this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
61 points (91.8% liked)

Canada

7196 readers
549 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories

πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

πŸ’» Universities

πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping

πŸ—£οΈ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
61
Meet The Billionaire-Funded Pro-Israel Group Influencing Media (www.readthemaple.com)
submitted 9 months ago by grte@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca -4 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I mean, it makes sense to do this in our current socioeconomic system. If anyone wants to do anything to the contrary they should setup a similar effort. Unless you somehow outlaw this sort of organizing which would probably violate the charter.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 21 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"Just be equally rich" isn't really a good solution to the problem of billionaires having undue influence in politics and media.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Unions aren't typically comprised of billionaires and they're an example for entities that can have similar influence. Perhaps even greater since their members are the source of income for the billionaires. I'm not suggesting to "just be equally rich", but if we have to go there, I'd suggest to "make billionaires poorer." If history is any guide, it seems very difficult to stop them from achieving their goals without reducing the capital they control.

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I came across this interesting article when I was doing some prior research on another one of these "charities" which are entirely about political advocacy.

When Trudeau changed the ITA in late 2018 to allow charities to spend 100% of their resources on public policy dialogue and development activities (PPDDA) it means that charities, both β€œleft”, β€œright” and β€œcentre” registered charities, can spend 100% of their resources on PPDDAs! Yes not 10%, 20% or 49% but 100%. Yes that means that a registered charity does not actually have to do any charitable work – the Liberals have just redefined certain political activities as being charitable. PPDDA is similar to non-partisan political activities under the old rules. Charities are still not allowed to support or oppose a candidate or political party.

So prior to 2018 charities were required to do some amount of actual charitable work, while this change in 2018 opened the door for charity organizations whose work is 100% political action. It seems like it would be easy enough to change that back.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 4 points 9 months ago

This sounds dangerously close to enabling wholesale corporate lobbying via charities. That said a brief search seems to suggest that PPDDA != lobbying from legal and regulatory standpoint.