The two Con MPs are describing their refusal to submit legal election account statements to Elections Canada as an "accounting dispute" -- yeah, just like Mike Duffy's Senate expenses are just an "expenses dispute".
Candidate returns filed after an election typically contain a long, itemized list of payments made to suppliers for rent, advertising, salaries and other costs of running local campaigns.Isn't this just typical of the Harper Cons -- in spite of their much-vaunted "private sector" street cred, they cannot be bothered to keep decent records of expenses, leading to the speculation they have cooked their books to be under the spending limits. Then they bluster and whine and feel persecuted and run off to court when someone calls them on it.
But Glover’s return includes only nine payments, including two made to her riding association that represent the vast majority of her campaign spending. The entries, dated election day, say that Glover’s campaign paid $73,139 to the St. Boniface Conservative Association, with no indication of who ultimately received the money.
That line-item had entries of $34,777 under “other advertising” – possibly a calculation of the signage under dispute – $18,257 for “surveys,” $1,333 for rent, another $9,226 for other office expenses, and $9,545 described as “miscellaneous expenses.”
Bezan’s return shows a series of payments to 10 individuals, and $53,254 in payments to his riding association, including $17,253.31 labelled “other,” and $26,221.30 labelled “amounts not included in election expenses.”
The Elections Act requires every campaign to show where all the money it spends during a campaign goes, and auditors spend months working with campaigns from all parties across the country, trying to make sure their returns follow the rules.
What's the matter with these people?
No comments:
Post a Comment