I see nuthink! The Stephen Taylor edition.

Because that's different:

Manufactured scandal

There is a faux controversy brewing in the media and among Liberal bloggers about Conservative ads that ran in the last election...

So, the Conservative Party (national campaign) and the candidates (local campaign) were separately invoiced. It seems that all of the t's were crossed and i's dotted. Given that transfers of cash between local campaigns and the national campaign are perfectly legal, where's the scandal here? Can somebody cite a section of statute or law that has been broken here?

Well, there's always the fairly fundamental question I asked back here, Steve:

If you don't think there's anything wrong with exceeding Elections Canada spending limits, why did your party go to such trouble to conceal it in the first place?

But perhaps my regular readers would like to explain this to Mr. Taylor, as I have a busy day coming up. Feel free to leave links to your own devastating indictments.

P.S. Even the hopelessly CPoC-biased Ottawa Citizen understands the issue here (emphasis added):

The Conservative party has argued since a Citizen investigation into the ads began that addition of the tag lines qualifies the ads as local, but Elections Canada says the tag lines are irrelevant and candidate ads must oppose or support identifiable candidates to be accepted as candidate expenses.

So the Citizen sees the problem here. What's Taylor's excuse?

P.P.S. I would be remiss in not pointing out that the Cons are not even claiming that they didn't break the law. Rather, they're admitting they broke it, but that it's a stupid law in the first place. I'd be happy to point that out to Stephen but, the last time I looked, he was sitting off in the corner, humming loudly with his hands clasped firmly over his ears.

As usual.