Not allowed Christy

[Urbane]

If lobbying at a fundraising dinner (patronage of a political party) does not result in decisions being made for the wrong reasons (patronage by a political party), is it still wrong?

The answer you'll get from some on here is revealed in the title of this thread, "Not allowed Christy." It wouldn't necessarily be wrong if other political parties did it but it ("it" meaning pretty well everything) would be wrong if Christy Clark did it. Of course you ask a very good question and it's a helpful one for discussing the whole issue of fundraising by political parties.

[alfred2]

if it was the ndp then mj would say it is alright,no party should be allowed.

[LoneWolf_53]

^^Sure.... makes it okay then, eh?

"But they did it first/too/more!!"

If you think that what Christy Clark and the Liberals are doing is wrong when the NDP have been doing the same thing then why is that you only direct your criticism toward Christy Clark's alleged offence? You don't see the obvious hypocrisy that Les Leyne points out in that column? Or do you just choose not to talk about that with the hope that everyone will just focus their attention on Clark?

My feelings exactly.

It's an issue that affects all political parties, and has been going on since the dawn of time, yet instead of choosing an appropriate title that encompasses all of them, it was but another cheap shot at Clark and the Liberals.

The problem with incessantly taking cheap shots is that the perpetrator loses more and more credibility with each press of the trigger. In this case there's virtually none left.

[flamingfingers]

^So when the NDP brings the issue to the Legislature next week, I am sure you will have communicated to your MLA your support for this bill which would put an end to corporate/union donations to ALL political parties?

[Urbane]

^So when the NDP brings the issue to the Legislature next week, I am sure you will have communicated to your MLA your support for this bill which would put an end to corporate/union donations to ALL political parties?

There are two sides to the argument. From the Les Leyne column:

That safeguard is already in place in election law. Donations of more than $250 are made public. So anyone who paid more than that to go to a reception with either leader will have their names eventually listed on the public record with Elections B.C. Citizens can check government decisions against the donors’ list and make of it what they will.

Renouncing donations from various sectors is a risky business, given the record lack of interest in politics these days. Barely half the population bothers to vote, let alone get further involved.
- See more at: http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/co ... 0WwxX.dpuf

I also wonder about people getting around a law that says no corporate/union donations. However, as far as I know the prohibiting of corporate/union donations at the federal level seems to work.

[flamingfingers]

^^ Les Leyne says in his first paragraph that there are 'safeguards' in place... What 'safeguard' is there that limits donations? Having someone see your name on a list that says you made a donation of over $250?? Don't make me LAUGH!!

He goes on to say that 'renouncing donations from various sectors is a risky business'? What? Like then the political parties will actually have to limit their advertising and may have to actually go into their constituencies and and talk to people? Take part in debates and do some WORK to get elected rather than hire a bunch of spin doctors to make fancy ads and attend orchestrated photo-ops?

But then Leyne has to toe the line and remain a ChristyLiberal water carrier seeing as that he has family that works for Christy.....

We also need someone to vet partisan government ads that we, the taxpayer foots the extensive bill for!! I believe Ontario has put teeth into that aspect.

[Urbane]

^^ Les Leyne says in his first paragraph that there are 'safeguards' in place... What 'safeguard' is there that limits donations? Having someone see your name on a list that says you made a donation of over $250?? Don't make me LAUGH!!

He goes on to say that 'renouncing donations from various sectors is a risky business'? What? Like then the political parties will actually have to limit their advertising and may have to actually go into their constituencies and and talk to people? Take part in debates and do some WORK to get elected rather than hire a bunch of spin doctors to make fancy ads and attend orchestrated photo-ops?

But then Leyne has to toe the line and remain a ChristyLiberal water carrier seeing as that he has family that works for Christy.....

We also need someone to vet partisan government ads that we, the taxpayer foots the extensive bill for!! I believe Ontario has put teeth into that aspect.

I don't necessarily disagree with you but there are arguments on the other side as well. If I had to say right now I'd say cut out the corporate/union donations. It's too bad that once again this thread is all about the "ChristyLiberals" and about what she shouldn't be doing when the NDP, as Les Leyne points out, have been doing the same thing. I'd like to hear you acknowledge the NDP hypocrisy on this issue.

[flamingfingers]

^^It seems that 'when the NDP did it' in the 1990s it did not become such a large issue. But it seems to be a 'large issue' at this point in time. And because the ChristyLiberals are currently in power, it falls to them to CORRECT the problem - something that they have failed to do over their 15 years in power.

[LoneWolf_53]

^^It seems that 'when the NDP did it' in the 1990s it did not become such a large issue.

That would be because armchair experts with keyboards, didn't have umpteen forms of social media at their disposal to incessantly spew their venom on.

Nothing has changed, other than the sore losers have a venue now, to constantly nit pick every flaw of those they don't like.

Oh if but one could put the shoe on the other foot for a time.

Oh well on the positive side.....................karma can be a *bleep*.

[flamingfingers]

^^So then, you would just turn a blind eye to this and let the practice continue?

That's why the corrupt and malfeasant ChristyLiberals love voters like you!!!

[Urbane]

^^It seems that 'when the NDP did it' in the 1990s it did not become such a large issue. But it seems to be a 'large issue' at this point in time. And because the ChristyLiberals are currently in power, it falls to them to CORRECT the problem - something that they have failed to do over their 15 years in power.

As I thought. The NDP did the same thing in 2013 while trying to win an election but that doesn't elicit any criticism from you at all. You're silent. What they did and their lack of transparency is just fine. But when Christy Clark does it . . . oh boy. Why do you turn a blind eye to the NDP's actions? Oh never mind.

[flamingfingers]

^^Well, if you choose to recall, when corporate hedge-your-bets money came rolling in to the NDP, Adrian Dix quipped. "“Just as we're getting good at it, we're planning to get rid of it."

[Urbane]

^^Well, if you choose to recall, when corporate hedge-your-bets money came rolling in to the NDP, Adrian Dix quipped. "“Just as we're getting good at it, we're planning to get rid of it."

That sounds like pretty twisted morality to me. He was totally opposed to the practice but was engaging in it anyway. Good thing he lost the election.

[flamingfingers]

If the ChristyLiberals had legislation in place to eliminate the practice, of course he could not have 'gotten away with it'.

What would you have said if he had returned all those donations?
Would you expect Christy to have done the same?

Are you intending to support the NDP bill to end corporate/union donations to political parties? They have only brought this bill forth at least 3 times and it appears the ChristyLiberals are not at all interested.

[Urbane]

If the ChristyLiberals had legislation in place to eliminate the practice, of course he could not have 'gotten away with it'.

What would you have said if he had returned all those donations?
Would you expect Christy to have done the same?

Are you intending to support the NDP bill to end corporate/union donations to political parties? They have only brought this bill forth at least 3 times and it appears the ChristyLiberals are not at all interested.

No, you (deliberately) miss the point. Dix was opposed to the practice but he engaged in it anyway and you say that's just fine with you. The Liberals supported the practice and engaged in it. Which one is on the higher moral ground? Again, never mind.

Why would Dix return the donations? He would have had to admit that he was doing something that he was opposed to, that his motto was "the end justifies the means." And since the Liberals supported the practice why would Christy Clark have returned the donations? Your questions make no sense.

All the NDP hypocrisy and those who support their hypocrisy aside, I'm inclined to support the the idea of not allowing corporate/union contributions.