Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Calling The Canadian Revenue Agency. Hellooo? Hellloooo?

The Fraser Institute  continues to take ($150,000) in Koch Brothers money, and claims zero political activity in 2011.  If the Sierra Club is in violation, you would think Fraser would be. Mind you, its probably not enough to bitch.  Someone would probably have to lodge a complaint with the Compliance Division of the Charities Directorate of Revenue Canada.  The way Ethical Oil did.  Hmm.  A template for similar action against Fraser?

8 comments:

James Calder said...

Same goes for the "Manning Centre for Building Democracy".

crf said...

Chill. I'm sure Vivian Krause is all over it.

Holly Stick said...

While Levant uses Krause's stuff (she says inaccurately) to claims American enviro groups are using Chief Spence etc as frontmen.

https://twitter.com/FairQuestions/status/291017760320925696

https://twitter.com/ezralevant/status/291150347131559936

Robert G. Harvie said...

Well.

Good to see things back to normal.. had me concerned there with the last post admonishing government involvement in private enterprise, thought you had taken out a membership in the Fraser Institute.

Clearly not.

Regarding this post, I would offer the suggestion that while the Fraser Institute, clearly, has a political "voice".. it is not overtly political.

The Sierra Club IS overtly political. They give editorial space on the website for Elizabeth May for goodness sake:

http://www.sierraclub.ca/en/main-page/elizabeth-may-cnooc-take-over-nexen

Meanwhile, the alleged partisan Fraser Instute produces articles such as:

"Harper's bloated budgets shouldn't earn Frum's praise"

"The Tories's Spending Problem"

But, in fairness, I don't personally think that giving charitable status to organizations who espouse political viewpoints from either side of the spectrum is particularly healthy... even when their views, like the Fraser Institute, are more ideological than partisan.

There is no voice anymore for average people who don't have the time and money to impact government through some special interest ideological zealot group -right, left and otherwise.

And politicians know it. They give lip service to the "grassroots" of their parties, while they bow down to those who promise the most money and votes.





Holly Stick said...

Rob, you're full of crap. Fraser Institute is all propaganda and no charity.

Meanwhile trouble in dishonest Conland:
http://storify.com/APicazo/even-vivian-krause-is-calling-ezra-on-his-bs

Robert G. Harvie said...

Curious Holly how we just dismiss others so blithely by calling views we don't accept as "propoganda".

Would it be helpful if I just reduced any views of the Sierra Club as "propoganda"?

bigcitylib said...

Rob, Sierra Club works WAYYY harder to get things right than Fraser. You are peddling a false equivalence.

Robert G. Harvie said...

But, at the end of the day, my position was that it seems suspect for the taxpayer to be funding, through charity designations, groups who espouse political beliefs and seek to create political pressure.. a la the Fraser Institute.

Sorry.

I guess I was agreeing with your point.. but suggested that the point be enlarged to diminish the ability that special interest groups have to influence government.

Not saying you can't give money to the Sierra Club, or PETA, or whowver.. only that it shouldn't be tax-deductible. That would remove the effort at "flow through" charities and increase the ability of average everyday people to have some voice.