Showing posts with label belinda stronach. Show all posts
Showing posts with label belinda stronach. Show all posts

Monday, July 02, 2007

On non-enforcement

The Winnipeg Free Press reports on yet another example of Elections Canada's failure to deal with campaign financing issues, as Belinda Stronach appears to have settled the accounts from her 2004 Con leadership campaign well past the official deadline with no explanation for the delay:
Elections Canada let Liberal MP Belinda Stronach skirt a deadline for the settling of outstanding financial questions about her 2004 campaign run in the leadup to the last federal election.

Documents obtained by the Free Press show Stronach's campaign was officially notified on Sept. 12, 2005 that an Elections Canada review had determined she failed to dispose of a $31,000 campaign surplus from her first successful run as a Tory.

In that letter from the director of Elections Canada's political financing and audit unit, Stronach's official agent was told the surplus had to be resolved by Nov. 18, 2005.

The letter also included a pointed reminder that failure to deal with the surplus as required could result in convictions under the Canada Elections Act.

However, Elections Canada discloses it wasn't until May 2006 -- six months after the deadline initially issued -- that Stronach's campaign finally complied with the order.

Elections Canada is now under fire for not only turning a blind eye to the deadline issued to Stronach, but for also refusing to disclose the outstanding problem during the last federal campaign when the Free Press and other news media asked questions about the electoral expenses of the Newmarket-Aurora MP.

"How can they (Elections Canada) allow her to avoid that deadline and then run again?" asked NDP ethics critic Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre).
In fairness, Stronach's situation seems less problematic than some others might, since any outstanding issue dealt with a surplus rather than a deficit. But it's worth wondering what the precedent means for later on - particularly in 2008 when the deadlines pass from the Libs' recent leadership race.

After all, it's quite likely that at least some Libs were familiar with Stronach's late filing in the course of their own leadership race. If so, then knowledge that Elections Canada hadn't insisted on deadlines being met in the last high-profile leadership campaign could only have encouraged the Libs' candidates to count on similarly favourable treatment. And with the Libs' fund-raising currently tanking, there's every reason to suspect that a good number of their leadership candidates will indeed put the ball in Elections Canada's court to decide whether to deal with a failure to settle accounts - or to simply allow supporter loans to be written off.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

On departures

I'll take a moment to chime in on Belinda Stronach's departure from politics by noting how the decision fits into her wider career path. Keep in mind that Stronach jumped right into the Con leadership race after working to pull the PCs and Alliance together, then similarly ascended immediately into Cabinet on crossing the floor. And even as she chose not to run for the Lib leadership, she kept nearly as a high a profile as those who were in the race with both the Spread the Net campaign and her public calls for internal party reform.

In sum, Stronach's political career to date was marked by a concerted attempt to acquire as much power as possible as soon as possible - and she was more successful than most in achieving that.

Based on this background, it seem entirely likely that her departure can only be explained by a conclusion that she'll effectively have more power at Magna than can be offered to her by the Libs - even after she didn't apparently have a problem spending some time on the Cons' opposition benches until she was offered the chance to cross the floor. And however fallible Stronach's political instincts may have been to date, the perception that the Libs aren't likely to win any power to offer Stronach can do nothing but hurt a party whose previous departures could all be explained based on either retirement-age MPs or personal loyalties rather than such strategic considerations.