Conservatives end four years of denial, plead guilty to illegal campaign spending

As court orders maximum fine of $52,000, Liberals ask: Did Tories buy their victory?

Photo of Stephen Harper courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

It was a case that dragged on for years amid rumour, speculation and finally formal charges that accused Stephen Harper's Tory party of a financial sleight-of-hand that allowed it to illegally overspend on campaign advertising.

Now, after four years of denying that it broke the rules on election spending during the 2006 campaign, the federal Conservative Party has admitted that it overspent on ads in the vote that brought Harper to power.

On Thursday, the party and its fundraising arm pleaded guilty of spending more than the $18.3-million legal limit and of filing an election return that failed to report all the expenses it incurred.

The court levied the maximum fine possible: $52,000. Tory spokesmen dismissed the whole mess as an "administrative dispute." The NDP said the ruling party had undermined democracy and it demanded an apology; the Liberals called it an "administrative scam" and speculated that Harper's party may have bought him an election.

The Canadian Press has the latest details:

OTTAWA -- The Conservatives are being accused of buying victory in the 2006 election that brought Stephen Harper to power, after pleading guilty Thursday to exceeding their campaign spending limit and failing to report all advertising expenses.

The Conservative party and its fundraising agency both pleaded guilty to two counts of violating the Elections Act and agreed to pay maximum fines totalling $52,000.

In a plea bargain, the party pleaded not guilty to more serious charges of wilfully contravening the act and all charges were dropped against four top party officials who implemented the so-called in-and-out scheme to finance radio and television advertising during the 2006 campaign.

Conservative spokesman Fred DeLorey quickly issued a statement claiming the plea bargain is "a big victory'' for the party in its five-year "administrative dispute'' with Elections Canada over the legality of the in-and-out scheme.

"Every single Conservative accused of wrongdoing has been cleared today,'' DeLorey said.

Under the scheme, Elections Canada maintains the Tory party funnelled money for national ads through 67 local candidates, allowing the party to exceed its spending limit and allowing candidates to claim rebates on expenses they hadn't actually incurred.

In an agreed statement of facts, the Crown and the party essentially agreed to disagree on exactly how far over the spending limit the Tories went. The Crown said it was almost $1.4 million; the Tories said it was just over $563,000.

Opposition parties said Thursday's admission of guilt proves the Tories played fast and loose with the rules in order to eke out a slim minority victory in the 2006 campaign.

"The Conservatives tipped the scales and spent more than legally allowed in an election to get Harper elected,'' said interim NDP leader Nycole Turmel. "That's wrong. It undermines our democracy.''

Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae said the extra money the Tories spent on advertising in the close-fought campaign "may have helped them to buy the election.''

More in Politics

Prime Minister Harper defends Chuck Strahl

"Not a scintilla of evidence" that former SIRC chair Chuck Strahl had done anything wrong whatsoever, Harper insists.

Musqueam Indian Band and City of Vancouver sign new agreement

"A long time coming": rare agreement between two independent governments.

MP Mark Strahl backpedals on Enbridge connections

“Is it a concern that I am related to Parliamentary secretary Mark Strahl?” wrote Chuck Strahl, Mark's father, in a January 7 email to federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson.  Mark Strahl is...

Comments

conservative party illegal campaingn spending

What the hell happened to the conservative parties position on getting tougher on crime.  Oh yes that is just for the poor and underprivileged.  We must lock anyone up who shoplifts or steels a car but when the goverment steals millions of dollars from the tax payer of Canada it is not in the public intrest to prosacut them.  Could someone please explain that to me

Overspending on Campaign

While its wrong and they need to face a stiffer penalty than just $52K, perhaps if it came out of Harper's pocket, the accusation is that they "bought" the election.

I'm wondering how spending $50,000, or $500000 or and extra $5 million would have changed the minds of the voters.  Perhaps all that happened was it got more people out to vote than would have happened.

WHat really shocks me is that they spend 18 "MILLION" dollars on the election.  Holy Crap! 

And how many elections did we go through over a 10 year period??

Talk about a waste of money, by ALL the parties!

Scammers

Why is it that they overspend our money illegaly , then have to pay a small fine with our money again . In the end we lose out twice and no ones goes to jail . The government is the "legal mafia" and basically if u go against them their soldiers ( cops ) will come after you to enforce their law . We as a people should fight for our rights and design another way to vote or not vote at all . Voting just gives them the right to do what they want and make their own laws anytime of the day while we go to work and pay their salaries. With all this money that we pay u would think the streets would be fixed without potholes but the fix it with summer based ashphalt that lasts 2months .....garbage . In the end if we dont act against this corruption nothing will get fixed and our future generations must suffer the wraith of the constant growing and corrupt government . Good luck to us all and may someone up above have mercy on us ....

Harper Government Pleads Guilty

Point number one: if you commit an illegal act as a government, what are the consequences?

Point number two: is Alanis Morissette aware of the irony of this situation?

Truthy Alert

While it is true that all parties occupy the political gutter from time to time, the prime minister’s proclivity to trump the facts by personal fiat — to argue that black is white because he says so — is new. He has plunged the country into a deep fog of half truths and self-interested fabrications.

 

Creating your own facts by simply asserting them is bad enough in any democracy. But there is a darker side to the Harper government’s zeal to control the message: a hobbling or outright destruction of independent sources of information and informed dissent. Time and time again, the prime minister has been an information-buster, preferring policy-based facts to fact-based policy. He has assiduously swept away the platform for dissent whenever he is opposed if he had the means of doing it.

 

Remarkably, many in the press and the political opposition have praised this smothering of information and communication as “disciplined messaging”. Clayton Ruby made a different case to me: “Harper seems credible until you confront him. He hates evidence and when you confront him with it, he falls apart and his positions often become positively silly. Harper wants a world in which independent voices don’t exist.”

 

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/06/29/stephen-harpers-canada-the-legacy-of-...