Mediaboss Marketing

The governing B.C. Liberals brought in more than half their $13-million in donations last year from controversial cash-for-access fundraisers, such as golf tournaments and dinners with the Premier, techniques that have been widely criticized for helping create a Wild West political system unlike any other in Canada.

Elections BC data released last week show the party reported holding 143 events last year grossing $6.9-million more than the $6.2-million the opposition New Democrats received from any type of donation. The NDP, whose leader has promised to ban corporate and union donations if elected in May, held 96 fundraising events last year that grossed $1.2-million.

The issue of political fundraising is expected to emerge as a campaign issue ahead of the May 9 vote in a province that has few limits on who can donate or how much they can give. The governing Liberals have so far rebuffed calls to ban private fundraising events in which corporate donors are invited to pay thousands of dollars to meet with candidates, cabinet ministers or the Premier.

Investigation: How B.C. lobbyists are breaking one of the province's few political donation rules

Christy Clark recently responded to such criticism by promising to appoint an independent panel to review B.C. campaign finance laws, though the Premier has not said what, if any, limits she believes should be imposed.

The events have become a lucrative source of revenue for the BC Liberals. For example, the party raised $938,800 at a single event on June 6 in Vancouver. In contrast, the NDPs biggest fundraiser was an event on Oct. 27 called the Leaders Levee, which grossed $192,861 from several hundred attendees.

Such events factored into a recent Globe and Mail investigation that found lobbyists and others had donated in their own names and were later reimbursed by the companies they represent. Such indirect donations which often involve purchasing tickets for fundraising dinners are prohibited under the provinces election laws, and the RCMP is now investigating.

The Liberals have identified at least 43 prohibited donations worth about $93,000 that are being returned, as well as at least 30 others with clerical errors. The NDP has identified five prohibited donations.

Most of the Liberal events detailed in Elections BC financial reports were reported as fundraisers or golf tournaments, while the New Democrats often married food with their events and branched out into playing host to bowlathons or art exhibitions.

The Liberals also shelled out a lot more to stage such events, spending $2.2-million last year compared with the opposition partys $319,455.

Not every fundraiser was a win.

A womens networking event held on Jan 25, 2016 lost the Liberals $14.70 despite selling 24 tickets for $20 a piece. The New Democrats held a tournament for the popular Settlers of Catan board game and wound up grossing just $239.50 on June 11.

The Greens held 10 fundraising functions last year that grossed the party almost $30,000.

The Elections BC data released last week show both main parties would lose substantial funds if corporate and union donations were banned, with Liberal figures showing nearly two thirds of their money $7.7-million came from a relatively small collection of corporate and other business donors. That dwarfs the $1.8-million donated to the NDP by unions.

Both parties have been dogged by sustained national and international coverage of the provinces lax political finance rules. The NDP have advocated banning corporate and union donations even though the party accepts those donations now. The Greens have already stopped taking money frobc liberslm corporations and unions. And while the Liberals are promising to review the rules, the party has not advocated they be changed.

Other governments tightened their rules after a recent Globe investigation into political fundraisers. The Trudeau Liberals effectively banned private cash-for-access events in addition to already strict limits of about $1,500 a year a donor. Ontarios Liberal government put an annual cap of $1,200 on donations and barred MPPs from attending cash-for-access fundraisers.

Follow Mike Hager on Twitter: @MikePHager

Excerpt from:
In 2016, majority of money raised by BC Liberals came from cash-for-access fundraisers - The Globe and Mail

A re-elected BC Liberal government would increase and introduce tax credits for renovating homes for seniors as well people caring for seniors as part of a program on seniors care.

The measures to be announced in the party platform Monday come as the government has faced accusations of shortcomings on seniors care as campaigning intensifies for the May 9 election.

The Liberals say they will double the home-renovation tax credit from $10,000 to $20,000 to make home improvements to house seniors and also introduce a tax credit of up to $2,500 for people caring for seniors.

Read more: Rocky political start shows B.C.'s Clark willing to take some risks

Both measures would also apply to individuals with disabilities needing care.

Referring to the tax breaks, Vancouver-Langara candidate Michael Lee, speaking for the Liberals, said the measures are aimed at reducing the burden on seniors and caregivers to do whats necessary to provide additional care so people can live longer in their homes.

In an interview, Mr. Lee said he agreed more could be done for seniors living in residential care, but that 94 per cent of seniors are actually living in their homes.

Seniors represent 18 per cent of British Columbias population or about 853,000 people, according to the provincial Office of the Seniors Advocate.

Other measures in the seniors agenda include building and publicly funding an additional 500 long-term care beds across British Columbia by 2022, and, in another tax measure, introducing a tax credit to support seniors living active healthy lifestyles.

The measures come after the Liberals, in March, said they would invest $500-million over the next four years to improve seniors care across the system including direct-care hours for seniors in residential care.

But they also come as both the NDP and the BC Greens are honing in on the seniors file as an area in which they say they could do better.

In Kelowna last week, NDP Leader John Horgan presided over a roundtable of seniors, hearing stories about challenges in housing and health care.

In response, Mr. Horgan talked about working to drive down the cost of prescription drugs, possibly through bulk buying. He also denounced heartbreaking cases of couples being split up when using residential seniors care.

During a rally in Surrey on Sunday, Mr. Horgan said nine out of 10 seniors facilities in British Columbia do not have the resources to give seniors the care they need. He did not elaborate, but said an NDP government would address the issue. The NDP has yet to release its platform on seniors care.

Seniors are fundamental to all of us. Its a fundamental tenet of our citizenship as Canadians, Mr. Horgan told the rally.

Were going to make sure seniors get the care they deserve.

Andrew Weaver, leader of the BC Green Party, will be touring retirement communities in Victoria on Monday, although the party also has yet to issue a platform on seniors issues,

BC Greens believe that seniors need more support, the party said in a statement. Our platform will include investments to help make life more affordable for seniors, including investments in care and ensuring facilities meet guidelines. We support measures to give seniors as much independence as possible and give them the care they need in their homes for as long as possible.

Follow Ian Bailey on Twitter: @ianabailey

More here:
BC Liberals pledge tax credits to seniors, caregivers for renovations - The Globe and Mail

Photo: Janet Van Ham, HONS

Said Bill Maher, "Everybody loves this f---- thing. Cable news loves it when they show footage of destroyers firing cruise missiles at night. It's America's money shot."

Said Bill Maher, "Everybody loves this f---- thing. Cable news loves it when they show footage of destroyers firing cruise missiles at night. It's America's money shot."

'Even the liberals were all over this': Bill Maher disgusted by the cable news response to Syria

Bill Maher understood why Republicans were happy to see 59 cruise missiles streaking into the sky over Syria early Friday - President Donald Trump was asserting his authority as commander in chief against a dictator who'd used chemical weapons on his own citizens.

But Maher said he was disgusted by the words of another group that seemed mesmerized by the missiles: TV journalists.

"Even the liberals were all over this last night," he said during his opening monologue Friday night on "Real Time with Bill Maher."

"Everybody loves this f---- thing. Cable news loves it when they show footage of destroyers firing cruise missiles at night. It's America's money shot."

Trump authorized the strike on a military airfield in retaliation for a chemical attack on civilians that killed at least 86 people.

The attack "ratchets up the intensity of a complicated regional conflict," according to The Washington Post's James Hohmann, and makes a conflict with Russia more likely.

News networks looped reel footage provided by the Pentagon of cruise missiles being launched from a ship and streaking into the night sky, complete with commentary.

Reflecting on the strike, Fareed Zakaria opined on CNN: "I think Donald Trump became president of the United States last night. "

As The Washington Post's Derek Hawkins reported, Brian Williams seemed so dazzled by the images that he described them as "beautiful" and quoted singer Leonard Cohen: "I am guided by the beauty of our weapons."

Maher wasn't the only one appalled by the journalists' laudatory words.

Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan wrote that "after the strikes, praise flowed like wedding champagne - especially on cable news."

And in a Facebook Post, Dan Rather took fellow journalists to task:

"The number of members of the press who have lauded the actions last night as 'presidential' is concerning," he wrote. "War must never be considered a public relations operation. It is not a way for an Administration to gain a narrative. It is a step into a dangerous unknown and its full impact is impossible to predict, especially in the immediate wake of the first strike."

See the rest here:
'Even the liberals were all over this': Bill Maher disgusted by the cable news response to Syria - SFGate

Donald Trump speaks after the US fired a barrage of missiles into Syria. Photograph: Alex Brandon/AP

So now we know what it takes for an unhinged, bigoted demagogue to win liberal applause: just bypass a constitution to fire some missiles. It had seemed as though there was consensus among those in the anti-Trump camp. This man was a threat to US democracy and world peace. The echoes of 1930s fascist leaders were frightening. This republic is in serious danger, declared conservative writer Andrew Sullivan on the eve of Trumps triumph. That this megalomaniac pussy-grabbing ban-the-Muslims ex-reality TV star would soon control the worlds most lethal military arsenal was chilling. Opposition would be uncompromising, a reflection of the Republican intransigence that Barack Obama faced from day one.

It has taken less than three months for these illusions to be shattered. A man widely castigated as a proto-fascist only needed to drop bombs without observing due process.

Lets examine what is being said about Trump now. A press he denounced as liars and enemies of the people are eating out of his hands, tiny or otherwise. I think Donald Trump became president of the United States, cooed CNN commentator Fareed Zakaria in response to the bombing. Trump reacted viscerally to the images of the death of innocent children in Syria, declared Mark Sandler in the New York Times. The original headline on that article, since amended? On Syria Attack, Trumps Heart Came First.

So the man who once bragged to a baying audience that he would tell five-year-old Syrian refugees to their faces that the US would not offer them safety, is now driven by his heart. Touching indeed. The moral dimensions of leadership had penetrated Trumps Oval Office, declared the Washington Posts David Ignatius. MSNBCs Brian Williams described the missile launches as beautiful three times in the space of 30 seconds.

In Britain, liberal and conservative columnists alike, plus Tory, Liberal Democrat and Labour politicians applauded the raid. Trump is now showing leadership, apparently. Leadership is shown by a man widely feared to be a) unhinged b) demagogic and c) authoritarian, dropping bombs in defiance of his countrys democratic process. Labours Jeremy Corbyn, on the other hand, is savaged for querying whether a military escapade led by Trump will succeed where all other Middle Eastern military adventures have failed.

Those who critique Trumps unilateral assault on Syria are portrayed as heartless in the face of the gassing of children

Those who critique Trumps unilateral assault on Syria are portrayed as heartless in the face of the gassing of little children, just as opponents of war in Iraq and Libya were demonised as indifferent to those murdered and tortured and persecuted by Saddam Hussein and Muammar or Gaddafi. Lets be clear. The gassing of those Syrian children, and the unspeakably sickening deaths that they suffered, is a despicable crime. President Assad is a blood-soaked tyrant who has slaughtered countless Syrians with his barrel bombs, and deserves to spend his final days rotting in a jail cell. Vladimir Putin, too, is caked in the blood of Syrian and Chechen children alike. If I genuinely thought Donald Trump was the plausible saviour of Syrias children, then I would reconsider my position.

The history of western military intervention in the Arab world is of bloody failure. Remember Libya, and how this time things would be different, before the country descended into a violent quagmire overrun by Islamist militia? Those applauding his latest intervention are saying, implicitly or otherwise, that this time will be different. And who will apparently buck the trend of failed, bloody US military interventions in the Arab world? Trump.

There are two plausible outcomes to his raid. One, it was purely symbolic. This, currently, seems most likely. His administration gave the Russians notice, who alerted Assads forces. Syrian military casualties were minimal, and bombing raids from the targeted military base have now resumed. In that case, it was a meaningless slap on the wrists, mostly designed for a domestic American audience at a time when the president has disastrous polling numbers. The other is that this marks the beginning of a further escalation of US involvement in Syrias intractable civil war. That will mean entrusting Trump to spearhead deepening military involvement in a war which has already claimed hundreds of thousands of lives. How palatable are both options?

Good on Trump, some liberal pundits say, but he lacks strategy. In Syria, that is true. He has no strategy there. But lets not pretend for a second that a man who defeated both the Republican and Democratic party machines is lacking in strategy. He has proved adept at winning power, and now he will amass it with the help of this applauded military excursion.

Trump is now emboldened. The pundits are applauding him, his critics have praised him, his appalling approval ratings will surely edge up. Further military action by a man who has repeatedly bragged about disrespecting the norms of war will surely follow. He bypassed the constitution this time, and will be praised for it, so why shouldnt he next time? And if war comes with North Korea, what will the liberal pundits do? Some will cheerlead him all over again. Wheres your compassion for the suffering of North Korea? will be their cryto silence opposition, just as it was with Iraq and Libya. We had the Ronald Reagan Democrats, now the Trump liberals will emerge. Others will say, no, we backed the bombing of Syria, but this new war is different, this is too far.

Too late. They will have legitimised one extra-constitutional military intervention, their subsequent opposition will look as pathetic as it will be hypocritical. A man who backs torture and castigated his predecessors for not stealing Iraq and Syrias oil is being rehabilitated by the liberal pundits: as a man of compassion, a man of strength, with the resolve that Obama apparently lacked.

A wartime martial presidency may then be born, cheered on by some liberals who once decried Trump as a possible American Mussolini. Well fine: it was liberal Italy that handed Mussolini the keys, after all. History shows that war presents the ideal opportunity for the authoritarian-minded to amass, consolidate and concentrate power. Dissent can be more easily portrayed as treachery; jingoism sweeps the nation, boosting the popularity of the ruler; critics fall into line; constitutional norms can be disregarded at a time of national crisis.

What happened in Syria cannot be divorced from what is happening in Iraq and Yemen. In Mosul, at least 150 civilians perished in a Trumpist bombing raid one of the deadliest US raids since the calamitous Iraq invasion. Thats more than perished in Assads gas attack in Khan Sheikhun, even if the American weapons that slaughtered them are legal.

Dozens were killed by a US strike against a school in Syria last month, largely unmourned by Trumps new apologists, as were the 30 civilians killed in Trumps failed Yemen raid in January, children among them. There are children in Yemen too, you know, and they are being slaughtered by US- and UK-backed Saudi warplanes. Trumps liberal apologists wont cry for them or even acknowledge their existence: they are, apparently, unpeople, rather than kids clutching teddy bears as western-backed bombs rain on their heads.

How naive some of us were. Yes, some of those liberals were cheerleaders of George W Bush as he launched an invasion of Iraq which plunged the country and the region into blood and chaos. They learned their lesson, though, right? I mean, Trump almost makes a bloodstained Bush look like a paragon of decency in comparison surely they wont legitimise his war machine too and laud him to boot?

One of the main objections to Trump was that he was unstable, impulsive, with authoritarian instincts, and would disregard constitutional norms. This has turned out to be true, while being applauded by his erstwhile detractors for doing so, emboldening him to go further. Yet Im no fan of Trump, but will be the battle cry of his erstwhile detractors. Still, the children of Syria will die, just as they will die in Yemen and Iraq and elsewhere. History will ask: how did this man become president? And how did he maintain power when he did? Look no further than the brittle, weak, pathetic liberal opposition. The US deserves better, and so does the world.

More here:
Why are liberals now cheerleading a warmongering Trump? - The Guardian

During the presidential campaign, many Hillary Clinton voters in Atlanta's suburbs thought they were alone. That was an easy conclusion to draw because few felt comfortable putting Clinton signs on their front lawns or expressing their political preference at parties. Their neighbors seemed overwhelmingly Republican.

It took the presidency of Donald Trump to shock them out of their quietude. They emerged from the bunkers, blinking and surprised to find they had so much company. Many are now harnessing their distress to their newly discovered numbers and going activist. They are thus giving a 30-year-old novice named Jon Ossoff a fighting chance to win the congressional seat recently vacated by Tom Price, Trump's secretary of health.

This wouldn't be happening without Trump. Today's scenes of environmental degradation and Russian infiltration -- under the tweeting fingers of a possibly mad emperor -- would wake the political dead. They have electrified a left prone to battling itself over deviations in liberal scripture but also a center wanting nothing more than a day of normal news.

In other times, #resistance might come off as a bit melodramatic. Trump world has made it feel downright mainstream.

Trump has thus transformed the liberal ranks from stray cats to packs of dogs. Dogs act bolder when traveling in numbers. Dogs want community.

Participants in the women's marches in January recall the events not so much for stoking anger but for providing comfort. The throngs of peaceful marchers overwhelmed the few radicals ready to rumble. Their sense of well-being came from communing with so many ordinary women -- and men -- who felt as they did.

Like the tea party right, liberals are flocking to their own media campfires for warmth, talking points and calls to action. On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow is now edging out the troubled king of right-wing palaver, Bill O'Reilly, intotalaudience. (She has long dominated him in the coveted 25- to 54-year-old demographic.)

On CBS, Stephen Colbert has become the go-to guy for smart and witty late-night commentary from a liberal perspective. As such, he is bringing younger audiences back to network TV.

And in a shoutout to "CBS Evening News," let us praise anchor Scott Pelley. His willingness to tell what's really happening with minimal dramatics and apparently little concern about being attacked by the right is refreshing.

The surprise hit podcast of 2017 -- "Pod Save America" -- stars three luminaries from the Obama administration. It offers lively and interesting political chat -- but nothing that would have seemed earth-shattering before Nov. 8. Now it's vacuuming up audiences and advertising.

Speaking of which, it was interesting to see how quickly major advertisers deserted O'Reilly's show after reports of the host's penchant for serial sexual harassment. In doing so, they must have considered the perils of displeasing his avid fan base. On the other hand, how many millions of women were marching?

The tea party's membership was never huge in numbers, but the movement knew how to turn communal passions into political clout. Members jeered politicians and joined enthusiastic protests. But their real power came from marching as a group to party primaries and other elections that less engaged voters ignored.

Democrats hope to use that strategy in the special election in Georgia's 6th Congressional District. Ossoff is currently running against several Republicans. Should he get more than 50 percent of the vote, he'd take a storied seat once inhabited by former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Political revolutions don't happen on Twitter. They happen when like-minded citizens join to vote.

As jazz poet Gil Scott-Heron famously vocalized, "The revolution will not be televised. ... The revolution will be live."

Go here to see the original:
Harrop: Liberals find community - Quad City Times