A path to political and economic corruption

Posted by tim (not verified) on November 27th, 2008.

Removing campaign funding combined with Harpers abuse of election spending rules will destroy the ability of political parties to compete fairly. And destroy our democracy and replace it with a system buying votes. Sensible political interests which attract the majority of common people will not win, but rather political interest which make the rich richer will win.

This is a path to economic and political corruption and national destruction.

I disagree that it may force

Posted by Scott Tribe (not verified) on November 27th, 2008.

I disagree that it may force an election.

a) A united opposition front against this obvious ploy may force Flaherty and Harper to back down.

b) a Defeat of the Conservatives may not automatically force an election. There is a real chance GG Jean may decide its too soon to be causing yet another 300 million dollar election and she may ask another party or parties in the House to try and form the government.

Holy Shit

Posted by Matt Vens (not verified) on November 27th, 2008.

I haven't even heard anything about this. What a sneaky bastard. You really think it will trigger an election? I think its more likely that if the Liberals and NDP raise a big enough stink the Conservatives will back down. Nobody wants an election over this. Especially since its one percent of one percent. $30 Million? I think the Cons will cave.

Your group admins are whiny

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on November 27th, 2008.

Your group admins are whiny babies who refuse to debate anything. I laugh at you.

Isn't it in fact much more

Posted by Andrew (not verified) on November 27th, 2008.

Isn't it in fact much more un-democratic that the Canadian tax-payer finances opposition parties instead of giving Canadians a free choice as to who to support through grass-roots fundraising efforts?

Failing that, Isn't it more un-democratic to give the party that receives the most votes the most funding for their future campaign, when, by virtue of their success, they are likely the best financed party to begin with? To my mind, this artificial leg-up over their competitors is what people ought to be complaining about.

To say that the Conseravtive Party will be largely un-affected is true (Ignoring the fact that $10M out of anyone's pocket is sure to have an impact) - but I would suggest that this is not a product of their financial situation - rather that both are a result of a much stronger reliance on donations from the public (63% according to CTV) than other parties, such as the Liberals, who gain less than half (37%) of their funding from the same source.

Devin - I do think you raise a good discussion point in terms of the involvement of those individuals who are not in a position to donate to a party and the potential disenfranchisement of those in low / no income situations. However, I would offer two comments: 1) The lowest income earners are not subject to substantial tax burdens, and in some cases, make no contribution at all - and as such, their $1.95 choice is primarily or soley financed by someone else who may or may not share the same political affiliation and who, in my opinion, should not be forced to subsidize a political donation to a rival party. 2) The emphasis should be on the vote - not it's 'value'. I would be far more comfortable seeing this money be put to good use funding voter activism programs designed to encourage citizen participation in the democratic process than partisan politics. The greater disconnect lies not in the inability to donate to the party of one's choice, but rather in the low voter turnout amongst the lowest income earners and in historically impoverished ridings.

Finally, saying that this move will give an unfair advantage to parties that attract the support of the infamous 'upper classes' would seem to be a statement unsupported by the statistics. The Liberal Party typically enjoys a great degree of 'upper class' establishment support, and subsequently would receive their largest donations from this segment of their base. Yet the Liberals rely on the public purse to finance a full 63% of their operations. Conversely, the N.D.P., a party typically not enjoying the support of the 'upper classes', admirably relies on the public scheme for a mere 57% of their activities. Although neither are independent, the N.D.P. must be doing something (more) right to account for this discrepancy. I'd be interested to hear your insight on this point.

don't dare post that in the

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on November 27th, 2008.

don't dare post that in the facebook group or you'll be banned. I was linked to the group from an invite and I was banned within an hour for raising those same points.

I don't see any way that any

Posted by TS. (not verified) on November 27th, 2008.

I don't see any way that any of the opposition parties could support it. The least affected of the opposition in percentage terms is the NDP, which will lose 57% of it's financing if this goes through. The Liberals will lose 63% and the BQ a whopping 86%. Losses on that scale would put both the LPC and BQ out of business, and the NDP would be in severe trouble (though having a stronger tradition of fundraising from the public they would be better equipped to survive).

If this comes to a vote any time soon, I don't see any way Mme. Jean will allow another election. It would be entirely appropriate for her to offer the other parties the chance to form a government. In the King-Byng affair, everyone knew that a Meighan government would be unstable, but a properly formed coalition government between the Liberals and NDP with BQ confidence provided for in a contractual agreement (like the Accord in Ontario between the Liberals and NDP), would be highly stable. The King-Byng precedent would not apply.

Posted to Digg

Posted by Grant Neufeld (not verified) on November 27th, 2008.

This is deeply offensive. I wish we had an electoral system that actually reflected the interests of the people of this country, instead of the first-past-the-post nonsense that puts someone like Harper (who clearly does not represent the majority of Canadians) in charge of the whole show.

I posted this to Digg to help spread this story:
http://digg.com/politics/Canadian_Conservatives_set_to_slash_funding_for...

Reply to: Isn't it in fact much more

Posted by Chris (not verified) on November 27th, 2008.

"....Conversely, the N.D.P., a party typically not enjoying the support of the 'upper classes', admirably relies on the public scheme for a mere 57% of their activities. Although neither are independent, the N.D.P. must be doing something (more) right to account for this discrepancy. I'd be interested to hear your insight on this point."

Well for one the percentages skew things a little since all national party's yearly budgets are not the same total. The Liberals and the NDP fundraise around the same amount, but the Liberal party budget is higher because their public subsidy is higher. Thus they have a higher percentage of public funding.

As you're likely well aware, the NDP gets smaller donations from many more donors compared to the liberals getting larger donations from fewer donors. So I suppose this would still imply that the 'upper class' is giving more to the party of their choice, there's just less of them doing so or to do so.

Anyways, none of this really matters since it's pretty blatant that the Conservatives are doing this to try and cripple the opposition parties under the guise of fiscal responsibility. A $10 million hit to their overflowing bank accounts is nothing compared to the near bankruptcy of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Economic Corruption

Posted by tim (not verified) on November 27th, 2008.

This is a path to economic and political corruption and national destruction.

HOW MUCH has the private sale of the 407 cost the public through increased travel cost either directly or over crowding the 401?

The 407 was sold and is the gift that keeps giving. This corporate monopoly generates the kind of money that can buy a lot more advertising then families trying to make ends meet. But it cost us all and makes us less economically efficient.

Supporting a political Party can be a business/union/organization investment insuring an economic advantage.

An over the top response...

Posted by ALW (not verified) on November 27th, 2008.

...that I might have expected from Scott Tribe, but certainly not you, Devin.

First of all, there is absolutely nothing unfair about this policy. The Conservatives stand to lose more in public funding than any other party. Yes, they're in a stronger fiscal situation overall, due to the fact that they raised the money - not from large corporations or banks - but from hundreds of thousands of grassroots donors, often who give in denominations of $10 or $20. That's hardly reflective of the nefarious image of rich people bankrolling political parties, or "upper class" support.

This change to the law keeps the influence of large private donations out entirely; I don't see why you raised that point?

This law doesn't disempower people who can't make substantial donations to political parties, because as it stands people aren't allowed to make substantial (over $1100) donations, and even the donations the most successful fundraising party - the Tories - raise are an average of just $99!

The idea that the average people who are sending of cheques under $100 to the Tories is somehow a reversion of control of the political system to economic elites, is, with great respect, totally ridiculous.

Does this policy hurt the other parties more than the Tories? For the moment, yes. But that's only because the Conservatives do a much better job of earning the support of grassroots Canadians. There's absolutely nothing to stop the other parties from going out and voluntarily canvassing for money. The fact they'd all like to be on the political party equivalent of corporate welfare has everything to do with laziness and nothing to do with fairness or democracy. And I can't wait to see how the opposition justifies to Canadians the fact that their precious subsidies are sacrosanct, while everyday Canadians are supposed to bear the brunt of lean times.

An over the top response...

Posted by ALW (not verified) on November 27th, 2008.

...that I might have expected from Scott Tribe, but certainly not you, Devin.

First of all, there is absolutely nothing unfair about this policy. The Conservatives stand to lose more in public funding than any other party. Yes, they're in a stronger fiscal situation overall, due to the fact that they raised the money - not from large corporations or banks - but from hundreds of thousands of grassroots donors, often who give in denominations of $10 or $20. That's hardly reflective of the nefarious image of rich people bankrolling political parties, or "upper class" support.

This change to the law keeps the influence of large private donations out entirely; I don't see why you raised that point?

This law doesn't disempower people who can't make substantial donations to political parties, because as it stands people aren't allowed to make substantial (over $1100) donations, and even the donations the most successful fundraising party - the Tories - raise are an average of just $99!

The idea that the average people who are sending of cheques under $100 to the Tories is somehow a reversion of control of the political system to economic elites, is, with great respect, totally ridiculous.

Does this policy hurt the other parties more than the Tories? For the moment, yes. But that's only because the Conservatives do a much better job of earning the support of grassroots Canadians. There's absolutely nothing to stop the other parties from going out and voluntarily canvassing for money. The fact they'd all like to be on the political party equivalent of corporate welfare has everything to do with laziness and nothing to do with fairness or democracy. And I can't wait to see how the opposition justifies to Canadians the fact that their precious subsidies are sacrosanct, while everyday Canadians are supposed to bear the brunt of lean times.

The elephant in the room

Posted by Mark Francis (not verified) on November 27th, 2008.

Here's the clincher:

Will Harper likewise withhold the huge tax credit given to those who donate to political parties? That's a huge "subsidy" as well -- one that benefits the Conservatives the most.

The first $400 donated results in the feds reimbursing $300 (75%). The next $350 reimburses 50% ($175), and the next $525 reimburses 33.33% for $175.

Donating the max of $1275 results in the feds reimbursing the donor one-half of the amount: $650.

The actual tax form is here:

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/5000-d1/5000-d1-07e.pdf

Right now, I can use my vote to allocate just under $2/year to the party I vote for. Using the political donation tax credit, I can choose to allocate up to $650 of taxpayers' money per year to a political party.

This donor tax credit, however, is of little to no benefit to those with low incomes as it is a non-refundable tax credit (you have to pay federal income tax to collect it) -- not that low income persons can really afford to donate money to political parties that easily anyway.

With the current system, at least there's some democratic relationship between how many votes a party got and its funding.

If Flaherty does not introduce measures to withhold the tax credit, then it will be clear that the only intention here is to hobble the opposition parties.

This is another example of incremental change by the Conservatives. A few years ago, they reduce the maximum contribution limit because the Liberals were on average raising funds from a smaller number of large donors, while the Conservatives were raising theirs mostly from a large number of small donors. The Conservatives changed the law to drastically reduce contribution limits, favouring their funding model and hurting the opposition.

And hurt it did.

Well, they are at it again, all under the guise of somehow helping our economy, which actually can't be true, because cutting spending right now will do nothing. And since Harper is doing nothing until next year in the way of economic stimulus, these cuts won't do anything economically positive.

Harper has been a failure in the two areas which matter the most: the environmental and economic files -- which, to me, are completely intertwined.

I want Harper out. Now. As this is to be a confidence vote, here's the chance.

This would not mean that we'd have another meaningless election. No. The opposition would have the full right to first approach the Governor General and ask to form the next government without an election. I can’t imagine the GG not at least letting the Liberals try.

All that the Liberals have to say in Parliament is that Harper's lack of economic policy is a failure (a clear truth), and that Canada does not have the luxury to wait until the next budget to take action in what is a global crisis.

This entire Conservative-fabricated confrontation over political funding would be buried in the cacophony.

[I think this will now be a blog post too... ;)]

Aaron (as usual) prattles on

Posted by Scott Tribe (not verified) on November 27th, 2008.

Aaron (as usual) prattles on with a bunch of nonsense. This is something the Conservatives are doing because they've been slammed for doing nothing on the stimulus front, as opposed to the proactive measures Obama is taking before he's even become the President. Add that their independent parliamentary budget officer says Canada is likely to go into deficit because of poor government policies and not economic slowdown, and the Cons had to do something to change the channel.

This is their red herring measure - to try and fool Canadians into believing they're doing something.. while at the same time trying to use this to their partisan advantage.

As someone else said, Jim Flaherty's move can be summed up in one sentence:

"In these troubled times, opposition parties are a luxury that Canada simply cannot afford."

Subsidies

Posted by Ted (not verified) on November 27th, 2008.

This move would be a boom for the NDP. The NDP is for more successful in donations then the Liberals (Liberals have never weened themselves off Corporate cash). If Jack played his cards right he could use this and become opposition leader in the next election, and PM in the one after that.

"proactive measures Obama is

Posted by Ted (not verified) on November 27th, 2008.

"proactive measures Obama is taking before he's even become the President.

Obama is all show, Bush has been massively stimulating the economy with cash, Harper has already put more stimulus in Canadians hands with a GST cut, child subsides and infrastructure layouts. Not to worry though, more is still to come. I think Harper will do it right and put the money in Canadians hands and not some greedy liberal government program.

Disagree partly with post - democracy has already been eroded

Posted by Chrystal Ocean (not verified) on November 27th, 2008.

Democracy in Canada has been eroding steadily ever since citizens have, by their actions, indicated a desire for greater choice in their voting options, ever since voters have had three or more parties from which to choose.

Rather than suggesting - as some partisans have, those being virtually exclusively Liberals and Conservatives - that Canada revert to offering up only two parties to the voters, citizens are increasingly demanding - with a growing number of them choosing not to vote -, that Canada move to proportional representation.

Until proportional representation is implemented in this country, regardless of how political parties are funded, the term 'democracy' when applied to Canada has no meaning.

Hey all, I posted this last

Posted by Devin Johnston on November 27th, 2008.

Hey all,

I posted this last night and haven't been online since, so this is the first opportunity I've had to read the comments. I think that several commenters have raised interesting points, although I would all involved to try not to make it personal. There are a couple of points that I would raise in response to the above.

Re: Who stands to benefit from the change in policy
My arguments regarding "elites" is separate from my argument that the move is an opportunistic attempt by the Tories to kneecap the other parties. As several people have correctly pointed out, it is the Liberals and not the Conservatives who rely on larger average donations. There are two separate arguments that I am trying to make here. First, a large number of Canadians are not in a position to make a donation to a political party (even a small one), and these people are disempowered by a lack of public financing. Without public financing, political influence is concentrated in the hands of those who can afford to make private donations. Second, there is something fishy (read: opportunistic) about the Conservatives bringing in this change at a time when they are in a better position than their main rivals (the Liberals) to raise private donations. These two issues are independent and unrelated arguments each of which supports the conclusion that the change should no go through.

Re: Comments on the Facebook Group
I put the Facebook group together very quickly last night and appointed the first handful of people who joined as administrators since I knew I wouldn't have enough time to manage it on my own. Some of the other admins have decided to delete comments on the Facebook group. I haven't deleted any. I don't mind debate, because I think that the arguments in support of public financing are strong than those in opposition to public financing. That said, I don't really have the time or interest to babysit the Facebook group and I don't really care what the other admins decide to do. Anyone who wants to post arguments that are contrary to those I have presented is more than welcome to do so here, on their own blog, and in many other places.

Re: The NDP
The more I think about it, the more I think that this move will be good for the NDP. Sure, it will hurt the NDP's bottom line, but it will hurt the Liberals' even more, which is good for the NDP. That said, I think that there are principled reasons to support public financing.

More to come much later tonight when I have more time.

One last one before I start

Posted by Devin Johnston on November 27th, 2008.

One last one before I start working on my human rights paper...

Aaron raised the point that my response is "over the top". Clearly, by going with a title like "Deficit Jim set to Repeal Democracy" I am being a bit inflammatory. That said, I do believe in a more capacious concept of democracy that goes beyond the simple right to vote once in a while. It is legitimate to speak of strengthening and weakening our democratic institutions, and I am of the opinion that removing public campaign financing severely undermines the spirit of open and transparent democracy. Part of what upsets me so much about this announcement is that the Finance Minister seems to be treating it as a minor issue that doesn't require notice or debate. On the contrary, this is a major component of our current democratic structures (albeit a relatively new component). Removing public financing represents a major shift in our institutions of democracy, and can't just be cast aside without significant debate and a substantial consensus.

Devin, I think Andrew Coyne

Posted by ALW (not verified) on November 27th, 2008.

Devin,

I think Andrew Coyne correctly pointed out that regardless of the motive, proposing to do away with public financing of political parties is defensible policy. Sure it would be to the Tories’ advantage right now! But so was the Grits doing away with corporate and union donations in 2003 - or so everyone thought. It’s a general rule that whoever is in power is always going to raise more money, no matter what the funding rules, so following that logic, any change in the rules is going to fall victim to accusations of favoritism. In short, as consolation to people who think this is the Tories stacking the deck, just remember the tables could someday turn on them.

With respect to disempowerment of people who can’t make donations, I guess I just reject the premise that people who give money in small amounts have more influence in politics. The very reason corporate and union donations were killed was because with large sums of money comes the potential, or at the very least the impression, of sucking up to a particular constituency. But to suggest, for example, that the Conservative party is going to cater to its $99 fundraising base - hundreds of thousands of people - at the expense of a poorer demographic, seems odd. If Megacorp gives you a million dollars and you then draw up policies favourable to Megacorp, there’s a clear link, or impression thereof. But I am trying to envision how cutting out public financing in any way is giving undue power to the guy who sends in 20 bucks?

I think it’s worth recalling that prior to 2003, political parties were not publicly financed (at least, not in the same way), and yet it’s not as if Canada was in some undemocratic dark age. So I disagree that it’s a major shift in how our political institutions operate. Indeed, I think Coyne was right that less might be better: it would mean less money wasted on the garbage that’s poisining the democratic polity in this country.

'The Plan' by Harper and The Conservatives to cut the $1.95

Posted by Keith (not verified) on November 29th, 2008.

Canadians are not getting the whole story.

How many are aware the Conservatives are suing Elections Canada, looking for more money from the 2006 Election? (Where they sent money from the federal party into local ridings, and then had it returned to pay for 'local advertising', which was nothing less than a carbon copy of the federal ads... This actually allowed them to illegally spend more than thy were entitled at the federal level AND try to claim back 60% as a local riding expense.)

How many Canadians know that in 2003, a whole package of political funding changes were made? The $1.95 was part of this package, which saw the end of big business and labour unions being able to contribute to political parties, and an end to an era of 'paybacks'.

How many people in Abbotsford are aware that Ed Fast will receive back nearly $40,000 from the taxpayer for his 2008 campaign? (60% of eligible expenses)

How soon Canadians forget the $300 million expense of a federal election... each year early that an election is held costs at least $75 million
Didn't the Conservatives get it? Canadians do not want another election, and more wasted money.

Stephen Harper wants another election.

He and his party will try to deceive Canadians into supporting them 'just a little bit more', so they can get the majority they do NOT deserve.

Our democracy is in danger

Attack on democracy? Please...

Posted by AverageJoe (not verified) on November 29th, 2008.

If people actually thought that taking away a bit of the funding was crippling democracy, then why don't these same people read the Canadian Taxpayer Federation magazine and look at how money is actually spent by the parties? You will see how undemocratic these parties actually are. Even the holier-than-thou NDP is quite fond of wastefully spending your tax dollars. I'm sorry, but just because your political donation is tax-deductable doesn't mean that it's going to be spent wisely.

I just can't believe the leftist sentiment in this blog. I'll bet you all believe that pooling money together to support a private business is a good idea too...

Hidden subsidies

Posted by nonymous (not verified) on November 29th, 2008.

I believe if the CPC really wanted to get rid of subsidies they would also remove the "tax deduction for political donations subsidy" which seems to favour them more than the other parties. This is why I can't believe they are sincere.