Conservative Party fundraiser: "I agree with you"
I received an e-mail from a conservative activist whose name would be known to many readers of this blog. The activist asked me to share this story, but not to disclose other identifying details. I thought it was interesting:
I got a phone call from a Conservative fundraiser today, asking me if I still supported the party. I said yes. The fundraiser said there may be an election as early as June 16 and asked would I consider giving again to help them win a majority government?
I said that I would be giving all the money that I would normally give to the Conservatives to the bloggers and others that are being crushed by human rights commissions. I said I was disappointed with the Tory government's not standing up against the way human rights commissions are crushing our fundamental freedoms. I mentioned the Justice Department brief that showed government support for the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
I said I would not be giving any more money to the party until it took a stand. I said I knew Stephen Harper and his party had their hearts in the right place but they had to act.
Well, to my shock, the fundraiser said, "I agree with you."
The fundraiser also said, "You are not the only one."
Other Conservative donors are telling the Tories they won't give them any money until they act on this.
According to the latest filings with Elections Canada, the Conservatives raised over $5 million in the first three months of 2008, compared to less than $900,000 for the Liberals. (Interestingly, the NDP were second, with $1.1 million.) A boycott of donations, such as the one mentioned above, and in the cases of Ward Benedict and Sean McCormick, below, is not going to bring the party to its knees. But it will certainly get the party's attention, which is the point.
The Conservatives -- indeed, all parties -- don't just use their fundraising calls and letters to raise money. They also use them as an opportunity to communicate with members and supporters, to take the pulse of their base. The kind of anger that would cause life-long supporters and donors to threaten to cut off the Tories is something that certainly will be fed back to the Parliamentary caucus. The subject has obviously come up often enough that the particular fundraiser in this case had encountered it before.
I think this is a sign that the Conservatives have finally been seized with this issue. They didn't really want to be; until now, they were happy to let Keith Martin, a Liberal, be the leader, and for the conservative blogosphere to thump the tub, and for pundits to weigh in. But when the Conservative government issued its 50-page defence of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its prosecution of section 13 thought crimes, it was no longer a neutral observer -- it became part of the problem.
Keep at it -- I think we're coming close to the tipping point. And with a spring election all but called off, the government has some time to fix the problem, and to redeem itself.
P.S. Another long-time party activist sent me copies of his simple but powerful letters to the chair of the
By the way, in case it's unclear, I think the Conservative government is going to do the right thing here. I think they just need to know how important this issue is. That was always part of the plan, remember: denormalize the HRCs to build public pressure, to make it possible for political action -- in that order. It's been a nutty six months for the government -- they truly thought they were going to the polls on three occasions. Bringing up a new, uncharted issue like reforming or abolishing HRCs just didn't fit with the election script. I think that Stephane Dion's serial surrenders, combined with the growth of the issue, spiked by the Nicholson memo, means things are about to reach a critical mass.
Blogrolls
