UPDATE There are now six Registered third party advertisers - the money men.

News 100 redBy Staff

October 3, 2018




City hall - older pic

What does it cost to get an office in this building?

There are now six Third Party Advertisers.

Three more were added in the several hours since we published the first version of this report. Someone needs funding and this is how they are going to get it.

In addition to Jennifer Beleck there are now two numbered corporations on the list – note that the numbers are consecutive which suggests they were created very recently.

2657391 Ontario Limited

2657392 Ontario Limited

2657393 Ontario Limited

2657394 Ontario Limited

26573945 Ontario Limited

This is a very troubling issue.

Give us a day or two to research who the rascals are bind those corporations.

Rules that apply to Third Party Advertisers:
A third party advertisement is an advertisement in any broadcast, print, electronic or other medium that has the purpose of promoting, supporting or opposing a candidate in the election, or a “yes” or “no” answer to a question on the ballot.

A third party advertiser is any individual, corporation or trade union that causes an election campaign advertisement to appear.

A third party advertiser is required to register with the City Clerk of the municipality where they want to advertise.

Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

10 comments to UPDATE There are now six Registered third party advertisers – the money men.

  • Allison Thornton

    I don’t think that the rules should be permitting the incorporation of new numbered companies in order to make third party campaign contributions, particularly not through corporations that don’t even exist at the time the election window opens.

    With that said, for $12 to the government and a fee (my source uses $8) a corporate profile search can be obtained so it isn’t a great way of hiding for long.

    Looking forward to the big reveal…

  • Gary Scobie

    I recorded a program on Public Television called Dark Money on Monday night. It started with the the repeals within the last ten years in America of legislation, federal and state, that prohibited contributions by corporations and unions to no more than what an individual voter (or person) could contribute. These laws had been on the books since 1912, and Montana was the star state in the fight to keep big money contributions out of elections.

    I watched it last night. The scary part quickly became obvious – shell organizations with nice sounding names became fronts for massive, anonymous hidden corporate funding that produced mostly printed advertising that targeted candidates that the corporations did not want elected. Much of the advertising was made up, was lies. But late in the campaign, what candidate had the money, the expertise or time to counteract it?

    The program showed how American voters are trying to fight back and preserve the public’s, not the corporations’ right to elect people to public office, be they legislators, attorneys general or judges. So far the public is losing this fight and America is slipping toward, if not already there, government of the people, not by the people, but by the wealthiest individuals and corporations in America and possibly outside America. It is truly frightening for a country that values its citizens’ rights. Legislators and judges can be bought by the highest bidders, eliminating the need for lobbyists.

    It got me thinking, how close are we moving in Canada to such a dark money system of governance? Perhaps we are moving quite close.

  • Stephen White

    These registered third party advertisers are nothing more than anonymous fronts for special interest groups, lobbyists and developers who haven’t the courage of their own convictions to even announce their identity or confirm the aims and objectives they promote. They are an affront to voters, they degrade our electoral process, and they debase honest political debate and public participation. The fact they have to hide behind numbered corporations because they fear public scrutiny or confirmation of their identity is a statement of cowardice in itself.

  • joe gaetan

    One way to interpret this is to recognize someone has a lot to lose if their preferred candidate is not elected. Ergo someone feels the need to advertise to create friction that will favour their candidate. Follow the debates, the nasty innuendo and the money Burlingtonians, and then vote accordingly. You don’t have to be Inspector Jacques Clouseau to figure this out, the clues can be found by reading the many past posts contained in the Gazette.

  • Tom Muir

    What about developers allowing their choice of candidate to post signs on their property, and no one else and/or by removing the signs of others?

    This is rampant on Plains Rd with Judy Worsley the beneficiary, helped by Craven. It is so obvious what she is doing.

    Is that not like third party advertising, since the purpose is to promote their choice by allowing an election sign, rent free, which is an advertisement for the candidate to be posted?

    Or no different than an in kind donation?

    Or do they give a cash donation too that we don’t know about yet?

    This situation shows how badly this Council and Mayor have twisted the values, and increased the conflicts of our community by opening the door to massive developments with big dollar profits.

    This is under the table donations and hard to see.

    Disgusting, and whoever is benefiting should exposed.

    • Allison

      There’s one at Brant and Fairview as well, Tom. Three signs out front of a building where there is a “pre-consultation” for an application to demolish it, the one south of it, and some residential property to the east. Connect the dots.

    • Walter Wiebe

      I could not agree more than with Tom Muir’s comments re/ lawn signs
      Kimberley Calderbank and Rick Craven have an “exclusive agreement” in Ward 2 on selected properties with Charles Mady. (Fairview and Ghent)
      I have the e-mail from the developer telling me so.
      If either of them are elected I wonder what the favour in return will be?
      I run a clean campaign, not beholden to anyone and not aligned with any mayoral candidate
      Kimberley and Lisa Kearns have clearly aligned themselves with Craven and Meed Ward
      When you vote for 1 you get the other as a “package” deal
      Not what Burlington wants or needs.
      Be careful!
      Walter Wiebe
      Ward 2 Candidate
      Because Experience Matters!!

  • Concerned citizen

    Looking on the website there are now 6 3rd party advertisers. 5 consecutive numbered companies

  • Scott

    It’s different if they are business interests who stand to gain by the election of “their” candidates. They pay to influence your decision. The fact that these third parties exists means to me that they do have their preferred candidates in play.

  • Hans

    How is that different from simply donating to a candidate’s campaign? I wouldn’t vote for a candidate who owed that kind of favour…..