Justin wears shorts, raises a lot of money

Received an email this morning; Liberal leader Justin Trudeau "has a message for me." And a few million other people, but whatevs. Here it is:


 Much discussion in the online world about the clothing tastes of casual Justin. The suit and tie pundit crowd seem confused or annoyed. I think it's fine, but neither of us are the target audience. The Canadians that probably didn't wear a suit and tie while enjoying 20 degree summer weather last weekend are, and I'll let them draw their own conclusions.

If there's anything that annoys me about this video, its that whoever shot it held their damned iPhone vertically, leaving those big black bars on the side of the screen. Just turn your phone sideways and, boom, lovely widescreen video. You're welcome.

However, you know what I liked best about this video? That since Justin became leader, the party has raised over $1 million from 14,000 donors, including 6,000 first-time contributors.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Debate on political financing methods spreading

It was good last week to see more debate in broader circles around the ways we should be funding the political system in Canada, and possible reforms. Things got kicked-off by a column in the Globe and Mail from Jeffrey Simpson, where he largely echoed an argument I made earlier in favour of ending the per-vote subsidy but raising individual contribution limits:

If we want parties to be healthy, they need money to do their work. And if we don’t want public dollars to help them, then individuals should be encouraged to give what they can to fill in the public subsidy – which will mean raising the individual limit above $1,000.

That’s the fair tradeoff: End the public subsidy, all right, but raise the individual contribution limit.

Alice Funke of The Pundit's Guide also weighed-in with her usual detailed statistical analysis, examining the dependency of each party on the subsidy and noting that rumours of the BQ's likely death without the subsidy are largely exaggerated:

The Bloc raises enough at the riding and candidate level each year alone to run fully funded campaigns after the candidate rebates, and yet it is able to win fully two-thirds of the province’s seats spending on average less than two-thirds of the limit in each constituency. Combining the riding-level surplus with its central fundraising would still allow that party to adequately finance its central campaign, after the central rebate is taken into account. We also know it costs significantly less to run a campaign across a single province in a single language than it does to run a national and bilingual one.

It's good to see more detailed, substantive debate happening on an issue that, in the past, has largely been confined to the Conservatives threatening to pull the subsidy and then everyone speculating if the opposition will risk an election over it or not, instead of an examination of the merits of different funding regimes.

You can read my original post on the topic here, but in a nutshell my argument is quite similar to Simpson's: end the per vote subsidy but raise the individual donation limits while keeping the union and corporate bans in place. Dan Arnold has also weighed-in on the topic.

I should clarify my original argument a little, as it was seen by some as a partisan argument for a system designed to best advantage my party and disadvantage it's opponents. Obviously that's true in a sense; I'm a partisan, guilty as charged. But that wasn't the main point of my argument; it was more about strategy.

I was trying to say that if the Conservatives keep trying to push ending the subsidy as a wedge-issue we should outflank them by counter-proposing ending the subsidy but only with raising individual limits. To those who say we shouldn't be funding political parties with tax dollars, this is a perfectly reasonable counter-proposal that can't be dismissed out of hand.

The Conservatives would either a) back away because such a scheme would likely see the Liberals recover their fundraising levels (which they don't want), ending the move to kill the subsidy and maintaining the status quo b) accept the proposal, increasing the fundraising capacity for all parties (but strongly benefiting the Liberals, who have relied on larger donations), or c) reject the counter-proposal and carry on trying to end the subsidy with no other changes to increase capacity, which would expose their strategy as having nothing to do with principle and everything to do with partisanship, which won't play well with John Q Public.

That's what I was trying to argue with my initial post: a political strategy the Liberals could employ to neuter one of the big wedge issues the Conservatives have continually been threatening to employ, and indeed have in the past (see the fiscal update/prorogation drama.) It's also one that would resonate with the libertarians amongst the CPC.

Putting aside the politics, I have nothing against the per vote subsidy and would be fine seeing it continue. However, if it is ended I believe it is only fair to increase the fundraising capacity of all parties by raising the individual donor limit. And even if the per vote system remains, I do not believe their is a reasonable argument to be made for capping individual donation limits at $1100. I think they should be closer to the older $5000 level.

I accept the argument for banning union and corporate donations. But I say if a private individual has more than $1100 and wants to use it to support a political party or parties, they should be free to do so and you need a pretty strong argument to restrict them.

I don't accept the argument that someone donating between $1101 and $5000 would be gaining undue and improper influence with a government or politician. Frankly, if someone can be bought for so little, we have much bigger problems to deal with. And with all donation information being posted online, and with other tools such as the lobbyist registry, there is plenty of transparency to see who is donating what and if it is leading to anything improper. I'd rather have strict controls to identify and punish abusers than punitively restrict everyone. And $5000 should be a low-enough limit to keep such fears at bay.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Donate $20.10, and send a message to Stephen Harper on proroguing parliament

Here's a great way to send a message to Stephen Harper that you don't get to take two months off with pay for the Olympics, and you don't think our MPs should be able to either: Make a $20.10 donation (or $210.0 if you prefer) to the Liberal Party of Canada, or your local Liberal riding association, today.

It's also coming to the end of 2009, so tomorrow is your last chance to get your end of year donations in to have them count for the 2009 tax year, so you can get the deductions back on your income tax in a few months. If it's your first donation of the year, a $20.10 donation could cost you just $5.03.

I just made my $20.10 donation. And it'd be great to send a message by seeing lots of other $20.10 donations in the Q4 numbers. So go to the Liberal Web site today and make your donation to send a message to the Harper Conservatives that ordinary Canadians don't get to take the Olympics off, so neither should he!

P.S. If you support one of the other opposition parties, I'm sure you could send $20.10 their way too. :)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Someone teach the National Post basic business journalism please

I’m a business journalist in my day job, and while today my reportage is more technology and marketing focused, back in the day I used to have to do a lot of spot reporting on company earnings. Wade through a mess of confusing numbers and acronyms – EBIDTA, GAAP, one-time charges, revenue, income, currency charges – and quickly discover the facts, what’s newsworthy and why, and report it.

And I tell you, if I got it as wrong as the Post did here, I’d be fearing for my job. Their analysis/link they try to make is completely off base and without merit, and is completely unsupported by the facts. With the Post’s death rumoured in recent days I’ve been defending them; not because they occasionally publish my commentaries but because I think we need more media organizations in this country, not less, because as a journalist I support jobs for journalists, and because off the op/ed pages, generally the Post is no more or less biased than any other outlet. But pieces that are completely full of crap like this one make it difficult to do so.

First of all, they rely on a Q2 2009 to Q3 2009 comparison as the main plank to support their thesis: dropping Liberal polling equals dropping Liberal donations. Ask any business journalist, financial analyst or accountant and they’ll tell you comparing consecutive quarters is largely meaningless. That’s because business is seasonal, it’s cyclical. So comparing, say, a department store’s Q4 vs Q1 next year revenue will likely show a big drop always. Why? Because Christmas is in Q4, and it’s a major shopping season. Sales always taper off in January.

That’s why comparing consecutive quarters is meaningless, and it’s why instead it’s standard practice to compare to the year-ago quarter. So, comparing Q4 this year versus Q4 last year and you’ll be comparing two like shopping seasons, giving you a better trend line to judge performance.

Second, if you want a true apples to apples comparison you need to look for and exclude one-time expenses or revenues. A company might take a big hit in one quarter because of a fine, for example. Or realize a big one-time gain because of an asset sale. Comparing numbers without factoring-out one-time numbers gives you a meaningless conclusion.

Anyway, here’s the Q2 to Q3 numbers as Tweeted by Canwest’s David Akin:

Q309/Q209 #cdnpoli Contribution $ only: #BQ -50% #CPC -5% #GPC +14% #LPC -50% #NDP +57%

As I said, comparing consecutive quarters is largely invalid, and there’s one major factor the Post missed in drawing the conclusion they did from these stats (I don’t quarrel with Akin here, he’s just reporting the numbers): the Liberals had a huge one-time revenue boost in the previous quarter: the Vancouver convention. Over 2000 people at up to $1000 bucks a pop. That skews those numbers.

Of course, they dropped from that quarter’s result, and it had little to nothing to do with polling: it had everything to do with not having a major national convention every quarter. To not factor that in is misleading, dishonest and just plain crappy reporting.

That aside, let’s look at the Post’s wider conclusion: that Liberal polling decline = Liberal donation drop. That’s only supportable if you ignore the methodology flaws already noted and look at just the LPC numbers in isolation. But their theory doesn’t hold with the other numbers. The Cons shot-up in the polls, but their contribution numbers dropped 5%. The NDP tread water in the polls at best, and they went up 57% in contributions. Their thesis just doesn’t make sense, even if you ignore the other obvious flaws in their supporting data.

Now, all that said, what happens when you do the comparison that is generally accepted practice in business, and compare to the year-ago quarter? Here is Akin’s tweet for that number:

Q309/Q308 #cdnpoli Contribution $ only: BQ -92% CPC -41% GPC -67% LPC +5% NDP -41%

Well, that’s a very different number isn’t it? Remember, we were fighting an election in this quarter a year ago, usually good for a nice fundraising boost. So it’s unsurprising the Conservatives and NDP are both off by 41%, year over year. Again, one-time rev boost in the year-ago quarter.

Nonetheless, that rev boost this time was available to all the parties, not just one (unlike the LPC convention) and yet only one party is not down sharply year over year. Indeed, only one party is actually up year-over-year for Q3, despite not having an election boost this year: and it’s the Liberal Party, up 5%.

So that just takes the Post’s theory and proves it to be completely full of crap. The LPC has fundraising momentum. There's a long ways to go to match the Conservatives in sheer volume, but the trends remain positive.

Now, could poor polling make it difficult to raise money? Absolutely. It will definitely make it harder, and things need to turn around on the polling front. But as much as the Post may wish to twist the laws of accounting, basic business sense and, well, reality to make it so, there’s nothing in the donation figures to show that has happened yet.

P.S. Visit Pundit Guide for a more non-partisan take.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Memories of NDP fundraisers past

The NDP, both bloggers and the grown-up party, are in a great tizzy today because the Liberals are holding a fundraising dinner while they're in Sudbury for their caucus meetings. Apparently holding a fundraising dinner while people are out of work is in poor taste.

I'd argue the two are unrelated. I'd argue if holding a fundraiser while people are unemployed is insensitive then exploiting those people for cheap political points is doubly offensive. And I'd question how the NDP candidates in Sudbury plan to finance their next election campaign if they're too moral to raise any money to pay for it. Sorry, Glenn Thibeault, but any donations you've received should be returned.

And I'd wonder where these same people were when the NDP was sending out fundraising solicitations on the backs of Canadian soldiers, exploiting the war in Afghanistan, where Canadians soldiers are risking their lives, in order to fatten their party coffers, $100 at a time:


No, it seems the NDP's sanctimony only ever applies to others.

Never to themselves.

UPDATE: On the Sudbury thing, let me say I agree with the sensible comments of John Fera, president of United Steelworkers Local 6500:

"I think the people who paid $550 for that dinner aren't our guys, but people are free to do whatever they want and to support whoever they want and I respect that," Fera said. "It's their decision."

Well said, John.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberals continue big fundraising momentum

The headline on the CP story tonight really says it all. The Liberals have big-time momentum on the fundraising front. While a lot of work remains to be done, the progress made in a very short time is very impressive:

Liberals triple donations in first half of 2009

June, 29, 2009 - 06:52 pm Bryden, Joan - (THE CANADIAN PRESS)

OTTAWA - The federal Liberal party is no longer a financial basket case.

Rocco Rossi, the party's national director, reports that the party has raised roughly $5 million in the first six months of 2009 - triple its cash intake for the same period last year.

Indeed, the party's haul in the first half of the year is almost as much as the $5.9 million it raised in total over 12 months last year.

(snip)

Rossi said the Liberals will pull in more than $3 million in the second quarter, which ends Tuesday. The Conservatives' fundraising results for the same period won't be released for another few weeks but Rossi said he expects the gap between the two parties will be reduced to about $1 million.

Impressive work by Rossi, Alf Apps and Michael Ignatieff, and really all the Liberals across Canada that have stepped up to help support the party with whatever they could do to help. All the small donations really add up, and it seems we may finally be starting to get the hang of this new fundraising environment.

While we're still behind the Conservatives, we've closed a lot of the gap. There's still progress to be made, but its no longer accurate for the media to dismiss the Liberals as financially troubled. With the party having been debt free for months, these donations are going to fill the party war chest. We'd have been ready to take the Conservatives on this month, of that there's no doubt. And when the time does come, we'll be more than ready.

And there's still time to keep the momentum going. Tuesday is the last day of the quarter, which means there's one more day left to make a donation to help boost the second quarter/first half fundraising numbers. Rossi sent the following e-mail to Liberals this morning:

A critical fundraising deadline is less than 48 hours away, and a contribution from you right now will make an impact that will be felt for months to come.

Donations received by midnight on Tuesday, June 30th will be included in our second quarter fundraising report to Elections Canada. That report will be made public in a few weeks and the results will have an enormous effect on how Canadians view our organization.

A strong showing at this decisive moment will demonstrate to those taking a ‘wait and see’ approach that the Liberal Party is ready to govern and that Michael Ignatieff is ready to lead. It will provide impetus for those on the sidelines to get involved with donations of their own.

It’s as simple as this: your donation today will inspire others to donate in the coming weeks and months – ensuring that we have the funding to fight the Harper Conservatives on an equal footing. Please don’t hesitate. Let your generous support set the example for others to follow.

Thank you,

Rocco Rossi
National Director, Liberal Party of Canada

If you can, try to make a donation and help keep the big 'mo going. As we've seen, every bit really does count.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

It's the economy, Stephen...

Great cartoon re: The Conservative attack ads and Stephen Harper's priorities by The Halifax Chronicle Herald's Bruce MacKinnon:


A great response from Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff:

Well friends, Michael Ignatieff is not the issue.

We’re dealing with record bankruptcies in this country. Record job losses. Widespread economic uncertainty. That’s what matters to Canadians right now.

People care about whether or not they’ll be able to keep the job they’ve got, or find a new one, or find work for the first time. They’re worried about whether they’ll be able to retire, and whether they’ll be able to keep their family finances afloat.

And now, when we’re facing the worst economic crisis in a generations, the Conservatives are spending their energies—their time and money—launching personal attacks.

(snip)

And you know what, friends, like many of you, I have lived and worked outside this country. And I’m proud of what I’ve achieved. I’m proud of what I’m accomplished—as a proud Canadian.

Canada is a great country because Canadians are a great people. Our roots, our life stories, our family histories, cover every single corner of the globe.

Like many Canadians, I’ve seen our country from the outside. As a writer, as a teacher, as a war reporter, I’ve seen Canada from afar.

And when you see Canada from afar—when you see our unity and our purpose and our strength—you see a country that is proud of its diversity, that is strong and united in its diversity, that is an inspiration to the whole world.

Stephen Harper doesn’t understand that.

To Stephen Harper, if you live and work outside the country, you’re somehow less Canadian.

Friends, you and I know better.

We know that no matter where we come from, where we live or have lived, we are all, and always will be proud Canadians.

And a great way to hit back from Liberal Party national director Rocco Rossi. And according to Steve V., the donations are already flowing into party coffers at a rapid clip thanks to these Con ads. Indeed, it has apparently been the party's most successful e-mail solicitation ever. So, thanks for that Mr. Harper.

Dear Liberal Friend,

Trust the Conservatives to get attack ads out faster than they can deliver their promised stimulus funding. Unable to provide leadership himself, Stephen Harper has launched new ads attempting to divert attention away from his government's failures to fix the economy and to undermine the credibility of the one leader he knows can take his place - Michael Ignatieff.

Enough is enough. Please make a donation today and help Michael respond with a new kind of politics and hold this government to account.

Canadians deserve a government dedicated to solving problems, not partisan attacks. Our future depends on it. Michael's honesty and leadership have already begun to offer Canadians a sense of hope for a brighter future, with a government that will help Canada prosper and grow. Show your support and let's remind the Conservatives that their games won't work - Canada comes first.

Thank you,

Rocco Rossi
National Director
Liberal Party of Canada

Please forward this message to your friends and colleagues and encourage them to get involved. With each new voice, each donation, each new membership, and each letter to the editor our ability to create a new kind of politics continues to grow.

Be sure to donate today, and send Stephen Harper a message!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberal fundraising: ca-ching

We don't have hard fundraising numbers yet. And I'd expect the Conservatives will still be soundly trouncing us, even if they may be losing parts of their base. But by all indications the Liberal trend is very good. And senior party officials like Rocco Rossi wouldnt' be out there spinning like this if the numbers weren't going to back it up:

The federal Liberal party is scooping up donations like a turbo-charged back-hoe and its national director says it will soon clear its $2-million debt.

Rocco Rossi told Sun Media yesterday the party likely will escape from the red by the time of the Liberal biennial convention in Vancouver later this month "or shortly thereafter." As well, he said first-quarter fundraising for 2009 was "significantly better" than the same period in 2008, though he could not provide numbers.

(snip)

The party's annual leader's dinner last week in Toronto raised almost $1 million, he added.

We have a long ways to go. But it looks like the trends, and the momentum, are there. Also, remember, the Conservatives raise more money than they can ever spend. We don't need to match them to be competitive. But we do need to be competitive, and at long last it looks like we're on that road.

And who do we have to thank? Stephen Harper.

Consider this. If he hadn't played political games with the fiscal update, ignoring the state of the economy and instead trying to bankrupt the Liberals with changes to political financing laws, there would have been no opposition coalition. No opposition coalition, no proroguing of Parliament. No proroguing, then no early end to the Liberal leadership race and Michael Ignatieff as interim leader.

Were it not for Stephen Harper's petulance, we'd be fighting a three-way leadership race right now, with all this money that's being raised for the party instead going to the leadership candidates to wage battle. Instead, the Liberal Party is together and united, pulling together in one direction and fundraising from coast to coast.

So, I guess, thanks Steve. Appreciate it.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On fundraising

The Globe has a piece this morning that confirms the news I wrote about earlier this week around changes to how the Liberals will be handing MP nominations, adding commentary from Senator David Smith and whip Rodger Cuzner. The article notes "the number of Liberal-held ridings with 400 or more members can be measured in the dozens" which is sad. So, hopefully these new rules will help, although I still they're too low, and I'd prefer a more open nomination system (no protection for incumbents).

The article also makes a brief mention of fundraising though, and I found this interesting:

Mr. Ignatieff has overhauled the party's central office since becoming leader, bringing in new fundraising specialists. Party members are also becoming increasingly bullish about the Liberals' fundraising prospects under Mr. Ignatieff. Last Friday, the party raked in $80,000 from a leader's dinner in Edmonton.

A Liberal fundraising dinner in Alberta raising $80,000, AND in this era of a low donation cap? That's pretty dammed good. Must have been a decent crowd. Hopefully a sign of some needed momentum building in the West, and accross Canada.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

An interview with the new LPC national director, Rocco Rossi

As part of the Liberal leadership transition, Rocco Rossi was recently announced as the incoming national director of the Liberal Party. Perhaps the biggest thing that stands out on his CV is his experience as a fundraiser, leading Ontario's Heart and Stroke Foundation, with fundraising sure to be a major preoccupation for Rossi and the party going forward.

I asked Rossi to share some of his background and experience and his plans to reinvigorate the Liberal Party, and he graciously agreed. He's not officially on the job yet -- he's still wrapping things up at the Heart and Stroke Foundation -- so he wasn't able to get too deep into specifics obviously, but here's what he had to say.

BCer: Could you talk a little about your background and experience in Liberal politics?

Rossi: I first became involved in politics in elementary school in Toronto when I helped one of my teachers, Andrew Meles, run as a Liberal provincially against Dennis Timbrell in Don Mills (lambs to the slaughter in those days;-), but certainly gave me the bug.

I later became Youth Chair in the Federal riding of York East where David Collenette was our member. I was involved there for many years in different capacities and remain a friend of David and Penny to this day.

David introduced me to Senator Keith Davey who then became a friend and mentor. He then asked me to help Dennis Mills in 1988 when I was co-manager and policy chair for his campaign in Broadview-Greenwood that unseated an NDP incumbent. I subsequently became riding President.

I have knocked on doors, dropped flyers, pounded in signs for lots of other federal and provincial candidates over the years from Charles Caccia to Maurizio Bevilacqua to Ben Chin and Michael Ignatieff.

In terms of other political experience, I was campaign manager for John Tory in his run for Mayor of Toronto in 2003 and helped lead a tremendous team of Liberals (Warren Kinsella, Bob Richardson, Ferd Longo, Larry Archer, Premier David Peterson, Hershell Ezrin to name a few) and Tories that grew his support from 4% to 38% and came close to winning, but finished second in a strong field.

BCer: How do you feel your experience with the Heart and Stroke Foundation will help you in this new role?

Rossi: I left the private sector several years ago so that I could devote the balance of my life to making a real difference through public service.(I wrote a piece in the Globe several years ago that goes into greater depth on my thought process. You can read it at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rocco-rossi/solo-in-spain_b_101034.html

The last four years at the Heart and Stroke Foundation have been hugely rewarding in terms of the impact we have been able to make.

BCer: Why are you deciding to take on this challenge now?

Rossi: The decision to accept the position of National Director of the Liberal Party is driven by the belief that this is a way for me to have an even bigger impact. The country is in an unprecedented economic crisis and the electorate have not been thrilled with what any of the parties, including us, have been presenting over the last few elections. A strong Liberal Party is critical and I would like to help in whatever way I can.

I am honoured that Michael and the party have given me this opportunity and I look forward to working with all interested and committed Liberals to build the strongest party possible, and help provide all Canadians with a political party that will reignite the imagination and passion and plain good sense that our political process has been lacking from their perspective for some time now. No one person can accomplish that. It will take a revitalized party with a growing and passionate membership that truly feels membership matters.

BCer: In terms of more specifics around his thoughts on fundraising and building the party in general, Rossi pointed me to an interview he recently did with CP's Joan Bryden. Here's an excerpt from the resulting article:

The party's dire financial straits don't seem to daunt Rossi, a lifelong Liberal.

"I certainly enjoy big challenges," he cheerfully told The Canadian Press.

Rossi said the key to turning around the party's dismal fundraising effort will be re-engaging and re-energizing its dwindling membership base.

"The only way you build a large fundraising pool of smaller donations is to have people who have a stake in (an organization) whether it's a charity or a political party," he said.

"That means re-energizing and building out a membership base, not just for nomination battles and not just for elections, but year-round and on a continuous basis, making membership mean something."

Among other things, Rossi said Liberal members have to be made to feel that their participation is valued, their contribution celebrated.

Rossi said it's too soon to say precisely how he intends to go about expanding the membership and raising money. But his experience at the Heart and Stroke Foundation suggests the party's financial situation can be turned around relatively quickly.

During Rossi's four years at the helm, the foundation more than doubled its volunteer base to about 40,000. And it raked in record revenues of over $120 million last year, up from $92 million when Rossi started the job.

The foundation's success may partly be due to Rossi's willingness to volunteer his own time - to "walk the talk," as he put it - and his ability to dream up fresh, fun ways to raise money. But it's also a matter of attitude, Rossi said.

"I don't look at it as asking for money. I look at it as giving people an opportunity to participate in something bigger than themselves. I am doing them the favour, they're not doing me the favour and that gives you a much different mindset," he said.

"People want to be part of something bigger than themselves, they want to be part of making a difference."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

BBQ'ing with Stephane and Iggy, but what about Bob?

After nearly three years of living in Toronto (my god, has it really been that long? i'm getting depressed) I made my first trip on the ferry over to Centre Island yesterday evening, for a BBQ with some 400 Liberals.

The occasion was a reception for supporters of The Victory Fund, the Liberal Party’s answer to the riddle of raising money in small amounts. Contributors sign-up for monthly donations to a riding and to the party, starting at $10/month ($5 to the riding association of their choice, $5 to the party). My riding $5 is going to my old riding of Vancouver Island North, where we have an energetic young candidate in Geoff Fliescher ready to take on NDP incumbent Catherine Bell and ex-Conservative MP John Duncan. It's a great program, if you're a Liberal and you haven't joined yet, do it today.

As I said some 400 Victory Fund members were in attendance for the BBQ (hamburgers and hot dogs, most opted for the latter) and organizers indicated the fund already has some 1000 members in Ontario alone. A very good start, hopefully we’re turning a corner in this department.

A lot of the Liberal heavyweights were in attendance, including a lot of MPs and candidates from the Greater Toronto Area. Bonnie Crombrie was the MC, she’s our candidate chasing Wajid Khan ‘round the moons of Nibia in Mississauga-Streetsville. Gerard Kennedy and Martha Hall-Findlay were there too, and Michael Ignatieff gave a really good speech in introduction of Stephane Dion. Dion looked confident and relaxed, and gave a good, short speech toughing a range of topics from the Green Shift to the economy and why we need to take the fight to Stephen Harper.

Noticeably absent from the event was Bob Rae, particularly as I thought it was his riding although I was told later it was actually Trinity-Spadina, which Tony Ianno will fight to claw back from Olivia Chow. According to Bob’s Facebook status he’s in B.C. at the moment. Last night though I was speculating on his absence, and came up with two possible theories:

*Ryan Sparrow called, he said Bob’s not here because he doesn’t like the Green Shift.

*He was standing beside Ignatieff on the ferry ride over to the island, and Iggy pushed him over the side. I was hoping to see a soaking-wet Rae emerge from the waters of Lake Ontario, breathing fire.

All in all a fun night, despite the very expensive bar prices. Very strong blogger turnout as well, including The World According to CDLU, A View From the Left, Calgary Grit, Jason Chernaik, The Wingnuterer (who let me guest-live blog via is mini-laptop) and The Liberal Bag.

Proof below that Stephane Dion talks to bloggers, as he poses for a photo surounded by bloggers. Of course, I have my eyes closed. No metaphor there, I assure you.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Lets play spot the Liberal mailer ironies!

After the past few weeks of, well, insanity in the Liberal Party that I won't bother to recap because, well, the list is too long, I got the following fund raising solicitation letter in the mail yesterday.

I was going to make a bunch of sarcastic comments about all the crazy things they're saying in light of recent events, but instead I thought it'd be more fun to play Spot the Ironies! It's the new party sensation that's sweeping across the land.

When you spot an irony, feel free to post it in the comments section. Click the pic to enlarge.

And Senator Smith, you don't get another cheque from me until you bring this government down.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Finally some fundraising creativity

Fundraising letters don’t have to be flashy to be successful. And, it has been said, when it comes to fundraising letters hooky works. So I was glad to see the folks at the LPC are using a little creativity in their fundraising, sending this ‘Teledispatch’ to my mailbox last week.

You may laugh, but letters like this are how the Conservatives have been so successful in raising lots of money, in small amounts, and have been continually smoking us at fundraising since the new campaign finance regime came into force.

So, I’m glad to see the LPC is getting on board with direct mail solicitations; I hope it’s a success and that they do more of it. I’ve also been seeing more e-mail solicitations from the party lately, I think they could do a little better in terms of rapid response and issue-based solicitations, but they’re heading in the right direction.

While I disagree with Robert on cautioning against mail-outs, indeed we need to do more (and more targeted to issues as well), I do take his point on supplementing such traditional fundraising methods with some other, more creative ones as well. I think they’re working on that too, the recent One Night, 100 Dinners is a good example. Hopefully we’ll see more continued creativity, and people will offer their suggestions.

In the meantime, as priceless as my kvetching from the sidelines is, I’ve sent in my $50 in response to the solicitation. I hope some of my Liberal blogging brethren will do the same.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On fundraising and what not

I won't devote much virtual ink to the Globe’s report that not many Conservative MPs, and an astounding 18 cabinet ministers, either didn’t donate to their party last year or donated less than $200.

I won’t comment on what that seems to say about their belief in their party, or any contradiction about sending-out fundraising solicitations without giving themselves. I won’t even dig out the comments made by Conservative bloggers a year ago, when similar stories were written about Liberal MPs, stories Conservative bloggers and MPs took great glee in trumpeting.

That would all be just a little too easy. Instead, let me just pick up on Deceivin’ Steven’s old accountability meme. What does accountability mean to the CPC? Apparently it means dodging media questions:

The Globe sent an e-mail to all Conservative MPs who did not appear to have made donations in 2006, either to correct the record or allow them to provide an explanation.

Conservative Party officials urged MPs not to reply to The Globe if they did not give more than $200 or to point out that they donate to many charities and organizations every year.

Accountability indeed. Anyway, I thought this line was amusing:

While party officials point out that donations are personal matters, they also note they have expectations for MPs.

"As a grassroots party that receives donations from Canadians all over the country, we'd like to receive donations from all kinds of Canadians," a Conservative official said.

The official added the party has a "good idea of who gives and who doesn't."

Deceivin’ Steven is making his list and checking it twice. He’s gonna find out who’s naughty or nice. Cabinet Claus is coming, to town…

Lastly, this was yet another political story in which the Globe granted anonymity, this time to a CPC party official who gave the above quote. Any reason why he/she had to be unnamed? And because CPC MPs would be mad at him/her for publicly calling them out for not donating isn’t a good enough reason to not give their name.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On fundraising

My Liberal friends who are concerned about these numbers...

Conservatives: $5.2 million from more than 45,000 donors
NDP: $1.2 million from almost 15,000 donors
Liberals: $531,141 from 4,365 donors

…may also want to consider these numbers:

Liberals: 31 per cent
Conservatives:30 per cent
NDP: 15 per cent
Greens: 13 per cent

These things need to be kept in perspective and viewed in context. Yes, fund raising under the new financing rules has been challenging for the Liberals, but I think they’re getting better and making more use of e-mail solicitations. Dion and other senior MPs have been active on the dinner circuit.

Let’s also remember the party is also now in the black, and I understand sufficient resources have been banked to spend the maximum allowable in the writ period. We even seemed to find some money to run these very good tv ads which I’ve been seeing regularly on Newsnet (when I’ve been in the country.)

As I’ve said before, and said often during the leadership race, you only need enough money to be competitive, and I’m confident the Liberals are there. After you raise enough to be competitive you can keep fund raising to run all the pre-writ attack ads and open all the fancy suburban campaign death stars you want, but it won’t necessarily make much of a difference, as we’ve seen.

Just as long as we have the financial resources to be competitive, I’ll settle for voter support over donor support every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers