Beyond The Commons

 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

The case for the vote subsidy

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, January 14, 2011 11:30am - 303 Comments

Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton argue in favour of the $2 per vote party subsidy.

But Ignatieff said the Liberals support the subsidies as a strong way to sustain democracy. ”We’ve got a political system that is by international standards cheap, democratic and open,” he said. He said that if public subsidies are banned, “then little by little the big money comes back into politics.”

“Jean Chretien started to walk the big money out of politics. You cut public subsidy, you walk the big money back in. We think it’s the wrong way to go and if you want to know why it’s the wrong way to go, look south of the border.”

Layton was equally supporting of the subsidies. “A key element of democratic reform was to make sure that political parties represent the ideas of Canadians and can have their ideas considered in the public discourse.” Ending the subsidies would have dire consequences, warned Layton. “You’re going to end up with those who are able to ante up the bucks getting heard. And that is not democratic. It’s not right.”

Tags: , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Newer Comments →
  • JamesHalifax

    The subsidy has nothing to do with democracy. It's about LIberals and NDP getting money from taxpayers who do not wish to donate voluntarily.

    You would think with all the money the LIberals stole while they were in office…..they wouldn't need the $2 per.

    • MostlyCivil

      "You would think with all the money the LIberals stole while they were in office…..they wouldn't need the $2 per."

      I'm still waiting for the Conservatives to pay back that $350,000 from the 1872 Pacific Scandal.

      See, if you're going to keep bringing up old stories, try to reference stuff where people can't easily google the Gomery Comission findings that make your statement look silly.

    • McC_

      The parties also get a heap of "money from taxpayers who do not wish to donate voluntarily" when $0.75 of every $1.00 donated to a political party (up to $400) is credited back by taxpayers.

      • Jenn_

        Far and away much worse than the subsidy, since all taxpayers pay for all political donations, whether you voted for that party, or didn't vote at all. At least the subsidy is tied directly to your vote.

        • madeyoulook

          All taxpayers paid for the subsidy, too, whether they voted or not. The degree of the tax credit is shameful, and must go, but it is not as outright shameful as the per-vote subsidy.

          Unless you're in a party unwilling to ask your supporters to, you know, support you.

          • Guy Smiley

            Um, how is the tax credit any different from the per-vote subsidy, in a moral sense? If anything, the former puts taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of dollars on the basis of one individual's decision (whether they vote, or not), whereas the latter is a few bucks.

          • MostlyCivil

            Or, unless your supporters have an income small enough that a) they can't afford to donate to a political party and b)can't benefit from a tax deduction.

            In which case, it would be best to tailor all your party policies to the mid to upper income sets. Perhaps not coincidentally, the very target market of the government who proposed the changes in the first place.

            Or am i being too cynical?

          • madeyoulook

            It's not a deduction. It's a whopper of a credit.

  • psiclone

    Of course Iggy supports the subsidy – if it wasn't for the subsidy he would riding a bicycle to tour on. This idea that taxpayers should support poltical parties is on it's face absurd and more than likely is the most likely cause of our present minority gov'ts – were it not for the subsidies in the trough for the Greens and the BLOQ the votes more than like would divide up to the other parties and who knows maybe the left would unite – in a way Harper may be doing the Liberals and NDP a favour if you actually stop and think about it – no taxpayer should fund any group of people for any reason – if people want to get together and exercise their democratic muscle then do so and fundraise within the community where the representative will run – this simple process appears to beyond those professional polticos who like nothing better than to sit back and snorkle in the public trough !!!

    • John W.

      Much better for parties to be funded by tar sands oil companies.

      • Blue

        Please explain what you mean by that false statement.

        Are all of these companies maxing out on their $1100.00 per year political contribution ?

        • John W.

          Yes, which is why when Harper gets a majority he'll just raise it.

          • Matthew

            We have a psychic in the house!

            Me next! What do you see in my future?

          • LiveblogginJunkie

            Harper lowered the contribution limits from $5000 to $1100. The only party calling for an increase in the limit is the LPC, while keeping the subsidy. Only the Liberal party could have the gall to demand it keep its political welfare cheque while inviting big money back into politics.

          • LiveblogginJunkie

            Harper lowered it from $5000 to $1100. The only party with the gall to demand it keep its political welfare and increase the donation limits and allow big money is the Liberal Party

      • Emily

        And churches.

    • McC_

      Why do we have to go over this every time? Let me repeat: the CPC is not proposing to get rid of public subsidies for political parties, they're proposing to get rid of one public subsidy for political parties, while keeping the others (e.g., the credits for campaign expenses and the credit for individual donations, which is 75% for the first $400 and tails off slowly for the next $700). Please be honest.

      • Emily

        Until they get a majority, when all bets are off.

      • Emily

        Ping

  • AT1

    Ignatieff doesn’t make sense. “Big money” is not allowed by federal election laws. The current limit is $1100, from individuals only. Is he suggesting that they would try to circumvent the laws in order to raise funds? I think we know how that ended the last time.

    • McC_

      If I'm reading correctly, if you want, you can give up to $339,900 per year to a party that you support: $1100 to the national party and $1100 to each riding association (more if there are leadership candidates to support too). See: http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&…

      • McC_

        NOPE, I'm wrong, "*Please note that the total contribution limit applies to the combined registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates of a given registered party during a calendar year."

        • tedbetts

          You could, technically, give up to $3600.

          - $1200 to the party (or divided among all parties – it aggregates)
          - $1200 to a riding association (or divided among all riding associations – it aggregates)
          - $1200 to a leadership candidate (or divided among all candidates – it aggregates)

          • AT1

            Ted, my understanding is that one is limited to $1100 per year. There is no separate allowance made for party/candidate/leadership.

            That amount is subject to a very generous 75% tax credit. Hence, public support for parties would still exits through a tax break that more charities can only dream of.

          • Kathryn_C

            This is whether there is an actual election on or not, right? Meaning all these years the Conservatives have been successfully maintaining the war-chest, we have been losing .75 for each $1 donated, each tax year from general revenues.
            Meanwhile, presumably the $1.95 subsidy is paid out at election time only – if anyone knows for sure, please let me know. And do we know how much income has come out of the public purse for all the tax deductions (per annum or per election) vs. the cost of the subsidy?

            If it's really about respect for the public purse (it isn't but let's pretend) then these facts need to be plainly out.

          • TimesArrow

            That's a very good question.

          • McC_

            the per vote subsidy is paid out annually.

          • TimesArrow

            It still only represents about a third of the cost of the tax credit, right?

    • Garnet

      He's betting that voters have an instinctual fear of elites that can be exploited. Coming from him, it's … interesting.

    • Jenn_

      He's suggesting that somewhere down the line that law would be changed back to how it was before.

      But you knew that.

      • madeyoulook

        Ah. So now we're fighting a smart idea now because of some mythical bogeyman that might show up later. Yeesh. If this is what's gonna pass for policy debate, please wake me up when the campaign is over.

        • Mike T.

          realistically, without the subsidy contribution amounts will rise. with a cap of $1,000 there aren't $27,000,000 more dollars out there.

        • LdKitchenersOwn

          It's not totally outlandish concern though. The subsidy is actually the thing that got the contributions limits lowered. It was the trade-off to get people to vote for lower contribution limits. It's not totally outrageous to assume that if you take away the thing you gave to Parliamentarians to convince them to lower the political contribution limits that Parliamentarians might decide to raise the contribution limits back up again.

          • LiveblogginJunkie

            The subsidy got the limit lowered to $5000.00. The CPC lowered it with the Accountability Act to $1100. The LPC has called for an increase to at least $2000 while still keeping the subsidy. The only party asking for bigger money is the Liberals

          • AT1

            Tinkering with the maximum amounts allowable is not a problem for most people who are opposed to the per vote subsidy. It still ensures that each party has to connect with voters and to grow their base. That makes them more responsive to voters. Some would argue that having to actually raise money form supporters is MORE, not less, democratic.

          • Thwim

            Uh. The per vote subsidy requires a party connect with voter too.. to the point where the voters, you know, vote for them.

            I don't see how you can get more democratic than that.

            Unless you consider sales jobs to be democratic, because that's what fund-raising is. It has nothing to do with governance, and everything to do with hucksterism.

          • AT1

            Thwim, you are correct, and I didn't say that the per vote subsidy is undemocratic.

            But we vote infrequently, certainly less than annually. So, parties have no need to connect with their supporters between elections, whereas soliciting donations requires regular contact with party members and is of generating feedback from voters. It's not hucksterism, but it is a great way to express support or discontent when the come calling for money.

          • Thwim

            If you don't think it's hucksterism, you must not be in a region that gets 10%ers.

          • TimesArrow

            But how do you feel about the Finley effect…everytime there's a wedge issue you fire up your core and lean on them for contributions? This is the core of my worry – politicians can and will abuse anything to further their agenda – i've no doubt the libs would do the same were they able.
            A real upside of the vote sub is that politicians can only get it one way – by attracting voters. [ the exception of course being the Bloq...as always]

        • Jan

          Hey MTL – you're putting a chill on the coalition scare.

  • hollinm

    Their argument is pretty lame. Its all about democracy? So when there was no vote subsidy we didn't have a democracy? They are barking up the wrong tree and this line of defense will fall wildly short of credibility.

    Parties have far too much money to throw around as a result of the subsidy. Withdrawal of the per vote subsidy will stop some of the games being played these days. Not enough money. Supporters should finance the parties. Not all taxpayers.

    • Mike T.

      I think most reasonable people will agree it aids democracy without being a pre-requisite for it.

      • sourstud

        No, it does not aid democracy. The vote subsidy doesn't go to any Independant candidates, or small parties. How is a system that explicitly shuts out the little guy "aiding democracy"?!?!

    • Jenn_

      All taxpayers only support the tax credit.

      Only voters support this "per-vote" subsidy. Probably how they came up with the name.

      So, according to your comment, it is the tax credit which is the real evil.

      • madeyoulook

        Jenn, this is the second time you've blown it. There are no jars to toss the twonie into at the polling station. TAXPAYERS fund the per-vote subidy. Voters merely direct the taxpayer's traffic.

        Please confirm that you've caught on, because otherwise this debate is going to become impossible real fast..

        • Jenn_

          You're very right, I did phrase that poorly.

        • Thwim

          Yes, but the subsidy does so in a much more democratic way than the donation-with-tax-rebate, which is also funded by taxpayers, and where a single person can direct much more of the taxpayer's traffic than a single vote can.

          • hollinm

            Then have your buddy Ignatieff one up Harper and recommend all subsidies to political parties be eliminated. That will win him some votes I suspect. Otherwise this is an argument going nowhere. Harper is talking about the per vote subsidy and only the per vote subsidy. So lets focus on that if we want to have a discussion that is somewhere close to reality.

          • Thwim

            Okay, first, Mr. Ignatieff is not my buddy, nor am I really a supporter beyond correcting the pathetic misinformation and insinuations that CPC supporters such as yourself like to spread.

            Second, while I realize that what Harper says is the be-all and end-all of reality for you, most of us have a slightly wider viewpoint.

            Finally, I actually support the per-vote subsidy. It's democratic, and it gives smaller size parties a much needed cash injection once they prove that they're not just a fly-by-night organization and can muster a significant showing of support.

          • sourstud

            "it gives smaller size parties a much needed cash injection once they prove that they're not just a fly-by-night organization and can muster a significant showing of support."

            Thats simply not true. Independant candidates do not receive a dime, nor do "smaller parties", like Communists, Christian Heritage, etc. That's not democratic at all.

          • Mike T.

            you really need to finish reading the sentences you quote.

          • Thwim

            Shh.. facts screw up his mojo.

          • Kathryn_C

            And somebody who can throw a really successful fundraiser whenever needed gets to drive the agenda for the party they get behind. Look south for how well this works for democracy.

  • Crit_Reasoning

    I'd like to hear Ignatieff expand on his argument that "big money" will walk back in if the public subsidy is cut. How is it possible for "big money" to come back as long as there are contribution limits in place?

    • Mike T.

      I have heard it said in a couple of articles that without the subsidy, it isn't realistic for any party to be able to raise the same amount of $ with a $1,000 cap. Possible perhaps, but not realistic.

      • Crit_Reasoning

        So raise the cap to $1,500 or even higher. That's still not "big money". "Big money" would be the $20,000-plus donations that used to be the LPC's bread and butter, before Chretien changed the rules.

        • Jenn_

          I have a hope in hell of getting to $1,100 over a two or three year period. So if money talks for political parties, I have a third to a half of their ear now.

          I'm also very motivated, and with more disposable income than some. I don't care overmuch if it is corporations and rich people, or only rich people with a voice–I'm left out either way and there's a lot of people behind me.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            In 2009, the average Liberal donation was $239. The average Conservative donation was $175. The average NDP donation was $169.

            If you were able to put two quarters every day into a "donation jar", you would still manage to exceed the average NDP or CPC contribution. You would also get a tax deduction for your trouble.

            It makes a difference what the caps are, but even more important is the number of people who are willing to actually donate money to a party. The reason the LPC has lagged the CPC is that the LPC has 38,000 donors and the CPC has over 100,000. I think the LPC would be a stronger party in the long run if they focused more on fundraising and reaching out to prospective members and donors, instead of relying heavily on the public subsidy.

          • Blue

            ………..lost comment

          • EeeOar

            Who pays for that tax deduction?

        • Mike T.

          In terms of vs. expenses, it's a small amount indeed (probably why it will be raised without the subsidy). It's still big in terms of being a) more than the average Canadian woudl likely pay for completely disinterested reasons and b) the highest contribution possible and still a party's biggest supporter.

        • Jan

          Progressive Conservatives didn't accept large donations? The NDP didn't have generous support from the big Unions? It was just the Liberals?

      • EeeOar

        There is no fundamental reason that the parties need to raise the same amount of money in the future as they do today – they will learn to get by on smaller budgets, and voters might actually be better off for some reduction in party budgets.

    • John W.

      Con majority, Change the law.

      • Neil from Calgary

        Lib majority, change the law. You don't think the Liberals, current and former, have a close relationship with Bay street?

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      Didn't our contribution limits get so low because we replaced all of that money with the per-vote subsidy? Wasn't that the whole point? It's true that it would be hard for any politician to make this argument but we'd never have found the votes in Parliament to make the contribution limits so low if the subsidy hadn't been put in place, and if you take away the subsidy you instantly create a whole whack of votes in Parliament in favour of putting the contribution rates back up to their pre-subsidy limit. The Tories may be on the other side of that argument today, because they've got so much more money than everyone else, but that might not continue to be the case indefinitely.

      Anyway, the point is that given that putting in the subsidy was what enabled the lowering of the contribution limits, it's hardly crazy to presume that eliminating the subsidy might create an awful lot of pressure to raise the contribution rates back up.

      • Crit_Reasoning

        Even if we doubled or tripled contribution limits, it still wouldn't represent the return of "big money". I think that raising contribution limits in a reasonable way is a good trade-off for eliminating the public subsidy.

        Corporate and union donations would still be banned, and the influence of any one donor would still be severely restricted by contribution limits. Party financing would flow upward from the capped contributions of thousands of individual donors, rather than downward from the public purse.

        • Jenn_

          Why? Why do you Conservative types want to pay for the Bloc? Because every time a Bloc supporter donates, that's what we're doing now. As opposed to the once a year subsidy for every VOTE a Bloc supporter votes. And he only gets one of those.

          53.75% of a potential $1,100 vs.$2.00 x 1

          I mean, I understand the Conservative agenda of making Canadians not want to participate in our democracy and so "making each vote count" is a bug and not a feature to them, but it still seems to me that all taxpayers pay more for the tax credit.

          • madeyoulook

            BQ has lots of voters and not so lots of $-supporters. Which is, actually, one of the more partisanly beautiful reasons it's a marvellous idea to kill the per-vote subsidy. Simple fairness to taxpayers wins it, though.

          • Mike T.

            Except that practicality then over-rides ideology, making the subdisy a good idea again.

          • AT1

            Jenn, the Bloc never had difficulty raising money before the vote subsidy was provided. However, they rely on it almost entirely now because it therefore allows the PQ to raise more money provincially. The Bloc and PQ rely of the same donors, so in a perverse way, the per vote subsidy actually frees up donations for the PQ.

            Having to raise money directly from Bloc supporter will help remove some of the indirect benefits to the PQ.

          • TimesArrow

            Best argument i've heard so far for eliminating the sub – stilln not enough to get me onside though.

          • Jenn_

            I agree with TimesArrow, although you make a good, if disturbing point.

            One thing I noticed when I was playing with the tax program was that Quebec (and only Quebec) gives a tax credit for municipal political donations. I don't know how that relates with the PQ donations–if it impacts at all–but I did think it was interesting.

          • Mike T.

            I suspect that because they only campagin in one province and appeal mostly to a pretty die hard set, they need the $ the least of any federal party.

        • hollinm

          Its my feeling that most ordinary Canadians cannot afford the $1,000. that is the current limit. Most donations are relatively small so the parties rely on a large number of donors. Raising the limit would not help improve this situation. However, there are times that a larger limit could be benefiicial i.e. leadership campaigns.

          I agree no union or corporation donations should be allowed.

          Many are advocating the elimination of the generous donation subsidy. These have been in place a long time. Leave them as they are. However, the per vote subsidy is too generous along with the other rebates etc.

          • Mike T.

            Why not reduce them all by half?

    • tedbetts

      If you define big money as corporate/union money, then you are correct. But if you define big money as corporate executives maxing out themselves and their families and then organizing their workforce to do the same, as is routinely done by Dems and Republicans in the US, you get a different picture.

      • brooster2

        That's exactly the risk I see in blithely assuming an individual cap insulates the political process from the influence of "big money". There used to be a fair amount of anecdotal evidence, or at least the perception, that individuals/organizations/corporations with lots of resources were "laundering" their donations through proxies.

  • Mike T.

    So many good reasons to keep the subsidy, as most other countries realize.

    It's the cleanest money available. Prevents reliance on large donations from the few (and very few people give the full $1000 out of completely altruistic, disinterested reasons). While not elminating the need to gather $ directly it can take some of the focus off fundraising, allowing parties to put less effort into fundraising and more on policy. REduces the need to take extremist positions in order to gather $ through fear and misrepresentation. Reduces the "free ridership" effect and gives a reward to decent stable government that might not energize people to give $ but that does an average, uninteresting but competent job.

    The only non-partisan, non-ideological argument against is that it can hamper a new party's efforts to become a mainstream political voice. A pity, but it's not like they have an easy time anyway, and it's outweighed by the benefits.

    • Matthew

      "as most other countries realize"

      No. Only a few nations currently offer public subsidies to political parties

      "prevents reliance on large donations from the few"

      No, it doesn't. The elimination of corporate and union donations coupled with a maximum limit for individual contributions does that. The public subsidy is a separate issue.

      "While not elminating the need to gather $ directly it can take some of the focus off fundraising, allowing parties to put less effort into fundraising and more on policy. REduces the need to take extremist positions in order to gather $ through fear and misrepresentation.

      Interesting theory but do you have any evidence of it? Would you say Canadian parties have been MORE focused on policy since the subsidy came into effect? Maybe there is evidence from the few other countries that have public subsidies that they have become more focused on policy? I haven't seen any, but I'd love to be proved wrong.

      • Matthew

        cont.

        "The only non-partisan, non-ideological argument against is that it can hamper a new party's efforts to become a mainstream political voice. A pity, but it's not like they have an easy time anyway, and it's outweighed by the benefits."

        Says you, presumably a supporter of one of the mainstream parties. The subsidy has the effect of locking out smaller parties and new parties that may form. The subsidy helps establishment parties stay established.

        • Mike T.

          And in the hundred years plus before the subsidy, this has not been such an important factor in Canadian politics that it should be the overriding one.

        • Thwim

          They're not locked out any more than they were before. After all, they can also fund-raise. Presumably if they do well with their fundraising and use of it, they'll become a larger party.

          • Matthew

            Yes, new parties are locked out more now than they were before. Established parties get funds (the tories received over $10 million last year). New parties receive $0. Yes, they can fundraise (though that idea seems abhorrent to some on this site), but they are starting from a state-funded disadvantage. The tories get $10 million a year without having to lift a finger to fundraise while new parties or small parties that didn't reach the threshold get $0.

          • Thwim

            Without having to lift a finger other than convincing voters to, you know, vote for them.

            Now, let's consider the situation before the subsidy and funding limits.. established parties STILL got the bulk of the funding, simply for being an established party. Wasn't that the complaint leveled against the Liberals so often? Their "bay-street buddies" as it were? With elected members came money because the power was there which could influence.

            The flip side of course is parties like the Green Party, with a vote total comparable to the Bloc but no elected MPs, couldn't really get anything going when it came to fundraising because they had no power. Now, however, the subsidies provide them with some support. The Greens would be a far smaller party today than they are without it. One can argue that the Bloc also may not exist at this point without it. Yet somehow you say it's making it harder for smaller parties? Looks to me like it makes it easier.

            Or are you seriously going to try to argue that it was the Reform fundraising which allowed them to become the official opposition in 1993?

          • Matthew

            In your second paragraph, you are conflating the subsidy and the funding limits. I am strongly in favour of funding limits and the ban on corporate and union donations. Yes, before the law came into effect, the established parties received the bulk of the funding due to being the established party. I am arguing that BOTH that system and the current system are unfair. To me, the fairest is keeping the caps on while eliminating the subsidy.

            In terms of the Greens and the Bloc, I would argue that the Bloc gets an advantage compared to the Greens. The Bloc receives the same $-per vote as the Greens. The Bloc only runs candidates in one province while the Greens are national. The per-vote subsidy favours regional parties like the Bloc.

            By smaller parties, I am referring to parties which do not reach the threshold for receiving the vote subsidy and new parties that form, which may be popular with voters, but didn't win votes in the last election. The current system effectively freezes them out.

          • Matthew

            cont.

            Reform didn't form official opposition in 1993, the Bloc did. I understand your point though. It would be interesting to see if a Reform party today could be as successful as it was in 1993. It would now be up against parties that automatically receive millions from taxpayers

          • Thwim

            Except, as Reform points out, it doesn't freeze them out at all. After all, Reform didn't really start up with any money either.

            Hell, the Greens didn't start with any money. They managed to get themselves enough public support and a decent message that now allows them to mount a decent campaign across the country.

            Your worry about "automatically receives millions" from the taxpayers is assuming that without those millions there'd still be the cap. That's a situation with no precedent in Canada, so is really closer to fantasy. Me, I'm basing my arguments on precedent.

      • Mike T.

        Some form of public financing is the norm in industrialized western nations, the question of amount is addressed within the text of the post, and while I presently have no direct evidence for funding "middle-of-the-raodism" as I call it, I think it stands to reason, especially given the absence of non-ideological opposition to the subsidy.

        • Matthew

          "it stands to reason"

          ah…your gut or intuition tell you so…so you don't need evidence for your assertion.

          "given the absence of non-ideological opposition to the subsidy"

          you may dismiss arguments you disagree with as ideological if you wish. It doesn't make those arguments disappear though.

          "Some form of public financing is the norm in industrialized western nations"

          But we are talking about a specific policy choice, per-vote taxpayer-funded subsidies to political parties. Only 9 countries, including Canada, have them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_subsidies

          9 is hardly "most" countries as you assert earlier. Some countries not on the list: France, UK, Ireland, US, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Japan, etc…

          Also not on the list: Canada's provinces, which are presumably "undemocratic" judging by some of the rhetoric on this website.

        • Matthew

          "I presently have no direct evidence for funding "middle-of-the-raodism" as I call it, I think it stands to reason"

          ah, your gut or intution tell you so. You don't need evidence for your assertion.

          "Some form of public financing is the norm in industrialized western nations"

          But we are talking about a very specific policy choice, the per-vote taxpayer-funded subsidy of political parties. Only 9 countries, including Canada, follow this policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_subsidies

          9 countries hardly amounts to "most" countries as you claim earlier. Countries not on that list include: France, UK, Ireland, US, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Japan, etc…

          "given the absence of non-ideological opposition "

          You may dismiss ideas you dislike as being ideological. It doesn't make those arguments disappear though

          • Matthew

            My apologies for the double post. I thought the site may have eaten my comment.

      • TimesArrow

        'While not elminating the need to gather $ directly it can take some of the focus off fundraising, allowing parties to put less effort into fundraising and more on policy. REduces the need to take extremist positions in order to gather $ through fear and misrepresentation.

        Interesting theory but do you have any evidence of it? '

        Doug Finley.

        By the way can you list any major democracy that does not subsides the political process in some way – even the US offers a choice between the two.

        • Matthew

          Again, we're not talking about subsidizing parties "in some way". We're talking about a specific method of subsidization. For the record, yes, I'm against the 75% tax rebate for donations too.

          As for the Doug Finley example…he came to influence AFTER the per-vote subsidy was put into effect. I'm looking for evidence that the per-vote subsidy reduces extremist positions and increases discourse on policy. So far, I have yet to see that in Canada due to this law.

    • Guy Smiley

      "…allowing parties to put less effort into fundraising and more on policy…"

      -Could you explain this a bit more? I don't see "policy" development as something that needs resources in the same way as fundraising, and I don't follow that either precludes reasonable attention to the other.

      " Reduces the need to take extremist positions in order to gather $ through fear and misrepresentation."

      -That's getting dangerously close to suggesting that the citizens are too stupid to be trusted with funding political parties directly. Also, couldn't we say that one can just as easily rally votes through fear and misrepresentation, thus securing a greater subsidy?

      "…and gives a reward to decent stable government that might not energize people to give $ but that does an average, uninteresting but competent job…"

      -Again, isn't up to the voters to decide what kind of government they want? Also, "decent and stable" might be your preference, but doesn't necessarily hold any privilege in governance style. Sometimes, more we might be better served by more radical and counter-hegemonic approaches. And the present system helps to keep parties like the Greens and BQ alive, which tends to perpetuate less stable Parliaments (and thus more focus on political gamesmanship.)

      • McC_

        I've also seen the exact opposite argument made, that public financing finances the "permanent war footing" that the parties have seemed be on in recent years, with attack ads between elections and all the rest. Both arguments seem equally plausible.

        • Mike T.

          Finances, sure. Causes? Why?

          • McC_

            that was supposed to say that public financing *allows* the "permanent war footing". But to your question, I have no idea what the causes of our current political culture are (which I would describe as double-D: "decadent and dispicable"), all I know is that it causes me shame more often than not.

      • TimesArrow

        'That's getting dangerously close to suggesting that the citizens are too stupid to be trusted with funding political parties directly. Also, couldn't we say that one can just as easily rally votes through fear and misrepresentation, thus securing a greater subsidy?'

        If that were to happen at least it would be out in the public sphere, where it could be countered politically – that's much more difficult when a party behaves in a similar or hyper-partisan manner in order to raise funds.

    • madeyoulook

      as most other countries realize

      You have a list of those other countries? They told you so?

      • Mike T.

        Let's just pretend we had the conversation and it ended the way we know it would have.

        • madeyoulook

          OK. You're pretending you have a list of such countries. Gotcha.

          • Mike T.

            no.

    • John_Edgar

      OK, here is a non-partisan, non-ideological argument against the per-vote subsidy. Political parties are not in themselves something that benefits the general public. And if you believe they are then I hope that you would agree that donating money to fund appalling advertising is hardly a public good in the same way that funding the RCMP is.

      As a taxpayer I want my taxes going to public necessities. If political parties want to pay for expensive advertising or for other things that are to the benefit of the political party then they can raise the funds themselves.

      • Jan

        But the same can be said for the tax write-off.

        • John_Edgar

          Sure, I'd be happy to get rid of that too (not that I think the Conservatives will be proposing it any time soon).

      • Mike T.

        I disagree that public parties are not, in aggregate, a public good to the extent they should be subsidized partly by public funds as directed by votes. After all, we can't have a Prime Minister without them!

        I also dislike tasteless advertising – so much so that I think part of the solution should be banning it and having more debates – and with the money saved we can reduce the public subsidy as well as the amount of the deduction for direct contributions.

        • madeyoulook

          so much so that I think part of the solution should be banning it and having more debates

          Wow. Freedom scores another victory, thanks to Mike T.

          PLEASE stop banning stuff you don't happen to like. But pssst, you wanna know a super duper way to have less of that distasteful advertising you loathe? Stop giving these turkeys free money!

        • John_Edgar

          Why can't you have a prime minister without a political party? We elect MPs and they can choose a PM, no need for parties at all. Political parties are just there to help elect MPs (well that and employ a whole lot of people whose best interests are usually not aligned with the best interests of the general populace). Why should I pay someone to help him get a job as my representative?

          Incidentally I sympathize with your view about advertising, I'm wary whenever I read the word ban, but it would be a good starting point for discussion. I'd also be interested in whether or not funding and advertising actually helps anyone get elected.

          • Mike T.

            So now we have to rewrite the constitution?

          • John_Edgar

            No. I was being flippant. But you still haven't convinced me in any way that political parties are deserving of our taxes. I think all of the parties are quite capable of raising enough money to function. They may well want more of our money so that they can spend it on things like advertising but I don't see why I should foot the bill for any of that.

            I'm yet to hear or read any argument for public funding of political parties that doesn't come across as essentially self-serving.

          • Thwim

            Because the alternative is private funding for political parties, and that is, by definition, self-serving. It is also anti-democratic because it means political parties have no significant interest in supporting the interests of those who cannot afford to donate to them.

            Finally, in our First-past-the-post-system, the public subsidy adds some value to voting for a party even if that party is guaranteed to lose in your riding. This might be enough to encourage people in a "locked" riding to come out and vote for a candidate they know is going to lose anyway..and who knows, if enough people do that, suddenly their candidate may not be the loser they were expecting.

          • TimesArrow

            good points all.

  • Blue

    If a political party feels it needs to have legislation in place that pays it annually millions of dollars, then maybe it doesn`t deserve to exist. A political party with worthwhile principles and goals should be able to have sufficient fundraising capabilities from the general populace.

    It`s the ultimate socialist trick to force all taxpayers to contribute to political parties ( even separatist parties ) that they fundamentally disagree with.

    It looks like Canadians will have the good fortune to see an election campaign where 4 parties will campaign on continued vote subsidies while the Conservative Party will campaign on the elimination of the vote subsidy to all parties.

    • McC_

      Hey Blue, weren't you and I just talking yesterday about all of the other public subsidies for political parties that CPC proposal would keep in place? Why aren't those subsidies also "the ultimate socialist trick to force all taxpayers to contribute to political parties ( even separatist parties ) that they fundamentally disagree with"? And if they are, why aren't you calling for them to be scrapped at the same time? Please be honest.

      • Blue

        I suppose it`s a question of where one would start—-the vote subsidy seems like a logical place—-at least with the political contribution and the generous 75% payback someone makes a conscious decision to contribute to their Party.

        However, after the vote subsidy is eliminated, and you want to make a logical argument to me that the other political subsidies should also be eliminated, I`m all ears.

        • McC_

          I don't think it's a question of starting points at all, in his recent interview, PMSH says that the other form of public financing for political parties are a-ok and he's all for keeping them. You say "at least with the political contribution and the generous 75% payback someone makes a conscious decision to contribute to their Party", well the easy counter-argument is that with the per vote subsidy someone makes a conscious decision to support their Party by voting for them, and we're back to the start. The two public sbsidies are basically the same for this reason: citizen indicates support for a party, and taxpayers cough up money for that Party. Is giving $25 to leverage $100 a greater show of support for a party than choosing for one of its members to represent you in Parliament for up to 5 years? I don't think there's any way to settle that argument, but I'm happy to listen if you want to try. But the Government's position on this has nothing to do with principle or ideology, it is simply the following "we don't agree with public support for political parties except for the public support for political parties that we agree with" and I can't imagine how anyone can be proud to support such a position.

        • tedbetts

          Where should one start:

          1. attacking the more democratic and less expensive one that the Conservatives rely upon less
          or
          2. attacking the more expensive , less democratic more detrimental one that forces non-supporters to subsidize the Conservatives and upon which the Conservatives rely upon more?

          Hmmmm.

          Go figure Harper went for option #1. He's never shown any regard for taxpayer money when it comes to partisan uses for his own benefit.

          But we can't do everything so you have to start somewhere, right? That being the case, and the reality of the tax deduction subsidy, don't you think your rhetoric is extremely hypocritical?

          • TimesArrow

            Small point…i agree with you in the main, but the per vote sub is also involutaryly taxpayer funded

          • tedbetts

            I was careful to say and deliberate in saying that the per vote subsidy introduces "an element" of democracy in that it ties each cent to actual voting support, i.e. support and cash. Especially compared to the tax deduction subsidy which is by designed not tied to voting support and has non-supporters funding parties they don't support.

          • sourstud

            "has non-supporters funding parties they don't support."

            Is this a reference to the financial support Liberal MP Joe Volpe receieves from Canada's large Dead Community?

          • Thwim

            Only by those taxpayers who are not voting.

            And they deserve what they get, in my opinion.

          • sourstud

            I think that's the general concensus view of the Liberal Party of Canada, is it not?

      • Blue

        ………..reply is lost McC

        • gottabesaid

          Lost replies have been bad for the last week or so, eh?

    • tedbetts

      Actually, you'll have 5 parties campaigning in support of vote subsidies because none of them will challenge the tax deduction subsidy which is:
      - far more costly (I think about $60M per year)
      - far less democratic (if you donate $100 to the Conservatives, it only costs you $25, but it costs the rest of us – the vast majority of whom did not vote Conservative – pay $75; the per vote subsidy has at least a democratic element to it, earn the vote, earn the subsidy)
      - far more destructive: why donate to a charity at 50% deduction when you can donate to a political party at 75% deduction

      And yet you and Harper know that the Conservatives benefit the most from this subsidy so dare not touch it!

      • Blue

        All Canadians are free to contribute as much as 1100.00 per year to the party of their choice.

        It would be more productive of you and Iggy to encourage voters to feel so strongly about the Liberal Party that they will contribute.

        Instead you take the easy way out and continue to insist on the Party Welfare Cheque.

        • tedbetts

          Actually Blue: you are the one taking the easy way out.

          Why don't you answer the question.

          Why do you oppose the less expensive, more democratic per vote subsidy but support the more expensive, less democratic tax deduction subsidy, to the point where you won't even address it?

        • Thwim

          Consider, if everybody contributed their maximum, the bill to the taxpayer would be *far* more than the vote subsidy is. To say that this is a "productive" use of time.. encouraging our government to take more money away from us to give to the party apparatus.. seems to be an entirely new definition of the word "productive"

          • madeyoulook

            Consider, if everybody contributed their maximum..

            I guarantee you Canadians have the good sense to never let that come to pass.

          • Thwim

            While I'd agree that most do, it seems that CPC supporters, like Blue, think such a thing is "productive"

          • madeyoulook

            The politically inclined contributing to the party of their choice is productive, wonderful, a democratic thing of beauty, and a magnificent testament to the virtues of freedom. The incentive by way of the excessive tax credit is bonkers.

            But everybody contributing? Can you imagine every single Canadian contributing to the political parties? Even the ones who loathe the parties, or at least loathe the current offerings? That would be ridiculous, unfair and unproductive. And Canadians would not stand for the injustice of "everybody contributing." Why, you'd have to pass a law to make everybody do something so ridiculous. Oh, wait…

          • TimesArrow

            'But everybody contributing? Can you imagine every single Canadian contributing to the political parties?'

            Good! Then the political hustlers can all call your house not mine. In theory that would be fine. If the playing field was fairly level there would be less leverage for the Finleys of this world to scare the core into coughing up – how to get that mythical playing field though? Forthe record i have no problem in gradually reducing all political subs, but the least bothersome to me is the per voter – just call me bonkers!

      • EeeOar

        Some numbers that I recall seeing dredged up elsewhere (for the 2008 calendar year, IIRC) ….

        - ~23.7 million eligible voters, via taxes, are each forced to add $1.98 to the "subsidy pot"
        - ~13.7 million voters actually voted, which, at $1.95/vote, distributes a total of $26.7 million to the parties
        - of the original ~$46.9 million that was collected, this leaves ~$20.2 million
        - ~0.17 million voters make donations averaging $160 to the party of their choice
        - each of those average donations qualifies for a $120 rebate – those rebates consume the leftover ~$20.2 million

        So this means that:

        - if you voted, but didn't contribute (as 57.1% of eligible voters did) you were forced to pay $1.98 in taxes, but by voting you allocated $1.95 to the party of your choice
        - if you didn't vote and didn't contribute (as 42.2% of eligible voters did) you were forced to pay $1.98 in taxes
        - and if you voted and contributed $40 (which only 0.7% of eligible voters did) you were forced to pay $1.98 in taxes, but by voting you allocated $1.95 to the party of your choice, and then your $40 out of pocket donation forces the $1.98 from about 60 other eligible voters to go to that same party.

        I know which of these three scenarios I find most offensive and which I find to be least offensive.

  • lgarvin

    Business doesn't influence government through donations in any case, business influences government by offering rewarding cushy jobs, chairmanships and important titles to those politicians who have pleased them. If you want to truly change the back-scratching culture between business and government put some teeth into the inforcement of existing legislation regarding influence peddling and lengthen the "so-called" cooling off periods. And throw those stinking lobbyists right out of Ottawa.

    You may saay… I'm a dreamer.

    • TimesArrow

      Agree…i wasn't even that bothered when there were no restrictions on donations – large companies often donated to both mainstream parties [ ok not good if you're a greenie] The problem in that case was transparency. I believe i once heard that the number of known lobbyists in Ottawa jumped from 300 or so tenfold once Brian took up residence at # 24 lobbyists way.

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    Just out of curiosity, hands up if you can afford to spend almost $100 a month supporting your preferred political party.

    • Mike T.

      Absolutely. I'm a politically interested Canadian with a middle class income who makes political donations. My contributions aren't nothing, but they are nowhere near the $1,000 cap. $1,000 may not be big money, but it's generally not an amount you give for completely altruistic poltiical reasons.

      • Matthew

        What is an example of giving money to a political party for a completely altruistic political reason? Have you done so? If so, please explain.

        • Mike T.

          To be honest, it's not that hard to figure out.

          • Matthew

            I'm not being facetious. What is a completely altruistic political reason to contribute? When have you done so yourself?

            I've given money to political parties because I believe in their causes or their candidates, but I don't consider that purely altruistic. I wanted to see those parties win so they could implement policies I support.

          • Mike T.

            And my response may have come off as curt but I also wasn't being facetious – I think our conversation on the matter would/will be pretty predictable.

            I would consider an altruistic vote as one purely based on policy, rather than wanting to get in good with the party or even donating because you know the candidate (which I've done, I admit). I guess because a party's policy would be good for your demographic is an open question, but I would also consider it altruistic.

        • Jenn_

          Giving to the Online Party of Canada. Not because you are a supporter, but because you'd like to see such an upstart political party get the legs it needs to become viable.

          • Matthew

            I agree that would be a more altruistic reason to give to a party.

            The current subsidy system discriminates against upstart political parties becoming viable. (I understand you weren't stating your comment with that point in mind)

          • Mike T.

            That last point does bother me but not tot he extent I think the system should be changed.

    • Crit_Reasoning

      People who max out the contribution limit are essentially donating $2.73 per day!!! Who can afford that kind of dough? Certainly not people who buy their daily coffee at Starbucks… or Tim Horton's, for that matter.

      • madeyoulook

        Smokers. Lottery ticket purchasers. Etc. Etc.

        • Jenn_

          Not if they're STILL smokers, lottery ticket purchasers, etc. etc.

          And I have to tell you, "Quit smoking to give to your political party" is not a slogan that will beget a whole new raft of non-smokers. It even does nothing for me, and I want to give!

      • LdKitchenersOwn

        Why do people always make the comparison that it only amounts to giving up a fancy coffee a day, and not the comparison that it only amounts to canceling your cellphone AND your internet connection?

        • Matthew

          your cellphone and your internet connection combined only cost $100 a month? Damn, I need to have a word with my provider!

        • McC_

          because then how in the heck would I be supposed to participate in these debates? ;-)

          • madeyoulook

            MYL's winner comment of the day. Congratulations, McC! Don't get too excited, there's no cash or anything…

        • MostlyCivil

          As a reality check, the "after tax rebate" of a maximum donation for me would be the same as giving up my transit pass to work for about 3 and a half months.

      • Thwim

        Okay. So we're right back to saying that the wealthy can afford to donate while the poor can't. No news there.

        After all, most of the poor folk I know can't afford to do a Tim Horton's a day.. or even every work day. They use the pot at the office. How much free coffee would they have to give up to donate that $2.73/day then?

        • McC_

          you know smarter poor folk then I do, I see too many who do Tim Horton's daily (in some cases more than once…) but hey, that's freedom right? I'm not about to tell them how to use their cheques or throw them out of their social housing just because they won't make their own coffee for pennies a cup.

          • Mike T.

            YOu're not counting the prohibitive capital outlay for the grinder and kettle!

    • Mandatory Jedi

      Hands or thumbs?

      Here's a high five from me!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ottawa_Centrist Ottawa_Centrist

      I am not in a pandered to demographic and cannot afford the maximum donation level even if I were inclined to donate to a party. I'm not a partisan and would prefer a stable, transparent cash flow for all the parties.

    • John.K

      Surely, any self-respecting latte-sipping Toronto elitist would be willing to give up his latte money for the cause? :-)

      $100 a month is a loonie and a toonie a day, not a lot of money, really.

      • Mike T.

        Beer and popcorn, you might say….

      • MostlyCivil

        "$100 a month is a loonie and a toonie a day, not a lot of money, really"

        Come to my neighbourhood and say that out loud. Bring running shoes, and a helmet. Clearly, you and reality have yet to meet.

        • John.K

          It's not a lot of money, really. The fact that a large number of people might consider it to be, says a lot about income distribution in this country, the appalling low minimum wage, and the inadequate social safety net.

    • lgarvin

      It's not an all or nothing choice, I've given contributions in the past. Always $200 at a time and always getting a 75% deduction at tax time. Frankly, if you can't get a couple of thousand people to dig into their own pockets to support you, you don't deserve to be called a national party. Not in my opinion.

      Personally, I would remove all campaign funding rules except for full disclosure; undisclosed political contributions would be an indictable offence with an automatic jail sentence, no fines. No tax deductions allowed either, of course, not for personal or business contributions.

      • Thwim

        You're assuming most people pay attention.

        Were that the case, we wouldn't need gov't in the first place.

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      Wow.

      Commenters here are doing better than I thought!

    • madeyoulook

      Sorry. Your question was going real swell until the phrase "preferred political party."

  • evenflow

    Perhaps it would be beneficial to see how these subsidies came to be and who sat on the committee that proposed these changes?

    Evidently, from the comments already, either people do not know what they are talking about or are being deceitful. Context would be very much appreciated!

    • Guy Smiley

      Chretien introduced bill C-24. Not sure why the committee matters. I also get the sense you are not in a position to judge the competence of other posters on this topic, given that you don't even know the basic history of the current rule structure.

      • evenflow

        I am well aware who brought them in but what i find is getting lost is why they were brought in and who's idea it was and who agreed to it. There were Conservatives sitting on this committee as well as other people so I'm trying to understand if the hate it so much why would they agree to it?

    • Guy Smiley

      Chretien passed bill C-24. Not sure why the committee would matter. I'm also not sure you're in a position to judge the competence or intent of other posters, given that you don't even know the basic history of the current election finance rules.

    • Fido

      evenflow–your final sentence–it's not one or the other, it's both.

    • lgarvin

      How about just making your point – if you have one – and keeping the snide insults to yourself?

      • evenflow

        My point is I would like to know how this particular subsidy came into being. The reason it exist and why the Conservatives on the committee agreed to it?

        about the snide comments, meh, its not like I'm the only one!

        • lgarvin

          about the snide comments, meh, its not like I'm the only one!

          True, but most of us have the courtesy to exchange a few polite words before we denounce everyone else in the place as fools, or liars, or both.

  • madeyoulook

    I am against the shamefully and unfairly massive tax credit for political contributions, yes.

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      You know, I didn't realize this until recently, but the tax credit for political contributions is better than the tax credit for charitable contributions.

      That's just weird to me.

      • Mike T.

        Think about who wrote the Income Tax Act.

        • madeyoulook

          Exactly. Which is why this is a surprising and refreshing opportunity to undo at least some of the unfair confiscation of public wealth by these greedy pols.

          • Mike T.

            Surely you get the disadvantages by removing one so-called outrage while keeping the other, right?

  • Mandatory Jedi

    Not sure if you've heard Aaron, but the election has been called off, again.

    There will be much tucking of tails coming up shortly.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/Full%20Report%20%28Jan…

  • Leo

    Un-flipp'n-believable that there are those who seriously think this "vote tax" is OK!!!!

    Under the Liberals, reforms to the Elections Act in 2004 banned corporate and union donations, but also increased the generosity of election-time reimbursements and added the quarterly-payment schedule — actions taxpayer watchdogs say should never have happened and have labelled a “vote tax.” http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=4…

    • evenflow

      I love it when people quote 'The Sun' chain.

      But really Leo, why did the Conservatives agree to it if they think it is such a horrible idea?

    • TimesArrow

      Taxpayer watch dog's first concern automatically being democratic equity of course.

  • madeyoulook

    Small parties also have few voters and few members and few supporters. Which, as a small party, is kind of the way it should be, else it wouldn't be a small party…

  • McC_

    there is a minimum number of votes before you qualify, I think it's 2% according to this (but not that clear) http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&…

  • bergkamp

    The problem is left wing types prefer to put their hands in other peoples pockets, rather than their own, when it comes time to pay up. Libs and NDP need public subsidy because their own supporters won't give them much money.

    If Liberal and NDP supporters can't be bothered to support their own parties, why should the rest of us be forced to do so.

    • Leo

      Exactly!! “Jean Chretien started to walk the big money out of politics." gag, snort.

    • tedbetts

      Really?

      You mean Harper didn't just spend $70 million (i.e. almost three years worth of per vote subsidies) on mandatory signage and signage review?

      You mean Harper hasn't spent millions and millions of taxdollars recklessly to self-promote (eg. $6M on a military photo op and fly over re-do in the north, $200K to announce the fiscal update outside of Parliament with Duffy, etc.)?

      You mean Harper no longer wants to rely up on the far costlier, far less democratic tax deduction subsidy?

      You mean Harper is going to start paying for his research and office equipment and all staff and not rely upon the taxpayer funded research and office budget?

      The problem is right wing types prefer to put their hands in other peoples pockets and lie about it instead of being honest about it, rather than their own pocket, when it comes time to pay up. Conservatives need public subsidy because their own supporters won't give them enough money.

      If Conservative can't raise enough money from their supporters to do all the things they want, why should the rest of us be forced to do so?

    • Thwim

      Oh.. didn't you know? The two bucks for my vote support comes out of my own tax bill. Does the $591 credit for your $1100 donation come out of yours?

      • TimesArrow

        Actually that toonie comes out of his and mine and evryone elses on this blog…point taken and made though.

        • Thwim

          No, it doesn't. Think about it. If everybody gets charged $2, am I paying for your $2 and you're paying for mine? Well.. maybe.. but it makes more sense to think that each person is paying for their own $2.

          So given that, anybody who votes and pays taxes is paying for their own subsidy. The only exceptions are those who vote but don't pay taxes.. given that about 58.8% of the registered voters voted in the last election, and about 30% of Canadians don't pay taxes, about 1.8% (30% of 60%) of the voting-subsidy was paid for by taxpayers other than the voter. (assuming no correlation. In reality, not paying taxes is more highly correlated with not voting, so that number should be even smaller) On the flip side, there's the number of Canadians who didn't vote who do pay taxes. Again, that's about 40% non-voters, with 70% paying taxes.. or 2.8% of the voting subsidy, so these people manage to pay for the non-taxpaying voters entirely, and then go on to subsidize us voting taxpayers an additional 1%.

          And what's more.. they don't vote, so I don't exactly feel any sympathy toward them paying more. They obviously don't care about it enough to mark a ballot.

          • TimesArrow

            We can agree there is a big disparity between the involuntary contributions in realtion to the two subs, which is the main point to be made.

          • madeyoulook

            Except there are taxpayers who cannot vote because they are not citizens.
            …and…
            Except each pigeonholed voter-citizen in your example does not cough up exactly two loonies. A substantial number of people, as you cite, pay no income tax (and many get a rebate so that they pay effectively very little or no GST, or even make on the deal). But a substantial number of taxpayers pay VERY LITTLE tax, and a much smaller number of taxpayers pay A FORTUNE.

            So harrumpf about how it's just two bucks each if you must. But it isn't. It's a whole lot more from some, and a pittance from most. Yeah, yeah, they're rich, they deserve their pockets picked, and they might even have the gall to support Harper. But such it's-so-little-anyways arguments have a nasty habit of adding up substantially, especially if that's the winning argument for never getting rid of any of 'em.

          • TimesArrow

            Well, then you must be really pissed that my tax deduction sub comes partially out of your pocket annually [ i believe?] rather than merely every time we go to the polls, as is the case with the voter sub?

          • madeyoulook

            What's a tax deduction sub?

          • TimesArrow

            Oops…tax deduction subsidy.

          • TimesArrow

            Crap…tax credit for politcal donations from individuals. God it's almost tax time, i'm feeling ill already.

          • Thwim

            No, it's two bucks per voting citizen. Period.
            Just because you're rich and pay more taxes in general doesn't mean that your vote causes more than $2 to go to the parties. So the additional tax you pay goes to support other things.

            What you're yammering about is the overall nature of progressive taxation, but that's a different issue.

            As for taxpayers who cannot vote because they're not citizens, one assumes they find the cost-benefit value of earning money in Canada to be sufficient to justify paying the taxes because otherwise they'd either become citizens or leave, no?

          • madeyoulook

            Your yammering: but it makes more sense to think that each person is paying for their own $2.

            …is just plain NONsense, trying to convince us that each person is only paying $2. Each person is not.

          • EeeOar

            By highlighting the purposefully skewed nature of the tax system are you advocating for a single rate tax or even a flat tax?

          • madeyoulook

            Well, I did try to reply…

          • EeeOar

            Perhaps you need to send a "ping" e-mail just as emily has been doing rather frequently….

            At first I had no clue what she was up to, but then earlier today she had a post that sort of implied that sending a followup note causes ID to wakeup and post both a lost post as well as the kick in the head post….?????

          • Mr Irrelevant

            In that case, why not just pay your $2 (or whatever amount you are inclined to) without the government being involved at all?

          • madeyoulook

            Because not enough people would choose to do so. So the political pigs pass a law to just take it, instead.

          • Thwim

            1. It's more difficult for the individual to write out the cheque, find the address of the party, and mail it than it is for them to just proceed with their normal behavior — ie, casting a vote.

            2. The transactional fees on all these sums being moved individually would make it worth much less to the party in question.

            3. Most people are unwilling to sacrifice in support of democracy. But the nature of society is we all work and compromise together to achieve things we'd be unable to do individually.

          • TimesArrow

            I suppose this is really what's at the core of the conservatives objections really? That those who are willing to sacrifice financially for their chosen party should not have that sacrifice evened out by the state. The sacrifices made by the conservative core voters are available, in fact desirable for everyone. There is merit to this. However, i choose to make my financial sacrifices in other areas [ environment for example] why should my political views be marginalised because of this choice?
            mmm…Not going to popular.

          • Thwim

            Never thought about it, but you could be on to something. Not an unreasonable viewpoint to have, but I think the overall benefit to the public of having reasonable support for political party organizations outweighs it.

    • John W.

      And when the corps and lobbyists get back in with the big donations, it still gets passed on down to the consumer and comes right out of your pocket.

  • Curt

    When Preston Manning started the Reform Party he organized meetings all through out Western Canada. At each meeting he "passed the hat" looking for financial support. At that time he had a good political product that was endorsed by the voters in Western Canada. "We want in."
    Today the other political parties Liberals NDP Green and even the Bloc should be wide open to the concept of supporting themselves.
    This would make it necessary for them to formulate and advocate good political policy. The better the policy or platform the more donations they could expect.
    Their reasons given so far as to why the $2.00 per vote should stay are in my mind very shallow.

    • Thwim

      Oh that's poppycock. That's assuming voters make decisions based on rational evidence.

      The nature of campaign advertising, not to mention what they put in the 10%ers suggests otherwise.

      • Mike T.

        And reform wouldn't exist without professional politicans with successful fundraising schemes transferring loyalty from the Tories to Mannings lot. Or if it did, it would be slighlty less effective than the Green party.

  • Crit_Reasoning

    The pleasure is all mine.

  • Mike T.

    I know it makes some types froth at the mouth to value practicality over ideology, but if people generally valued political parties enough for 80%+ of people to be "puttin' their money where their mouth is, there wouldn't be much need for politicians to raise $ for stupid ads during the campaign anyway.

  • tedbetts

    What is really surprising to me is how much focus is put on this relatively small expense ($25M or so), especially the media regurgitating Tory talking points on it, but no one ever challenges Harper about his views on the tax deduction subsidy which is:

    - far more costly (I think about $60M per year)

    - far less democratic (if you donate $100 to the Conservatives, it only costs you $25, but it costs the rest of us – the vast majority of whom did not vote Conservative – pay $75; the per vote subsidy has at least a democratic element to it, earn the vote, earn the subsidy)

    - far more detrimental to society: why donate to a charity at 50% deduction when you can donate to a political party at 75% deduction

    I know why Harper won't touch it – the Conservatives benefit the most from this subsidy – but you would think one journalist somewhere would point out the complete bankruptcy of his moral righteousness given how easy he is to use our tax dollars to subsidize his party, to constantly promote himself (like an unnecessary $6M photo op in the north), or just flush it down the toilet to the tune of tens or even hundreds of millions (like G20 or EAP signage or census).

    • AT1

      Ted, you can argue which subsidy is cheaper, but the fact remains that they are currently getting both subsidies. I happen to believe that voter donations are more democratic because political parties have be be responsive to their donor base. To raise more money, they have to widen their base of supporters. This argument is partly true of the per vote subsidy, except that parties need only connect with their supporters once every 4-5 yrs.

      I personally would be in favor of reducing the tax benefits of political donations to the same level as charitable donations.

      • Leo

        "reducing the tax benefits of political donations to the same level as charitable donations" – my feeling exactly.

      • tedbetts

        I think it is far less democratic because it means that my tax dollars are being used to subsidize your choice of party. In fact, more of "other people's money" is used than even your own. That is hardly democratic.

        The per vote subsidy at least introduces an element of democracy in that, like your elected representative, it reflects the "will of the people" as at that time until the next election.

        As someone who spends a lot of time with charitable organizations and knows how much they are suffering especially now, I am very much in favour of making it 50%. On that we agree.

        But my real point is that Harper's hypocrisy and his supporter's hypocrisy and the media's shortsightedness all treats us taxpayers like idiots. To say supporting the per vote subsidy is evil welfare and shows how awful "they" are and how little they care about our taxdollars, while raking in a worse costlier subsidy is very insulting and arrogant and pisses me off.

        • Mr Irrelevant

          I don't like the donation tax credit (I don't like charitable donation tax credits either), but I'm not seeing the point of your first sentence. The same is true of the vote subsidy, except that it is 100% other people's $ instead of 75.

          • tedbetts

            Who gets how much money is tied directly to their level of support in the public with the per vote subsidy. The amount of the subsidy each party gets, reflects exactly to their level of democratic support (as long as they get 5% of the vote).

            Not so with the tax deduction subsidy: first, only those with money can contribute; second, those with money to contribute are getting other people who likely don't support that person's choice to top up their choice. There is no correlation to the democratic support in the population.

            It is, as I say, an "element" of democracy that one has the other clearly does not.

          • EeeOar

            You've got it almost completely backwards…

            The total cost of the vote subsidy is about $26 million and the tax credit costs about another $20 million, so the total to fund both of those is $46 million. There are about 23 million eligible voters (taxpayers), so everyone needs to contribute $2 to cover those two costs. Which then means that anyone who votes has covered the cost of the vote subsidy. However, the average political party contributor (all 170,000 of them) are each refunded $120 – essentially each of them is taking $2 from 60 people who had to contribute $2 but didn't vote.

            And, yes, I know that because of the tax brackets and deductions and earnings and so on some eligible voters are only contributing $0.05 of their $2 portion while other voters are paying $10 instead of just $2, but that is a characteristic of our tax collection system, where we have well-off citizens helping out less well-off citizens – feel free to take issue with that if you want, but it isn't right to mixup a possible lack of fairness regarding how taxes are collected with a possible lack of fairness regarding how taxes are spent.

  • bowdowntoharper

    The neocons on this board are delusional. Harper got the most money out of any party from this subsidy, so stop the "the left is stealing canada's money" rhetoric. The subsidy is a brilliant idea, and as much as I hate having a party I don't support benefiting from it, I equally love the fact that the party I do support receives a small financial contribution. The cost of this is so minimal. Harper just wants to eliminate any opposition because he can't govern properly without a majority even though many PM's have done a fine job at it.

    • Mr Irrelevant

      "The left" is the reason the subsidy still exists, so that's at least somewhat accurate. But if we acknowledge the Tories get more money than other parties, can we then acknowledge they would take the biggest cut? I am amazed at how many media reports I've seen refer to this as Harper trying to take "his opponents' " or the Liberals' source of funding away.

      • TimesArrow

        The biggest cut of the tax he can most easily sacrifice. Particularly as it harms all the other parties the most in real terms- he has a decided advantage in fund raising. I'd be more impressed if the cut did him the most harm in the overall ; now that would be leadership on this issue.

        • sourstud

          Actually, in "real terms", the Tories lose more than the Liberals. The Tories lose $10.3M, the Liberals only lose $7.3M. Is that the kind of leadership you were talking about?

          • TimesArrow

            No it's not leadership at all. Sure he gives up the biggest cut, but when the dust clears he's in the cat bird seat with a decided advantage in fundraising coupled to a very generous tax donation subsidy. If he really cared about the taxpayer and democratic equity he'd do more to reassure opposition parties that he is not just playing this for political advantage[ like gradually reducing the voter sub and the donation sub]. It is patently obvious this is yet another chess move who's ultimate goal is the destruction of the Liberals – so let's dispense with bs about leadership.

          • sourstud

            It doesn't matter what kind of tax payer subsidy to political parties are cut, the Conservative's are going to take the biggest hit., because they receive more support from Canadians than any other party – both financially and electorally.

            The tax donation subsidy is at least fair in that all political parties (and I believe Independants) can benefit from it, the voter-subsidy does not. Currently, the only parties that receive the voter-subsidy are the CPC, LPC, NDP, BQ and Greens. That is fundamentally un-democratic.

            But don't get me wrong. I'd also support removing the donation subsidy along with the voter subsidy. But nobody, and certainly no Liberals, are proposing that, are they?

            I believe that political parties are private organizations, and as such shouldn't receive any public funds. You're free to disagree with that, I just wish you Liberals would come out and say that instead of erroneously claiming this proposition would unfairly favour the CPC.

          • TimesArrow

            1] Regretfully you can't grasp my point – Harper's is prepared to sacrifice if he winds up with a decided financial advantage.

            2] The TD credit is ludicrously generous; i grant your point as to fairness but then you can't recieve the per vote sub unless you poll more than 5% at the polls, which is consistent with our FPTP system – independents can still fundraise and as you say the get the TD credit in anycase.

            3]All subs could and probably should be reduced gradually – the libs should be making this argument.

            4] Of course it would favour the CPC – in the short run at least. Which is why cuts should be broad based and grandfathered in. Do you think this is not at least coincidentally aimed square at the libs – it's what Harper dreams of…their destruction.
            http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opin…

            This from a former colleague and perhaps former friend of Harpers. I suppose it's possible Nichols fully endorses Harper's goals and tactics?

            correction: 2% not 5%…which is somewhat better.

          • EeeOar

            Agree that the CPC would/will be the biggest losers in absolute terms whether the vote subsidy is cut (loss of ~$10 M) or the tax credit is cut (loss of ~$13 M) or if both were cut (loss of ~$23 M).

            To compare, the LPC would/will also be losers in absolute terms, whether the vote subsidy is cut (loss of ~$7 M) or the tax credit is cut (loss of ~$3.5 M) or if both were cut (loss of ~$10.5 M).

            In very rough terms the vote subsidy loss would be similarish for both parties (admittedly somewhat larger for the CPC), but the tax credit loss would obviously hurt the CPC a lot more than it would hurt the LPC. On that basis it makes complete sense that if Harper feels compelled to reduce the burden on taxpayers he would want to cut the per vote subsidy while leaving the tax credit intact – it would be crazy for him to do otherwise.

            But to argue that the per vote subsidy is not fair to taxpayers and that the tax credit is fair to taxpayers is just spin.

            And btw, many have suggested that Harper is picking this startegy to "kneecap" the LPC as much or more than to eliminate an unfair burden to taxpayers – regardless of his motives, do you suppose that the LPC will actually die as a result of this move? Will left-leaning voters really not find any candidates to vote for, or would they actually start voting for the CPC? Will it really lead to the CPC's ascendancy to the title of "Natural Governing Party"?

          • TimesArrow

            Thanks for getting my point. As to your last point, Nichols is quoted both here and in L. Martin's 'Harperland' as discussing strategies with Harper to remove the libs from the national scene. A straight horse race between the new left and a CPC fortified with centrist libs would in theory become a new NGP.
            Harper's entittled to his views; i don't doubt he believes it is both best for the country, and serendipitiously for conservatism, ie., not an evil plot per se. However it is for the people of this country to say whether the Liberal Party lives or dies [ as well one hope the political instincts for survival of the LPC] not just the self – interested leader of the CPC, who appears to harbour a grudge bordering on the pathological.

          • EeeOar

            Hmmmmm…..

            Let me set the question of Harper's motives and so on aside for a moment, and add this specific question: How much money do you suppose that a political party needs to survive? I mean, sure Harper can possibly pass legislation or amend legislation or whatever so as to significantly impact the LPC. But that is all he can do. He can't actually cause the LPC to fade away…that happens when supporters move away some to the left and some to the right. But why would supporters move away? What is it that happens to these supporters? The ideas and convictions and so on are unchanged…..

            And there seems to be a bit of an assumption that this new NDP would be just like the old NDP, when clearly it wouldn't, it would have to take on some of the characteristics of the former LPC folks who moved there.

          • TimesArrow

            Good point. No doubt the libs may survive [ it might even fire up a protest donation] It could be the spur for the left to unite. The law of unforeseen consquences being what it is i would not be shocked to see it backfire on the CPC – the new left is effective and the CPC do not achieve NGP status. More likely though is he can severely cripple the libs and have a relatively free hand in the short/medium term to fashion the country how he sees fit. Since i don't share his vision of the country i naturally don't wish this to occur.

          • EeeOar

            Yup, and then almost certainly a more left leaning government will have an opportunity to undo the more "extreme" outcomes. Over the longer term the country will move towards a version that maximizes our collective support.

            It would be nice if the country could just move in a straight line from where we are today to this utopia, but it seems to be necesarry to tack back and forth to get anywhere, especially when politics is involved. And when I say utopia, I mean it in a sense of the word that maximizes the population's satisfaction with their lives.

            And back to my original question about money…what do the party's do with their $17 million (CPC) or their $10 million (LPC) or whatever amount? It seems to me that a goodly portion of it goes to developing strategy and advertising and so on…if their budgets were severely restricted maybe the parties (LPC in particular in this case) would have to revert to core work only, which hopefully would be developing policies that attract the support of voters – how bad could that be?

          • TimesArrow

            Being a sailor i like the tacking metaphor.

            It seems entirely plausible that your last point would happen – lord knows i'd like to see less attack ads more policy development and grass roots stuff; nevertheless i worry what the CPC would do with a really big gap in revenue. I assume that they would have little difficulty in replacing lost govt revenue.

          • EeeOar

            Agree that creating a funding gap that is larger than the existing gap won't be a good thing.

            I'm really arguing for elimination of both subsidies. Through this discussion I still have not seen any explanation of the fundamental 'good' that comes from giving political parties millions upon millions of dollars – it seems to me anything above a million or two just goes to nefarious use.

          • TimesArrow

            - it seems to me anything above a million or two just goes to nefarious use.

            Was that really the case when the libs and cons were relying on corporate funding?

            And i'm worried that overrelance on private funding could fuel some of the problems we see south of the border. Interstingly, Obama may have changed the ground rules there with his grass roots funding. So maybe i'm worrying too much? One thing we can agree on is too much money in the hands of political parties is rarely a good thing.

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    This is a great point and I hadn't thought of that! So, if I'm reading your comment right an $1100 contribution is actually only $450 out of pocket? That's better then!

    Well, "better". Technically I guess it's just a $650 taxpayer subsidy per maximum contribution, but it's better for the contributor! Donating $450 doesn't seem so onerous if my fellow taxpayers are going to match it at a rate of 144%!

  • Jenn_

    The maximum credit at $1,100 is $591.87. I just put it into the computer. I can't figure out when the 75% gets reduced, and I think it goes down gradually. $500 gives a $350 credit, for example.

    • Crit_Reasoning

      So that would make it a net contribution of $42.34 per month, after the tax credit?

      • JamesHalifax

        MostlyCivil wrote:
        "You would think with all the money the LIberals stole while they were in office…..they wouldn't need the $2 per."

        I'm still waiting for the Conservatives to pay back that $350,000 from the 1872 Pacific Scandal. "

        Couple points Mostly.

        The money stolen in 1872 is long gone….as are those who stole it.

        The money stolen a few years ago is most likely stashed in offshore accounts of Liberal MP's and their bagmen. That money we still have a hope of getting back. The other…not so much.

        Lastly, the Conservatives of 1872 are not even the same party as the Conservatives of today. The Liberals however, are made up of the same type of sleazy crooks they have always been.

      • Jenn_

        Yes.

    • EeeOar

      Scroll down to Line 410 on Page 3 of the federal worksheet.

      • Jenn_

        I looked for that, but my program has the federal worksheet broken out into at least six different "pages", none of which are line 410. But it said right on the place where it calculates the credit (federal worksheet) so I figured it had to be somewhere. This is really going to bug me now. I tried finding a page 410, nada. Political just gives me the place to put the donation. Thanks for finding that!

        • EeeOar

          There are three brackets:

          - 75% of first $400
          - 50% of next $350 (ie between $400 and $750)
          - 33.3% of next $525 (ie between $750 and $1275)

          If you donate the maximum $1275, you will get a $650 refund from taxpayers, which is 50.98%.

          • Jenn_

            Wow, thanks for educating me, EeeOar, since I didn't realize the $1,100 limit was subject to inflation. I had initially assumed you were looking at an old Federal worksheet, but now I see it says 2010 right on it. Thanks!

  • Crit_Reasoning

    If you really want to make your argument hit home, you could express it in terms of beer money.

    • lgarvin

      LOL

      The political cliché about "who you'd rather have a beer with" maybe should be replaced with "would you buy that guy a beer?"

  • MostlyCivil

    I bet you he could tell you how many Liberal MP's were convicted of anything, either by trial or by the Gomery Commission. Right, james?

    James?

    Is this thing on? *Tap Tap*

    • lgarvin

      I'll answer your question. No Liberal MPs were ever convicted, or even charged, on the basis of sworn evidence given at the Gomery Commission.

      The more important questions, IMO, are 1) Why not? 2) What Liberal MPs asked for investigations into the illegal campaign contributions which were revealed – again- under sworn testimony?

      Was it "crooked?" Not proven.
      Was it "sleazy?" Damn straight.

      Every Liberal MP and functionary of the time wears it -justifiably – and each one will continue to wear it as long as they stay in the arena.

      • gottabesaid

        Y'know, I get that the Liberals are going to wear this, and deservedly so… but simply calling the lot a bunch of crooks, today, whenever the Conservatives need a go-to distraction from their own handling of things… sorry, that's weak sauce for me.

      • Thwim

        So you're saying Emerson wears it?

        Incidentally, does this mean Harper wears the Billion (with a B) dollars he took from the Canadian Lumber industry to hand over to their competitors in the States?

        After all.. just because he was the one who said that if he were Prime Minister, he "would seek a clear commitment of the United States to comply with the NAFTA ruling. If the Canada-U.S trade relationship is to remain a fair, stable, rules-based system, then the United States has a moral obligation to return those duties to Canadian softwood lumber companies," doesn't mean that giving away that money and permanently killing some Canadian logging companies was crooked..

        Just sleazy.

        • MostlyCivil

          And hey, I never argued against sleazy. it's the casual way the word "crook" and "corrupt" gets thrown around.

          • TimesArrow

            Hey James, we had an election and Canadian's passed judgement on' those' Liberals – get over it.

        • lgarvin

          "So you're saying Emerson wears it?"

          Yeah, of course. He was a Liberal MP, he took his orders from the PMO and kept his head down and his mouth shut when it was revealed that his party was engaging in wholesale fraud and theft in the province of Quebec. Changing sweaters doesn't change the facts.

          Regarding the softwood lumber deal, of course Harper wears it. Of course he's wearing what is simply a bad deal (if you judge it as such) rather than a corrupt deal. There's quite a degree of difference there.

          • Thwim

            Right. Corruption comes in via Cadman.

            So.. Emerson wears this.. and Harper was, knowing this, quite happy to bring Emerson into his Cabinet. So does Harper not wear some of it now as well then?

Newer Comments →

Previous

Next

From Macleans