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 most democratic part of the federal political finance system’

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, October 5, 2011 11:38am - 55 Comments

With the end of the per-vote subsidy now in plain sight—hailed via a raving action alert—Duff Conacher mounts another defence of the measure in a note to reporters.

The per-vote annual funding for federal political parties is the most democratic part of the federal political finance system because the funding is handed out based on the actual support from voters each party receives in the election.

Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Québec all have per-vote funding of political parties for this reason.

By cutting the per-vote funding, the Conservatives are making the most undemocratic change they could make to the federal political finance system

As well, the Conservatives are currently enjoying the most undemocratic political finance subsidy because they have 24 MPs more than they deserved in the recent election (they received 39.6 percent of the vote, but 54 percent of the MPs).  Each of those MPs receives about $440,000 annually in salary and for their offices, so the Conservatives will receive an undemocratic subsidy of $10.5 million every year until the next election.

In addition, by stuffing the Senate with Conservatives, Prime Minister Harper has further subsidized his party with the public’s money.

P.S. See details about how the federal per-vote subsidy and the political finance system should be changed to actually make it more
democratic at: http://dwatch.ca/camp/OpEdJun0711.html

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
  • TonyAdams

    My arse “per-vote annual funding” is the most democratic part of political finance. I vote for third parties, I hate establishment. Parties I vote for never receive money for my vote because they don’t qualify. My vote is worth less than someone who votes PC, Lib or NDP and two tier voting is not democratic.

    People giving money to party they support is most democratic because it involves free will. NDP and Libs can’t raise money because majority of their supporters are middle classes who expect other people to pay, not themselves.

    • Anonymous

      “People giving money to party they support is most democratic because it involves free will.”

      Those same people getting 75% of that money back from the taxpayers?  Not quite as democratic.

      • Anonymous

        Phil, do you think there should be any political donation tax credit at all?  What if political donations were given the same tax treatment as donations to registered charities?

        • Anonymous

          To my mind they should be given the same treatment as other political lobbying groups like Greenpeace etc. No deduction at all.

          • Anonymous

            I have no problem with ditching political party subsidies altogether.  Of course, this would probably be the coup de grace for the Liberals.

          • Anonymous

            I have no problem with ditching political party subsidies altogether.  Of course, this would probably be the coup de grace for the Liberals.

          • Anonymous

            I have no problem with ditching political party subsidies altogether.  Of course, this would probably be the coup de grace for the Liberals.

        • Anonymous

          Good question…charties vs political parties.

          When I compare the public good that comes from charities to the public good that comes from political parties, charities win, hands down.  And I say that realizinng that a few (many?) charities are actually not all that good at getting funds to those in need.

          So the logical extension of that comparison is that donations to political parties should never receive tax treatment that is more favourable than donations to political parties, which is clearly not the case today.

          In fact, based on the public good that is provided by political parties, I am very comfortable suggesting that donations to political parties should not invoke any tax credit at all.

          To paraphrase Mark Twain:  If you ignore political parties you are uninformed, and if you pay attention to political parties you are misinformed.  So, the less money they have, the less damage they can do.

          • Anonymous

            I have no problem in principle with ditching the political donation tax credit. I also think your skepticism of political parties is well-founded.   Certainly, there are many negative aspects.

            However, our Westminster Parliamentary system is based on the concept of political parties.  The existence of political parties is one of our most fundamental constitutional conventions.  So I disagree with your suggestion that they don’t provide “public good”.  They are an essential component of our system, warts and all, and they really do serve a useful purpose.

            Furthermore, I agree with Andrew Potter that the reality of mass politics makes parties absolutely necessary:
            http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/organizing+dinner+party+million+people/5472625/story.html.
            There is no advanced democracy in the world that has found a way to ditch political parties.

          • Anonymous

            I can probably be convinced that there is some (ie a smidge, only) of value in having some type of label that a candidate can hang his/her hat on, something to provide some loose affiliation with likeminded folks.

            But over the decades they have morphed into entities that now have large warts – it’s time to remove some warts.

            On the question of “no advanced democracy…”, I can’t actually think of any serious effort to ditch political parties or reduce their damage – are there actual examples of countries trying to implement reforms?  If so, let me know and I’ll do some reading.

          • Anonymous

            I can probably be convinced that there is some (ie a smidge, only) of value in having some type of label that a candidate can hang his/her hat on, something to provide some loose affiliation with likeminded folks.

            But over the decades they have morphed into entities that now have large warts – it’s time to remove some warts.

            On the question of “no advanced democracy…”, I can’t actually think of any serious effort to ditch political parties or reduce their damage – are there actual examples of countries trying to implement reforms?  If so, let me know and I’ll do some reading.

          • Anonymous

            I have no problem in principle with ditching the political donation tax credit. I also think your skepticism of political parties is well-founded.   Certainly, there are many negative aspects.

            However, our Westminster Parliamentary system is based on the concept of political parties.  The existence of political parties is one of our most fundamental constitutional conventions.  So I disagree with your suggestion that they don’t provide “public good”.  They are an essential component of our system, warts and all, and they really do serve a useful purpose.

            Furthermore, I agree with Andrew Potter that the reality of mass politics makes parties absolutely necessary:
            http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/organizing+dinner+party+million+people/5472625/story.html.
            There is no advanced democracy in the world that has found a way to ditch political parties.

        • Anonymous

          The parties would have to do “good works”.   I just don’t see it.

      • TonyAdams

        Taxpayers giving themselves rebates is not quite as democratic compared to what? 

        I would be pleased to see parties disappear entirely because I think they are anti-democratic so anything that weakens parties is fine by me. 

    • Anonymous

      Your problem isn’t with the per-vote funding then, it’s with the thresholds.

      I agree. The thresholds should be eliminated.

      People giving money to the party they support is not the most democratic because it involves availablity of resources. If you don’t have the money/time to support a party, your free will is irrelevant.

      • TonyAdams

        How many people out there do you think can’t afford to donate $20 to political party?

        Any one who smokes cigs or buys lattes every day can afford to donate money to political party if they so wish. Also, maybe poor people would prefer keeping more of their money and let the well off middle classes support party system. 

        How does it makes sense to tax people because they are too poor to donate?

        • Anonymous

          How many people do you think should be written off in a democracy, you mean? That’s essentially what you’re asking after all.

          And anyone who has season tickets to the opera and buys lobster dinners once a week can afford to donate money to a political party if they so wish as well. Who cares? Those aren’t the people I’m talking about. When I say people who are too poor to donate can’t, saying “Well people who aren’t too poor to donate can” is simply asinine.

          Now I will agree that it doesn’t make sense to tax people because they’re too poor to donate, and if you had any sort of a clue whatsoever, you’d know that we don’t.  People who are too poor to donate don’t pay taxes — kind of by the definition of what “too poor to donate” is.

      • TonyAdams

        How many people out there do you think can’t afford to donate $20 to political party?

        Any one who smokes cigs or buys lattes every day can afford to donate money to political party if they so wish. Also, maybe poor people would prefer keeping more of their money and let the well off middle classes support party system. 

        How does it makes sense to tax people because they are too poor to donate?

      • TonyAdams

        How many people out there do you think can’t afford to donate $20 to political party?

        Any one who smokes cigs or buys lattes every day can afford to donate money to political party if they so wish. Also, maybe poor people would prefer keeping more of their money and let the well off middle classes support party system. 

        How does it makes sense to tax people because they are too poor to donate?

    • kcm2

      Er middle classes pay the lion’s share of the taxes in this country…you were saying!
       
      That’s a valid point about your choice not getting your twoonie. Surely there is a way to fix that short of ending a subsidy that is largely representaive of the voters choices whether or not in every case the voter actually paid the sub – i’m unemployed at the moment, you may have paid my twoonie in the last go round. Is that really worth getting upset about given all our other pressing neeeds? After all your donation may have been free will, but the forced contribution to it of your tax credit wasn’t

      • TonyAdams

        I agree that middle classes pay most taxes but middle class Cons, and to lesser extend NDP, supporters also manage to donate $20 or $30 to their party while average Lib seems to have short arms and deep pockets. 

        Public subsidies are also a way for political parties to ignore supporters wishes. Constant supply of money to party means they don’t have to bother worrying about their base and what they think. 

        David Coletto ~ Party Finance In Canada Since 2001:

        “As figure 2 illustrates, from 2001 to 2006, the Liberals have had the largest average contribution ranging from $200 to $350 per contribution.  In comparison, the New Democrats and Conservatives had average contributions between $120 and $180.  

        Therefore, the Conservatives and New Democrats have been more successful at raising small contributions from  a greater number of contributors, while the Liberals have relied on fewer individuals for more money.” 

        http://www.ucalgary.ca/innovations/files/innovations/Coletto-PartyFinance.pdf

      • TonyAdams

        I agree that middle classes pay most taxes but middle class Cons, and to lesser extend NDP, supporters also manage to donate $20 or $30 to their party while average Lib seems to have short arms and deep pockets. 

        Public subsidies are also a way for political parties to ignore supporters wishes. Constant supply of money to party means they don’t have to bother worrying about their base and what they think. 

        David Coletto ~ Party Finance In Canada Since 2001:

        “As figure 2 illustrates, from 2001 to 2006, the Liberals have had the largest average contribution ranging from $200 to $350 per contribution.  In comparison, the New Democrats and Conservatives had average contributions between $120 and $180.  

        Therefore, the Conservatives and New Democrats have been more successful at raising small contributions from  a greater number of contributors, while the Liberals have relied on fewer individuals for more money.” 

        http://www.ucalgary.ca/innovations/files/innovations/Coletto-PartyFinance.pdf

        • Anonymous

          With the per vote subsidy the political parties are beholden to the citizens who cast a ballot in the latest election, all 12 – 13 million of them.

          With donations the political parties are only beholden to about 0.25 million citizens.

          A perfect democracy would have political parties beholden to all citizens.

          On that basis the per vote subsidy system is about 50 times more democratic.

  • Anonymous

    Duff Connacher tosses around the adjectives “democratic”, “undemocratic”, and “democratizing” as though he’s the High Priest of Democracy.  Much of his criticism of the removal of the per-vote subsidy is based on the premise that our voting system is itself flawed and “undemocratic”.  He describes any increase to the annual donation limit as “doubly undemocratic”.

    Maybe he’s talked about this elsewhere, but I’d like to see a rigorous analysis of the underlying principles.  On what basis does Duff pronounce that System A is more or less “democratic” than System B?  How does he determine relative levels of democratic purity?

    • Anonymous

      That doesn’t sound that difficult – if a System enhances the basic concept of self rule, then we should think about promoting that system.

      On that basis the $2 per vote per year subsidy to political parties has marginal merit.  On the same basis allowing folks to make donations to political parties has marginal merit, but the 75% tax credit for donations to political parties has absolutely no merit.

      • Anonymous

        How does one determine whether a system “enhances the basic concept of self rule”?  That seems awfully vague and ambiguous. There are a whole bunch of other democratic considerations beyond “self rule”, including such fundamental concepts as freedom and equality.  There are lots of different democratic systems, lots of different principles, and lots of tradeoffs to be made.

        I don’t think it’s self-evident that awarding subsidies on the basis of votes received is more democratic than some other formula for awarding subsidies.

        • Anonymous

          To my mind, the essence of democracy is that no person’s will is worth more than any other person’s. Funding by donation does not meet this very well because, as I pointed out above, if you lack the resources to donate, your will is rendered moot.

          Increasing the amount allowable for donations simply increases the potential difference of the worth of the will of a person with resources vs one without.

          • Anonymous

            So based on this logic, you would outlaw political donations altogether?  Because some people are broke, it’s only fair that nobody should be allowed to donate money to a political party?

          • Anonymous

            The essence of democracy is one person one vote, not one dollar one vote, yes?

            Yes, I understand that (of course) a donation does not translate directly into an extra ballot at the ballot box.

            Setting aside free will to spend as one wants and all that, would you be willing to try to make the case that all that money that the parties receive (either directly from citizens or via taxpayed subsidies) is actually improving the state of our (any) demcoracy?

            Or, to ask that another way, from a governing/policy making perspective, what would you say would be lost by forcing each federal political party to make do with, let’s say, $1million per year?

          • Anonymous

            The essence of democracy is one person one vote, not one dollar one vote, yes?

            Yes, I understand that (of course) a donation does not translate directly into an extra ballot at the ballot box.

            Setting aside free will to spend as one wants and all that, would you be willing to try to make the case that all that money that the parties receive (either directly from citizens or via taxpayed subsidies) is actually improving the state of our (any) demcoracy?

            Or, to ask that another way, from a governing/policy making perspective, what would you say would be lost by forcing each federal political party to make do with, let’s say, $1million per year?

          • Anonymous

            @PhilCP:disqus 

            Given that our democratic system is based on the existence of political parties, I think that starving political parties would have disastrous effects.  Political parties need money to organize themselves and to function effectively.  They need money to pay employees and they need money to advertise and campaign during elections.

            To suffocate parties by restricting them to a tiny amount (say $1M/a) would be undemocratic, IMO.

          • Anonymous

            @PhilCP:disqus 

            Given that our democratic system is based on the existence of political parties, I think that starving political parties would have disastrous effects.  Political parties need money to organize themselves and to function effectively.  They need money to pay employees and they need money to advertise and campaign during elections.

            To suffocate parties by restricting them to a tiny amount (say $1M/a) would be undemocratic, IMO.

          • Anonymous

            No, our political system is NOT based on the existence of political parties, as we’ve already discussed.  Parties make it easier, but our system is perfectly capable of functioning without them.

          • Anonymous

            It’s entirely contingent on how fair you want your democracy to be. Myself, yes.

          • Anonymous

            @Thwim Ask any constitutional scholar.  Better yet, find me an example of a parliamentary system of national government, past or present, anywhere in the world that functions without political parties.

          • Anonymous

            @Thwim Ask any constitutional scholar.  Better yet, find me an example of a parliamentary system of national government, past or present, anywhere in the world that functions without political parties.

          • Anonymous

            Hey CR

            I’m enjoying the discussion, so humour me for a while longer, if you would.

            If $1million per year isn’t enough, about how much would be adequate?  I mean really, of all the things that political parties do in a year, what is the single most important task, and how much does that cost.  Then what is the next most important task, and what is its cost.

            I’m finding it hard to believe that if we put parties on a financial diet we wouldn’t all be rather surprised with the marked improvement.

            And if I can’t convince you to put a $1million cap, how about we ramp the limit down, starting at $20million per year and cutting $2million per year until we sense a genuine decline in value for money.

            For example, can you honestly tell me that the country would be worse off if all political parties were forced to fire their spin doctors and spokesepople for lack of funds?  I say “You want to run for office, then stand up in front of the microphone and answer the question.  Don’t be sending Jamie Watt and Bill XXX of the CPC and the Liberal lady with the glasses up there with their finely honed, well polished message.  NO, give me the raw goods;  I’d rather make my selection on that basis than the ‘information’ that the parties present me with today.”

            I’m going to poke around a bit regarding the influence of parties over the years…I have this suspicion that you are overstating the historical importance of the parties.  I’m also reasonably sure that political parties actually have no constituional mention/relevance.

            It’s time to kick the habit, time to get people thinking for themselves!!!

          • Anonymous

            @PhilCP:disqus 

            If $1million per year isn’t enough, about how
            much would be adequate? 

            That’s a good question, and I really don’t have an answer for it.  I don’t have enough data about  political party expenditures to guess at an optimum level of spending.  There would
            probably have to be an extensive analysis.

            One obvious challenge of putting parties on a “diet” is that none of the large parties want to be starved, so it’s hard to imagine the parties voting to severely restrict their own funding.


            For example, can you honestly tell me that the country would be worse off if all political parties were forced to fire their spin doctors and spokesepople for lack of funds?

            Is Jamie Watt actually paid by the CPC?  I suspect parties would still use spin doctors to get the message out even if their funding was restricted.  In the
            Information Age, all parties place a priority on generating soundbites for the evening news, etc.   It’s not so much a
            function of money as a reflection of the realities of modern politics.

            I completely agree with your desire for “the raw goods”.   I would love to see debates that involve an honest discussion of the issues and competing plans to deal with them, rather than the usual BS and adversarialism.


            I’m going to poke around a bit regarding the influence of parties over the years…I have this suspicion that you are overstating the historical importance of the parties. 

            By all means, poke around!  You’ll find that I’m right.  Political parties have *always* been a fundamental part of Canadian politics, from 1867 onward.

            Political parties aren’t mentioned in the text of our constitution, and neither is the Prime Minister for that matter. Political parties and the PM fall under the category of “constitutional conventions”. I’ll send you a paper by Andrew Heard that explains all this.

             
            It’s time to kick the habit, time to get people thinking for themselves!!!

            I completely agree with this sentiment.   I’m just not sure that severely restricting party finances is a feasible way to do it.

          • Anonymous

            So based on this logic, you would outlaw political donations altogether?  Because some people are broke, it’s only fair that nobody should be allowed to donate money to a political party?

    • OrsonBean

      CR, I knew Duff Connacher back in my university days.  Duff is a classic born activist, somebody who’s been extremely politically active since he was a kid (I mean, he joined Nader’s Raiders when he was barely old enough to shave).  Nobody who went to law school with Duff would be surprised what he ended up doing.  There’s much to admire about him, but like many people of that stripe, there’s no doubt that he can be rather presumptuous in purporting to tell us all what is and isn’t “democratic”.  I agree that many of his assumptions are just that, and can well be challenged on logical and evidentiary grounds.

    • OrsonBean

      CR, I knew Duff Connacher back in my university days.  Duff is a classic born activist, somebody who’s been extremely politically active since he was a kid (I mean, he joined Nader’s Raiders when he was barely old enough to shave).  Nobody who went to law school with Duff would be surprised what he ended up doing.  There’s much to admire about him, but like many people of that stripe, there’s no doubt that he can be rather presumptuous in purporting to tell us all what is and isn’t “democratic”.  I agree that many of his assumptions are just that, and can well be challenged on logical and evidentiary grounds.

      • Anonymous

        Thanks for the background, Orson.  I’m sure you’re right that there’s much to admire about Duff, and that he’s sincere and committed to his democratic activism.  

        Maybe he’s written essays to help clarify his principles and assumptions.  I might even agree with some of his conclusions about party financing if I understood the philosophical underpinnings.

  • Anonymous

    Why do you give this lunatic leftist Conacher a platform?  He’s just another leftist, what he proposes has nothing to do with democracy, in fact at one point he was saying we should annul an election, and now he’s saying we should hand over taxpayer money to parties that will give the entrenched parties an advantage against new ones, thereby turning them into bureaucracies.

  • San Diego Dave

    I for one welcome the end of the per-vote-subsidy. I abhorred the thought of my money flowing directly into the pockets of these special interest groups we call parties. It may benefit the Conservatives now, but as in life, what goes around comes around. 

    PS- yes, I payed my 2010 taxes to the CRA. Next year when my taxes are settled with the IRS I promise not to whine about Canadian government spending…. :)

    • kcm2

      Why do you only welcome the end of that particular subsidy? Seems pretty clear to me the donation tax credit[ is that what it's called] is far more egregious…up to 75% of the donation is publically subsidized. You could argue that the overall subsidy level is too high, particularly when you see what the parties do with it[ purile attack ads], but the per vote sub at least has the benefit of being far less of a forced confiscation of other tax-payers $.
      My view is this is simply a political move[ everyone loves the idea of taking $ away from those grasping politicians] on the part of the Harper govt dressed up as a common good – which it arguably isn’t.

      • San Diego Dave

        Ya know KCM, as I was writing that comment that very thought occurred to me. I’m a  BIT of a flat-tax/simplified tax advocate myself so your idea does resound in me. I also have a complete hate-on for tax credits sold as tax reductions. I think we can agree the tax code is a bit of a joke (on both sides of the border no less).

        • kcm2

          Sure there’s absolutely no reason not to make the tax credit more egalitarian as it does serve the purpose of rewarding people if they contribute, particularly those who aren’t high rollers. Why not drastically reduce the TC for the high end while leaving it at something reasonable[ 25%] for the liddle guy? If the big boys start to break up their donations into smaller bites then simply set a cap, anything over that is your choice, but gets no tax credit.

          • San Diego Dave

            Well, I’d agree with you wholeheartedly, however I think we’d start sounding like Mac and Tosh from Bugs Bunny…..  :)

          • San Diego Dave

            Well, I’d agree with you wholeheartedly, however I think we’d start sounding like Mac and Tosh from Bugs Bunny…..  :)

  • Anonymous

    The old “I’m entitled to my entitlements.” shtick.
     
    What? Now we have to actually put some effort into fund raising? The horror! Doesn’t Harper realize that lefties are accustomed taking and not giving?
     
    Shame! Shame!

  • kcm2

    What if anything has happened to the argument put forward by Erol Mendes that this move will generate a legal challenge? If i remember correctly he argued that in the original negotiations the per vote subsidy was deemed as a trade off for taking away the right of business and unions to donate to political parties. Arbitrarily ending this arrangement might leave the door open for the other parties to sue, since they are still excluded. I’ve heard nothing more on this front. Have the opponents of ending the subsidy simply conceeded the fight.Where is the bloody liberal party on this? Burying their heads as usual? That is the very reason liberals stay home because they don’t fight hard enough for principles they claim to own. We still live in a democracy under rule of law, right!  But only as long as we’re willing to fight for it.

  • Anonymous

    Of course Mr. Conacher is correct. What’s more, all political activity should be publicly
    funded. Period.
    It’s also true that at this point in time it doesn’t matter. So instead of twisting logic to
    defend the indefensible from the febrile mind of Control Centre, Just repeat after me :
    Mandate ! Mandate ! Mandate!

  • kcm2

    Er middle classes pay the lion’s share of the taxes in this country…you were saying!
     
    That’s a valid point about your choice not getting your twoonie. Surely there is a way to fix that short of ending a subsidy that is largely representaive of the voters choices whether or not in every case the voter actually paid the sub – i’m unemployed at the moment, you may have paid my twoonie in the last go round. Is that really worth getting upset about given all our other pressing neeeds? After all your donation may have been free will, but the forced contribution to it of your tax credit wasn’t.  

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    Exactly how is it democratic to give my money against my will, to political parties I do not support, especially to a separatist party? Let them compete in the marketplace of ideas, and people can put their money where their political beliefs are.  I know that is a radical idea to people of this blog, but tax money does not belong to the parties, or even to the government. It belongs to us.

Previous

Next

From Macleans