On refusals

Following up on yesterday's post, the Globe and Mail points out some even better evidence that Conadscam was based on spending decisions made at the national level rather than the riding association level:

(T)he documents assembled by the Elections Canada investigators to justify a search of Conservative headquarters last week say the party brass was not pleased when local campaigns refused to take part in what has become known as the in-and-out scheme.

"There were two outright refusals - Beauce and Brome-Mississquoi," Michael Donison, who was then party president, wrote in a December, 2005, e-mail to Conservative officials. "We have discussed and understood Beauce but what is with Brome? Why should they be allowed to just outright refuse?"

That's right: as far as the Cons' central command was concerned, some special dispensation was required for a riding association to decline to participate in the scheme. Which offers yet another example of just how little the riding associations themselves had to do with the spending - and how clearly the spending was controlled at the national level.

Update: And now word comes out that the candidate in question, David Marler, was rejected by the Cons for the next federal election for no apparent reason other than his scruples in questioning Conadscam.