..but without the brains.

    • Trudeau is thinking “woman’s crumpet”? What the f does that mean? Go ask your partner.

  10. Interesting to look at those pundit numbers. Averages are bs of course but the all in numbers are interesting. There’s the obvious spike in Tory numbers once they reunited the right[ around 03/04] and the corresponding drop off of liberal corporate donations.Loses they never recovered. But pretty quickly the CPC numbers double. Even taking into account LPC ineptitude in fundraising the more than doubling of Tory funds in a matter of 2-3 years is remarkable…and sustained.
    I guess they track this pretty carefully at EC, but i’m inclined to be leery of that kind of sustained growth in private, mostly small donor fundraising. Either these guys are really really good at the marketing, or…probably just my nasty suspicious mind playing tricks on me.

    • Maybe you’re coming up with this theory of yours because you obsessively hate their guts. Just a thought.

      • It’s hardly a real theory,[ or anything close to a thought on your part] just some speculation on where the corporate money went. Easily refuted by someone who more familiar with how fundraising works.
        Perhaps you might come back with a reasoned factual response rather than your default…you must hate Conservatives because you hate Conservatives. I was thinking of you when i wrote that, man you’re as predictable as a metronome and rain on the west coast in november.
        Just took a peek in your comment log there Bean. Not something i normally bother doing, but maybe someone as reflexively defensive as you might not want to throw around the word obsessive so much,just a thought.

    • It’s a difference in philosophy, conservatives understand they have to contribute to society to make it better, liberals want free handouts and a free ride and have no sense of societal responsibility.

      Conservatives fund their political party, liberals want the $1.75 per vote subsidy back.

      Harper knew what he was doing when he removed the corporate and tax payer funding for the liberals.
      Anyone who donates to the Trudeau liberals is in all likelihood a red tory and won’t pump money into a left wing liberal party.
      Hence the liberal party will have to drift right to pick up funding.

      Harper is moving the center.

      • LOL That’s satire right! Never thought of myself as red tory before.

        Chretien removed corporate and union funding. Better luck next time.

        • Try again, Harper eliminated corporate and union donations, not Chretien.

          Chretien reduced them, then added the $1.75 per vote handout/ripooff.

          Try reading!

    • It’s inspiring … considering it’s probably the same “small donor”
      base that apparently keeps the CTF and NCC and whatever going.
      Must be a lot of peanut butter sandwiches while shivering in the dark.

      • I know. It must be a worry that they can only continue to donate while their above ground.

        • Jealous?
          Can’t raise money from your selfish and greedy comrades in arms?
          Oh, wait, liberals take handouts, they don’t give them!

          As for the size of the donor base it is much larger than that of the libs and the NDPs which are supposed to have a monopoly on caring and sharing.
          Ironic huh?
          All these spoon fed stereotypes turn out to be wrong.

          • I thought we had an aging population. Now i know it.

          • Bad news for you, since the majority of Justin’s support came from the elderly….

          • How would you know that?

          • I can read.

    • The answer seems to be that people with money tend to be conservative and they like a government that helps them hang on to their wealth. They would rather give to the conservatives than make Canada a better society.

      • Right. Only people with money want to hang on to their wealth. Liberals and Dippers are just more than happy to give up their money…. which is why they’re trailing in fund raising?

        • I think you are getting close to their logic….or what passes for logic in their world!

      • How did the Occupy movement make Canada a better country?

        Or the idle no more vandals?

        Or the idiotic student protests?

        Seems like all they wanted was bigger handouts and to smash windows.

        Conservatives try to build and make, liberals take and destroy.

  11. I don’t trust anyone who wears V-necked T-shirts!

    • You prefer v neck sweater vests?

      • Depends on whether you are wearing a shirt with a collar underneath it or not.

        If it is just a V-neck sweater without a collared shirt beneath, no…I wouldn’t trust that person! -).-).

  12. The media, like the frequent lefties here at MacLeans are the best friend the CPC has in sustaining their financial contributions. As long as the left wing propoganda and lies that liberal commenters on this site like to engage in continues then there will be continued financial support to the CPC so that the truth gets out to the people.
    PM Harper says Thank-You media.

    • Right! We’re all lying and you wont stop giving until we agree with you as the sole truth teller here…check got that.

  13. Of course, you have forgotten that the CPC and NDP numbers you quote are total $ reported/raised by the recpective party during those time periods. The numbers announced today by the Liberal Party do not include monies raised in the ridings (where the Liberals have the Victory Fund in Operation) or Funds raised through the Laurier Club. The funds reproted today are $ raised through on-line solicitation.

  14. A short blip, that’s all.
    Liberals and other leftys don’t like spending their own money.

    • Well, considering who ran a surplus and lowered the national debt, versus that hole Harper & Co keep digging, I’d say you are taking a slight break from reality.

      • Harper paid off 30 billion before the opposition parties demanded more spending…..
        Which program would you like cut?
        I’d say start with the CBC.

  15. How much of that money will Justin have to spend on skin moisturizer?
    All those tongue baths from the media can really dry the ol’ hide out!

  16. Conservatives give more to charities, they volunteer more, and they donate blood more often.
    Liberals want someone else to do the heavy lifting and pay the bills.
    They want handouts, they don’t want to be giving the handouts.

    The liberal party can convince their supporters that donating is the right thing to do, but then all they are doing is promoting a conservative value which will give anyone they convince another good reason to vote for the conservatives.

    I enjoy watching a good game of chess…..

    • Please, those stats have been refuted a number of times, as it’s been pointed out that Liberals give predominantly to organizations which do not count as “charities” — things like Greenpeace and the ACLU, and the bulk of their donation goes toward lobbying for changes which will benefit society as a whole.

      Meanwhile the bulk of conservative donations are to their own church in their own neighborhood, which tends to count as a charity even though the vast bulk of that donation goes only to the expansion of the organization.. oh.. and as part of the “Get Into Heaven” entrance fee.

      • Refuted?
        No, sorry, that lie won’t fly.

        Read the book Who Really Cares, and find out which stereotypes are wrong, and how liberals talk a good game, but are selfish and cheap.

        • Who wrote that one…Rush?

          • Read it and weep….

          • No doubt i would if Rush did write it.

          • Afraid to expose yourself to a diversity of opinions?
            Be brave!
            Take a little peek outside the echo chamber!

          • Strangely enough, your own comments have a hollow, ringing sound as they repeat the same message over and over…

          • It takes a while to beat the facts into the head of brainwashed liberal sheep….

      • What about all of the Liberals who are members of the Catholic Church? Are they not giving to their church?

  17. Komarade Wells we all know that the Petite Dauphin is your BFF so give it a rest…….

    • Speling is harde. Reeding tue.

      • You must admit Justin is cute though :)

        How can you resist both the curls and those knees?

        • Zoolander, but without the brains and deep insights…..

          • Keep on underestimating the guy…it’s your parties funeral.

          • The only thing I might underestimate is the media’s ability to lie and cover for cute lil’ Justin.

            Maybe he should tell the media he’s on a hunger strike!

            It took the meatheads in the media six weeks to pick up on the fact that Teresa Spence’s all you can eat hunger strike wasn’t really a hunger strike….

            Good times, lots of laughs!

          • Lost count of your Zoolander references. What happened – “Shiny Pony” getting old?

          • Multi tasking gets harder for them as the thread gets longer.

      • I like the German Spelling alas I’ve got only Grade 10 Ontariowe Education from about 50 yrs ago..

        • It is okay, Joe.

      • Using the “grammar police” routine to intimidate a blogger seems somehow below an editorial writer for a National Magazine…

    • All those tongue baths Wells give him is going to result in some humungous hairballs to be coughed up!

  18. Liberals and other left wingers have a hard time raising money because of the socialist greed and selfishness inherent in their philosophy.

    They like handouts but they aren’t much on sharing themselves.

    • Liberals are socialists!!! Yikes i just knew i joined the wrong party!

      • Try to keep up….

        • halfwit.

          • I’m obviously better informed than you are.


          • Sure you are…it’s just obbious innit eh! I haven’t seen one bit of evidence presented, nothing but assertion – which can be dismissed without evidence of course.
            The one time i give you a link to prove that it was Chretien who cut out corporate and union donations, you can’t be bothered to read it.
            Like all conbots you aren’t really interested in debating anything, just mindlessly cheering for your side…giggle.[by the way i get the feeling you’re voting yourself up most posts…naughty naughty little conbot]

          • Still in denial?

            Go to Elections Canada’s website and look up the corporate donations for the 2006 general election.

            If indeed Chretien eliminated corporate donations in 2004 there sure are a lot of corporate donations listed, must be the crime of the century, huh?

            Or can’t you read?

            Come on Mr Low Information Voter, explain how there are corporate and union donations listed for the 2006 election if Chretien cut them out in 2004.

            The evidence is staring you in the face, but you still ignore it.

          • Last year listed for corporate donations on the link Wells provided [pundit guide] is around 2003.

            Obviously you have proved they are lying…or you don’t exactly know why EC might have some still listed…assuming you aren’t simply lying. If you had any interest in finding the truth you would ask EC why – but you don’t, so you wont.

            Obbiously yu discuvered da crime a da centry…you must be a genius or summit.

          • STILL haven’t figured it out?
            Go to Elections Canada, it’s all there.
            Corporate and union donations were allowed for the 2006 election.

            Your Ottawa Citizen article is simply wrong, which isn’t unusual for the lapdog media in Canada.

            Go to Elections Canada, choose Political financing, choose Financial reports of candidates, choose Candidates Electoral Return choose Elections between 2004 and 2006, choose the 39th general election link, type in a candidate’s name, maybe ‘Harper’, and follow the process.

            Hit add candidates, hit select candidates, hit search selected.

            Get to part 2b and 2c:
            Part 2b – Statement of Contributions Received – Details of Contributions from Corporations
            Part 2c – Statement of Contributions Received – Details of Contributions from Trade Unions

            Read it and weep.

            If you ask real nice I’ll explain why you are confused.
            I like to help out Low Information Voters every chance I get.

          • ok i’ll bite since you finally seem to have made an effort…pretty please tell me why the OC article was wrong.[it wasn’t BTW]

          • Chretien eliminated corporate and union donations to federal parties, but still allowed corporate and union donations to individual politicians and ridings.

            In other words corporations and unions could still donate.

            Harper eliminated all corporate and union donations.

            You’re welcome.

            Too bad the media aren’t as well informed as me, huh?
            They do like to get things wrong….

          • Fine, now you’re actually making a coherent argument. That wasn’t where you started out. From that i’m going to assume you have digging around for evidence too. If i’m half wrong on this, then most likely so were you. IF, i said. A source for that opinion would be nice thx.

          • No, I was just toying with you.
            If you had looked the information was already here in this thread.

            But the more I can get Low Information Voters to look and learn, the better!

            Again, you’re welcome….

            What source do you need?
            CBC has articles on it, Elections Canada shows donations to individuals and ridings, but not to parties.

          • Well, as I said, I don’t believe you had that info from the get go either. Anyway, I learned something; I suspect you did too.

  19. When are the 2006 liberal leadership candidates who have not paid back their loans going to be charged by Elections Canada?
    The deadline was 18 months, and it’s been a bit longer than that..

    Why are liberals allowed to break the election financing laws with impunity?

    • You’re just jealous cuz the CPC were convicted.

      • Nah, I feel sorry for them; trying to raise money from selfish liberals.

        The poor dears, they thought they would win the next election and could just take all that money from us in another Adscam or similar scheme.
        At least in jail they would a get free meals and a bit of lovin’…

  20. The liberals are ahead by 7 points in the polls canadians are opening their eyes

    • The Liberals were also ahead in polls by a wide berth after Dion AND Ignatieff became leader. How did both those stories end?

      • Yabbut the media only did 20 hours a day of covering for them, this time the media promise 25 hours a day of fawning sycophantic bullshit.

  21. Justin will be a big hit with the Low Information Voters….and journalists.

    • That’s ironic coming from the conbot brigade. Low info voters and journos…that’s almost a logical pairing if you don’t think about for too long.

      • Long ago, journalists shifted from reporting news to reporting opinion, like “How did you feel when …”. This shift to emotion was made to gain more readers. Sleazy tabloids were making a killing at it, so the journalists joined the band wagon.

        With enough emotion, information is not needed. SO, journos are now appealing to low info public, some of whom vote.

        • Oh c’mon… I know Ezra’s a jerk, but it isn’t all his fault.

          Sorry, but that kind of generalizing doesn’t cut it with me.There was no golden age when journos only told the truth and nothing but the truth. There are good journos and there are so called journos, and everything in between I imagine.

      • What is ironic is kcm didn’t have his facts correct on campaign financing.

        Perhaps the LIF label fits a little too well for comfort?

  22. I’m sure we’ll be fine with Justin, after all the Prime Minister doesn’t need to be able to recite PI to the 19th decibel place.

    I wonder if Putin and the Chinese leaders are quaking in their boots?

    Ricky from the Trailer Park Boys did okay with a hairdo, as did Reveen….

  23. Look what you did there Wells. That was almost like old thyme macleans; almost as good as the LA vs St Louis series. It was awesome. Not that it was entirely factual or solved anything of course. Just good to get the hate out there occasionally. Back to sanity tomorrow, probably eh.