…then, the substance (I)

In his bizarre and secretive Tuesday evening statement, former President of the PC Party, now Chief Electoral Officer, Paul Reynolds, states:

As for the involvement of a PC Party worker in the election campaign, it is not only acceptable under the Elections Act, 1991, but a common occurrence during elections for candidates and political parties to pay campaign workers and organizers for their work […]

Indeed. Acceptable and common.

Just how common?

In the 2007 general election, 6 NDP candidates, 29 Liberals, and 47 Progressive Conservatives reported “Salaries & Benefits” in their election finance filings.

What’s more, the Dippers reported an average of $1667, the Liberals an average of $2292, and the PC candidates an average of $3027 in salaries and benefits (out of the districts where they reported any at all.)

The largest Liberal S&B expenses reported were Isles of Notre Dame($8725), Port de Grave ($8165) and Trinity-Bay de Verde ($5750). The best-paid PC campaigns were reported again in Isles of Notre Dame ($8710), Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi ($7075), and Lewisporte ($7000).

It’s almost as if all stops were pulled out to defeat the incumbent party leaders at any cost, or something.

The Osborg reported a total of $13,640 in total salaries and benefits in their re-election campaigns in St. John’s North, South, and West. On the flip side, the Reids in Mount Pearl reported a combined $400 in salaries and benefits in their faint-hope campaigns.

And how, pray tell, is a body able to bandy these figures out?

Because they were reported.

And there’s the rub.

It’s one thing to be an acceptable and common occurrence.

But to be a lawful one, is something else entirely.