Exactly how much money in the 2011 election campaign was diverted from other ridings to elect Elizabeth May in Saanich? All we know so far is that it was a lot of money, but as soon as Elections Canada calls the RCMP and raids Green Party headquarters we should get some answers. I will hold my breath in anticipation for this inevitable investigation into this possible subversion of the very foundation of our democracy.
The "Elizabeth or bust" strategy of the Green leadership might have won May a seat, but nationally the Greens received 40% fewer votes than they had in the last election. All those brave Green Party candidates coast to coast to coast paid a hefty price for Lizzy's success and were forced to suffer at the hands of this authoritarian regime. Great strategy. If we still had $2 vote subsidies, the 2011 results would have cost the Party a lot of money.
All that being said, as a Conservative I wish the Green Party all the best. I hope that they rise to %15 nationally. If the Greens can hit double digits in 2015, then we will get a second Conservative majority. Elizabeth May is a far greater threat to Jack Layton than to Stephen Harper, because the Greens and Dipps are competing for the same naive youth vote, communists, and anti-globalization activists.
Go Greens Go!
Globalization/do business with the enemy is as stupid as creating the UN or Multi-cult.
ReplyDeleteHmm Lizzie voted for the budget, is she becoming a Harperite?
ReplyDeleteWe still do have the vote subsidy, it is currently at 100% and will diminish to nothing over a few years. The votes Lizzy May lost for the Greens will cost them millions. Lizzie, of course, thinks this is a small price to pay for her own personal success.
ReplyDeleteA late post
ReplyDeleteA wiser move for the Green Party would have been to 'buy'Ms May out.
Her salary over four years (650 thou.)is peanuts to the Party's loss of millions due to losing 40% of there voter support.
Support that (M)may never come back.
Was that last sentence an inadvertant pun?
I don't understand this post.
ReplyDeleteI seriously doubt that ANY Green Party riding association transfered money to the central Green Party fund to be sent to Elizabeth May's local campaign, or anywhere else. Given that the spending limit for a local campaign is generally about $100,000 or less, I'm pretty sure that the Green Party didn't have trouble coming up with the money. I would imagine the party simply transfered the money directly to May's riding association. But even if other riding associations did contribute the money that would still be perfectly legal. Again, I'm not sure what your point is.
I am sure there were lots of ways that being leader indirectly helped May's campaign--even financially. An unlimited pre-campaign budget probably helped. I'm sure having a national level communications team producing national messaging with the leader's riding in mind and handling press requests from national and provincial media allowed more local money to be spent directly on organizing. I'm sure the Greens also spent way more on BC ads in general than in other parts of the country since that's genuinely where they had a chance of winning seats. While national campsign budgets can't be used to spend money on things that benefit only a single riding, unlike riding campaign budgets--which can only incur expenses to elect their own local candidates--national campaigns don't have to spend their budgets equally in all ridings either. All of that is perfectly legal too.
The Federal Court of Appeals--backed up by the Supreme Court--have been very clear that local and national campaigns have lots of flexibility in deciding how to transfer funds and spend money, and that there must only be at least a reasonable connection between the expense incurred and the benefit received by that campaign for it to be considered a legitimate election expense.
You see, what would have been illegal was if the Green Party had (a) spent $0 from Elizabeth May's local campaign spending limit for Green Party ads on radio or television stations covering the two riding area of Victoria and Saanich--Gulf Islands, but then--after realizing that Victoria was only spending about $10,000 on their campaigns--had (b) given them $90,000 to buy ads in the area in a transparent attempt to benefit May's local campaign.
In that case Victoria would have paid for 100% of the expense, but received only 50% of benefit.
That would have been illegal.
See the difference?
YUCK!!!!
ReplyDelete"In and Out" and Lizzy Mae mentioned in the same post.
I just puked in my mouth.