From whence come party funds?
Scandals aside, the Liberal party has historically delivered the Canada that fits the values and aspirations of the non-USian majority.
As for AdScam, I have known for a long time, on good authority, that the government in Ottawa expects that any private business that receives a government contract is expected to contribute back 10% of that contract to the party. My good authority informed me of this practice under the Progressive Conservatives. That's right, the PCs, not the Liberals, at the time.
My good authority also informed me that this is not general knowledge. Why not? To blow the whistle would be bad for business, and those who run businesses are not naive and idealistic about how politics work.
When I heard about the Sponsorship scandal, my reaction was, "So, what else is new?" I write this not because I approve – or disapprove – of such 10% -back-scratching, but because the Bloc, RCs, and NDP who cry "punish the Liberals" for corruption are merely attempting to gain political power through an activity that they, if in power, might be equally likely to employ.
Do the politicos really care about a mere $100 million of our tax dollars? I doubt it, because they definitely do not care enough that an election costs us/them considerably more. No, they merely hope that AdScam will provide them an opportunity to grab more power for his party (Layton), for his province/would-be-country (Duceppe), or for himself (Harper).
Why is Harper not revealing the sources of his campaign funds? I suspect – and I'd prove it if I could – that aside from the usual corporate support of any right-wing party, some of Harper's funds ultimately derived from those Ultra-Conservatives whom Harper met with in the US. Why else would the leader of a minority Canadian party visit American special-interest political lobbyists, and why else would said leader attempt to keep that meeting secret? The answer to secrecy is obvious – it is illegal to accept out-of-country campaign donations. If such campaign donations have found their way into Harper's pockets, then a go-between will have been employed. Sound like AdScam?
As for AdScam, I have known for a long time, on good authority, that the government in Ottawa expects that any private business that receives a government contract is expected to contribute back 10% of that contract to the party. My good authority informed me of this practice under the Progressive Conservatives. That's right, the PCs, not the Liberals, at the time.
My good authority also informed me that this is not general knowledge. Why not? To blow the whistle would be bad for business, and those who run businesses are not naive and idealistic about how politics work.
When I heard about the Sponsorship scandal, my reaction was, "So, what else is new?" I write this not because I approve – or disapprove – of such 10% -back-scratching, but because the Bloc, RCs, and NDP who cry "punish the Liberals" for corruption are merely attempting to gain political power through an activity that they, if in power, might be equally likely to employ.
Do the politicos really care about a mere $100 million of our tax dollars? I doubt it, because they definitely do not care enough that an election costs us/them considerably more. No, they merely hope that AdScam will provide them an opportunity to grab more power for his party (Layton), for his province/would-be-country (Duceppe), or for himself (Harper).
Why is Harper not revealing the sources of his campaign funds? I suspect – and I'd prove it if I could – that aside from the usual corporate support of any right-wing party, some of Harper's funds ultimately derived from those Ultra-Conservatives whom Harper met with in the US. Why else would the leader of a minority Canadian party visit American special-interest political lobbyists, and why else would said leader attempt to keep that meeting secret? The answer to secrecy is obvious – it is illegal to accept out-of-country campaign donations. If such campaign donations have found their way into Harper's pockets, then a go-between will have been employed. Sound like AdScam?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home