[OnTheIce]

I don't care which party is involved, no party should receive tax dollars. Zero.

If you want to support a party, send a cheque or payment online. You get a tax rebate anyways....it's double dipping.

Surely if you feel strongly enough to vote and support a party and what they stand for you can spare more than $1.80.

[Unsound]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I don't care which party is involved, no party should receive tax dollars. Zero.

If you want to support a party, send a cheque or payment online. You get a tax rebate anyways....it's double dipping.

Surely if you feel strongly enough to vote and support a party and what they stand for you can spare more than $1.80.

The problem with that is that ordinary citizens donations tend to lose significance compared to the millions they can get from big business and big labour. And then once they win they have to take care of their donors, generally to the detriment of ordinary citizens. Atleast with a per vote subsidy their finances are greatly affected by how ordinary voters feel about the party.

[OnTheIce]

Unsound Unsound:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I don't care which party is involved, no party should receive tax dollars. Zero.

If you want to support a party, send a cheque or payment online. You get a tax rebate anyways....it's double dipping.

Surely if you feel strongly enough to vote and support a party and what they stand for you can spare more than $1.80.

The problem with that is that ordinary citizens donations tend to lose significance compared to the millions they can get from big business and big labour. And then once they win they have to take care of their donors, generally to the detriment of ordinary citizens. Atleast with a per vote subsidy their finances are greatly affected by how ordinary voters feel about the party.

And how is that different now?

Big business and big labour still donate in droves, except they split the money up sending it via family members and friends.

These organizations have staff that run financing and fundraising operations all year round...they do not need handouts from us.

[Unsound]

Just because they haven't figured out a way yet to get all of the corruption and politician buying out of the system doesn't mean the effort shouldn't be made.

[Winnipegger]

Well, you guys are certainly harsh. And you guys are full of bull.

One of my friends is an investor. He often participates in an internet forum what focusses on stock trading. Every so often they have an idiot come on who refuses to acknolege an announcement made in the media. He says they ignore him. His advice to me was to ignore you.

I heard through the media that the Conservatives were cancelling the subsidy for all parties but themselves. I have tried to get a media story that can be linked, but it appears all such stories have been conveniently deleted.

Even if you don't believe that media story, the Conservatives did attempt to eliminate the subsidy from all parties. It's in the 2008 fiscal update. You want proof?
http://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2008/Speech/speech-eng.html

The Conservatives dropped donation limits from individuals. They tried to drop it to $1,000 at a time when that would prevent any Liberal who donated more than $5 during the 2006 election from being a delegate to the Liberal leadership convention. The senate intervened, made it $1,100 and made it effective January 1, 2007. That was so it would be AFTER the leadership convention. That's a matter of record; do you want proof of that too? Traditional sources of funding for the Liberals has been large donations from a small number of individuals, and from corporations. Trandition funding for the NDP has been labour unions. The Conservatives made these sources of funding illegal. They made illegal all political donations other than the Conservative's traditional source of finding. Obviously parliament said NO to that.

The problem was Harper tried to make this a confidence measure. Harper had bullied parliament during the months leading up to the 2008 election, stating every bill was a confidence issue. Then he tried to take away all funding from every party other than the Conservatives? And he tried to make that a confidence vote? Forget that noise!

The real point here, is the Canadian system of government states that if a non-confidence vote is passes soon after an election, then the Governor General is required to ask the leader of the official opposition if he can form a coalition that will hold the confidence of the majority of parliament. Again, this is not expected to happen, it's intended to prevent someone like Harper from trying to make everything a confidence measure. Harper ignored this, he was punished.

[martin14]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

I heard through the media that the Conservatives were cancelling the subsidy for all parties but themselves. I have tried to get a media story that can be linked, but it appears all such stories have been conveniently deleted.

It's a conspiracy, I tells ya !!!

[Winnipegger]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I don't care which party is involved, no party should receive tax dollars. Zero.

Excellent idea! Of course this will require allowing political donations. Parties need funding, they can't afford to buy expensive TV ads if they don't have money. So donations are required.

This means eliminating the subisidy requires raising the limits that individuals are permitted to donate. And it requires permitting corporations and labour unions to make donations again.

When I was a teenager, one neighbour was a professional fundraiser for the United Way. She told me a well run fundraiser event will get everything needed to run the event donated. That way 100% of all proceeds go to the cause. For example, find a meeting hall whose business is at a low point; get the meeting hall to donate the use of the hall. In return the meeting hall gets their name and corporate logo prominently displayed on all the advertising for the event: free advertising. And people at the meeting get used to coming to that meeting hall. So the reason for the business to donate the use of their facilities is not to support the cause, but strictly for busines purposes. A bad could perform free, in return for free advertising and the public hears their music. A few years ago I attended an event to save a community centre; it was over Halloween so they held a constume contest. A local icecream parlor (one block away) donated two icecream cakes. The business was loudly thanked for the cakes before judging started, giving the business free and highly targetted advertising. You can bet the cakes given away were made by employees only when no customers were in the store, so the only cost to the business was materials. This advertising was cheaper than any advertising he could hope to buy, and since it was at a community centre one block away it was targetted to residents in that exact area. Better targetting than any advertising possible. That's why businesses donate; not to support the cause, but simply for busines purposes. There was also a silent auction, the items were also donated, but the icecream parlor is a very clear example for this discussion.

I recommend restoring the $1,000 per year donation for corporations. That would allow businesses to donate goods and services, allowing fundraising events to get donations to cover all expenses. That limit ($1,000) is so low that it wouldn't influence any politician. As one MP stated, any politician that could be swayed by only $1,000 is not worth anything anyway.

The NDP traditionally received funding from labour unions. Permit them to donate, but make their limit the same as corporate limits.

And the Liberal Party has something called the Laurier Club. This is intended for rich members. Membership dues alone were $1,000 per year. The Club has several members-only social functions, and members used to get discounts on all Liberal fundraising events and a discount on the delegate free at leadership conventions. Since the limit for individuals set by the Conservatives is now the annual dues for that club alone, they allow Laurier Club members to attend fundraising events completely free, and allow them to be delegates at a leadership convention also free. They have to be free, otherwise anything would exceed the donation cap. This drastically curtails fundraising activity by the Liberal Party. If you want to eliminate the subisdy, then the donation limits from individuals will have to be raised back up to $5,400 if not higher.

[OnTheIce]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Well, you guys are certainly harsh. And you guys are full of bull.

One of my friends is an investor. He often participates in an internet forum what focusses on stock trading. Every so often they have an idiot come on who refuses to acknolege an announcement made in the media. He says they ignore him. His advice to me was to ignore you.

I heard through the media that the Conservatives were cancelling the subsidy for all parties but themselves. I have tried to get a media story that can be linked, but it appears all such stories have been conveniently deleted.

Even if you don't believe that media story, the Conservatives did attempt to eliminate the subsidy from all parties. It's in the 2008 fiscal update. You want proof?
http://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2008/Speech/speech-eng.html

There is no "media story". You're making it up! Talk about "bull", you're at the front of the list.

If such a story did exist, why would the leftist media in Canada remove such an article? The answer, they WOULDN'T!

The bottom line is here Winnipegger, you're wrong. You've provided zero evidence of such a story existing.

Here's a few stories for you to read:
http://www.canadaeast.com/news/article/494363

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinio ... 50134.html

http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/ ... 3309e58fbc

[OnTheIce]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I don't care which party is involved, no party should receive tax dollars. Zero.

Excellent idea! Of course this will require allowing political donations. Parties need funding, they can't afford to buy expensive TV ads if they don't have money. So donations are required.

This means eliminating the subisidy requires raising the limits that individuals are permitted to donate. And it requires permitting corporations and labour unions to make donations again.

When I was a teenager, one neighbour was a professional fundraiser for the United Way. She told me a well run fundraiser event will get everything needed to run the event donated. That way 100% of all proceeds go to the cause. For example, find a meeting hall whose business is at a low point; get the meeting hall to donate the use of the hall. In return the meeting hall gets their name and corporate logo prominently displayed on all the advertising for the event: free advertising. And people at the meeting get used to coming to that meeting hall. So the reason for the business to donate the use of their facilities is not to support the cause, but strictly for busines purposes. A bad could perform free, in return for free advertising and the public hears their music. A few years ago I attended an event to save a community centre; it was over Halloween so they held a constume contest. A local icecream parlor (one block away) donated two icecream cakes. The business was loudly thanked for the cakes before judging started, giving the business free and highly targetted advertising. You can bet the cakes given away were made by employees only when no customers were in the store, so the only cost to the business was materials. This advertising was cheaper than any advertising he could hope to buy, and since it was at a community centre one block away it was targetted to residents in that exact area. Better targetting than any advertising possible. That's why businesses donate; not to support the cause, but simply for busines purposes. There was also a silent auction, the items were also donated, but the icecream parlor is a very clear example for this discussion.

I recommend restoring the $1,000 per year donation for corporations. That would allow businesses to donate goods and services, allowing fundraising events to get donations to cover all expenses. That limit ($1,000) is so low that it wouldn't influence any politician. As one MP stated, any politician that could be swayed by only $1,000 is not worth anything anyway.

The NDP traditionally received funding from labour unions. Permit them to donate, but make their limit the same as corporate limits.

And the Liberal Party has something called the Laurier Club. This is intended for rich members. Membership dues alone were $1,000 per year. The Club has several members-only social functions, and members used to get discounts on all Liberal fundraising events and a discount on the delegate free at leadership conventions. Since the limit for individuals set by the Conservatives is now the annual dues for that club alone, they allow Laurier Club members to attend fundraising events completely free, and allow them to be delegates at a leadership convention also free. They have to be free, otherwise anything would exceed the donation cap. This drastically curtails fundraising activity by the Liberal Party. If you want to eliminate the subisdy, then the donation limits from individuals will have to be raised back up to $5,400 if not higher.

All parties have already found ways around this.

The insinuate that corporations and unions aren't donating is being very naive to the situation.

Corporations and unions are donating to parties in droves, sending money via friends, employess and indivuals.