[4Canada]

<strong>Written By:</strong> 4Canada
<strong>Date:</strong> 2007-01-03 12:26:22
<a href="/article/82622409-election-financing-comes-clean">Article Link</a>

Prime Minister Stephen Harper set the strict new contribution limits, building on the reforms put in place by former prime minister Jean Chrétien in 2003. Both men were working from a blueprint drafted by former New Democratic Party leader Ed Broadbent in 2002.

The three politicians did not collaborate. They did not share a vision or a philosophy. They barely acknowledged each other's efforts.

But over the course of five years, they revolutionized the way politics is practised in Canada.

No future Canadian prime minister will be beholden to corporate interests, as every national leader from Sir John A. Macdonald to Paul Martin has been to some degree. Big Business will never be able to mount another massive blitz, as it did in the 1988 election, to promote free trade with the United States. The era of $5,000-a-plate political fundraisers (at least at the federal level) is over.

Because this story has no single hero and no sudden breakthrough, it hasn't made headlines. But from a citizen's point of view, it ranks as one of the most positive – and surprising – developments of 21st-century politics.

Who would have believed, at the dawn of the millennium, that Chrétien, who had raked in millions at fundraising dinners, would pull the plug on corporate donations?

Who would have believed the Liberal party, whose president Stephen LeDrew denounced Chrétien's plan as "dumb as a bag of hammers," would enact the ban?

Who would have believed Harper, champion of free markets and opponent of government regulations, would retain and strengthen Chrétien's reforms?

Who would have believed Broadbent, supported by the autoworkers for 14 years as NDP leader and 21 years as MP for Oshawa, would propose an end to political donations by unions?

Most of all, who would have believed that a political system tainted by the sponsorship scandal, infected by public cynicism and dependent on corporate largesse would be getting cleaner and more transparent by 2007?

<a href="http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/167240">http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/167240</a>







[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on January 4, 2007]

[Marcarc]

Are we talking about the guy who was found to have not disclosed donations?

[Innes]

Whenever a politician closes a loophole it is more "smoke and mirrors" than really trying to change anything. Even before the latest changes corporations had created a highly developed system to influence political agenda and elections and that is through advocacy groups, think tanks, and other NGOs through their control over the mainstream media.

When corporations made donations directly to political parties the public at least had some idea who might potentially might be trying to buy influence. When a corporation donates money to an advocacy group such as the Fraser Institute this is done anonymously and they still get an income tax receipt and power to direct the public agenda. The creation of Manning's institute was another example of using "soft" money to promote the political agenda of a political party. One of the problems Stephen Harper had with Kingsley was Harper's belief that the use of "soft" money should be allowed during the electoral process.

It is true that during election campaigns one might see the new rules as preventing corporate money from entering the process but in fact it is unlikely that will happen. In fact, you will see people like Mr. Manning, or the heads of various corporate advocacy on your television screens acting as spokes persons for a party or as supposedly "independent" commentators. Columinists and editors are no different as they try to promote one party or another.

Today the main spokespersons for the new Conservatives are corporate lobbyists. Will this stop during election campaigns? It did not stop during the last campaign.

Parties use groups such as the Fraser Institute or the Conference Board of Canada during elections to promote their agendas without money changing hands.

What the changes to the elections act actually do is disguise the power of the corporate influence.