Inside Politics

UPDATED - ATTENTION ANONYMITY-SEEKING LIBERALS: Heed the advice of Adam Smith at your peril.

by Kady O'Malley Posted: May 4, 2010 2:08 PM Last Updated: May 5, 2010 7:46 AM
Not, mind you, the Adam Smith responsible for The Wealth of Nations, who is wikipedescribed as a leading pioneer in modern economics, but the somewhat lesser known Adam Smith who was recently appointed as your party's fundraiser-in-chief, yet who seems oddly unfamiliar with the current laws on political financing. 

How else, really, can one explain this suggestion that appears at the end of the e-call to arms that was sent out under his name last night, in response to the comments made by Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth, under the eye-catching subject line "Shut up or lose your funding"?  


Your $25 or $50 donation is a show of force against Stephen Harper's Conservative culture of deceit and contempt, and a reminder of who's working for who. More importantly, it will move us closer to the time when a Liberal government can work with Canadians - as a partner, not a bully. 

Yours, 
Adam Smith 
National Director, National Liberal Fund Liberal Party of Canada 

 PS. Political donations under $200 annually are reported to Elections Canada anonymously. If Harper's intimidation tactics make it difficult for you to publicly oppose him, you can still show your solidarity with those who don't have that option.

The bolded text links directly to the online donation page. 

It's actually quite a clever, if just the slightest bit hyperbolic contrivance which reinforces the narrative that the preceding letter attempted to set by suggesting that those who are simply too terrified at the prospect of swift and savage retribution can take advantage of the current threshold for mandatory receipting, reporting and disclosure of donations. It's also perfectly legal, as far as I can tell.  

The problem, of course, is that the threshold in question would appear to be $20, not $200 -- which means that anyone who takes Adam Smith up on his offer, and sends off a donation of, say, $50, will indeed show up in the party's quarterly report, thereby exposing themselves -- very possibly against their wishes and without their knowledge -- to the very same "intimidation tactics" that the Liberals are so keen to denounce. 

Really, with a friend like that Adam Smith fellow, who needs enemies? 

UPDATE: Yikes: it turns out that Adam Smith was absolutely right, and I was thoroughly wrong, at least on the mandatory disclosure and publication of donations under $200. I still think using the word "anonymous" is a bit disingenuous, since the party has to know who you are -- the limit for truly anonymous donations is, in fact, $20 -- but your name only has to be reported to Elections Canada once the amount goes over $200. (That's cumulative, by the way, which means that if you made five "anonymous" donations of $50 each throughout the year, they'd all show up in the annual report.) My apologies to the Liberals for getting it wrong! 

Tags: adam smith (the other one), blackberry jungle, fundraising follies, maybe he's better with economic philosophy