Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

What does this mean?

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 8:05pm - 147 Comments

“This means war.”

Or so says Pat Martin about the government’s plan to cut the per vote taxpayer subsidy for political parties.

Key graph from CP’s report. ”But proportional to revenues raised last year, the taxpayer subsidy represents 37 per cent of the totals raised by the Tories. That’s far less than the 63 per cent chop for Liberal coffers, 86 per cent for the Bloc and 57 per cent for the NDP. The Greens stand to lose 65 per cent of total revenues.”

Here is Hansard for the afternoon of February 11, 2003, when Jean Chretien formally introduced the legislation in question (which was paired with new restrictions on political donations). The Prime Minister was followed quickly by a reply from the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition.

The short version (though you’re encouraged to read the long version).

Chretien: “Some have suggested that the subsidy to a political party means that an individual’s tax dollars may go to a party that he or she disagrees with. The reality is that the $1.50 a year goes to the party that person voted for in the previous election. If someone changes his or her mind after an election, if someone realizes he or she made a mistake, for example by voting for the Canadian Alliance, the $1.50 per year still adds up to a total of $6 over the four years. That person can make up for his or her mistake. Everybody makes mistakes. It could happen to somebody who voted Liberal too, but not many because we are still doing quite well.”

Harper: “Obviously, the biggest beneficiary is the Liberals and they will benefit regardless of how people’s views of them may change in their performance as a governing party. Admittedly, the Canadian Alliance stands to benefit financially from the allowance. We will benefit especially because this party does not rely heavily on donations from corporations, unions and other large donors. However the principal beneficiary will be the Liberal Party of Canada. The Liberals could not exist without an alternative source of funding, guaranteed taxpayer funding, if corporate donations were severally limited. Whereas the Canadian Alliance has shown it can and would continue to survive.”

The legislation was passed (Yeas 172, Nays 62) after final debate on June 11 of that same year.

Tags: Jean Chretien, Jim Flaherty, Pat Martin, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

Brad Sallows

We didn’t have a problem with democracy before this subsidy existed. We won’t have one after it is gone. The scheme, not its removal, is an abuse of democracy: a party which does well at the ballot box receives a funding advantage over its rivals. How does that reinforcement of electoral success promote balance and keep the playing field level?

Let’s refocus on the real problem here, which is that some parties feel they lack enough donations. If a party has little appeal to potential donors, the onus is on the party to give people an incentive to donate instead of arrogantly casting about for other sources of charity. Turning off the tax-funded tap will concentrate their attention on their platforms for two purposes: to obtain funding, and to obtain votes.
http://kitchenersown.blogspot.com/ Lord Kitchener’s Own

It also makes us consumers choosing which party we want to invest in rather than citizens choosing which party we want to govern us.

Again, I’m a citizen not a just a taxpayer. I want a government, not just a well promoted policy marketing company. I don’t really care if the Tories are better at selling their brand to a particular demographic and getting them to buy into it. Government is supposed to be about more than advertising and fundraising. I just don’t accept this premise that if I really want Party X to form the government then I should give them money so they can defeat their opponents.

Then again, I want a government that actually represents the will of the people as expressed through their votes, so clearly, I’m nuts.
Sammy

T. Thwim, there does exist in this world people who are cappable of multi-tasking, where you can successfully do two or more things at the same time. Look at a political party as a consumer product if you will. Maybe an electronic game such as X-box. There are other companies that make games and your goal is to have people buy your game system instead of the others. These companies must do both things well in order to be successful, taking the approach that it can only be one or the other will end in less than satisfactory results.

In politics the most successful party will be the one that offers a combination of quality product (better ideas) along with the ability to out market the competition. And as I said before, this is good.
T. Thwim

Sammy, sorry, you’re simply wrong.

You can have the best ideas in the world.
If you don’t have the money to get them spread, they’re not going anywhere.

You can have the worst ideas in the world.
If you have the money to get them spread far enough, there’s always plenty of idiots who will buy into it, especially if they aren’t presented with alternatives.

If you have equal marketing, then, and only then do the ideas compete, and you know, I want the government with the best ideas, not the best marketing team.
http://kitchenersown.blogspot.com/ Lord Kitchener’s Own

a party which does well at the ballot box receives a funding advantage over its rivals. How does that reinforcement of electoral success promote balance and keep the playing field level?

So, instead of reinforcing electoral success, we should reinforce advertising and fundraising success? What makes it so crazy to tie the monetary success of parties to their electoral success? On the one hand, parties are rewarded for attracting the support of the greatest number of voters. On the other, parties are rewarded for raising the most money. How is the former an “abuse of democracy” and later is hunky dory???

And why do we need to promote “balance”? More importantly, how is it “balanced” that despite not being terribly more popular than the Liberals, the Conservatives are vastly richer as a party. The current system puts a greater emphasis on garnering the support of the people, removing it puts a greater emphasis on garnering donations. Just because I (hypothetically) donate $10 to the Liberals, and Joe donates $100 to the Tories doesn’t mean the Tories are 10 times more popular than the Liberals; and it CERTAINLY doesn’t make them better for the country. Fundraising success does NOT equal “popularity”, and it certainly doesn’t equal potential success at governing.

All this “If you want a different government, why don’t you buy one” stuff is really infuriating to me.
Sammy

TThwim, I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree here. I understand what you are saying but if you can’t get your best and most loyal supporters to put their money where their mouths are why should someone else buy into your ideas? I agree with the policy of restricting corporate and union donations because those donations always come with strings attached and that is not good for democracy. I just believe the foundation of our campaign financing needs to be grounded in the principle of voluntary contributions derived from outside the public purse. This way the parties remain grounded to the people and their current circumstances.
T. Thwim

It seems to me it makes the parties remain grounded to the donators and their current circumstances, not the people, which are not necessarily the same thing.

If, instead, we moved to entirely public financing, per vote, that would be much more conducive to keeping parties grounded in the policies that benefit the most Canadians, not just the ones who are most susceptible to advertising techniques.
http://economics.about.com Mike Moffatt

“conducive to keeping parties grounded in the policies that benefit the most Canadians”

aka “straight white anglos”
T. Thwim

Mike, unless you want to repeal democracy altogether, we’re going to have to deal with the tyranny of the majority. Because of that, I think it’s better to get it as equal as possible, so that the straight, white, anglos can’t leverage their economic might and connections (as in the Mormon church) to spread their ideas further than those of their opponents.
Sammy

TThwim, donators are people, maybe I’m all wet here but it seems to me that your recipe is based on the concept of “what can the country do for me” instead of “what can I do for the country”

Is it too much to ask for, to expect a little more from our citizens than just holding a hand out? To expect an effort of some sort is not a bad thing. Your engaged here by writing just as I am, at least you and I are engaged, others may not have the time or inclination to write but they may donate to a political party if they want to contribute, and there are thousands more who would rather donate $10 or $20 or $50 than publicly express themselves by writing on a blog or writing a letter to the editor. But if you allow the vast majority of citizens to take a complete pass on politics and the state of the national affairs and become completely disengaged other than two weeks before an election, were going to continue to go down the same road we’ve been traveling for the last thirty years, with more and more apathy and lower and lower voter turn out.

Just look at what happened in the US. The republican vote was pretty constant with 2004 but the democratic vote was up big time. Obama went out and spoke and spoke and spoke and each time he spoke people opened their wallets and become engaged and felt apart of Obama’s campaign and that feeling of having a vested interest is what made his campaign so successful.

Personally I was shocked by how much he raised, but it also showed how strong the appetite was for his message, however lacking of specifics it contained. But all in all it was a good thing for democracy and the concept of the will of the people.
madeyoulook

LKO, five-plus hours ago: personally, my vote was determined pretty much on who I wanted to get the most out of our publicly financed electoral system.
LKO, one-plus hour ago: I want a government that actually represents the will of the people as expressed through their votes…
LKO, self-diagnosing one-plus hour ago: so clearly, I’m nuts.

People, the Tories out-raised everyone by, oh, a light-year or two. If the election was truly there for the buying, do y’all think we’d be looking at the current slightly-stronger minority Parliament? It’s just proof that money doesn’t get you elected; votes do. We elect governments, we don’t buy them. An unpopular idea, widely disseminated, remains an unpopular idea. Forcing the unpopular but well financed to keep quiet is a violation of freedom.

M-A, if people are gonna use their vote to decide how the taxpayer’s toonie should be spent, rather than to decide a government, a hefty dose of paternalism is most certainly in order. Partisanship has nothing to do with it. Stick around a while, you’ll see me trash the Tories once in a while. And my love for Canada has everything to do with it. I understand the lefty definition equating a conservative idea as un-Canadian, but I will continue to refuse to accept it. Sorry. There, I apologized. Proof positive I’m a good Canadian.
T. Thwim

All those who have chosen to be donators are people, it’s true.
But not all people can choose to donate.

Donating doesn’t promote engagement with ideas, it promotes engagement with parties.
Different things again.

Your suggestion promotes the views of those who are inclined to donate over those who are inclined to vote. Hell, I’m one of those. The Liberals got $50 from me when Flanagan said the goal was to bankrupt them fiscally rather than compete on the strength of ideas.

The Greens got another $20 from me when Layton & Harper said they didn’t want another viewpoint being expressed to Canadians.

But that said, I didn’t vote. In my Calgary riding, half the conservative voters would need to stay home and the voters for all the other parties would have to line up behind the same guy just to make it a race. And to be honest, I’ve been paying attention long enough that being in the same room with a bunch of people who are voting conservative because of a 20 year dead policy from a man dead for almost a decade would have just made my day suck.

Still, under our current system, there’s a reasonable argument that my actions had more effect on the election than theirs. And that’s just not right.
http://ADMS.ca cms

Well said, MYL and T. Thwim.
madeyoulook

Person #1: I am pretty wealthy but pretty busy. I agree with much of the platform of Party#1, but I have no time to attend meetings in church basements, or tie up my time being a convention delegate, or man the phone bank during a campaign. But I will send this cheque for $400 because I believe Canada is best served by Party#1. I will certainly vote for Party#1 in the next election. If they continue to impress me, I might try to give a bit more next year.

Person#2: I am of limited means but I have plenty of free time. I agree with much of the platform of Party#2, but I can only afford the $20 annual membership fee. But sign me up for a policy committee, and let me help put up signs or man the phone banks or act as a party-designated scrutineer on election day, because I believe Canada is best served by Party#2. I will certainly vote for Party#2 in the next election.

Person #3: Shut up and leave me alone. Politics and politicians make me sick. I believe Party#3 sucks the least from available choices, but don’t come to me asking for any money, you all have too much to blow on the visual pollution of campaign posters already. I will vote for Party#3, based on a review of the policy platforms that I took a look at online a couple of days before the election, and based on that party’s performance in the previous Parliament. I will vote because I believe democracy is the worst choice, save all the others, and I could not live with myself, nor with the memory of my great-grandfather buried among the row-on-rows in Flander’s Field, if I did not at least offer my vote as a contribution to this society. But that vote shouldn’t force anyone to ante up some cash to them.

Person#4: This country needs help, and I will start helping by running as an elected representative. I will be running in the next election for Party#4, because I believe this party and its leader are the best choices to move this country forward in these times. I will need to work hard to inspire people to contribute money and time and energy to this cause, and I will also need to work to earn the votes of those who do not feel inclined to contribute except by voting.

Democracy is not attacked when the taxpayer is freed from the coercion of propping up a party. Democracy is not undermined by Person#1. Democracy is enriched by the contribution of millions of Canadians, whether they look like 1,2,3 or 4.
http:/nortonrelease.com/ firedward

I am of the strong belief that whenever the government gets so corrupt it should be forcibly taken over by its citizens and a new government should be put in place. Even our constitution says the same thing.
Brad Sallows

“Citizens” looking for “government” are not going to find it balanced on the knife edge of $1.95 per vote. For that, we need to remove most of the incentives which draw power seekers and influence peddlers, which is a different issue altogether. Elections _are_ an exercise in promotion and advertising, and awarding dollars for votes _does_ reinforce the virtuous circle of promotion and advertising – unless you believe that the promotion and advertising have no effect.

Those of us here as “citizens” looking for “government” should support any undertaking which claws a little bit of leverage away from established, large parties.

However, if all you want is just to squeak your party into the “A” league with a devil-take-the-hindmost attitude toward the rest, then I understand a desire to suck up every available public dollar. But really you should be arguing to replace the $1.95 per vote with a fixed lump of $X per party per year for any party meeting some threshold (which will be, no doubt, whatever is necessary to admit the Greens through the door). There is no reason to continue a funding advantage which chiefly benefits the two major established parties by awarding money on a per-vote basis.

This whole issue is a red herring. If the parties have enough money to buy ridiculous scare- and fear-mongering and/or character assassination ads, they have too much money and the $1.95 per voter is money wasted. The results of the last election were not for lack of any of the major parties’ ability to get their issues in the news.
T. Thwim

Having money won’t win you the election, MYL, this is true.
But *not* having money will certainly make you lose it.

Person #5: This country needs help, and I will start helping by running as an elected representative. I will need to work hard to make sure I have the best ideas and have heard from as many of my potential constituents as possible, because I believe it will be my job to represent them as best as I can. Unfortunately, I will not have the time or the resources to spend fundraising, because I am going to devote all of my time and resources to finding and preaching the solutions that will work best for my country and constituents.

That’s the guy *I* want to vote for.
Sadly, I’ll probably never hear about him.
http://ADMS.ca cms

Person #6: I was laid off earlier this year and lost my pension, now I have to work 3 jobs to put food on the table. I am burning the candle at both ends. Who is going to stand up for my interests in Ottawa?

This isn’t about elections. This is about day-to-day expenses that all parties incur discharging their duties throughout the year, whether in Ottawa or in the constituency. Public financing ensures that everyone’s interests are met in our parliamentary democracy, not just those who have money to spare.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Jenn

Okay, I just had a lot of chocolate so I’m maybe seeing things with a particularly rosy glow, How about the opposition parties tack on an amendment to the bill requiring the elmination of the political donation tax credit. Now nobody has any chance to raise much money. Apart from the Conservative war-chest which is still healthy, political advertising will become a thing of the past. That will mean that the only information a citizen will get is by listening to the candidates running in their riding.

But maybe listening to the actual candidates will lessen the importance of political parties, and simply send good, intelligent people with ideas of their own to Ottawa. There’s a win-win for the citizen/taxpayer!
Jack Mitchell

Hear hear, Jenn!
madeyoulook

Jenn, I like it. Nice to see respect for the taxpayer start to grow. It doesn’t cost much to start up a website to outline your party’s policy. It wouldn’t amount to much for Elections Canada’s home page to link to each party’s website during the campaign. Not enough dough for photo ops, for media junkets as leaders traipse all over, for lawn signs, for TV & radio ads? Awwww…
thequantumbuddha

Since advertising does not have to be honest, and those with more money are not in any way more deserving of representing the people, why not formally ban advertising?