Thomson: Campaign deficit causes problems
Fundraiser to pay off leadership campaign debt raises ethical concerns
The leadership news for Gary Mar just seems to keep getting worse.
Not only does it turn out he spent a whopping $2.7 million on a losing campaign for leader of the Alberta Conservatives last year, when he tallied all his expenses, he ended up with a deficit of $260,000.
And then, to pay off that deficit, he held a fundraiser at the Edmonton Petroleum Club last week. And now he’s in hot water with Premier Alison Redford and the province’s ethics commissioner.
Redford has ordered Mar to take a leave of absence without pay while the ethics commissioner investigates an invitation Mar sent out to publicize his fundraiser.
Sources say it appears the invitation mentioned Mar’s position as Alberta’s agent based in Hong Kong, contrary to ethics rules.
“The problem isn’t with the fundraiser,” said one source. “Gary has a debt to pay off from the leadership race, everybody knows that. The problem is mentioning his government position in the fundraising invitation.”
The invitation could give the impression Mar was improperly using his government job to raise money for his private leadership bid, the source said. Mar later sent out a second invitation that dropped any reference to his government job.
Mar would be forgiven for wondering when the leadership nightmare will end for him. News of his suspension came just hours after the PC party released audited financial statements from the leadership campaigns.
Mar spent the most by far: $2.7 million and ran up a $260,000 deficit. Doug Griffiths spent the least, $164,000. Redford spent $1.3 million. All told, the six leadership candidates spent more than $6.3 million in last year’s marathon race that started unofficially in February and ended with Redford’s victory in October.
Actually, only five of them released statements; Rick Orman refused and by doing so forfeited a $15,000 deposit made when entering the race.
“In my view, there’s no reason as a private citizen to make public the contributors to my campaign,” Orman told reporters, and then added “there’s no real benefit.”
The lesson here: the PC rules don’t apply to people with lots of money who don’t intend to run for office ever again.
Even if Orman spent a relatively modest $200,000 on his campaign, the total spent approaches $6.5 million. It is not just amazing that so much money was spent on the race, but so much money was spent on a race that attracted so little public enthusiasm.
The final ballot on Oct. 2, after eight months of campaigning, managed to attract just 78,000 voters.
Dividing the amount of money spent by the number of people who participated works out to approximately $80 per vote. It would have been cheaper and more fun if the candidates had simply taken everybody out for dinner and a movie.
Even though Mar spent the most money overall, Ted Morton spent the most per ballot. His $1-million campaign netted just 7,000 votes, which means he spent $140 per ballot. After buying them dinner and a movie, Morton could have taken his supporters out for coffee and dessert afterwards.
Even though the PC leadership race didn’t exactly set the province on fire, the candidates still managed to attract more money in eight months than the Liberals did in the past eight years.
Doug Horner raised and spent $1.2 million on his middle-of-the-pack campaign. Raj Sherman, by comparison, won the Liberal leader- ship last year after raising and spending just $65,000 — less money than Morton spent on postage alone ($74,000).
Not surprisingly, the largest annual corporate donors to the PC party were also the largest donors to last year’s PC leadership campaigns.
But they hedged their bets. Telus, for example, donated $5,000 to every candidate while electricity giant Transalta seemed to be hedging its bets by giving $5,000 to Morton and Griffiths, $10,000 to Horner and $15,000 each to Redford and Mar. The lesson here: if you want to know who to back in a leadership race, check who Transalta is giving money to
The PC party has disclosed the candidates’ spending to demonstrate the party is “open and transparent.” It also had little choice after other parties such as the Liberals revealed their list of donors.
The notable exception is the Wildrose party, which refused to reveal who contributed money to Danielle Smith’s 2009 leadership campaign, saying she was afraid of government reprisals against her supporters. It is an explanation that may have some merit but also conveniently obscures the players behind the scenes — and it presents a gaping hole in the Wildrose promise to run an open and accountable government if ever elected.
That’s not to say the PCS fiscal disclosure is perfect. Donors are still able to contribute up to $30,000, far above the $1,100 limit set on federal parties and there is no limit on how much candidates spend.
Mar’s campaign spending is thought to be unprecedented in the province.
It’s not known how long the ethics commissioner will take to complete the investigation into Mar that started the moment Redford learned of the possible ethics breach on Friday — but moving quickly will help insulate her from any political fallout.
Mar, for now, is on his own — probably wondering when he can put the leadership misery behind him.