Tuesday, April 05, 2016

How Does The BC Liberal Party Keep Getting Away With This Stuff?



Update: A lowly blogger has already started to do the job on Pay-To-Play that the proMedia has so far proved not capable of doing...Here.

Is that not THE question of the last fifteen years here in British Columbia?

But, by way of illustrative example, how about we just focus the here-and-now for the moment.


How, specifically, are the BC Liberals getting away with these super-secret hook-ups between big money donors and their leader, who doles out our resources, our treasure and longterm contracts that we have to pay for, to whomever she (and they) please?


Below, I will attempt to show you how they getting away with it in just three easy steps.


First, the following is the lede of Rob Shaw's latest in the Vancouver Sun:

B.C. will not be following Ontario’s lead in banning political donations from corporations and unions, says the province’s finance minister.

Mike de Jong said Monday that the provincial government will not introduce legislation that would ban big money from politics, or set limits on donors. Instead, he argued that B.C.’s existing laws on fundraising, reporting and fixed election dates — combined with a new pledge from Premier Christy Clark to move toward real-time disclosure of donors — is sufficient for public confidence in the system.

“Not that there isn’t room for improvement, (but) it’s fairly transparent compared to the way it once was,” de Jong said in an interview. “The conversation ultimately comes around to … is the government contemplating adopting the kind of ban that others are talking about on corporate donations and union donations? We are not.”...

Second, the following is (an almost real-time!) tweet from Gary Mason of the Globe and Mail:

Third, is the next paragraph in Mr. Shaw's VSun piece:

...B.C.’s rejection of political finance reform comes amid renewed pressure in other provinces to remove the influence of large donations on politicians and political parties. Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne pledged Monday to speed up legislation to ban corporate and union donations, after the Toronto Star reported her party had placed $500,000 fundraising targets upon her ministers, raising the prospect they could be soliciting money from businesses and people that they regulate...

Do you see what I did there with a little bit of red pixel dust?

And do you see what our local proMedia herd is NOT doing?

Which, of course, is what the BC Liberals, and their finest-of-the-fine donors are counting on.

As for last week's distracto-babble from our fine premier on the fantastic improvements that 'real time' reporting will bring to the world of publicly supported influence peddling...Well...The Dean of the local legislative press gallery, Mr. Vaughn Palmer, has already given his approval to that (scroll down to the last two paragraphs).



Lew said...

This clip (especially the interview starting at the 14:00 minute mark), is well worth watching.

Party imposed fundraising targets on people we elect to represent us and who must sell their souls to get on and stay on the ballot. Routine in Ontario and Washington. Could never happen here though. Right?


RossK said...

Thanks for that Lew--

It's John Oliver on political fundraising...Here is an embedded link to hit.


Norm Farrell said...

Is it stenography or commentary when Mason writes "...it's one the public clearly supports."

Or, does the wordsmith intend that it reads either way: one, that Mr. Mason believes the public is happy with the present system of Pay-to-Play or, two, that he's simply reporting without challenge a BC Liberal claim.

A few mainstream journalists in BC could give lessons in how to be a partisan without being overly obvious.

BTW, would Keef think that it's OK to be a partisan, but not an activist?


Anonymous said...

Actually , the key conversation for Mr. de Jong is really what to do with all the empty brown envelopes? !!!

RossK said...


Are those two things necessarily mutually exclusive?




And what about the flap glue/stickum?

I mean, just think of all that gunk stuck to the already sticky fingers

Anonymous said...

tv ads radio ads paper ads
money money money
curry favor?

Bill said...

Why the Alberta PCs lost to the NDP- from today's Full Comment in the National Post (April6/16)...

"PCs themselves released a poll of party members who were asked why they’d been so badly beaten by the NDP last May.

Ninety-four per cent agreed that “the major cause for the elections loss was that Albertans viewed the PC Party as arrogant and entitled, and that the organization did not listen to Albertans and had lost their trust.”

BCers have at least equal or greater evidence and motivation for ousting our Rogue Pirate government, only captured MSM continue to defend their serial failures and promote their phantom Sparkle Ponzie Ponies.

Time to toss this self serving ethically withered zombie government.

Anonymous said...

The public has got a pretty good nose for whether or not donations of any amount are influencing the course of public policy,” he said. - See more at: http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/columnists/les-leyne-public-might-force-fundraising-changes-1.2224545#sthash.rH1JOV7G.dpuf

Unfortunately, the governing party that wields the power and makes the decisions has very little regard for what the public thinks and has been "nose dead" for far too long and has gotten accustomed to the self created stench.

Anonymous said...

To minister De Jong, What "public confidence"in the system?
Corruption in governance, and/or the perception thereof, leads to the
erosion of "the publics" confidence period. Unless of course, one is involved, as in this case, in the political donor "pay to play" scheme, within an organized "political/criminal" enterprise.
You are blind to the reality. The "public anger and outrage" is building. Do not think, for one minute that this "game" can continue, without consequence and or retribution. The ducks will line up and the "arrogant" will fall. Judicial recourse and a corruption enquiry "will' follow. Without it, democracy disintegrates, and ultimately a breakdown in society, that will have "no use", for "government Of course, why would you worry about that?
The message is clear, corruption must be removed from governance, period, including the donor conflict of interest, "game".