A Dollar a Day Until the Conservative Ads Go Away

Stephen Harper's complete failure to read the mood of Canadians in these trying times will be his undoing. Canadians won't buy his latest attempt to distract from his failings and they will demand better. And Liberals aren't sitting idly by as Steve V noted, donations have flooded in since the Cons desperate ad buy hit the air. But I think we can do one better in making sure that the only purpose these ads serve is to fill our coffers. I'm reminded of a donation campaign started awhile ago in the U.S. to create an incentive for Republicans to give up their futile endless court challenges (which are still ongoing) in the race for the Minnesota Senate seat which Al Franken has won. The campaign is called Normdollar.com: A Dollar A Day to Make Norm Go Away. The idea is you can sign up to make donations of $1 a day that end the minute Norm Coleman finally concedes. The Democratic Party establishment didn't exactly take on this campaign themselves, but that's no reason the Liberal Party can't launch a similar campaign here.

Surely we can set up a recurring donation system equivalent to donating $1 a day (even if that's $30 a month) that ends the month after the Conservative ads go off the air.

What do you think, would you donate a dollar a day until the Conservative ads go away?

In the meantime, you know where to go.

Recommend this Post

Financial Realities and Banning Pre-Writ Election Advertising

UPDATED NUMBERS
From the tables below comparing election spending to the approximate per vote rebates each party will have received this election compared to last we can get a good picture of where the different parties stand financially. The Liberals are clearly in rough financial shape right now which should make those who really want a leadership race ponder whether the party can feasibly afford it (especially with some past candidates who may want to run again not having their debts paid off yet and the donation limits now being $1,100 instead of $5,400 as they were in 2006), but it is obvious that the party that is in the worst financial shape right now relative to the last election is the NDP. They spent $5 million more this time and will be receiving only marginally more back in rebates. They will clearly be unprepared for an electoral campaign for some time and may have to reconsider spending the maximum next time. Regardless BOTH parties will really have to ramp up their fundraising efforts over the next year.

But I do have one idea that I think all opposition parties could get behind that would ensure the Cons financial advantage doesn’t continue to give them an unfair advertising advantage outside the writ period. Simply the opposition parties should band together and pass legislation banning any paid political advertising outside the election period such as TV, radio and paid internet banner ads. Since such legislation wouldn’t technically be a money bill and doesn't direct any spending of taxpayer money I don't see why the opposition couldn't use an opposition day or pass this as private member's bill to have it go through. It is in all the opposition parties' interests, but is also an issue of fairness. We have spending limits in an election campaign for a reason, but the Conservatives flagrantly got around this time by running ads in the week leading up to the writ drop. What stops them from doing that for a full 3 or 4 weeks prior to their next election call? That's hardly a level playing field for an election campaign and makes the spending limits into somewhat of a sham.

Conservatives would oppose banning political advertising outside the writ period on grounds of free speech but I don’t see how this would be much different from a constitutional standpoint than election spending limits during campaigns or limiting the amount individuals can donate to political parties (the latter of which Conservatives have constrained further). I also hardly think we'd see many Canadians oppose shielding them from year round election ads, in fact I think it's something that would find majority support, as I'm pretty sure that for most Canadians the only time they want to think about politics is election time and would rather see commercials about something else outside the writ period.I believe many cities already have rules banning election advertising in gas stations as I seem to recall from the oily escapades.

I realize I'm no election law expert and this may prove difficult to enforce in practice, but I'd thought at least throw the idea out there and I'm curious what other Liberals and members of other parties would think about this. If the Liberals, NDP and Bloc don't band together to pass something like this though I don't see how the Conservatives would be stopped from dominating the airwaves with only their message for the foreseeable future.

Electoral Rebates Relative to Election Spending

2006 Election

Party	# of Votes	Electoral Rebate	Approximate Amount Spent on Election	Difference Between Amount Spent and Rebate
Conservative	5,374,071	$9,404,624.25	$18,100,000*	$8,695,375.75
Liberal	4,479,415	$7,838,976.25	$18,100,000	$10,261,023.75
Bloc Québécois	1,553,201	$2,718,101.75	Unable to find	N/A
New Democrats	2,589,597	$4,531,794.75	$14,900,000	$10,368,205.25
Green	664,068	$1,162,119.00	Unable to find	N/A

* Of course Elections Canada is still looking into whether Conservatives illegally exceeded
the election spending cap by an additional $1.1 million

2008 Election

Party	# of Votes	Electoral Rebate	Approximate Amount Spent on Election	Difference Between Amount Spent and Rebate	Difference in Shortfall Between 2008-2006
Conservative	5,205,334	$10,046,294	$20,000,000	$9,953,705	$1,258,329.63
Liberal	3,629,990	$7,005,880	$20,000,000	$12,994,119	$2,733,095.55
Bloc Québécois	1,379,565	$2,662,560	Unable to find	N/A	N/A
New Democrats	2,517,075	$4,857,954	$20,000,000	$15,142,045	$4,773,840.00
Green	940,747	$1,815,641	$4,000,000	$2,184,358	N/A

Note: I know the numbers in these tables are not exact. They are based only on the info I could find. I am under the impression that the rebate was $1.75 per vote in 2006 and is $1.93 now. Anyone can feel free to correct me in the comments if they have better information and I will update these tables accordingly. As well I know that the per vote rebate isn't the only rebate Elections Canada distributes as I believe they also reimburse any candidate who receives at least 10% of the vote in their riding 60% of their election expenses. The Jurist notes in the comments that approximately half of parties election expenses end up being re-imbursed by Elections Canada on the whole aside from the per vote rebate. Still by comparing the per vote rebate from this time to last time it gives us a good idea of where the parties stand financially (in terms of public subsidies) after this election compared to last.


Note2: Blogger seems to be giving me trouble formatting these tables properly. If anyone still can't read any of the info in the tables please note it in the comments. Thanks!

UPDATE: For some added context here are the latest available fundraising numbers for the three months ending June 30:
Conservatives: $3.5 million from 33,833 contributors
Liberals: $912,378 from 9,556 contributors.
NDP: $711,637 from 11,941 contributors
Green party: $213,922 from 3,184 contributors
Bloc Quebecois: $36,698 from 607 contributors.

Even though the NDP had more contributors this is still further evidence that they are worse financial shape than the Liberals after having spent the same amount in this election and received back substantially less in rebates. Though of course this is just one quarter and not a full representation of how much party had at its disposal going into the election.

I do hope the Liberal numbers will be much higher when the next quarterly numbers up to September 30th are released but regardless it is clear we have a lot to improve in the year ahead in terms of fundraising and it should be a top priority. The Victory Fund was a strong initiative but it should only be the start of much more to come. I think we have a lot to learn from the Obama campaign in the U.S. that has succeeded in finally overcoming a traditional Democratic weakness in fundraising. If we can even replicate a fraction of his success we will be strong financially again but it will take incredibly hard work and bold ideas to make it happen. I'll obviously be happy to promote any new fundraising initiatives that come about in the near future.

In the meantime I hope there is serious consideration of ways to formally curtail political advertising outside the writ period.

Recommend this Post

New Con Ads' Underlying Message

Pay NO attention to my record as Prime Minister! I sound nice in scripted television ads, isn't that all that matters to being a good PM?

CG gives his review here and Jeff has a version that for some reason never made it air.

Recommend this Post

The Chase for Change 2008: TX, OH, VT, RI Edition: Why's It's Anyone's Game Again for the Democratic Nomination

So this past Tuesday has another big night. For the Republicans, no big surprises, I predicted McCain would wrap things up on March 4th and he did. For the Democrats though it's a whole new ball game again. Watching the CNN coverage you could tell the Clinton campaign played their cards right over the past two weeks. Remember after Obama's 11th straight victory so many people were saying that she had to win HUGE in Ohio AND Texas in order to stay in the race. So she won Ohio by 10% (not huge compared to Obama's recent margins) and Texas by 4% (though she's on pace to lose the caucuses there) and won big in Rhode Island, but it's clear from all the coverage that's all she needed to get right back in this race. So how did she pull it off? Well some people think it was the negative ads about how Obama can't answer calls at 3 AM, but I'd like to think not since those ads really looked like something the Republicans could have put out.

I hope Hillary Clinton learns that it's not wise to try and make the general election about national security, because while she thinks it may help her win against Obama, it won't against McCain. The Democrats shouldn't want an election on national security for the same reason Liberals in Canada don't want an election on crime, it's just an issue that the public as a whole tends to be less rational and more emotional about (even more so in the U.S. than in Canada) and in turn that favours Conservatives on those issues.

But Hillary's 3 AM ads play into the notion that national security is what this election is about, she even says "John McCain is going to make this election about national security", why in the world should the Democrats let him? Shouldn't they do everything they can to focus on the other issues plaguing America at home and abroad? Because everything else aside from national security (and maybe crime) are the Democrat's strong suit. I hope Hillary changes tack because it's not worth winning the nomination if you've boxed yourself in for the general but running on an issue you won't win against McCain on.

Though to get back to answering the question of why she dominated Ohio, I think the extreme downplaying of expecations combined with the gift wrapped NAFTA leak about Obama played a big role. Liberals here in Canada are right to continue asking Harper questions about the leak because it had an undeniable impact and the source may yet lie in Harper's entourage. Obama was dead even or leading in Ohio and Texas until that story broke that Obama wouldn't really do much to re-negotiate NAFTA as it played right into Hillary's desired narrative that Obama isn't as genuine as he claims. So with that gift Hillary attacked Obama's biggest strength (which given the enormity of the revelation was the smart thing for her to do) and pulled out a big win as a result. Truthfully I don't think either Obama or Hillary would do much to re-negotiate NAFTA (it would probably be similar to the few concessions Chretien obtained when he came into office and I don't think many remember what those were, but he did put up a fuss after he became PM about not ratifying until concessions were made) but now only Hillary can credibly claim she would.

So where do things go from here? I'll make one prediction now: This will go to the convention and it will not be pretty. Why? Because Obama has an almost unssailable lead in pledged delegates, yet Hillary just won some big states that have earned her the right to stay in until Pennsylvania votes on April 22nd and she'll probably win there too, so she will maintain enough momentum to stay in and will have more tail end victories in the big states to claim people are having buyer's remorse over Obama and that will justify her remaining. So the superdelegates will have the last say.

As well, there remains the unresolved issue of Michigan and Florida's delegates. It is quite plausible that Obama's pledged delegate lead will not exceed what Hillary would have gotten if Michigan and Florida counted. This would allow to Hillary to say that she would really be ahead if voters in those two states weren't disenfranchised and she'll use that argument to woo superdelegates. So foreseeing this in sight Obama and Hillary may yet agree to a do over in those states, but that also benefits Hillary because she will win those races comfortably (running as the one who stood up for their votes all along) and this time there would be no dispute over their status and Obama would have to accept them. So Hillary could still win this race yet, I'm not placing any bets yet.

Obama should win the next primary in Mississipi next Tuesday so that should help him a bit, but the calendar ahead points to enough victories on both sides that this thing won't end without a big fight unless something dramatic happens that leads one of the campaigns to self-destruct between Missisippi and Pennsylvania (as we go over a month with no primaries scheduled in the interim). Unfortunately, McCain will be laughing all the way, but I see no other way of how this could end, I just hope Democrats and all progressives can all come together behind their nominee when it finally does because America and the world cannot afford another 4 years of more of the same failed Republican policies.

Recommend this Post