Check out this brand new posting by Joe Kuchta over at the Owls and Roosters Blog. It has taken the material linked to in my previous posting "Who Controls Whom" and detailed the significant contributions of corporations and the media to the Sask. Party.
It also raises serious questions about why certain "publicly funded institutions" are making contributions to the Sask. Party. In other words: Who authorized that?
p.s. So perhaps someone can explain to me what the "Community Owned" Saskatchewan Roughrider Football Club is doing giving $650.16 to the Sask. Party?
37 comments:
Thanks for the link, Larry.
We need for these individuals and corporations to give more so that we can rid Sask of the NDP and big unions, forever!
While ridding Saskatchewan of Big Unions and the NDP is most certainly a step in the right direction, the use of public funds is not the way to accomplish this goal.
Additionally Larry, inclusion of Rawlco Radio in your post makes it look like they government owned/funded which, from my understanding, they are not.
There is no suggestion, either stated or implied that Rawlco Radio is government owned or funded.
The headline simply identifies some of the Sask. Party's donors.
Fair enough, I guess CTV is also private.
Larry do any of the aforementioned parties donate to the NDP? Does the NDP receive any money from publicly funded institutions? (I know I could go search through financial statements, but I assumed you might know)
My reading of the 2006 returns reveals that none of the organizations listed in the heading made donations to the NDP in 2006.
I do not know the answer to your second question.
So Larry, its OK for the unions to donate money that all members contributed to the NDP, even though all members DONT support the NDP, yet not OK for public funded organizations to go to the SP. I would guess the companies you referred to donated about as much to the NDP as unions have donated to the SP.
It is my experience that Unions follow instruction and take direction from the members. They are democratic organizations which have constitutions and bylaws.
They provide annual audited financial statements to their members, and have procedures by which members can effect change through the union's democratic structure.
Does that mean all decisions are unanymous? Of course not. It's like any democratic system - including government.
You may not like something the government is doing (for instance - you may find it offensive that Stephen Harper is spending billions upon billions of taxpayers dollars on the most massive military build-up in this country since the 2nd World War.) You many have even voted for a different political party - but under our current system of democracy some of your hard earned tax dollars are being used to pay bombs and military equipment to kill people.
If you are not supportive of that - you work within the current democratic system to effect change.
Unions have a much higher democratic threshold than most governments, because - it's always majority rule.
In Canada, a political party can occupy the seat of government and make decisions that everyone is expected to live by with only 35% of the citizens support.
Go figure!
Great Investigative work Larry.
http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/features/electionsaskatchewan/story.html?id=9e4b8043-6c91-4603-a8a2-a29420fd1d33
It is what it is.
It is my experience that Unions follow instruction and take direction from the members.
Larry, you are either obtuse or totally full of crap.
You should see the hatred coming my way from your union members with respect to union brass and the SFL. According to them, neither one of you speaks for the members.
Maybe you should really re-think your roll with your membership.
Make that your "role".
The Boogeyman has been up all night making mischief..
the Sask Party actually wants to talk about political donations!?
Anyone recall thousands and THOUSANDS of dollars of tobacco companies funding this party, buying their votes against the Tobacco Control Legislation?!
PLEASE. Give me a break. This party is so corrupt they're willing to take big tobacco manufacturers money to buy their votes in the legislature!
Larry, do you have a comment on the reports of union stewards phoning their membership and telling them if they vote SP they will be privatized and lose their jobs.
Yes Larry, can you comment on some of your Union bottom feeders phoning union members advising them if they vote SP that their jobs will be lost due to a SP victory???
Please comment.
Or are you busy getting a nice greeting from teh other union losers and NDP heads asking you why you started this storm???
Larry Hubich said...
My reading of the 2006 returns reveals that none of the organizations listed in the heading made donations to the NDP in 2006.
Larry, the 2006 return does not reveal the some of the organizations listed in the heading made donations to the NDP in 2006 because the NDP HID THE INFORMATION!! Why? What else are they hiding?
It appears that more individuals donated money to the Sask Party. Fewer individuals donated to the NDP. and yet the NDP raised more money from individual people. Why are the NDP supporters so rich?
pissed off union member
Larry Hubick said:'It is my experience that Unions follow instruction and take direction from the members. They are democratic organizations which have constitutions and bylaws.'
As a FORMER Union chair, I would propose that the union pool it's political donation monies it wants to donate, then POLL the entire membership to whom the monies go to. If more than one political party is selected to be recipient, then the pool of money is donated to the same proportion of the number of votes for each political party selected. ie: NDP, SP and LIB is selected to receive moneies, and NDP receives 10 percent of votes, SP received 60 percent of votes, and Lib receives 30 percent of votes, then 30 percent of the pool is given to NDP, 60 percent to sask party, and 10 percent to Libs. Can't get much fairer than that (but I suspect Larry has some thoughts on that).
Sorry,
NDP 10%
SP 60%
Lib 30%
must have been using Lorne's calculator there for a minute.
Thank you to all for participating in this blog.
To Anon 7:52 and Anon 10:33 - I suggest that those involved raise these matters through their "union's internal complaint procedure" if they are concerned.
To Mr. Pissed Off - You'll have to raise those questions with the individuals responsible for filing the returns - not me. See below:
You may or may not know, that a few years back I sat on a 3 person commission to make recommendations regarding campaign financing for civic politicians (Mayor and Council) in the City of Regina.
The other two on the commission in addition to me were: Jim Tompkins (now President of the U of R) and Ed Galenzoski (representing the Regina Chamber of Commerce).
We prepared a unanimous report - recommending full disclosure of contributions and we proposed limits on spending. Our unanimous recommendation was rejected by Mayor Fiacco and the council.
My position always has been (and still is) full disclosure of political contributions and expenditures - regardless of political party. I make no apologies for that.
People who know nothing about me, can chose to attribute whatever motive they wish to what I do.
The fact of the matter is - business gives big bucks to political parties and then some of them try to pretend that they don't.
And some in the media perpetuate the myth that "big unions" are in control of the country when the facts support just the opposite - "big business" is in control and they have been for decades.
People who know me (including many enlightened business leaders that I deal with) will confirm this: If you ask me a question, I'll give you an answer - straight up. My first priority is to the women and men I am priviledged to represent.
Have a pleasant weekend.
Mr. Decker,
Thank you for participating in this blog.
If the membership of a particular union voted to amend their constitution and bylaws to do what your formula suggests then seems to me the members have spoken.
If I was the President of such a union - I would carry out the decision of the members.
In my books, that's how democracy works.
Can I then state that Larry Hubick and/or the SFL endorses my proposal, and would the SFL recommend to it's union members to formally adopt such a policy or ammendment? Will the SFL show some leadership with issue and bring it forward?
Larry do you think that the NDP is not disclosing there donors over $250.00 because most of the money comes from the crowns, buying there employees tickets to NDP dinners.
Mr. Decker, I don't endorse your proposal. But if I was a member or the president of a union whose members had voted to support such a proposal I would accept and live with it.
Anonymous, I have no way of knowing if what you speculate has any basis. I do not sit on the executive of ANY political party in this province.
When I read the return I see that it has lists of individuals, businesses and unions who have contributed more than $250.
There is another category identified which I have no idea of what is contained therein.
Larry you wrote: "The fact of the matter is - business gives big bucks to political parties and then some of them try to pretend that they don't."
By your own admission then, do you admit that it is the NDP who have tried to deceive the public about the amount of money they receive from "big business"? You must concluded that, as it is the NDP who failed to report in detail their "big business" contributors, whether it is legal or not, they still did not fully disclose their "big business" supporters. Can we read some of your honesty here on your blog by way of admission to the NDP's attempt to deceive the public about who is contributing to them?
I am really trying to pound this one home.
I would appreciate an answer.
Trent,
I have no way of knowing if what you speculate has any basis. I do not sit on the executive of ANY political party in this province.
When I read the returns I see that they have lists of individuals, businesses and unions who have contributed more than $250.
There is another category identified which I have no idea of what is contained therein.
My reading of the media reports is that the annual returns of all parties have been filed consistently for many years without concern being raised by the Chief Electoral Officer.
Asking me this question is like asking me if my next door neighbour filled out his census form accurately. You'll need to ask him that question.
Thank you for your reply, Larry. You have character. But now back to business.
Larry you wrote: "The fact of the matter is - business gives big bucks to political parties and then some of them try to pretend that they don't."
You state this as a fact, not a factoid, meaning the statement that follows is unquestionably the truth. Then I challenged you to prove the fact YOU stated. Now you claim that you have no way of knowing if this fact is true or not, you even go so far as to try and make me out to be the fool for asking you to prove your stated fact. You wrote: "Asking me this question is like asking me if my next door neighbor filled out his census form accurately. You'll need to ask him that question."
How can you now claim that you have no way of knowing if a party has falsified electoral data when you earlier claimed as fact that some parties and trying to be deceptive? Do you have positive proof that a party other than the NDP are trying to be deceptive? If you do I would like to read it.
Perhaps you should just apologize for being misleading and withdraw you "fact" comment.
I look forward to your response.
And again, I do admire your character for responding, most people would simple avoid the discussion.
Here's a question, Larry, and I would appreciate an answer 'straight up'.
Why did you assume that "Pissed Off Union Member" was male?
Pissed Off Union Member
p.s. See you at the convention. I'm sure you will be too busy to go for a coffee, but if the opportunity presents itself, I will say "hi".
Trent,
I will apologize for the confusion, my sentence construction was poor.
"The fact of the matter is - business gives big bucks to political parties and then some of them try to pretend that they don't."
I intended it to mean that "some of the businesses try to pretend that they don't." (My grammar teacher would not be impressed)
Case in point - certain shout radio stations have certain radio hosts who rail endlessly about unions being engaged in the political process. They constantly engage in distortions of the role played by unions. They pretend that they are neutral and unbiased, when they are not.
In the past I have personally been the victim of their on air distortions - to the point that I filed a formal complaint with the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council for unethical practices, my complaint resulted in an acknowledgement by the station and an on air apology.
If Kuchta's revelation about a certain numbered company being attached to one of the broadcasters is accurate - then they and/or their owners gave in excess of $30,000.00 to the Sask. Party.
I didn't see a corresponding donation from that company listed on the NDP return.
Good night!
Dear Pissed Off,
It was the generic salutation - no offence intended. I have no idea which gender you are.
Sure, look me up at convention.
"I didn't see a corresponding donation from that company listed on the NDP return."
Of course you didn't see it. The NDP hid it, along with many others. I'm not sure why.
Pissed Off Union Member
p.s. "mr" is not generic, it is male. I was not offended, I just wondered why you assumed I was male.
Hello Brother Hubich,
Keep up the good work! I have been a union member for the past 25 years. I can safely say that my family and I enjoy a good and comfortable life style, thanks to the good bargaining done on mine and my co-workers behalf.When it comes to looking out whats best for me and my family I will always count on my union. The boss's goal is to maximize profit and that means short changing me if he/she has to. A unionized workplace affords me the ability to stand up for my rights without fear of repercussion. Thanks to the union and thanks to peole like yourself who fight for the working men and women of this province. The "right wing business dog eat dog and only the fittest will survive club" don't like you Larry cause you bring them to task and often expose them for what they really are...self righteous greedy souls. My advice to "pissed off union member" is to quit your union job and go work in a non unionized workplace.You don't deserve the good fortune of belonging to a union.
I moved to Sask 5 years ago after living in AB for more then 20 years. The difference between the 2 provinces is simple. Sask through it's NDP government gives back more to the people whereas in AB the government is more concerned with appeasing the business community whose main goal is to give back to shareholders. Sask puts more emphasis in family and quality of life. So does the union. It's no wonder the union and the NDP have a good relationship. God forbid that we have a change in government.The Sask advantage will then be like the Alta advantage. Advantaged for the elite.I'm glad you're in my corner.In solidarity.
To the person who called business people, self rightious and greedy souls. Do you think we would be better off if the government owned all business', and we all worked for the government or a union. The way I see it, is you are the one that is greedy, you are the one that is on top of the pay scale. 90% of the business in Sask. are small business, and work there buts off to make a half decent living. I don't ask for dental, perscription, medical, etc, etc, etc. I don't have someone else do my bargining for me I do it myself and proud of it. When it come to looking out for my family I don't count on my union, I look after myself. Give us a break we are not all greedy.
Typical response...."I look after myself" and @#$% the rest of them. In the Union it's one for all and all for one. Of course you don't know anything about that.By the way, my wages are good....can't say for sure if I'm on top of the pay scale. I can say this much, it affords me to be able to sustain businesses like yours. Wake up my friend. We're not your enemy....you can't survive without people who make good wages. You can thank the union for that.
I never said I am against good wages. You don't have to belong to a union to make good money either. One more thing, be carefull how you talk about our niebours to the west, they have supplied thousands of saskatchewan people with jobs over the last 16 years.
Union member of 25 years: It’s unfortunate that you and your family have a comfortable and safe lifestyle as you probably are overpaid and have undeserved job security. You making more than the free market dictates does nothing but make the goods/services you produce more expensive for the rest of us. We are getting an unfair trade in our work for your work because our government allows you and your fellow workers to have a monopoly on employment at your workplace. This is Absolutely Pathetic. I sincerely hope your employer, whoever they should be, makes your position redundant quickly. You truly are a leach on society.
Let's keep the commentary civil please.
"jake neufeld.....you sound too stupid to respond to. See that dark cloud around you? That's because you got your head stuck up your ass. hahahahahahahahaha."
Right, you must be the smart one. With your childish insults and preposition-ended sentences, I'm sure your parents are proud. Shows the lack of really arguments against anti-union attitude; keep up the good work.
Ah, Mr Neufeld, you are assuming that I am a government employee.I work in the private sector. Why is it unfortunate for me and my family to have a comfortable and safe lifestyle? I work hard for my money and my employers profits are doing well.You should not be jealous of my good fortune. I wish for you the same good fortune as my own. That's what the brotherhood is all about.
Post a Comment