€10,000 reward for info on Libertas Funding!

Scofflaw

Bob Z wrote: »

i read somewhere in 2006 or 2007 that no major party had recieved ANY donations. I cant remember wher i read it but i found this link

http://www.village.ie/Politics/Government/Ethics_watchdog_criticises_party_funding/

You can find it here on SIPO.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bob Z

Scofflaw wrote: »

You can find it here on SIPO.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Didnt the The Standards in Public Office Commission say that there was something underhand going on? That although the parties were declaring donations that they were supposed to they werent getting other donations in such a way as not declare them?

Scofflaw

Bob Z wrote: »

Didnt the The Standards in Public Office Commission say that there was something underhand going on? That although the parties were declaring donations that they were supposed to they werent getting other donations in such a way as not declare them?

More or less - they said there was a lack of transparency over how the election campaigns were funded, and that they felt that sub-threshold donations were part of the problem. As far as I remember, anyone in receipt of donations has to declare a specific bank account for them and hand over the details to SIPO - so presumably they are talking from some degree of knowledge there.

They regularly make the point that the SIPO rules are intended to provide transparency, and that they are not really achieving that - as witness the fact that a third party can spend the best part of a million on a campaign without us having any idea where that money comes from.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

So just so I'm straight. Ganley didnt do anything wrong by the letter of the law. People though, understandably, want to know where he got the money. At this point it is up to him to decide whether he makes this info available or not. Even if the loophole was closed laws can't be applied retrospectively.

One last question if someone provided the info other that Ganley would they then not be in breach of some confidentiallity (sp?) laws?

I agree to wanting more transparency ACROSS the board. It makes sense but again people seem to only be focused on one side.

artanevilla

I fund them.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

So just so I'm straight. Ganley didnt do anything wrong by the letter of the law. People though, understandably, want to know where he got the money. At this point it is up to him to decide whether he makes this info available or not. Even if the loophole was closed laws can't be applied retrospectively.

One last question if someone provided the info other that Ganley would they then not be in breach of some confidentiallity (sp?) laws?

I agree to wanting more transparency ACROSS the board. It makes sense but again people seem to only be focused on one side.

Some of that, I suspect, is simply the way Libertas is new to the scene. We know that the builders fund FF, the unions fund Labour, and so on, but we can't place Libertas yet.

Also, it's really hard to resist someone who says things like this:

Mr Ganley admits he loaned €200,000 and Libertas communications director John McGurk says a repayment facility is in place for this loan.

But the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO) is looking for a copy of this loan agreement as well as further information on the Libertas funding. SIPO has issued a final warning to Libertas, giving it seven days to answer queries on its funding.

The commission may send a report on to the chairman of the Dail citing the failure to comply.

Mr Ganley claims SIPO is now part of a 'Brussels agenda' against his organisation.

"We have engaged with the Standards in Public Office Commission since before the referendum started.

"What is very unfortunate is that some fanatics in Brussels decided that this should be the instrument that they would publicly qualify to bludgeon us.

"I have to view SIPO as an extension of that agenda. They don't want to be, I'm sure they don't want to be an extension of that agenda, but I now have to view them in that way so that involves legal review and everything else and that is what we are going to do," he said.

Now, I'm afraid SIPO are on our side. Without them we would have no idea how politics in Ireland is funded - and they are as aware of the shortcomings in their legislative powers as any of us. Describing them as part of a Brussels conspiracy against you isn't just terminally foolish but positively insulting. Threatening them, as Ganley appears to be doing here, is...what? I don't know, really...put crudely, it sucks the big one. It is the act of a tit, of someone who believes the rules were made for other people.

cordially,
if a little crudely,
Scofflaw

anonymous_joe

Ganley might not have done anything that breaks the law, but there's a clear breach of the spirit of the law here.

Libertas campaigned as an organisation in a field where only political parties usually play. Clearly there are major questions as to whose funding him.

I love the paradox that Irish people are unhappy at the idea of being 'manipulated' by Europe, but will happily let a completely unknown group of people manipulate them.

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

Now, I'm afraid SIPO are on our side. Without them we would have no idea how politics in Ireland is funded - and they are as aware of the shortcomings in their legislative powers as any of us. Describing them as part of a Brussels conspiracy against you isn't just terminally foolish but positively insulting. Threatening them, as Ganley appears to be doing here, is...what? I don't know, really...put crudely, it sucks the big one. It is the act of a tit, of someone who believes the rules were made for other people.

cordially,
if a little crudely,
Scofflaw

It does seem a bit arrogant. I'm guessing at best he has had dealings with them even though he didn't have to (rightly or wrongly) and felt he was doing them a favour even at that. Still, not a good idea.

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Ganley might not have done anything that breaks the law, but there's a clear breach of the spirit of the law here.

Libertas campaigned as an organisation in a field where only political parties usually play. Clearly there are major questions as to whose funding him.

True. It's not ideal but unfortunately he's well in his right.

I love the paradox that Irish people are unhappy at the idea of being 'manipulated' by Europe, but will happily let a completely unknown group of people manipulate them.

Yeah I equally love the paradox that Irish people are unhappy at the idea of being 'manipulated' by Libertas, but will happily let Europe try and manipulate them into having a re-vote

Also I like how you put 'manipulate' in commas in one instance to show that it's just paranoia but not over the other so we KNOW they are manipulating us so I borrowed it. Hope you don't mind.

kmick

I fully expect Lisbon 2 to go to a yes vote but I am proud that the Irish subjected it to a level of scrutiny that other countries didnt even though it has made us a pariah in Germany, France et al. I would argue that that attitude to the Irish always existed but it took Lisbon for the big players to be able to attack us legitimately in their eyes. Its clear that the treaty itself has very little benefit for Ireland directly.

oscarBravo

kmick wrote: »

I fully expect Lisbon 2 to go to a yes vote but I am proud that the Irish subjected it to a level of scrutiny that other countries didnt even though it has made us a pariah in Germany, France et al. I would argue that that attitude to the Irish always existed but it took Lisbon for the big players to be able to attack us legitimately in their eyes. Its clear that the treaty itself has very little benefit for Ireland directly.

This has what to do with the thread topic?

limklad

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Ganley might not have done anything that breaks the law, but there's a clear breach of the spirit of the law here.

Libertas campaigned as an organisation in a field where only political parties usually play. Clearly there are major questions as to whose funding him.

I love the paradox that Irish people are unhappy at the idea of being 'manipulated' by Europe, but will happily let a completely unknown group of people manipulate them.

While some people may be manipulated by Libertas and other extreme groups , that is because of all the broken promises by our political parties. We do not know the true nature of political parties and extreme groups until they get power, by then it too late and we (the Electorate and non Electorate) will have to suffer the consequences and try to clean up the mess afterwards.

Bob Z

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Libertas campaigned as an organisation in a field where only political parties usually play. Clearly there are major questions as to whose funding him.

I love the paradox that Irish people are unhappy at the idea of being 'manipulated' by Europe, but will happily let a completely unknown group of people manipulate them.

This is something that i have heard said before. Did the No side only win because their was more money in the No side. Does that mean referendums can only be won by whoever has the most money?

asdasd

This is something that i have heard said before. Did the No side only win because their was more money in the No side. Does that mean referendums can only be won by whoever has the most money?

No. The YES side had vastly more money than tiny little libertas - and it had the power of the Catholic church, a not inconsiderable force and money making machine, as well as the power of every State offical in Europe who said anthing in favour of the referendum, as many did.

Despite that those of us of independent mind voted NO because we didnt agree with the treaty.

I am tired to my back teeth of hearing people tell me why I voted NO, that it had something to do with fear, or Libertas, yada yada yada.


I voted NO becase I chose to. And like most NO voters we were not taking the dicacts of Leaders of Europe, the Trade Unions, The Church, all Political parties etc.

We voted against our political parties ( except for the Shinners). See?

We were the independent ones. Not the people who mumbled "How High" when the establishment said ?Jump.

oscarBravo

asdasd wrote: »

I am tired to my back teeth of hearing people tell me why I voted NO, that it had something to do with fear, or Libertas, yada yada yada.

Who told you why you voted the way you did?

We were the independent ones. Not the people who mumbled "How High" when the establishment said ?Jump.

Now who's telling other people why they voted how they voted?

anonymous_joe

ShooterSF wrote: »

It does seem a bit arrogant. I'm guessing at best he has had dealings with them even though he didn't have to (rightly or wrongly) and felt he was doing them a favour even at that. Still, not a good idea.



True. It's not ideal but unfortunately he's well in his right.

Yeah I equally love the paradox that Irish people are unhappy at the idea of being 'manipulated' by Libertas, but will happily let Europe try and manipulate them into having a re-vote

Also I like how you put 'manipulate' in commas in one instance to show that it's just paranoia but not over the other so we KNOW they are manipulating us so I borrowed it. Hope you don't mind.

Perfectly within your rights. My opinions are fairly obvious.

limklad wrote: »

While some people may be manipulated by Libertas and other extreme groups , that is because of all the broken promises by our political parties. We do not know the true nature of political parties and extreme groups until they get power, by then it too late and we (the Electorate and non Electorate) will have to suffer the consequences and try to clean up the mess afterwards.

The No side told lies, the Yes side ran a poor campaign.

People were lied to, the issue was muddied, people were told they were voting against things taht just weren''t there. Things like the conscription etc.

Bob Z wrote: »

This is something that i have heard said before. Did the No side only win because their was more money in the No side. Does that mean referendums can only be won by whoever has the most money?

Obama spent more money than McCain. Look who won. It sure as fúck makes things easier.

asdasd wrote: »

No. The YES side had vastly more money than tiny little libertas - and it had the power of the Catholic church, a not inconsiderable force and money making machine, as well as the power of every State offical in Europe who said anthing in favour of the referendum, as many did.

Despite that those of us of independent mind voted NO because we didnt agree with the treaty.

I am tired to my back teeth of hearing people tell me why I voted NO, that it had something to do with fear, or Libertas, yada yada yada.


I voted NO becase I chose to. And like most NO voters we were not taking the dicacts of Leaders of Europe, the Trade Unions, The Church, all Political parties etc.

We voted against our political parties ( except for the Shinners). See?

We were the independent ones. Not the people who mumbled "How High" when the establishment said ?Jump.

The Catholic Church made it clear that weren't telling people what to do because they thought that would be counter-productive.

The Yes campaign was appallingly badly run. I think a lot of people wnated to stick one to the government, and as such, I doubt the Lisbon treaty was what was being voted on.

Having seen the political groups actually against that, they all seem rather nasty and sinister. Things like right-wing English Euro-sceptics et al.

Gareth37

studiorat wrote: »

The Village magazine relaunched this week offers a €10,000 reward to find the source of Libertas' funding for the Lisbon decision.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1128/1227825379911.html