Conservatives raise record $21.2 million in 2008
The Conservative Party raised a record $21.2 million in 2008 according to fundraising data available at the Elections Canada website but as yet unannounced in a news release. Elections Canada is expected to announce the release of the parties' 4th Quarter Returns later today, but has already entered the data into their online database. [UPDATE: The release is out now.]
The Conservatives beat their previous record of $18.7M in 2006, and raised more than 1.5 times the amount raised by all their competitors combined.
The NDP also scored a personal best of $5.5M just behind the Liberals, who at $5.9M managed to improve on their 2007 performance of $4.5M, but were still down from their 2006 showing of $9-9.8M (see below for some notes on the data).
The other big gainer in last year's fundraising stats was the Green Party, raising $1.6M in 2008, up from $985K in 2007 and $776K the year before. The Bloc Québécois raised $713K, down slightly from their recent best of $736K in 2005.
The registered political parties' 4th Quarter 2008 financial returns were due at the end of January, and report the number of contributors and the total amount of contributions received in that quarter, broken down by category (<= $20, <= $200, > $200). The parties' Annual Returns for 2008 are not due until June of this year. You can find a compilation of Election Data Release Dates for 2009 in an earlier post.
Note that, when comparing parties' quarterly and annual returns, the whole is less than the sum of its parts -- at least so far as contributor counts go. You can't add the numbers of contributors reported in each quarter and get an accurate annual count, because the quarterly numbers are not much more than line item counts. The annual counts, however, properly sum the contributions of each individual across the year.
As an example, if I gave $85 dollars monthly to the party of my choice, it would be counted as3 contributions a contribution in the > $200 category in each quarter, but only 1 contribution in the > $200 category on the annual return. You might think this makes no sense, but based on my limited testing to this point, that does appear to be how the data are reported. Best to stick with the annual contributor counts and ignore the quarterly ones, I now believe. [UPDATE: Thanks to commenter "catherine" for catching the error, but providing an even better example to make the point about unreliable counts.]
Annual contribution totals can also vary from the sum of quarterly totals; for example the Liberals reported $9.8M across 4 quarters in 2006, but their annual return that year showed just under $9.1M. I'm not sure what would account for the disparity, but the difference is close to the amount reported as transfers from leadership contestants in the annual return, so that would be a good first guess.
With those caveats, you will find below the sums of the quarterly contributions totals for 2005-2008 (for comparison), along with the breakdown of all 4 quarters for 2008.
As time permits, I'll be properly adding all this data into the Pundits' Guide database.
The Conservatives beat their previous record of $18.7M in 2006, and raised more than 1.5 times the amount raised by all their competitors combined.
The NDP also scored a personal best of $5.5M just behind the Liberals, who at $5.9M managed to improve on their 2007 performance of $4.5M, but were still down from their 2006 showing of $9-9.8M (see below for some notes on the data).
The other big gainer in last year's fundraising stats was the Green Party, raising $1.6M in 2008, up from $985K in 2007 and $776K the year before. The Bloc Québécois raised $713K, down slightly from their recent best of $736K in 2005.
The registered political parties' 4th Quarter 2008 financial returns were due at the end of January, and report the number of contributors and the total amount of contributions received in that quarter, broken down by category (<= $20, <= $200, > $200). The parties' Annual Returns for 2008 are not due until June of this year. You can find a compilation of Election Data Release Dates for 2009 in an earlier post.
Note that, when comparing parties' quarterly and annual returns, the whole is less than the sum of its parts -- at least so far as contributor counts go. You can't add the numbers of contributors reported in each quarter and get an accurate annual count, because the quarterly numbers are not much more than line item counts. The annual counts, however, properly sum the contributions of each individual across the year.
As an example, if I gave $85 dollars monthly to the party of my choice, it would be counted as
Annual contribution totals can also vary from the sum of quarterly totals; for example the Liberals reported $9.8M across 4 quarters in 2006, but their annual return that year showed just under $9.1M. I'm not sure what would account for the disparity, but the difference is close to the amount reported as transfers from leadership contestants in the annual return, so that would be a good first guess.
With those caveats, you will find below the sums of the quarterly contributions totals for 2005-2008 (for comparison), along with the breakdown of all 4 quarters for 2008.
| Lib | NDP | Grn | BQ | Cons | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 Q1-Q4 | 7,969,813.58 | 5,130,587.74 | 410,134.59 | 735,506.55 | 17,849,716.00 |
| 2006 Q1-Q4 | 9,842,889.76 | 3,972,597.53 | 775,991.88 | 529,458.34 | 18,728,456.79 |
| 2007 Q1-Q4 | 4,537,965.58 | 3,977,185.63 | 984,605.30 | 430,061.48 | 16,990,765.93 |
| 2008 Q1-Q4 | 5,900,511.89 | 5,466,434.84 | 1,631,293.79 | 713,415.22 | 21,190,928.22 |
| 2008-Q1 | 846,129.37 | 1,119,647.67 | 210,962.82 | 37,006.31 | 4,954,550.22 |
| 2008-Q2 | 912,378.43 | 711,637.28 | 213,922.00 | 36,698.33 | 3,525,352.31 |
| 2008-Q3 | 1,855,252.99 | 1,889,805.02 | 660,223.38 | 450,519.83 | 6,367,676.44 |
| 2008-Q4 | 2,286,751.10 | 1,745,344.87 | 546,185.59 | 189,190.75 | 6,343,349.25 |
As time permits, I'll be properly adding all this data into the Pundits' Guide database.
Labels: Party Finance
posted by The Pundits' Guide at
10:26 PM
18 Comments:
Once again, the Liberals situation looks far worse- and remaining "unimproved"- when you take out contributions for the leadership campaigns and make comparisons to contributions even in the recent past.
The 4th quarter included election contributions, which are a different animal. In the first 3 quarters of 2008 with the leadership contributions taken out, the Liberal Party raised the same $2.4 million it did in the first 3 quarters of 2007 [already a poor year]. By comparison the NDP raised $3.7 million in the same time period.
Even during an election, one third of the 4th quarter contributions received were for leadership campaigns! Net those out and the Liberal Party only raised, $1.5 million during an election [vs. $1.9M for the NDP, let alone $6.3 M for the Conservatives].
Counter to what I would have expected, even the Liberals election fundraising dropped precipitously. Taking two quarters around the election looks not quite as bad- and the situation was comparable to the 2 quarters around the 2006 election.
But even with the help of that more flattering lens, the Liberal Party raised under $3M in and around the 2008 election [leadership contributions netted out of totals reported], versus $5.1M raised in the 2 quarters around the 2006 election.
In the earlier discussion on this blog of Liberal finances I expressed more than skepticism about Kinsellas claims that they were in fine shape.
Knowing that they raised only $3 million in 2 quarters around the election pretty much demolishes Kinsella's bluffing obfuscations.
With the $9M in party election rebates, that leaves over $6M to go to pay off the election. That would be a huge amount to have pulled from riding rebates- let alone the Liberals in the past have not done very much of that. So $6M the first time around?
Kinsella points to the quarterly party subsidies- but that is pure obfuscation on his part. The LPC was running an ongoing operating deficit on those subsidies before- let alone with a substantially reduced subsidy now.
Since we have not heard of wholesale staff cuts at Liberal Party offices we have every reason to expect they are still accumulating an operating deficit. Even if that is not large, there is no money left from the subsidies for paying down campaign debt.
Who knows how much this financial situation- which even very optimistically cannot be turned around quickly- had an effect on the Liberal decision to support the Budget.
Maybe Ignatieff would have wanted to do that regardless of the financial situation. But it puts a different light on the experts saying the Governor General was UNLIKELY to grant Harper an election should the Liberals vote the Budget down.
When the Liberals would at the least be risking a lot by piling on yet more debt for another election [IF banks will even still extend them enough for a full spending limit campaign]... the GG "unlikely" to grant an election is going to be seen in a different light from within the Liberal HQ.
Don't forget - Dion was leader of the Liberals for nearly all of 2008.
Will be interesting to see 2009 with Ignatieff and a new fundraiser at the helm.
How do Conservatives save money? They spend taxpayer funds for show and tells and neverending campaigning.
Nice catch, Alice.
How do the Liberals save money?
Ans: They don't need to; when they're in power they simply steal it from the taxpayers.
"Anonynous1" here [since there are 2 of us now].
It takes a very big organizational change to increase the Liberals fundraising- at all. Thats going to take time. Dion being gone only makes STARTING possible.
Let alone there is a minimum of a year to show any results- who knows when they will get started.
And Rossi has a VERY differnt challenge here than his previous fundraising.
How much is the $21.2 million the conservatives raised costing taxpayers? Alot.
Anonymous
This confirms Greg Weston report from Liberal sources back in October [and posted on this blog] that the Liberals had ended the election campaign $6-7million in the whole.
That would be the figure with a paltry $3M raised around the election- a figure we know now, but which would be known then to insiders such as Weston's sources.
Added to the already accumulated Liberal deficit that is a truly unprecedented ball and chain for a party to be dragging around.
The other interesting question to be asked relates to the assets that the Liberals show on their financial statements. Their 2007 financial statement showed accounts receivable from riding associations of $4.58 million which was up from $4 million in 2006. The Liberal Riding associations are not in great financial position and I question the value of those receivables.
Would it be too much to ask for all you anonymous commenters to at least take a handle so we can keep you sorted out?
"In the first 3 quarters of 2008 with the leadership contributions taken out, the Liberal Party raised the same $2.4 million it did in the first 3 quarters of 2007"
Leadership contributions are a drain on party finances, because in many cases the money would otherwise go to the party. It is disingenious to just knock off the leadership contributions, for many reasons. One, party fundraisers are replaced with leadership fundraisers, so donors end up attending and the money goes to a different source. Plus, people max out their contributions, which means if they've given to a leadership contender, they can't give to the party. These comments here are clearly politically charged, using dubious math to make a bloated point.
Also, the party has 2 million dollars of debt, not the nonsense being spewed here.
Greetings commenters, anonymous and otherwise,
Thanks for reading and commenting. You'll notice that I stay away from speculation about what the next set of data might say, or even what the current data mean strategically for the parties beyond the most obvious conclusion that more is better than less.
For me to obtain a clearer picture, I will have to finish my review of the party income and expense statements, and only then will we be able to calculate debt-to-equity and debt-to-income ratios for each party, and compare them over time.
Comparisons can also be tricky because of the differing ways the parties are organized. Anon 8:24 AM is probably alluding to the Liberals' federated structure when mentioning the organizational change that party will require. The Bloc has a different situation altogether, as it allocates all its contributions and membership revenues out to the constituencies, and seems to live off the subsidy centrally. Prior to receiving the subsidy, its national office assessed royalties onto the constituencies instead.
Anon 10:13 AM writes about the $4.5M or so in accounts receivables from constituencies in the Liberals' 2007 financial statements, and asserts that their riding associations are not in good financial shape. I'm afraid I haven't reviewed the finances of any of the parties' "electoral district associations" (aka riding associations to us old fogies) as yet, and so I can't pass judgement on that until I do. The parties' own financial statements for 2008 will not come out until the end of June this year, as mentioned before, so we'll have to wait until then to see how the balance of that receivable has changed in the meantime.
It is important to remember that these stats are really trailing indicators, since as we all know, a week is a lifetime in politics.
Also, I've still only scratched the surface in terms of what can be gleaned from a systematic review of the available data.
So, stay tuned.
Anon 11:30 AM writes that "people max out their contributions, which means if they've given to a leadership contender, they can't give to the party".
This is correct in terms of their own personal budget. There is one limit for contributions to national parties, one for contributions to electoral district ("riding") associations, and one for contributions to leadership campaigns. Convention fees, I believe, get subsumed under the first one.
So, if there's a limited pot of funds available, yes they're spread. But leadership contributions are not competing for legal contribution room against national parties.
I'm pretty sure both commenters realized that, but I just thought I'd clarify for other readers out there.
As to partisan spinning in the comments section, have at it ... (just leave me out of it) ... but by all means do notify me of any errors or required corrections you happen to notice in my own work.
Again, thanks everyone for reading.
Its simply not true as implied that the leadership campaigns crowd out contributions that would otherwise go to the party.
Donations are driven by who you ask, how much and how well you ask them. The more levels of a party that ask for contibutions, the bigger the pie.
The Liberals Party's problem is not knowing how to ask for smaller donations that now by law have to be the bread and butter of parties.
The LPC ruled the doantions roost in the past without bothering with the small donations, and has not learned in the now 5 years of the new regime how to correct that.
To be fair it isn't easy. But the point is that the LPC hasn't even begun to figure it out.
The leadership campaigns with their more personal connections have had some success- they are not displacing contributions to the party.
One of those [other] Anonymous said:
"Also, the party has 2 million dollars of debt, not the nonsense being spewed here."
Thats amusing.
But people can say what they want without released numbers. The numbers released by the Conservatives, NDP, and Greens, plus informatuion voluntarily given, give a pretty transparent view of those parties financial positions.
The LPC gives as little hard data as is required, plus some spokespersons making vague pronouncements with no substantiation.
If the picture is as good as only 2 million in debt... then why does not the LPC like the other parties give some substantiation for the claims to the financial health of the party.
To summarise what has been said before. We now know that the Liberal campaign was over $18 million, that the rebates comng back to the party would be about $9million, and that the contributions for the party for the 2 quarters around the campaign were $3 million.
With some of that $3M going to the ongoing operations of the party [which the quarterly subsidies only partially cover]... taht leaves another $6-7M of the campaign cost to be covered by what means?
Those numbers are not conjecture. They come from public filings.
And that is the same $6-7M shortfall which Greg Weston got from inside sources right after the campaign.
Such sources would know then what we only know now: that the fundraising during and around the election was a VERY low $3M.
Been hard to raise money since Paul left...
Pundit's Guide: if I gave $85 dollars monthly to the party of my choice, it would be counted as 3 contributions in the > $200 category in each quarter, but only 1 contribution in the > $200 category on the annual return.
Is that first ">" really a ">"? That is, $85 shows up three times as a documented (with name) donation?
What if you gave $60/month, so that it falls under $200 in each quarter? Will it then show up on the annual, but not on the quarter reports?
Just trying to figure out what shows up with the person's name and what might not, even if they gave >$200 over the year.
Catherine, your question shows that you're paying attention ... but you also forced me to double-check my work and notice that I made an error writing that section.
Download a sample for yourself and see ... for example, here is the list of details for the >$200 section of the storied Liberal 4th Quarter 2008 return.
Open up the file, and look at lines 24-26. This individual is obviously on a monthly pre-authorized contribution plan of $91.66/monthly. Assuming the PAC started in January, an individual in that situation would have contributed 12 X $91.66 = $1099.92 that year, and should be counted once in the >$200 category for the year. However, they will be counted once in each quarter.
There are a total of 3881 lines in that details section, representing 2660 unique names. The return also reports 14,701 contributors under $200, 190 anonymous contributors of $20 or less, and the total number of contributors as 17,558 at the bottom of the page. 190 + 14,701 + 2660 = 17551 (so let's assume 7 of those identical names are parent and child or other similarly named individuals).
So I was wrong to write that ...
if I gave $85 dollars monthly to the party of my choice, it would be counted as 3 contributions in the > $200 category in each quarter, but only 1 contribution in the > $200 category on the annual return
... it would in fact only count once in each quarter, but still count just the once in the annual return.
But the example you give does correctly make the point I ought to have been making. An individual on a monthly $60 PAC would not meet the threshold for reporting their name in the >$200 section of any quarterly report, and yet would reach the annual threshold.
Thus, the annual counts include folks who wouldn't have met the >$200 threshold in any one of the quarters, plus remove the double-counting of folks who would have met the >$200 threshold in two or more quarters. The annual reports are the only reliable counts of contributors by class, and the quarterly ones are only interesting for comparing one party to another.
So, thanks for calling me on that, Catherine, because it forced me to fix up the boo-boo I made while still illustrating the main point with your excellent example.
Thanks for explaining all that! I now understand who gets listed when and how the quarterly&annual totals work.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home