Category Archives: Slush Fund

Ontario Liberals must be a little nervous seeing the words “slush fund” in today’s headlines, or please move on newscycle

While the McGuinty Liberals may have survived Collegate during the last election campaign, they must, nevertheless, still get a little nervous every time they see “slush fund” in the headlines.

What’s relevant about Collegate for the present provincial campaign is:

1. among this government’s unscrupulous activities are “slush funds”

2. when faced with the accusation, the McGuinty Liberals only showed contempt and arrogance

3. this was yet another instance when an impartial auditor rebuked this government with a very scathing assessment

Advertisements

Go "negative" or go home!

I find it very telling that in the recent Liberal outcry over John Tory going “negative”, the focus is not at all on the undesirability of negative campaigning but rather that Tory stated he wouldn’t stoop to such tactics. The Liberal response, in other words, was a negative attack on Tory’s credibility. Sometimes two negatives do make a positive. Not to be missed here is that Liberal strategists like Kinsella are no longer even shy about the fact that they’re tethered and committed to negative campaigning. Going negative has become de rigueur and an accepted fact of politics for the Ontario Liberals. Go negative or go home!

And you know, it wasn’t that long ago that Kinsella, Raymaker and Cherniak were defending their vicious personal smear on Cheri DiNovo claiming that it was part of public record, even claiming that they themselves were being reprehensibly smeared by those denouncing them. Lamentably, less than a year later these apologists of smear no longer even feel the need to justify it.
So what about John Tory? Can he safely be accused of having gone negative? Undoubtedly Yes. Clearly in the broadest sense of the concept of “negative campaigning” as a deflection of political focus away from one’s own platform and onto the negative aspects of an opponent, such that even a mention of an opponent may be construed as negative, John Tory has gone negative. And is he doing it for leverage? Unquestionably.

Still, what distinctions get lost in such a sweeping view of negative campaigning? Personally I favour reasoned debate, even old school sophistry, to its modern day replacements: petty spin and puerile negative attacks. But, surely, we haven’t lost entirely the ability to distinguish between attacking an opponent’s logic, argumentation and political record from adhominem attacks on an opponent’s character and personal history. Surely, although both are forms of “negative campaigning”, there still exists a recognizable difference between vilifying candidates by dredging up personal details from their teens or by disingenuously misconstruing their statements and intelligently and reasonably critiquing an opponent’s statements and political record.

To be fair, I do think John Tory has overstepped slightly the line in his criticism of the McGuinty government record, yet this must be seen as a substantially different kind of attack from the sordid personal attacks and mischaracterizations perpetrated by the McGuinty Liberals against John Tory and others. I don’t think John Tory has veered significantly from his desire to conduct politics differently- mind you, things had degenerated so significantly at Queen’s Park that it wouldn’t take much to improve the situation. His attacks aren’t outrageously personal and we all know that if anyone deserves the monicker Promise Breaker, it’s not John Tory.

So is attacking the Ontario Liberal government’s pitiful record, negative campaigning? Surely, we don’t mean to dispense with “critique” in politics. While I lament the virtual absence of critical thought and dignified comportment in politics, I wouldn’t want to lose it as an “ideal” (in fact, I’ve long argued given the decline in critical thought, eloquence and articulateness in political discourse that all newly elected officials should be subjected to a rigorous regimen of literature, rhetoric and political philosophy).

However, even if we grant that “negative” campaigning, marked by sleazy smears, distortions, distraction, disingenuousness, petty partisanship, etc. has or will soon become the norm, ought we not to aspire to something better? Or is the fact that dirty politics can be highly effective in modern day elections sufficient reason to be resigned to this kind of campaigning? Does the fact the voter turn out and public perception of elected officials is at an all time low possibly owing at all to this? Have we become so focused on ends that we entirely neglect the legitimacy of the means by which we strive for those ends? If I’m focused on attaining a watch, it matters substantially whether I acquire it legitimately or I steal it, for the latter will always never be just a watch, but a stolen watch.

I recently had a very interesting discussion with a teacher. She pointed out that today students are so focused on end results that cheating has become rampant. When she addressed her class in a very frank and gentle way, students told her that they consider cheating only as cheating when they get caught, otherwise it’s called being savvy and getting the job done.

Is all of this completely unrelated? Or is this part of the ravages to the human soul inflicted by capitalism? Is this not the logical extension of narcissistic self-interest? Is negative campaigning not perfectly suited for a consumer society that has neither the appetite nor the time for focusing on issues and rather delights in seeing other torn asunder. Are these not by-products of late capitalist societies? For while the material gain and leverage brought to human societies by their adoption of capitalist economies is undeniable, we’re often less prone to scrutinize the inevitable changes wrought on human beings themselves by these transformations.


So what are we left with in Canadian politics? Principles, ethics and integrity are luxuries that a party focused only on power cannot afford. Polling is the moral compass of most of today’s politicians and the Ontario Liberals have whole heartedly embraced this kind of politics.

A recent example from Jason Cherniak is a worthy illustration. Cherniak, who greeted every mention of ColleGate as comprising a “slush fund” with outrage and who defended the embattled minister, not only was content to scapegoat the minister in the hopes of saving the party but now teases John Tory for his inability to elicit outrage in the electorate over that scandal. This, of course, after examining recent polling numbers. Despite a condemning report from the Auditor General, despite fair accusations that this at least has the stench of a slush fund, etc., Cherniak ultimately sees nothing untoward in the funding scandal since it doesn’t seem to have hurt the Ontario Liberal Party’s chances of forming the next government.

No Ontario Liberal "Slush Fund"???

Just when I thought this last week couldn’t get any worse for the Ontario Liberals (with racism and sexism rearing their ugly heads in association the Ontario Liberal Party), it turns out I’m wrong.

Some Liberals seem to think that Michael Colle’s resignation concludes this fiasco. As Jason Cherniak says in his blog: “In any case, Colle is now gone. The problems were pretty clearly centred in his office.”

Cherniak should be ashamed of himself. He defended Colle in the past, and suddenly, for political reasons, he’s willing to scapegoat a decent man (Colle apparently had volunteered to resign when this scandal heated up and McGuinty refused his resignation. This problem, however, cannot be whisked away just like that. Colle’s not innocent, but neither is McGuinty. Sorry, this problem is systemic and symptomatic of the arrogance and recklessness of this government.

As to the auditor general’s report, the main finding was actually this:

We found that the decision-making processes followed with respect to the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration’s more significant year-end grants in the 2005/06 and 2006/07 fiscal years were not open, transparent, or accountable.

Pretty scathing I’d say.

Moreover, I’m not so sure that the charge that this money was a “slush fund” can be so easily dismissed. Everyone’s quoting the line:
“We found no evidence that any organization received a grant because it had political ties.”

Interesting that the next lines are conspicuously omitted in any renditions of the report I’ve seen:

However, in some cases those ties did exist, and, when this is combined with a process lacking openness and most of the normal accountability controls, it can create the perception of favouritism if the organization ends up obtaining a grant.

As I understand the term, a “slush fund” has two ethically questionable elements. First, is it’s illegitimacy, accounting or otherwise. And this was something well established in the present report.

Second there is an “understanding”, an expectation of quid pro quo (we’ve scratched your back, on Oct. 10th perhaps you might scratch ours). Cherniak calls this patronage and seems to see it as qualitatively different (i.e. not unethical) from a “slush fund”. Now whether this favouritism is real or perceived, especially if we look at some of the more glaring individual cases, I don’t think it’s a huge stretch to argue that such an expectation was created in some of the recipients of these grants. Added up, seems like a slush fund to me. Since the Ontario Liberals increasingly can’t rely on a large portion of the ethnic and immigrant vote, something had to be done.

Ontario Liberals prefer to brush with ColleGate

_________________
Update: Ian Urquhart wrote an interesting piece on the sorry state of the government’s response to these allegations. I recall being similarly disillusioned with the decorum in the Legislature when I attended Question Period at Queen’s Park last fall.

ColleGATE

$20 Million Slush Fund for Friends of the Ontario Liberals Keeps ‘Em Smiling

Watch Question Period this week for more details


Seems the Liberals can no longer take the immigrant and ethnic vote for granted. They prefer now simply to buy those votes rather than earn them. This was just the tip of the iceberg.

Watch for Citizenship and Immigration Minister Mike Colle eventually to resign over this. This slush fund is a disgrace. McGuinty admits the system of disbursement needs to be improved. And Sorbara has the nerve to call this mismanagement “a pittance”. There is no accountability. There is no transparency. This was graft and corruption pure and simple.

Read this or this or this or this or this or this or this or this or this or this or this or this or this or this or this or this or this or this or this or this