Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Weston's Cadman theory still sounds legally infeasible to me

Sun columnist Greg Weston floats a theory today he says may explain happened in the Chuck Cadman affair.

It's an involved theory so you should go and read his column first. In essence, he postulates the Conservatives may have offered Chuck Cadman an $80,000 loan, supposedly for re-election purposes, but with a wink-wink knowing Cadman wasn't going to actually run, but would instead spend the money to top-up his MP pension plan to a level that the benefits payable on his death, if Donna Cadman lived another 30 years, would be in the $1 million range. And when Cadman passed away, just maybe they wouldn't require the loan to be repaid by his estate/family.

Certaintly seems like a theory that's at least possible. Let me ask all the lawyers out there though, wouldn't that theorized scenario be illegal too? A loan that you never expect to be repaid, that you know won't be used for the stated purpose, in order to secure a vote? It comes down to saying maybe the alleged bribe was only $80,000, not $1 million.

It's a nice theory, but if true I don't think it gets the Conservatives off the hook legally. And morally it's just as bad.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers


Gayle said...

If it were above board we would kow exactly what happened by now.

I do think Weston's theory is still a bribe.

I find the theory interesting in light of the fact the conservatives are "clamping down" on loans to leadership candidates.

matt said...

Or maybe it was a private life insurance policy from the party. "If there is an election, and you die during the election before you are elected, or are not reelected at all, in each case being ineligible for the life insurance benefits provided to members of the Parliament of Canada, then we will pay to your heirs the sum of $1,000,000." Note that death in office resulted in a $300,000 payout under the government plan. The CPC has denied that a policy was offered. However, is the "private policy" example above still a policy within the meaning of the Conservative denials?

Burton, Formerly Kingston said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Burton, Formerly Kingston said...

How about it goes like this since throwing theories out there is the theme of this post.
2 CPC Guys:Chuck, We want you to vote your conscience on this.
Chuck: I would like to,but I need the insurance policy that the house provides, Guys be real, you know I am dying, Hell, I am running again to keep it.
2 CPC Guys, OK, Chuck, how about we guarantee the seat for you, we know you will get re-elected in that riding anyway, so re-join the party, and we will float a loan to you for the election expenses and if you die, the party will more then likely write it off anyway. As far as the house insurance your covered until you lose anyway. Think of it as an insurance policy, you hang in there for four more years my friend this deal is worth a million dollars if you include you salary.

Chuck: Screw off idiots, I do not need your help to get reelected.

2 CPC Guys: Ok Chuck Later

Hell my theory is as good as anyones and to my knowledge while a little unseemly, not illegal.

BCer, sorry about the deletion, posted without proofing.

The Rat said...

Jeff, just one point: Loans made without any expectation of repayment. Where have we seen that before? Or recently? Stones and glass houses make for a lot of cuts and scrapes.

Ted Betts said...


That would still have been an illegal offer.