[Scape]

How to Get Big Money Out of Political Campaigns

Quote:

Canadians finance federal political parties in three different ways: First, with tax deductions for donations to parties, up to 75% of the amount donated. Second, with direct refunds of some campaign expenses for candidates receiving over 10% of the vote. Third, with a per-vote subsidy of presently $1.95 per vote. There are other methods as well. Some provinces offer tax credits, refunded even if you have no taxable income; Municipalities offer direct refunds in cash even if you do not fire a provincial or federal tax return. In the US, matching grants are usually used: amounts raised by candidates or parties are matched by the government, without requiring the donor to pay four times as much and wait for refunds, and without requiring the candidates to explain to their donors (the matching grant system was recently authorized for municipalities in Ontario to replace costly direct refund systems).

The Conservative government's November 2008 "economic update" contained a proposal to cut off only the per-vote subsidy. While they received more money than any other party under this measure than any other, it was a smaller percentage of their overall public financing. Other parties do not have as many donors who qualify for tax deductions and accordingly cannot raise as much from their base. When per-vote financing was instituted in 2003 it was seen as a substitute for banned corporate and union financing, and as a stopgap measure until some kind of electoral reform could be considered. Small parties are grossly disadvantaged under Canada's antique first-past-the-post voting system, and per-vote funds were intended in part to let their voice reflect their actual support. So the move to cut off only per-vote funding while doing nothing to replace deductions with credits or with matching grants, without bringing back other avenues of funding that per-vote replaced, is a simple political trick.

Because the Conservatives rely mostly on tax deductions for those with taxable income more, and because the other parties mostly on per-vote funding for more than half their funding, the move is obviously prejudicial against those parties. But all parties are in debt after the surprise snap October 2008 election, which was held eleven months earlier than specified in the fixed-election-date law. The only way parties can borrow is to rely on the per-vote subsidy as a guaranteed source of income - the only kind banks will be able to lend against. So the Conservatives' move is grossly disadvantageous to all other parties because it removes the credit they need to fight elections credibly on short notice. This is accordingly a direct attack on democracy, one of many by the Conservative government: suing the Opposition in a SLAPP suit, ignoring Elections Canada rulings on their illegal financing schemes, pro-roguing parliament to avoid bills that embarass them coming to a vote, ignoring the will of the House and the law of the land on greenhouse gases (Kyoto), lying in campaign ads and trying to keep a leader they dislike out of television debates. Not to mention possible bribery and perjury to deny that the evidence is real.

This got forwarded to me last night and haven't had a chance to eyeball it yet. I gave it a quick scan and looks interesting but I don't know if the issue itself has legs.

[ridenrain]

What about lasy ass parties getting out and asking their supporters to send them money instead of asking the government? They might even find out and listen to what their supporters want too.

[Scape]

Keeping large corporations from buying support is important from hijacking the process outright. Otherwise we end up with less representation. If I have a choice between the government funding public campaign financing and an interest like a teachers union or big pharma I would rather it be the government because I know that if the government isn't there they will be and their vested interest is far more pronounced then that of the government.

[ridenrain]

So the only 2 options we have are government funding or corporations and unions?

[bootlegga]

ridenrain wrote:

What about lasy ass parties getting out and asking their supporters to send them money instead of asking the government? They might even find out and listen to what their supporters want too.

In theory that sounds like a great idea. Too bad less than half of Canadians even vote these days, so how many do you think are contibuting to political parties?

I won't pretend to know what the ideal system is, but I agree with Scape. I'd prefer the government pay for it instead of unions or corporations, at least until a system that better represents everyone, not just hard core party supporters.

[ridenrain]

I can guarantee you that the people who donate money follow through with a vote. Taking it out of the hand of the people completely can't make it any better.

[BeaverFever]

Because while encouraging people to become involved through donations is important, people who vote but don't have money to donate -ie low income families are excluded that way.

And as much as all parties like to pretend their donation money comes from little old grandmas sending in cheques for $5 and $10 and door-knocking campaigns raising similar amounts, most private donations are raised from exclusive $1,000 a-plate(or more)rubber chicken dinners. Recently got an invitation to meet my local MPP at a local "community" BBQ, only $1500 to attend, on a weekday nonetheless. Yeah, I'll get right on that. Obviously his idea of who's a part of the "community" in this mixed neighbourhood only includes people who have $1500 lying around and are free to come and go as they please in the middle of a weekday unlike the rest of us working stiffs.

Adding a public funding source into the mix helps keep the playing field level.

[leewgrant]

Do the folks in Grand Falls and Yahk (and places in between) like financing Quebec separation 'cause that's what you are doing?

[ridenrain]

I just paid $50 for my daughter and I to go to a very nice BBQ, hear a speach and shake hands with the PM. That's a far way away from buying influence, is it?

I agree that poor folks have better things to do with their money but I'd bet that it's also the poor that don't pay attention to politics and it's the poor that don't vote. I don't see how government funding of politial parties will make a difference here.

[bootlegga]

The difference is obvious. Each vote sends $1.95 to the party each person voted for, assuming they get enough votes to warrant it. That provides, in the beginning at least, an even playing field.

But hey, if you'd prefer to go back to the old days of the Liberals and Conservatives getting thousands of dollars from corporations and/or unions, let's turn back the clock and you'll see how well that system works.

[ridenrain]

Again we go back to framing the question as only one or the other.

ridenrain wrote:

So the only 2 options we have are government funding or corporations and unions?

Why this was brought up was to force the Bloc to rely on a small number of supporters in only one province while all other parties can draw on the whole nation. I doubt the Bloc could afford anything if they had to rely on donations alone.

[BartSimpson]

I'd prohibit all political spending. Let the candidates attend public debates and discuss the issues and face their constituents directly. But I'd not let them or anyone else spend $1 on campaigning or fundraising. This way every candidate, rich or poor, well connected or not, would be on an equal footing.

[Chumley]

BartSimpson wrote:

I'd prohibit all political spending. Let the candidates attend public debates and discuss the issues and face their constituents directly. But I'd not let them or anyone else spend $1 on campaigning or fundraising. This way every candidate, rich or poor, well connected or not, would be on an equal footing.

Wouldn't that just result in every nut with delusions of leadership ability speaking at any debate? A thousand candidates lined up for days waiting thier turn.
Ugh.

[BartSimpson]

Chumley wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

I'd prohibit all political spending. Let the candidates attend public debates and discuss the issues and face their constituents directly. But I'd not let them or anyone else spend $1 on campaigning or fundraising. This way every candidate, rich or poor, well connected or not, would be on an equal footing.

Wouldn't that just result in every nut with delusions of leadership ability speaking at any debate? A thousand candidates lined up for days waiting thier turn.
Ugh.

This would be worse than the current system...how?

[BartSimpson]

My other idea is to draft people for public service the same way we get them for jury duty. Just pick people by lottery, have them serve their two years of legislative service, and then go back to their lives.