Thursday, October 16, 2008

Leadership Convention Made A Large Profit

In 2006 the Liberal Party made a profit of 1.3 million dollars from its Leadership Convention. This is calculated from the party's 2006 combined financial statements. In 2006 the revenue from conventions was $6,229,457, subtracting convention expenses of $4,563,325, a profit of $1,266,132 remains. This profit added to the Liberal Party's bottom line and mostly accounted for the 1.7 million dollar increase in the "Excess of revenue over expenses for the year" from 2005.

In the same statement it is also noted that in 2006 6.9 million dollars were directed to leadership candidates. This does not affect the Liberal Party's bottom line because that money was initially contributed to those candidates and merely flowed through the party. Even when one looks at the Leadership candidates returns, their debts do not come close to eroding the surplus the party made in 2006.

In 2006 the Liberal Party made the most money it ever has since the new election spending laws were adopted. It is factually untrue to suggest the 2006 Liberal Leadership Convention put the Liberal Party in deficit even including the debts incurred by the leadership contestants.

I should add that this is no way an endorsement of the current delegate system used for said conventions. I have made my opinion in clear opposition to it here. This post merely points out that there is no financial reason against holding another Convention where hopefully we can vote to change the way we elect our leaders.

12 comments:

Steve V said...

If you want to do a fair analysis, subtract the debt load incurred by all the candidates, that resulted in the subsequent drain on the party's fundraising. Now you're DEEP in the red.

Anonymous said...

Steve: Do you have any evidence of what you claim?

-scott

Steve V said...

Sorry, that first comment is wrong, you also have to include the diversion of party donations into the leadership campaigns prior to the convention. Brilliant red.

A valiant effort to spin a convention as a shrewd fiscal move, but that dog won't hunt :)

WesternGrit said...

If we were to modify the convention process (regional conventions, more people allowed to vote/attend), and modify the amount spent by all campaigns, we could actually fatten our pot... Not to mention the new funds coming in from new memberships, and the renewed interest from the "ground level". Imagine if every card-carrying foot-soldier was donating $10/month...?

WesternGrit said...

... and we had more foot-soldiers...

Anonymous said...

Steve: Actually in reviewing each leadership contestants return, the total of all their debt does not come close to putting the Liberal Party in the "red."

scott

Anonymous said...

Steve: That 6.9 million dollars was raised for those contestants. 5 million dollars was still raised for the party. And reviewing previous years, in no other year from 2003 did the Party as a whole come close to raising that much.

Even with redirecting those contributions the Party still earned more profit then any other year since the new election financing laws were in place.
-scott

Steve V said...

scott

Are you actually serious with this logic? Since Dion has been elected, everyone has been consumed with paying off their debts, almost any appearance of dinner, much of the money went to said debtor. Just some common sense here, and stop presenting a false frame to justify turfing Dion. A convention will cost, period, yeppers, just accept that as part of the process, but don't say it isn't so by attaching it to another motivation. That's my take. Maybe if we have a few conventions, we can avoid a recession. Shovels in the ground, signs in our hands.

Anonymous said...

Steve: In 2006 the Liberal Party made more money that it spent, that's including all the leadership debts. Yes Leadership conventions cost money, but they do not put the party in the red. That's a fact.
-scott

Steve V said...

That's not a fact, that's pure crap.

Anonymous said...

Steve V: How about providing one shred of evidence to justify you're claim. One piece of evidence.

-scott

Anonymous said...

Steve: But please continue to use such language it only strengthens your argument.

-scott