Ka-ching!?

Interesting news has been seeping out of the Wildrose Party's West Edmonton bunker. I caution readers that the contents of this post have not been verified as accurate, so please keep that in mind. Having said this, I have opened moderated comments on this post in case anybody on the Wildrose Party Executive chooses to respond directly to the issues raised herein.

The first issue that needs to be addressed has to do with Wildrose Party advertising and the oil royalties issue. I am in receipt of information that the Wildrose Party entered into an arrangement with a representative of an oil company in the latter part of September, or early October, 2007, wherein the oil company agreed to pay for a Wildrose Party media release or advertisement opposing the Stelmach Government's proposed oil and gas royalty increase. This arrangement was supposedly discussed at an emergency meeting held by the Wildrose Executive in the latter part of September. Under the terms of this alleged arrangement, the Wildrose Party media placement would be fully paid for by the oil company, subject to the oil company having final say on the content of the release or advertisement.

My questions:

1. Did the Wildrose Party of Alberta receive an offer from an oil company to directly or indirectly pay for a Wildrose Party media release or advertisement during the months of September or October, 2007?
2. If so, was the offer accepted, when did this transaction occur, and what are the particulars of the media placement that was paid for in this manner?

The second issue I would like to address concerns rumours of a management services contract that may exist between the Wildrose Party and the Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy. Under the terms of the alleged contract, the Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy is to provide management services to the Wildrose Party of Alberta, in exchange for compensation in the amount of $150,000.00 per annum.

My questions:

1. Has the Wildrose Party of Alberta, or any non‑profit corporation or trust established by the Wildrose Party of Alberta for the purposes of s.6(3) of the Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, entered into a contract with the Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy?
2. If so, what are the terms of this contract, and would the Wildrose Party be prepared to make public disclosure of same?

While we await confirmation or denial of these transactions, I must state that if these allegations prove to be true, the Wildrose Party of Alberta has, in the period of a few months, gone well beyond the achievements of any of the other right wing rump parties in Alberta.

In fact, it may no longer be fair to refer to them as a "rump party". Money coming in is one of the key indicators of a political party's success, and if the Wildrosers can afford to pay management fees of $150,000.00 per year, they are on a whole different level than the other small parties - including the Alberta Alliance.

Shilling for oil companies ...

... seems to have its advantages.

Update (11/16/07): I have sent the following email to the Wildrosers, in order to expedite things a bit.

Request for comment
1 message
The Watcher (wildrosereport) Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 1:27 PM
To: The Wildrose Party of Alberta

Good day gentlemen.

I write to you in my capacity as publisher of The Wildrose Report. I have published a post today in which I reproduce the substance of two rumours that I have become aware of concerning the internal operations of the Wildrose Party of Alberta. The first rumour concerns a possible arrangement whereby an oil company paid - either directly or indirectly - for a Wildrose Party media placement during the latter part of September, or early October, 2007. The second rumour concerns the possible existence of a lucrative management services contract between the Wildrose Party of Alberta, and the Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy.

I am seeking comment from the Wildrose Party on these matters. See the questions posed in my post: http://wildrosereport.blogspot.com/2007/11/ka-ching.html.

Moderated comments are open on the post, so if you choose to comment on these matters, you can do so there, or by simply responding to this e-mail (I will publish any response you choose to make verbatim).

Thank you for your time in considering this request.

--
Regards,

The Watcher

Link Byfield appears on Dave Rutherford to discuss royalties

Link Byfield appeared on the Dave Rutherford show on September 25, 2007, in order to provide the Wildrose Party's spin on the Alberta Royalty Review Panel's final report.

At the beginning of the show, Rutherford indicates that Link Byfield seems to be "siding with the industry". I don't think anyone would quarrel with that assessment.

But hey, oil companies need political representation too.

Click to listen:



By the way, the retail price of gasoline in Alberta has gone up over 100% in the last 6 years. This represents an average annual inflationary increase of over 16% per year. U.S. Presidential candidate Ron Paul refers to inflation as "the inflation tax". It is just like a tax, except that it is levied on citizens by the private sector. Such massive increases in the inflation tax reduce the real value of the population's wages and savings.

The truth of the matter is that both government and industry have benefited massively from Alberta's royalty regime and inflation tax. The average Albertan gets screwed in the process, but this rather obvious point never seems to cross Link's mind.

He certainly doesn't take the time to mention it.

Wildrose Party on the verge of missing another deadline

Further confirmation today that the Wildrose Party's registration petition is in trouble:

... party organizer (and senator-elect) Link Byfield tells me the party is now one-third of the way to collecting the 6,000 signatures it needs to become official.

2,000 measly signatures?

What happened to the "overwhelming positive response" Rob James was boasting about in the July 7 edition of the National Post?

This admission from Link Byfield basically confirms the prediction I made back on September 9. There is no way the Wildrose Party is going to meet its self-imposed September 30 deadline. The September 30 deadline came about when the Wildrose Party announced its "new plan" on September 5. The September 5 plan, which replaced the plan that had been in effect for July and August, asked members to blindly "commit 2 hours over the next 3 weeks." The Wildrose Executive predicted that the plan would result in successful completion of the petition so long as enough members agreed to take up the 2 hour challenge. Given that the total number of signatures gathered remains far short of the registration benchmark of 6,004, it is clear that few members responded positively to the Executive's plea, and the mysterious "new plan" has proven to be a flop, just like the first plan.

I hope Wildrose Party members have learned some lessons from what has transpired here. Albertans aren't stupid, and do not appreciate it when politicians treat them disrespectfully. The Party Executive is to blame for this fiasco, and, assuming the Party remains unregistered by the date of the convention on October 26, the Wildrose membership should demand an explanation from the Executive as to what went wrong here.

It seems clear to me that the Wildrose members are no longer responding to the current Executive, so it may be time to consider what changes need to be made in the Executive suite.

Incidentally, the main thrust of Terry O'Neill's blog post was to congratulate the Wildrose Party for coming out against the recommendations contained in the final report of the Alberta Royalty Review Panel. I am still considering this report, but am prepared to go on record now and state that it is abundantly clear to me that Rob James hasn't read the report, or doesn't understand it.

I wish to thank him for handing me such a lightweight and feckless response to a such a complex and important issue. I intend on using the Wildrose Party's news release as a club, and will be beating them over the head with it in the months to come - rhetorically of course.