babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
Search | FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the NDP   » Money and Results

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Money and Results
Rudy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3044

posted 26 January 2003 01:33 PM      Profile for Rudy        Edit/Delete Post
Someone pointed this out to me and I'm somewhere between angry, horrified, confused and sad:

If you take the interim fundraising totals that are posted here and add the numbers to make a total you can determine the candidates fundraising success as a percentage of the total.

Total money raised: $829,939.99

Jack Layton
Total donations: 53.7% ($446,472)
Total vote: 53.5 %

Bill Blaikie
Total donations: 23.5 % ($195,568.99)
Total vote: 24.7%

Lorne Nystrom
Total donations: 10.8 % $89,684.00
Total vote: 9.3%

Joe Comartin
Total donations: 8.5 % ($70,712.00)
Total vote: 7.7%

Pierre Ducasse
Total donations: 2.2% ($18,688.00)
Total vote: 3.7%

Bev Meslo
Total donations: 1.1% ($8,815.00)
Total vote: 1.1%

As a way of predicting election results this would have been more accurate than any poll. Within 1.5 per cent the amount of money a candidate had dictated their final vote.

[ 26 January 2003: Message edited by: Rudy ]


From: Undisclosed | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 January 2003 01:35 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Isn't THAT interesting!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 26 January 2003 02:53 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Isn't this an incredibly positive thing and a validation of the move to have political donations shifted to individuals? Remember this is the incoming amounts not the outgoing amounts (some campaigns will have gone deep into debt).
From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
mburucuya
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3611

posted 26 January 2003 03:21 PM      Profile for mburucuya        Edit/Delete Post
Pogo, I'm not sure I follow you.

The donations are from corporations and individuals.

Also, when the NDP loses to other parties don't we say it's because of the money?

quote:
"Higher spending limits will allow wealthy interests to use the media to blast their message into every household," says Howard Hampton. "If you haven't got the money, you won't be able to compete."

From: Tacuarembo | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 26 January 2003 03:37 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But the money brought in per vote was equal. Layton was twice as popular as Blaikie and got twice as much money. What else would you expect?

The big test is the expenditures (which had a ceiling). If one campaign spent more per vote than another then you could say that they bought the election, I just don't think it happened.


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
mburucuya
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3611

posted 26 January 2003 03:40 PM      Profile for mburucuya        Edit/Delete Post

So one dollar SHOULD equal one vote?

The Alliance and the Liberals have a lot more dollars than the NDP.


From: Tacuarembo | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 26 January 2003 03:43 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I spoke with a number of the Candidates financial people last night at the party and I can tell you the incoming and outgoing were two entirely different things.

Layton still has money left over while Meslo and Ducasse have some serious debt to dig out of, although happily when speaking to a few people involved on Laytons team they mentioned the possiblity of using extra funds to help pay off the debts of the other candidates.

Let's hope they actually do that!

[ 26 January 2003: Message edited by: quelar ]


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 26 January 2003 04:01 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think an important criterion is the NUMBER of donors. If Jack had 1/10th the donors of Blaikie, say, but twice the money, it would be a problem.

As long as all campaigns are powered by donations in two and three figures, the result is completely democratic. If one candidate is powered by a few large donations, I become VERY uneasy. So far, I see no evidence that was the case.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rudy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3044

posted 26 January 2003 04:09 PM      Profile for Rudy        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I can tell you the incoming and outgoing were two entirely different things

Yeah, Jack raised 8 billion times more money than Pierre but he spent exactly the same amount.

Don't be silly.

quote:
I think an important criterion is the NUMBER of donors.

That's a very good point and if I remember correctly Layton had a long list of them.

Still I'm left really uneasy by this whole process. The spending level was ridiculously high and most of the candidates clearly didn't reach it.

We can't talk the talk and not walk the walk. If it's terrible that the Liberals win when they outspend us then why isn't it equally terrible when someone who clearly outspends the opposition wins an internal democratic competition?


From: Undisclosed | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Adam Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3034

posted 26 January 2003 04:19 PM      Profile for Adam Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's not forget that these were the November numbers.
From: Manitoba | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
mburucuya
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3611

posted 26 January 2003 04:39 PM      Profile for mburucuya        Edit/Delete Post
Would the updated numbers be different in terms of proportional distribution?
From: Tacuarembo | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 26 January 2003 04:55 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jack asked for money far more than anyone else. That's how you get it. Until the revolution (anyone got the updated schedule) we can expect election to be fought with money. Jack can get people to contribute the talents, their time and yes their money. That is a good thing. I believe he had already posted a donor list in October.
From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
mburucuya
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3611

posted 26 January 2003 05:08 PM      Profile for mburucuya        Edit/Delete Post
But by that logic couldn't Paul Martin just say he asked for more money? That he just asked more people for more money?
From: Tacuarembo | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 26 January 2003 06:32 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Didn't the NDP set a $500,000 spending limit? If so, then Layton can't be blamed for raising and spending the max. If there's a problem, it's with the limits (the policy). I found the depth of his support from individuals quite impressive.
From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 26 January 2003 06:38 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
$500,000 is chump change in Liberal and Alliance (or even Ontario Tory) leadership campaigns.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rudy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3044

posted 26 January 2003 06:50 PM      Profile for Rudy        Edit/Delete Post
This is true. Chris Stockwell spent $500 grand to come in dead last in the Ontario PC leadership. And it certainly isn't Jack's fault that people like Joe McDonald lobbied for a spending limit that their candidates couldn't reach.

BUT...

Don't we aspire to be different?

I think we need to look at how the party can enforce some more radical equalizing in campaign funding. I think we have to set a threshold so that serious campaigns can be separated out (sorry Socialist Caucus) but then some forced pooling.

Don't you think it will be embarassing if Chretien gets through his electoral reforms and our national elections are centrally funded while our internal elections are still counting on individuals getting money together?

[ 26 January 2003: Message edited by: Rudy ]


From: Undisclosed | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 26 January 2003 09:17 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So are you saying return the unused donations?
From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 26 January 2003 11:50 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Isn't the current spending limit for the federal Liberals around $2 million?
From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 27 January 2003 04:14 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
FYI, Pierre retired his campaign debt at convention, raising a reported $8000.00 (from people like me). For $40.00 you could get a 1997 Ducasse poster, and see what he looked like with hair on top
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 January 2003 07:13 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, that's great that Pierre got out of debt. Good for him.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mburucuya
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3611

posted 27 January 2003 10:11 AM      Profile for mburucuya        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Isn't the current spending limit for the federal Liberals around $2 million?

Yes, and we have criticized that. Jack did a press conference where he said that Paul Martin was in the pocket of wealthy donors.


From: Tacuarembo | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rudy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3044

posted 27 January 2003 07:56 PM      Profile for Rudy        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So are you saying return the unused donations?

I don't think there will be much in the way of unused donations.

I think if we actually want a process we can be proud of - one that doesn't allow inequalities in financing - we could, for example, take fifty cents off every dollar raised over a hundred grand and pool that money in a fund to be distributed equally to every candidate who raised over a hundred grand. That would leave some incentive to raise cash but would force some sharing and might level the playing field.

I think we have to do something. It's sad when the election results mirror the spending results so closely.


From: Undisclosed | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 January 2003 08:00 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But what about the point that the reason why the election spending equals the results is because the percentage of people who voted for each candidate gave the same percentage of money or memberships to each candidate?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rudy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3044

posted 27 January 2003 08:16 PM      Profile for Rudy        Edit/Delete Post
First off, while Jack had a lot of donors it's not as if they were all average citizen types scraping their pennies together. Steve Hudson is a billionaire who raises money for Mike Harris. Edgardo Sepuvelda works on nationalizing telecommunications for the World Bank. While I have absolutely no doubt that Jack will tell them to fuck off if they every try to influence policy, I do think some of the money was corporate.

Secondly, almost all of Jack's money came from Toronto - and most of his vote didn't. If we follow the notion that the donors list is just a reflection of the voters list then Jack got about two per cent of his vote outside of Toronto. I find it more likely that additional resources helped bring out additional vote.

Finally, what do we have to fear from trying to equalize funding? If the money candidates spend has no influence on the outcome why SHOULDN'T we back some equalizing measures?


From: Undisclosed | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 27 January 2003 08:44 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And how much of Comartin's money came from within his riding. Layton's money is commensorate with his support. Secondly, I am out in BC and there was no indication that he was buying our votes. There was no flood of literature. There was no Layton Video available to all who were interested. There were not expensive catered events. Layton had to finance his own travel unlike the MP's. During the Audrey McLaughlin leadership I got far more calls from all the candidates. This time I received only a couple (albeit I had emailed Layton with my support the day Alexa resigned, so I was off their call list).

Continuing to make these allegations without a shred of evidence that money bought this election is really cheap politics. Either put up or ...


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
T. Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2018

posted 27 January 2003 09:36 PM      Profile for T. Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
An interesting (or not) side bar to this is who may have spent thier money more effectively?

Through what medium did voters make up their minds?

I know the candidates who did mail outs, like Layton and Blakie etc, wasted their money with me.

I'm just wondering what the role of "free media" is in all this? In a leadership election within a party, does 'word of mouth' play a more significant role?


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
weakling willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3260

posted 28 January 2003 10:26 AM      Profile for weakling willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
FYI, Pierre retired his campaign debt at convention

Maybe in the narrow sense, but the guy gave up half a year of employment income to run -- ie. he has not had a pay-cheque since the summer. I also have to wonder if he included the rent he was paying on his apartment in his expenses, which would put him further in the hole again, not to mention the depreciation on the car he drove all across the country and likely more than a few out of pocket expenses. The long and the short of it is, if you liked his campaign and want to help out, maybe you can help him launch his next endeavour when the time comes -- like his campaign in Manicouagan.

From: Home of the Canadian Football Hall of Fame and Museum | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tom Vouloumanos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3177

posted 28 January 2003 05:36 PM      Profile for Tom Vouloumanos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You just got a standing ovation from me willy!!!

Pierre made alot of personal sacrifices for this and he delivered!!! I've been reading editorials in the francophone press and they've called him Jack's Québec lieutenant. If he's going to deliver in Manicougan (no easy task) we're going to need all the physical and financial help we can get. Imagine Pierre in parliament. Imagine what that would for our profile in Québec...just imagine...


From: Montréal QC | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rudy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3044

posted 28 January 2003 08:30 PM      Profile for Rudy        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
cheap politics.

Yikes!

Come on. I'm not leading a high profile campaign to have Jack deposed. I'm making a point on a fucking web board. If this is too public a forum to discuss things then we may as well give up on discussing them at all.

Pogo, you are quite likely right: Jack may very well have skated to victory with less funding then Blaikie. I'm skeptical but I concede the point.

But if this is the case - and money makes no difference - then why shouldn't we, as a party, eliminate any trace of doubt and put measures in place to ensure that no candidate ever has twice as much as his nearest competitor?

If money isn't a factor than how could a little leveling possibly be a bad thing?

[ 28 January 2003: Message edited by: Rudy ]


From: Undisclosed | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
sistersanta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3038

posted 28 January 2003 09:32 PM      Profile for sistersanta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I plugged the numbers in my spreadsheet to calculate the amount of money each candidate spent to get one vote.

Most cost-efficient campaign: Pierre Ducasse (who spent $8.03 on each vote)
Least cost-efficient campaign: Lorne Nystrom (who spent $25.13 on each vote)

Here are all the numbers:

Ducasse: $8.03/vote
Comartin: $14.22/vote
Layton: $14.38/vote
Blaikie: $18.37/vote
Meslo: $25.02/vote
Nystrom: $25.13/vote

(These results are based on the final vote and the interim financial statements, so are subject to change.)


From: Montreal | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rudy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3044

posted 28 January 2003 09:42 PM      Profile for Rudy        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If one campaign spent more per vote than another then you could say that they bought the election

Bev Meslo! You capitalist swine!


From: Undisclosed | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 28 January 2003 11:33 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If one campaign spent more per vote than another [I} AND ACHIEVED A SIGNIFICANT VOTE TOTAL [/I]then you could say that they bought the election.

Money flows to winners. The question that I have is why didn't Jack raise more money? I would have thought there wouldn't be a direct relationship but more of a parabolic relationship (not sure of the math but isn't it y=fx2).

[ 28 January 2003: Message edited by: Pogo ]


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 28 January 2003 11:48 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that the party only needs to have the ability to pool after the election. The amount of the spending ceiling is of course an integral part of the process. That amount is probably the most critical if one is concerned with ensuring equal opportunity to all candidates. If Jack as the new leader does help pay the bills for the other campaigns he will have pooled the donations which are after all donations to the NDP. Maybe next time it can be part of the rules.

I don't believe in either corporate or union donations in any elections including the NDP. If one candidate can convince far more people to part with their own money then that is in itself a kind of endorsement and since election s cost money needs to be encouraged not vilified.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 28 January 2003 11:52 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And in a shameless partisan commercial. A donation of a hundred dollars to the NDP only costs you $25 since you get a reduction of your tax payable of $75. Yes, I know this only applies to people who pay more than $25 in federal tax.

So DONATE DONATE DONATE so we can fight fight fight the next election.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
reject
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3610

posted 31 January 2003 01:40 PM      Profile for reject        Edit/Delete Post
I can't believe everyone is not enraged at the fact that the candidate with the most money wins the leadership of the NDP. I thought we were the party that wanted to bring power to the people and take it away from those who can attract the most capital.

It's great that the liberals are doing something to balance the scales on a national level while we are throwing away the scale altogether in our internal races.

"Hi, you should donate to the NDP candidate. We want him to win and votes sell at $18 a pop"

[ 31 January 2003: Message edited by: reject ]


From: toronto | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 31 January 2003 01:58 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is ridiculous. Jack's campaign attracted the most support and the most donations. I sent him money and didn't send money to any other campaign, as is my choice. What is the problem? Are people saying we shouldn't fundraise or merely if you are successful at both vote getting and fundraising you can't really be a socialist?

No wonder we can't get a parliamentary alternative in place. Anyone who wins is considered tainted because of their success.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 31 January 2003 02:04 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Also, reject, the NDP did have spending limits in place. $500,000 may seem like a high maximum, but it is peanuts compared to what gets spent by some leadership campaigns in other parties.
From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3232

posted 31 January 2003 02:13 PM      Profile for Mimichekele2        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No wonder we can't get a parliamentary alternative in place. Anyone who wins is considered tainted because of their success.

Ditto.

There are days when I wonder why I vote for the NDP. The NDP is often the NDP's worst enemy.

Earth to Rabble: WINNING IS GOOD. It's politics, it's about winning. Not about losing, yet again.

Good for Jack - he can attract more cash, more votes, more media attention and he likes winning.


From: More lawyers, fewer bricks! | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
reject
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3610

posted 31 January 2003 02:18 PM      Profile for reject        Edit/Delete Post
Look,

Most times I can be convinced that we have to get lots of money to win elections simply because the other parties do it. That's fine, I don't like it but I like losing elections even less.

On the other hand, it mattered to me that we chose our leaders because they defended us right. Not because they had more money to buy electronic messaging systems, hire people to call memebers 20 times a day, send a billion envelopes, pull the vote, etc.

No one can convince me that we are better off by choosing the candidate who can do the most mailings. Period.


From: toronto | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 31 January 2003 02:30 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think the relationship between funding, success, and fundraising ability is complex. As in business, a certain amount of startup is needed before you can get more resources which will enable you to get bigger (and get more resources). If you can't get these, unless you can mobilize a volunteer army, you won't get anywhere. That was the problem with the Nystrom campaign.

Seed funding itself is not enough. Given the initial seed, your ability to attract more funding (and hence more support, and more funding) depends in part on your perceived merits (which depend in part on your actual merits), in part on organizational competence, and also on many other things. Bill Blaikie had enough resources to seed his campaign, but did not have the organizational competence to capitalize on them, nor the ability to generate more support.

In Jack's case, I think we are looking at a complex of factors. One is that he does have a fairly affluent support base. But that in itself is not enough. He also campaigned like hell, worked incredibly hard, and was out there, all over the country, winning support. The amount of money raised is in part an expression of that support, and in that sense a very good predicter of likely success in the vote -- he had a lot of money and a lot of votes for the same reason: he had a lot of support. It's still true that having more money made it easier to build more support, and to turn out the vote. But it would be simplistic to attribute Jack's success to his fundraising ability without looking at what goes into the fundraising ability, and the ability to use the funds well.


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 31 January 2003 03:12 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My commie roommate used to laugh at the fact that we require convention delegates to pay a fee. Yes, there are problems financing party processes and financing leadership choices is one of them. Unfortunately, there are not Canada Council grants to run these, so either we need to siphon money from general party revenue or they need to be self financing. The party did put a tax on the fundraising which I assume was used to fund collective costs such as the debate tour and the candidate statements.

Before you say that Layton won because he flooded homes with mailings please tell me how many you got, because there are other threads that talked about a dearth of canidate presence including Layton. Otherwise, if you are only talking in the abstract please make that clear.


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3232

posted 31 January 2003 03:13 PM      Profile for Mimichekele2        Edit/Delete Post
The phone calls, the letters, the electronic messages, the volunteers, the cash, that's how you win elections and other campaigns.

Of course, you get the volunteers and the cash because people like your message and ideas.

Cash is good, the gadgets are good. Winning is good.

I'm a simple man. Politics is making your guy win. You can always shoot him later if the screws up. But if he doesn't win, who cares about his ideas?


From: More lawyers, fewer bricks! | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
girlpublisher
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2367

posted 31 January 2003 04:15 PM      Profile for girlpublisher   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Reject, I feel like you are putting the cart before the horse here. Layton got donations because he had support. Yes, he then used those donations to get more support. But that growth in support was built upon the money from his original supporters.

The spending limit is there to ensure that those with little initial support, who do not have that snowball effect, are able to still be heard above the candidates with a stronger start. 20 years as a popular politician in the largest city in the country counts as a pretty strong start.

I think it would be fair to be concerned if he a couple received $200,000 donations and that's it. But the solution is not to say that raising money is bad. Perhaps there should be a more clear fundraising policy, which could include a cap on total donations, and on individual donation amounts.


From: here to eternity | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 31 January 2003 05:04 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Perhaps there should be a more clear fundraising policy, which could include a cap on total donations, and on individual donation amounts.

Indeed a cap on individual donations but I think we need to then pool the excess not limit the party's ability to fundraise in the most high profile event. A spending cap yes but not a donations cap.

quote:
And in a shameless partisan commercial. A donation of a hundred dollars to the NDP only costs you $25 since you get a reduction of your tax payable of $75. Yes, I know this only applies to people who pay more than $25 in federal tax.
So DONATE DONATE DONATE so we can fight fight fight the next election.

[ 31 January 2003: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
reject
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3610

posted 31 January 2003 05:55 PM      Profile for reject        Edit/Delete Post
Girpublisher, i agree with you. Raising money is not bad. Putting better caps will ensure that the candidate that has the most support gets the prize. Otherwise, we'll never know who won. Was it the money or the man?
From: toronto | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
reject
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3610

posted 31 January 2003 05:56 PM      Profile for reject        Edit/Delete Post
Girpublisher, i agree with you. Raising money is not bad. Putting better caps will ensure that the candidate that has the most support gets the prize. Otherwise, we'll never know who won. Was it the money or the man?
From: toronto | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rudy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3044

posted 31 January 2003 08:05 PM      Profile for Rudy        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Isn't this an incredibly positive thing and a validation of the move to have political donations shifted to individuals?

No.

I did some math with another election.

In the BC's May 2001 election the Liberals got 57.6% of the vote and the NDP 21.5%. Other parties also polled significantly so to simplify things for my little demonstration let's exclude any voters who didn't vote NDP or Liberal. In terms of votes the Liberals got 72.1% and the NDP got 27%.

Now - according to Pogo's theory, donation dollars are roughly the same as votes - a party that gets twice as many votes as a competitor will also get twice as many donations from individuals. During the election period the NDP recieved $1526197 in non-corporate individual donations. The Liberals recieved $1670944. In terms of individual donations the Liberals got 52% and the NDP got 48%.

Not at all the same as the 72-27 split. Pogo's theory doesn't add up.

My counter-theory was that dollars raised by a candidate could be used to chase down votes - that the money got the support and not the other way around. To test my theory I added the corporate money into the equation. If we look at TOTAL money raised by both the Liberals and NDP in the 2001 BC Election we find the Libs sitting pretty with $6186987 and the NDP looking less fine with $2375108. If we compare the totals we find some familiar figures. In terms of total donations the Liberals got 72% and the NDP got 28%.

Now, aren't I the very model of a modern major general? Or at least a political science hack.

I wish someone would admit that this is a problem. We certainly all believe it is when it benefits the candidates we don't endorse.

It's pretty damn clear that Jack was able to use his Toronto connections to get enough money together to hire full-time staff, pollsters, phone banks, criss-cross the country and co-ordinate a number of mass mailings. Other candidates, with limited contacts, could not do that as much. If you don't think that helped him win you're nuts.

This doesn't mean he's a cheater. He played by the rules and ran an excellent campaign. But the rules aren't fair and we should be concerned.

[ 02 February 2003: Message edited by: Rudy ]


From: Undisclosed | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 31 January 2003 08:19 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It's pretty damn clear that Jack was able to use his Toronto connections to get enough money together to hire full-time staff, pollsters, phone banks, criss-cross the country and co-ordinate a number of mass mailings. Other candidates, with limited contacts, could not do that as much. If you don't think that helped him win you're nuts.

So what we do as a party is fund every candidate equally to be able to do the above. Then we would have the choice of hundreds of people. No reason to have anyone have any actual demonstated support or connections in the party. Just get the threshold nomination signatures (friends and family accepted) and off you go on a whirlwind tour of the country spouting rhetoric as an NDP leadership candidate. Very progressive and democratic and certain to get the NDP lots of coverage on every comedy show in this country and many in other countries.

If a candidate does not have significant support, enough to launch an effective campaign, then they shouldn't be running to lead a national party.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 31 January 2003 08:49 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just to show that my at least one of my opinions has held over time:

(regarding Bev's inability to travel to all the meetings)

quote:
While I have no doubt that Bev is a serious candidate, I say tough shit. Running a party is a serious business, and needs lots of cash. Candidates need to operate in the real world. There are no government grants to support fringe leadership candidates. If she has a message that she thinks needs to be put out, then find some supporters and raise the cash. Where is the Left Caucus in all this?

The fact that the Federal Liberals support is mile wide and an inch deep has a lot to do with the fact that they are also contributing less. The NDP support is eroded to its core levels, no wonder we contribute more. I just think it is a bad analogy.

On the other side, one has to agree with Rudy that we have to be forever diligent to ensure that a grass roots campaign (I think of Corky Evans in BC) is given a level playing field, while marginal candidates will need to prove their worth. Perhaps like the Federal legislation we should cap individual donations and restrict organization contributions.

As far as Jack winning votes with money, well I don't buy it. BC was full of volunteers for Jack, and bereft of ones for the other candidates. When I did my calling the only times I was able to sway members was by the fact that one of their own was calling them. I bet he lost votes with that stupid automated calling system. His mailouts were not as many as I got in other campaigns (each one was also a plea for cash). Few if any of the voters actually met him when travelled out here (I always saw the same face). He won for all the right reasons, people saw a new beginning in him.


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rudy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3044

posted 02 February 2003 04:07 PM      Profile for Rudy        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So what we do as a party is fund every candidate equally to be able to do the above. Then we would have the choice of hundreds of people. No reason to have anyone have any actual demonstated support or connections in the party.

Kropotkin, your namesake would be rolling in his grave if there was such a thing as god.

If you'd deign to look up the thread you'd realize that no one has proposed the farcical system that you've offered up for critique. Though, the system you propose would probably be more in keeping with the anarchist philosophy, I think I'd find it more troubling than your would.

Here's what I proposed earlier:

quote:
I think if we actually want a process we can be proud of - one that doesn't allow inequalities in financing - we could, for example, take fifty cents off every dollar raised over a hundred grand and pool that money in a fund to be distributed equally to every candidate who raised over a hundred grand. That would leave some incentive to raise cash but would force some sharing and might level the playing field.

[ 02 February 2003: Message edited by: Rudy ]


From: Undisclosed | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 03 February 2003 12:04 AM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rudy I am all for a system that gives all serious candidates the ability to compete. I just don't think that polling resources from the outset is going to lead to a gauge of the strength of a candidates support and organization.

In a leadership campaign I look also at the team because the key people running the winners organization are inevitably going to be influential. If you can't convince a few thousand members to send you money then either you are not well enough respected or your orgainization sucks. In either case it is an indication of one's leadership abilities.

And yes Rudy I am very aware of the irony of an anarchist not only voting but being actively involved in the political process. So in the Prince's honour:

Mutual aid is a true law of nature and a normal condition of life.

I received some Jack literature but frankly I think its significance in swaying votes is negligible. In my view Jack spent more on stamps to send out more fundraising letters that also contained some literature.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca