|
In response to
"Pretty please with a cherry on top? -- nm"
by
Name Withheld By Request
|
Is this what you meant?
Posted by
CovingtonCat
Nov 27 '08, 13:51
|
Andrew Coyne's Blog, Capital Read - Written by Andrew Coyne on Thursday, November 27, 2008 11:09 - 107 Comments
Getting politics off the dole
Tags: campaign finance, conservatives
We�ll see about the deficit later, but for now this is fantastic news:
ShareThis
Print Story
Comment
article tools sponsor
The Conservatives are poised to eliminate the public subsidies that Canada�s five major political parties receive, a move that would save $30 million a year but could cripple the opposition.Sources told CBC News and other media outlets Wednesday that the subsidy cut is one of the key elements of the fiscal update that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will present Thursday in Ottawa.
Parties currently receive $1.95 for every vote they receive in a federal election, provided they win at least two per cent of the nationwide popular vote. The annual subsidy is used to pay for staff and expenses.
On the surface, it would appear Prime Minister Stephen Harper�s Conservatives have the most to lose if subsidies were cut because they garnered the most votes in the October election. The Conservatives earned $10 million in subsidies, compared to $7.7 million for the Liberals, $4.9 million for the NDP, $2.6 million for the Bloc Qu�b�cois and $1.8 million for the Greens.
But because the Conservatives have such a strong fundraising base, their subsidy represents only 37 per cent of the party�s total revenues.
By comparison, the subsidy amounts to 63 per cent of the Liberals� funding, 86 per cent of the Bloc�s, 57 per cent of the NDP�s and 65 per cent of the Greens�.
I don�t care what their motivations are: it�s the right thing to do. The public subsidy came in with the Chretien campaign finance reforms in 2003. But it was entirely contrary in spirit. The point of the restrictions on corporate and union donations was that elections should be a matter between the candidates and the voters. Corporations and unions don�t get extra votes in the ballot box, and shouldn�t get extra voice in the fund-raising contest. Nor should corporate and union leaders be able to donate other people�s money on their behalf. Whether to contribute to a political party, and how much, and to whom, should be a private, personal matter � voluntary, individual decisions.
The $1.95 �allowance� violated every one of those principles. By abolishing it, the Tories are finishing the job Chretien started, of creating a truly citizen-based campaign finance system. Or not quite: even without this particular subsidy, the parties would still benefit from the hefty tax credit on political donations (the formal beneficiary is the donor, but in practice the incidence is shared), while candidates would still have their expenses partially reimbursed. But it�s certainly a big step in the right direction.
Ignore the howls of the opposition. It is entirely within their power to do as the Tories have done, and develop a large base of individual contributors. Absolutely nothing is stopping them. Weren�t we all just worshipping at Obama�s shrine? Isn�t that what he did?
Ignore, too, the complaint that somehow this cripples the political process. Much of the subsidy we have been paying these people goes to the very things that are currently poisoning the political process: over-priced strategists and attack ads, push polls and focus groups. Who needs it?
Still not convinced? Two words: Bloc Qu�b�cois. Look at the numbers above. We, the taxpayers of Canada, are underwriting 86% of the expenses of a party whose sole raison d�etre is the destruction of the country. Let them work their treason on their own dime.
UPDATE: I am fascinated by the abusive tone of so many of the comments, many of them fuelled by the belief that I am consciously or unconsciously consigning Canadian elections to, in the words of one commenter, a �limited economic demographic.� Or as another put it, �the golden rule, of he who has the gold should make the rules. That�s what you advocate for, yes?�
Um, no, actually. I�ve been an advocate for contribution limits (though I favour global annual limits, all political contributions combined, rather than specifying limits on each contribution) for years, since the days when corporations were handing over $100,000 cheques to the Liberal party and getting hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies in return. That�s not the system we have now. Though there remain loopholes that should be closed, the basic rule is a $1000 (indexed to inflation) ceiling on all individual donations. I know some readers think the limit should be �tens� of dollars, but a thousand-dollar limit does not strike me as handing control to �a limited economic demographic.�
There may be relatively few people who can afford to give $1000, but that�s the point � they�re a few. In the days when there were no limits on contributions, a few people each giving $100,000 or more could add up to a whole pile of money, as a proportion of total party funds. But now a few only adds up to a little.
More to the point, lots and lots of people giving much less than $1000 adds up to a great deal. The most famous current example: Barack Obama, whose campaign raised a record-shattering $640-million. Of that, according to OpenSecrets.org (the website maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics), fully 91 per cent, or $579-million, came from individual donors. How many donors? Try 3.1 million of them. So the average donation was less than $200 (the Obama campaign maintains the average is $86, but I haven�t seen their math). Are Obama�s supporters a �limited economic demographic�? All 3.1 million of them?
NICE TRY: One commenter takes me to task for singling out the Bloc�s subsidy for scorn. �Aren�t you being a little dishonest here?� he/she asks. �Separatists are actually funded with� separatists� money simply because anyone who vote is actually choosing the political party that will receive his $1.95 per vote.�
Um, no. The money comes from general revenues. There isn�t some income tax check-off whereby the individual taxpayer gets to decide who gets his money (though that would be an improvement on the current setup). It all comes from the taxpaying public as a whole.
It�s true that the money is allocated by the decisions of Bloc voters, but that�s a different thing entirely. That the Bloc is helping itself to public funds via Bloc supporters does not alter the fact that a separatist party depends for almost the whole of its funding on the taxpayers of Canada.
107 Comments
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Mike Moffatt
Nov 27, 2008 11:17
Report Abuse
Here here!
The Greens I�ve been talking to are up-in-arms about this for reasons I don�t entirely understand. I mean,
I know the Tories are doing this for terrible reasons. And automatically opposing anything this crowd does is generally a good idea.
BUT.. The Greens have to ask themselves - what is the money being spent on? It�s being spent on political �arms race� items like millions of disposable signs on public property and mindless TV ads. I don�t know why any Green anywhere should support public financing of such waste.
Ti-Guy
Nov 27, 2008 11:21
Report Abuse
Some of us don�t worship money, Mr. Coyne. All this so-called citizen-based campaign funding does is finance the careers of political entrepreneurs�.courtiers, pr flacks, advertising agencies (hello, Rogers!) and Chinese manufacturers of political swag and consumer waste which gives the citizen endless campaigning and very little governance.
catherine
Nov 27, 2008 11:28
Report Abuse
How is this getting political parties off the dole, Mr. Coyne? I didn�t see any mention of eliminating the tax credits for political donations or for eliminating reimbursements for election spending. Isn�t this simply shifting the tax money around? Parties will work to raise more money (and the US shows there is much more potential there) and the government will pay out more in tax credits. What is so great about that?
If you really want them off the �dole�, as you say, why not be consistent and advocate for the end of tax credits and reimbursements to political parties?
T. Thwim
Nov 27, 2008 11:29
Report Abuse
This:
The point of the restrictions on corporate and union donations was that elections should be a matter between the candidates and the voters.
Implies this:
Corporations and unions don�t get extra votes in the ballot box, and shouldn�t get extra voice in the fund-raising contest. Nor should corporate and union leaders be able to donate other people�s money on their behalf.
But not this:
Whether to contribute to a political party, and how much, and to whom, should be a private, personal matter � voluntary, individual decisions.
That�s entirely your Libertarian, short-sighted (that�s probably redundant) position. It can be argued, fairly successfully, that the voluntary, individual decision is made at the ballot box, and then, since politics are a matter for the public as a whole, the public as a whole supports them. It can also be argued that allowing private money to determine politics is damaging regardless of the amounts.
And while it may be in the other parties power to do such, expecting them to do such instantly is not good politics, nor legislation. It is a whipsaw decision � and indicates anything but the stability and measured action that we actually need to be the stewards of our economy at this point.
Mike Moffatt
Nov 27, 2008 11:29
Report Abuse
�If you really want them off the �dole�, as you say, why not be consistent and advocate for the end of tax credits and reimbursements to political parties?�
Did you miss the section about �it�s certainly a big step in the right direction�?
TJ Cook
Nov 27, 2008 11:34
Report Abuse
Andrew - you don�t specify whether you support limits on individual donations. A low limit (with no donations permitted for unions or corporations) probably supports a healthy democracy. A high limit (more than, say, a few tens of dollars) allows the wealthy to buy more political influence than the poor.
The US system is a horror show of distortions due to a broken, self-sustaining finance system. This has real implications in policy for most Americans.
If we�re going to define a new system for Canada it needs to be simple, principled and NOT tie influence to money. Do you trust the CPoC to introduce such a system?
And I will NOT ignore the howls of opposition. This isn�t a principled policy decision on the part of the PMO, it�s an opportunistic tactic designed to further weaken the opposition parties. It�s rank gerrymandering, a power grab. If Chretien had pulled something like this when the Tories were broke and down to 2 seats, it would have been just as wrong.
It may be �entirely within their power�, just like any bad policy. Doesn�t make it right, and it doesn�t mean Canadians have to support it. The BQ argument? Total red herring. Lame, lame lame, Andrew.
Ti-Guy
Nov 27, 2008 11:34
Report Abuse
And just to add�with the advent of the Internet, the entrepreneurs literally have dollars signs in their eyes when they see that skimming a few bucks here and there from millions of people is much easier and cheaper than doing actual fundraising�.whether it be targeting citizens with compelling ideas and interesting events or organising lavish, complex galas for the elite.
Put up web site with a lot of colours and animated graphics, get the user to supply most of the content (send us your video clips!), add a donate button and watch the money role in.
The whole thing can be automated and maintained on a PC in Bangalore.
Pretty sweet.
Rhaine
Nov 27, 2008 11:44
Report Abuse
Andrew Coyne wrote:�Still not convinced? Two words: Bloc Qu�b�cois. Look at the numbers above. We, the taxpayers of Canada, are underwriting 86% of the expenses of a party whose sole raison d�etre is the destruction of the country. Let them work their treason on their own dime.�
Aren�t you being a little dishonest here? Separatists are actually funded with� separatists� money simply because anyone who vote is actually choosing the political party that will receive his $1.95 per vote. So it�s idiotic to claim that a CPC/LPC/NDP/BQ voter (and taxpayer) actually finances anyone but the party of his choice.
catherine
Nov 27, 2008 11:48
Report Abuse
Mike, yes I missed that. Thanks.
I think it would be bad for democracy and would disenfranchise the poor. I think public support of political parties is more beneficial than many things tax credits and exemptions support. If Mr. Coyne takes up the challenge of getting religion off the dole, count me in.
Geiseric the Lame
Nov 27, 2008 11:53
Report Abuse
Up until now I had respect for you. That you can�t figure out this is handing control to a limited economic demographic puts and end to that.
Wayne
Nov 27, 2008 11:54
Report Abuse
Here! Here! and one more to the list. Andrew C you got my vote. This enitre concept is ridiculous and why on earth our tax money (a tax percentage rebate is bordeline acceptable � but �) taxpayers money going to a political party is entirely, as they say in latin : Stultus est sicut stultus facit : translated = stupid is as stupid does! A poltical party that relies on such monies is actually destroying itself as it removes the integrity of the system. Well done to Mr. Harper and I hope against hope that this effort does provide a bill and that it passes as it is very long overdue.
Mike Moffatt
Nov 27, 2008 11:54
Report Abuse
Does anyone have any actual data on the income levels of people who donate to political parties?
CJ
Nov 27, 2008 12:00
Report Abuse
A question for all of the �end of democracy� folks:
If the Conservatives proposed getting rid of the Political Donations Tax Credit and keeping the $1.95 subsidy, would you still have a problem with it?
TJ Cook
Nov 27, 2008 12:00
Report Abuse
Geiseric: �That you can�t figure out this is handing control to a limited economic demographic puts and end to that.�
I don�t think that�s what�s happening here. Coyne isn�t stupid but he apparently thinks we are.
Geiseric the Lame
Nov 27, 2008 12:03
Report Abuse
�I don�t think that�s what�s happening here. Coyne isn�t stupid but he apparently thinks we are.�
I wasn�t going to say anything else, but I hear you.
Just visiting
Nov 27, 2008 12:03
Report Abuse
This isn�t a serious proposal, it is political stunt. I suspect it will play out badly for the conservatives. The pointless partisan furour this proposal deliberately engenders will distract from Harper�s otherwise sensible approach to the economy and leave most Canadians mumbling �a pox on all their houses.�
Too bad. Divisive partisanship is the last thing we need right now.
- JV
d. andy jette
Nov 27, 2008 12:07
Report Abuse
�The point of the restrictions on corporate and union donations was that elections should be a matter between the candidates and the voters. Corporations and unions don�t get extra votes in the ballot box, and shouldn�t get extra voice in the fund-raising contest. Nor should corporate and union leaders be able to donate other people�s money on their behalf. Whether to contribute to a political party, and how much, and to whom, should be a private, personal matter � voluntary, individual decisions�.[key quote]The $1.95 �allowance� violated every one of those principles.�
Respectfully, what the hell?
Setting aside the particular backdrop of today�s discussion, your assertion here is fundamentally, stunningly wrong.
The whole point of teh 2003 reform was to remove opportunites for political parties and wealthy individuals or organizations to trade favours for financial considerations, while respecting the role that political parties have as aggregators of public opinion in Canada�s parliamentary democracy.
If there was a flaw in that reform it is certainly not the buck-a-vote (or $1.75) subsidy. It�s that fundraising wasn�t restricted enough.
You want a reform plan that will save tax payer money, reduce the risk of corruption and revitalize public engagement in our democractic institutions?
1. Eliminate the tax-preferential treatment of political parties, riding associations, candidates, etc.
2. Cap individual donations at $250/year, indexed to inflation.
3. Replace the buck-a-vote with a $30 million pot, indexed to inflation, and divide proportionally among parties according to percentage of popular votes by province. Limit access to parties with at 5% of the national popular vote. The biggest single problem with the buck-a-vote is that costs can vary wildly depending on voter turnout.
4. Eliminate the segregation between national and local spending limits. Reduce campaign spending limits by 20%.
5. Enact legislation to require major media networks to: (1) air 4 debates (2 english, 2 french) in prime time on TV, news radio and available online; and (2) make minimum amounts of time/space available to each party for advertising at a nominal rate (this would be tax-deductible for the companies). Failure to comply with all of the above results in loss of license and/or fines.
6. Enact legislation to make voting in federal elections mandatory, and to require employers to provide 8 consecutive hours (as opposed to 4) for voting.
Lord Bob
Nov 27, 2008 12:07
Report Abuse
First that Colombian free trade deal, now this. I�m opening a bottle of champagne to celebrate the Conservatives doing something intelligent and foresighted for the first time since NAFTA.
I mean, it�s cheap champagne. But still.
CJ
Nov 27, 2008 12:09
Report Abuse
Incidentally, the reason that I like the subsidy is a little different from the ones that I have brought up so far:
I�ve read enough of Coyne to be convinced that my vote, in the riding where I live, is completely worthless. So, I like the idea of the government giving me a toonie and saying, �Here, who�s jar do you want to put this in?� It gives me a direct, rational reason to get out of bed on polling day.
Ben Hicks
Nov 27, 2008 12:12
Report Abuse
Just so. Time to axe the partisan welfare checks preventing the separatists from vanishing into the history books and the Libs from returning to their populist roots.
James Munroe
Nov 27, 2008 12:14
Report Abuse
Well done Mr. Coyne. An honest, intelligent and non-partisan appraisal.
Mike Moffatt
Nov 27, 2008 12:17
Report Abuse
D. Andy Jette:
I liked your proposal until you got to #3:
�3. Replace the buck-a-vote with a $30 million pot, indexed to inflation,�
Why, exactly, do political parties need this money? What are they going to do with it other than buy a ton of disposable lawn signs to pollute public property and air mindless TV ads. None of this spending has any social value whatsoever.
That�s what frustrates me about this entire debate.. that we�re all saying �but parties need that money!� without investigating what they actually do with it! Why should the Canadian government spend $30 million on something with such dubious social value?
I think we could stop at your first two ideas - 1. Eliminate the tax-preferential treatment of political parties, riding associations, candidates, etc. and 2. Cap individual donations at $250/year, indexed to inflation and leave it at that.
Mike T.
Nov 27, 2008 12:18
Report Abuse
I would like to echo Mr. Jette�s sentiments about the reason behind the reforms not being abstract individualism but rather about curbing influence of corporations and unions.
As far as level of argument goes, this post is right up there wih �Canada needs an abortion debate
!�
Sandi
Nov 27, 2008 12:18
Report Abuse
BS - good grief what does it cost each of us. An election every couple of years - perhaps 50 - 75 cents each when divided by year/election.
Hey, how about that makeup lady eh?
I think Mr. Coyne likes to be contraversial just for attention.
This isn�t about good sense, it�s political opportunism and it stinks.
Even Chretien gave grace periods for the other parties when he made changes.
I�m disgusted.
Ti-Guy
Nov 27, 2008 12:20
Report Abuse
All of this niggling over technicalities misses the point: Mr. Coyne, likely unwittingly (although I have my doubts�I�ve always thought he was pretty bright), has bought into the notion that there is no difference when people behave as consumers and when they behave as citizens. You can just extrapolate and imagine a point in the near future when we�re all closely following the funding levels of particular parties and rushing to donate to them, because we�ve all been convinced that that alone guarantees (and should guarantee) political/electoral/democratic success. Worse�we�ll all become convinced that that alone constitutes engaged citizenship. No need to think about issues, or to follow the activities in Parliament, or read up on investigations of the government, or to even storm Parliament every once in a while with torches and pitchforks�nothing. Click on a donate button and you�ve acted as a responsible citizen. In this manner, ongoing citizen engagement is reduced to yet another consumer choice and completes the corporatisation of democracy itself.
If Mr. Coyne ever has reason to reflect on this, he might actually realise how deeply immoral this is. But I somehow doubt that�ll ever happen.
d. andy jette
Nov 27, 2008 12:21
Report Abuse
The reason you leave #3 in is the same reason you pay to keep the lights on in the House of Commons. If parties are recognized as fundamental to parliamentary democracy (which is debatable, but a debate for another day), then they need to be able to function. And their financial capacity to function needs to reflect something other than their prowess in passing the hat in the right places.
Mike Moffatt
Nov 27, 2008 12:26
Report Abuse
��And their financial capacity to function needs to reflect something other than their prowess in passing the hat in the right places.�
Millions of non-profits seem to do fine with that method. If we�re going to use that logic, can I send my $2/yr to Animal Alert or an organization that will actually spend the money in a way that contributes to society?
john g
Nov 27, 2008 12:29
Report Abuse
I�d be all for this move if it were phased in over 2 or 3 years. Pulling the plug on April 1 as is being suggested is just cutting too much too soon, and being done only because the CPC is the only party geared to survive such a dramatic change in rules so quickly.
T. Thwim
Nov 27, 2008 12:29
Report Abuse
Interesting point.
The logical end-point of the idea that �it should be private money that supports parties� is that the election should be done auction style. The party that can put the most into the public purse wins.
And just think Mr. Coyne, then we wouldn�t have to worry about these bothersome elections at all. We could get right down to the golden rule of he who has the gold should make the rules about it. That is what you advocate for, yes?
Sisyphus
Nov 27, 2008 12:30
Report Abuse
These are serious times. We have the right to expect to be governed by serious people. Instead we get this petty political crap. My expectations of Mr. Coyne are never all that high. But I had hoped that Our Leader�s recent exposure to some serious people from around the world might have given him at least a minimal insight into what is coming. I guess - once again - the triumph of hope over experience.
seaandthemountains
Nov 27, 2008 12:31
Report Abuse
1) The BQ argument is emotive. It is essentially, if the reasoning above hasn;t convivnced you, then just know you are supporting the BQ. While I am not a fan of theirs, that argument is not the basis of a valuable analysis of this situation.
2) �The $1.95 �allowance� violated every one of those principles.�
The primary value is, as you point out, �that elections should be a matter between the candidates and the voters� �. under the $1.95 system, the subsidy was directed explicitly by the voters choice of whether they decided to vote and who they voted for. Pls, pray-tell how that breaks principle.
3) �Ignore, too, the complaint that somehow this cripples the political process.� So you think that the democratic process is served by having parties that have broad support, that are unable to communicate with voters on a relatively, equitable playing field?
4) �It is the right thing to do.� Pls. Changing the funding system is fine. And I don;t even disagree that ending the subsidy is a bad idea. But changing it on the spot by decision of one party that is already holding a massive advantage, with no consultation, no advanced warning and phased implementation s bunk. And it hurts our democracy. Your faining to care about that in this post offensive.
Matthew Fletcher
Nov 27, 2008 12:40
Report Abuse
For the most part I agree with Coyne, except for this bit:
�Nor should corporate and union leaders be able to donate other people�s money on their behalf.�
That�s a nice rhetorical flourish, but completely counter to the philosphy Coyne usually attempts to advance. To wit -
Once someone gives money to their union or corporation for whatever reason, it is no longer that person�s money - it belongs to the union/corporation and they can do what they like with it. If you don�t want your money to make its way to a political party, don�t give it to people who will send it there. That seems like private property 101, which Coyne is generally pretty big on upholding.
Matthew Fletcher
Nov 27, 2008 12:46
Report Abuse
On a side note:
I love the �These are serious times. We have the right to expect to be governed by serious people� comment. See Sisyphus in this thread and countless others in countless other places.
What times exactly are not �serious�? When exactly would we NOT want to be governed by serious people?
I�m really looking forward to that utopian day when we are so carefree that we can elect Rick Mercer and Jon Stewart to lead the free world with their only responsibilities being to goof off and make us laugh.
baldygirl
Nov 27, 2008 13:03
Report Abuse
�Whether to contribute to a political party, and how much, and to whom, should be a private, personal matter � voluntary, individual decisions.
�The $1.95 �allowance� violated every one of those principles. �
WHAT?
Seriously, dude, breathe. it sounds like you need to get some oxygen to that brain.
I�m going to go out on a limb, here, and claim that casting a vote is basically contributing to a political party. You�re contributing to their win potential in your riding, and if they DO win your riding you�re contributing to their win potential nationally. If we had proportional representation, you�d be contributing to their national win potential regardless of what happened in your own riding. But I digress.
Back to it: I�m pretty sure a buck ninety-five every year for four years (God freakin� willing) isn�t something Canadians would rail against. In fact, this represents a reasonably fair redistribution of Canadians� money among the major political players in this country.
Hey, speaking of reasonably fair redistribution of money, I guess it�s kind of like the GST. The slashing of which was another brilliant idea brought to you by the good people of the current government.
One more rant and I�m done. Bear with me.
�It is entirely within [the opposition's] power to do as the Tories have done, and develop a large base of individual contributors.�
See, um, no. That�s not true. People of moderate means and impoverished people don�t generally donate money to political parties. They tend to be people who don�t head up corporations, people who don�t make scads of disposable income. The same people, in fact, who would probably be likely to vote Liberal, NDP or Green. A lot of younger folks vote NDP and Green�many of these people are held in the choke-hold of school debt and underemployment. When paying for party membership and/or donating to the party is held up against paying for food, how do you think the party�s going to fare in terms of donations?
Cripes, even if this weren�t the case, and they were all Conservative voters, isn�t it more fair to have funding go to parties based on their popularity versus based on how well they can pimp themselves to people with increased financial means? I would say that the funding system put in place by the Liberals now being hacked away by the Conservatives would be the MOST democratic form of party funding we�ve seen yet.
SAB
Nov 27, 2008 13:05
Report Abuse
I would eliminate ALL restrictions on political donations as long as the donor and the are made public immediately. Coupled with other legislation (like lobbyist registration etc.), I don�t see what�s wrong with this. Lots of rich people are Liberals (and even NDPers!) and will throw money behind parties that support the less fortunate. Lots of middle class people will donate a little bit for the party with the right oranization and vision (see: Obama, Barack) that can add up to a significant amount of funding.
novagardener
Nov 27, 2008 13:05
Report Abuse
Maybe parliament should also ban 10%ers from all political parties. I wonder how the cons would feel about that. Perhaps parliamentarians should also be held to account (suspended for a period of time) for spewing outright lies in the HoC.
boudica
Nov 27, 2008 13:06
Report Abuse
�Up until now I had respect for you. That you can�t figure out this is handing control to a limited economic demographic puts and end to that.�
I couldn�t have said it better.
boudica
Nov 27, 2008 13:10
Report Abuse
�The pointless partisan furour this proposal deliberately engenders will distract from Harper�s otherwise sensible approach to the economy and leave most Canadians mumbling �a pox on all their houses.� �
Actually, Just Visiting, I think the whole point here is to obscure the fact that today�s economic statement will not provide a single idea on how this government plans to stir this country through this economic storm.
Harper doesn�t know what to do. He doesn�t know how to run a country in a time of crisis. The �decisive� one is at a total loss.
That�s what this confidence motion is about. He didn�t have a plan during the election and he still doesn�t have one now.
whyshouldIsellyourwheat
Nov 27, 2008 13:18
Report Abuse
Obama didn�t take public financing.
The Liberals should view this as a great opportunity to reform and rebuild their party.
Brad
Nov 27, 2008 13:30
Report Abuse
CES Franks and David E Smith both have wonderful books about the House fo Commons and include compelling explanations of how parties have evolved and what their role is in our particular system.
There�s the rope, swim for it.
NK
Nov 27, 2008 13:53
Report Abuse
�See, um, no. That�s not true. People of moderate means and impoverished people don�t generally donate money to political parties. They tend to be people who don�t head up corporations, people who don�t make scads of disposable income. The same people, in fact, who would probably be likely to vote Liberal, NDP or Green. A lot of younger folks vote NDP and Green�many of these people are held in the choke-hold of school debt and underemployment. When paying for party membership and/or donating to the party is held up against paying for food, how do you think the party�s going to fare in terms of donations? �
Except for the simple fact that each of the other parties donor�s provide a larger amount than the CPC�s. So, apparently the NDP, Libs, and Greens have a wealthier donor pool as their donors provide larger cheques. But please, never let the facts stand in the way of a good arguement.
My question to all those who think Democracy will end tomorrow if this is implemented�Do you are do you nto support Obama?
He never used one penny of public financing to win the US election. By your logic then, he is subverting Democracy �.after all, he used private money not one cent of public financing. Or is it that it is different if it is Obama because you like his message better and the vitrol is due to the fact that you are partisan.
Obama figured out how to reach out to people and in return they chose to donate what they could to fund his campaign. THAT is how a healthy democracy works.
Diana
Nov 27, 2008 13:54
Report Abuse
I am thrilled to know that I will not be FORCED to support the Bloc head, the moustache, Iggy and or Rae, with my tax dollars. Last time I checked the Bloc didn�t give a fig for TROC. Good for the Conservatives.
David M.
Nov 27, 2008 14:11
Report Abuse
Sorry Coyne but your logic- if there is any - is flawed. As a partisan if the subsidy must go it�s a bit much to ban so called corporate donations which include every business no matter how small. If a convienence store operator wants to donate $50 or $1000 he can�t make it through his business under current rules and that�;s dumb
Its a bit much to think that any Corporation could gain influence with $1000 limit.
Changing the rules at this point after their win is bullshit crass partisan politics which isn�t helping the economy or the country.
Not to mention the amount of money the Conservatives spent on advertising for the two years before the election was probably more than any party spent during the election-
Mark-Alan Whittle
Nov 27, 2008 14:11
Report Abuse
I wonder if Michael Ignatieff still wants to be leader of the Liberal party now that it will be rendered peniless, or something close to it, compared to the Conservatives?. Cutting this subsidy is the best news I�ve heard since the world�s economies tanked. Bad news is, my gas bill has doubled. Ouch.
Daniel
Nov 27, 2008 14:13
Report Abuse
�[Elections] should be a matter between the candidates and the voters.�
I couldn�t agree more, but I happen to look at politics with a practical bent, and thus can see that parties need some help to get the candidate to the voter, and vice-versa. If you�re a smaller party - like the Greens - then this program allows you to take the support received in the last election from the voters, and use that to get to more voters - to connect the two parts of the system that Andrew said politics should be about. As opposed to restricting interactions between them, public financing increases it, and gives the minority a much greater ability to be heard.
More important than this, however, is the slight-of-hand being used by the Tories against Canadians with this move. People across the spectrum will get (wrongly) excited about not funding the Bloc, and (so the plan goes) they�ll not notice that Harper isn�t doing anything for regular hard-working Canadians. They�ll not notice that he�s the first PM to have a loss of Canadian productivity under his term. They�ll not notice that the economic plan we were promised is nowhere to be seen. And they�ll not notice that we�ve lost 200K manufacturing jobs, with many more to come when the Big Three crash.
d. andy jette
Nov 27, 2008 14:16
Report Abuse
Your vote dictates who gets your twoonie, just as my vote dictates who gets mine. Forgive my ignorance, but that would appear to be the ***precise*** opposite to being �forced� to support a party you don�t support.
For the record, in my opinion Obama should have stayed within the limits and taken the public cash. But then again in my opinion third-party funnels like the Swiftboaters and moveon.org constitute legalized money laundering, and should be shut down. I�m not American, so I don�t have a vote on any of that. And by the way, what Obama did was a legal option within the U.S. political finance framework.
We�re debating what should be included in our own national political finance framework. The question I have is, why scrap the subsidy but keep tax deductibility on donations? Seems to me that scrapping the deductibility option saves taxpayer money (after all, it�s a spending program just like any other tax credit, right, Mr. Coyne?) and increases the relative attractiveness of charitable donations.
Pat
Nov 27, 2008 14:17
Report Abuse
I�m afraid that the arguments that indicate that the Conservatives are the rich guys in this mix just does not fly. Check out the Dippers. Seems to me that they�re not known to be rich guys but they support themselves quite well. The people that vote for them, support them. Same deal with the Conservatives, grass roots democracy at work.
Self supporting does have a nice ring�..except to the hand outstretched left side of the spectrum.
ian
Nov 27, 2008 14:18
Report Abuse
All parties have time to replace the loss of funding before the next election as we will not be going to the polls anywhere in the near future.
If I want to make a personal contribution to a political party I can �make the effort� to do so all by myself.
Andrew
Nov 27, 2008 14:19
Report Abuse
This is the right thing to do! We should not be forced to subsidize political parties!
Having said that�what are the chances the government is voted down and we have an election in 6-8 weeks?? Seriously, Liberals either go bankrupt or vote down the government and we go into an election�the opposition needs to pick their poison.
baldygirl
Nov 27, 2008 14:34
Report Abuse
NK, you�re wrong, and you�re missing the point that allowing parties to accept money based on who has THE ABILITY to throw it at them unfairly puts lower-income persons at a disadvantage in terms of their ability to financially support a party of their choice (and to therefore have representation by someone that they feel will speak to their needs as equal citizens of this country). At least distributing money based on a vote count would be a fair apportioning of public funds to the parties that represent the people, rich or poor.
�Except for the simple fact that each of the other parties donor�s provide a larger amount than the CPC�s. So, apparently the NDP, Libs, and Greens have a wealthier donor pool as their donors provide larger cheques. But please, never let the facts stand in the way of a good arguement.�
Rather, it�s you who should get your facts straight. It�s right above the posting, guy: �But because the Conservatives have such a strong fundraising base, their subsidy represents only 37 per cent of the party�s total revenues. By comparison, the subsidy amounts to 63 per cent of the Liberals� funding, 86 per cent of the Bloc�s, 57 per cent of the NDP�s and 65 per cent of the Greens�.� The dollar figures immediately precede this, and if you do the math, the funding that other parties receive is comparatively paltry to the CPC�s.
Democracy won�t end tomorrow. However to pretend that we now have democracy is a little na�ve. Our system is quite removed from democracy, actually. Democracy won�t be achieved until people have equal rights and equal representation in government, and that�s certainly not being accomplished by abolishing a funding system that fairly benefits all parties.
I don�t know how Obama is relevant to this discussion. We�re talking about Canada. To quote mom, �If Obama jumped off a bridge, would you?� Just pretend for a while that we�re a nation of independent, thinking people; and that the American way is not the right or just way.
�Obama figured out how to reach out to people and in return they chose to donate what they could to fund his campaign. THAT is how a healthy democracy works.�
Actually, that�s how a large evangelical church in a capitalist nation works. Or scientology. Not a how a healthy democracy works. A healthy democracy works by allowing people equal representation. Representation based on coin is not equal.
boudica
Nov 27, 2008 14:35
Report Abuse
Andrew, the Libs will have little choice but to vote against it. They may have little money now but they will be even more broke if they wait until later as they will have to make up money lost over their leadership convention.
Seems to me that unless the Opposition parties can kill this amendment in committee, we will be going to the polls in January.
David
Nov 27, 2008 14:35
Report Abuse
I have to agree that this is a step in the right direction. A substantial decrease in the deductibility of political donations, or an all-out elimination, should be the next move. And as for the argument that only the higher income bracket will donate, we are looking to replace a subsidy of less than $2 per voter here - if a party can get even a $5 donation over a four year period from HALF of those who voted for them, they�re actually in a better financial position.
This is a great way to achieve two ends: a reduction of public monies going to political parties; and an incentive for political parties to build support through the engagement of the voting public.
Doug Smith
Nov 27, 2008 14:37
Report Abuse
I don�t like how money at all dictates the election campaign. I�d prefer to see some kind of system where campaigning is standardized in terms of information sessions, debates, handouts, ads, stumping and of course spending. How many times a party leader can fly across Canada, how many tv ads they can buy, how many lawn signs they can manufacture, how many rock stars they can party with, etc, is superfluous to the process. Canadians need to make informed decisions based on policies, promises, and their personal opinion of how their prospective leader or cabinet minister represents themselves and their constituents. Canadians shouldn�t have to rationalize their vote because of per vote subsidies, if someone can�t bother to pull themselves out of their bed to vote then that is their problem (or at least an issue that is completely different from subsidies).
I don�t know what the solution is really. There needs to be a level playing field where parties get equal chance to spread their message, but at the same time I think that people that are motivated to advance the cause of their chosen party should be able to express this. I don�t think the per vote subsidy does either of these things.
TJ Cook
Nov 27, 2008 14:39
Report Abuse
David - I�m right on board with you.
As long as you mean there should be a $5 limit on individual political donations. Heck, make it $100 and I�m still with you.
If, like most right-wingers, you feel that personal donations should be very high or unlimited, then you�re arguing for the bastardization of our democracy, selling it to the highest bidders.
d. andy jette
Nov 27, 2008 14:39
Report Abuse
The rich tories/dippers/grits thign is beside the point. If you know anything about political organizing you know it�s not just about how much money you give personally, but how much you can coordinate getting others to donate. In the past, it wasn�t just about how much union X gave as an organization, but it�s ability to lean on its members to give as well.
Whether the money comes in in $20 bills or $1000 cheques, the people with the ability to bring the money in (I believe the original term is �bagman�) have an unhealthy level of influence over the party. You solve this by reducing the role of the bagman.
boudica
Nov 27, 2008 14:39
Report Abuse
�This is a great way to achieve two ends: a reduction of public monies going to political parties; and an incentive for political parties to build support through the engagement of the voting public.�
Nonsense David. Given that the measure calls for this change to be implemented next April, the Opposition parties and the Greens wouldn�t have enough time to build the support you speak of. The LPC and the Greens would likely be wiped at the very next election, leaving the field wide open for the Tory to take absolute control of Parliament.
There is no noble intent behind this move. Harper sees the LPC on the ropes and he wants to finish them off.
the rat
Nov 27, 2008 14:40
Report Abuse
�If Mr. Coyne ever has reason to reflect on this, he might actually realise how deeply immoral this is. But I somehow doubt that�ll ever happen.�
Can�t quote the whole steaming pile but it seems Mr. ti-guy thinks if we stop doling out the taxpayer�s money to political parties we�ll all just quit thinking. Now, I know TG doesn�t believe anyone can think at his level but this moronic con-bot just cannot for the life of him see how the two are in anyway connected. Only government cash can stimulate people to think? I always thought people paid attention when they spent their own money and not so much the missing money from their pay cheque, the �Government�s� money. Too bad, I always thought, but I have to think if parties have to sell themselves to the public, convince them to give up their hard-earned after-tax money, we�ll likely see more thought than less. but I�m just a con-bot, not a deep thinking multi-lingual intellectual like ti-guy.
T. Thwim
Nov 27, 2008 14:45
Report Abuse
David: Public monies should be going to political parties. They are public entities. It is only by eliminating all private money from public parties that we stand to make them truly accountable to the public, which is who they�re supposed to be representing.
Here�s the deal, whether I vote conservative or not, whether I vote liberal or not, the person who gets in is supposed to represent me. However, when this person�s election relies on them having the money to campaign, money which comes from pleasing a certain segment of the population being represented at the expense of another section, we have a recipe for unrepresentative politicians.
TJ Cook
Nov 27, 2008 14:47
Report Abuse
Hey rat: That whooshing sound was Ti-Guy�s point flying over your head. This is not about who can/does think, it�s about who gets political influence.
Public financing helps smooth out influence between citizens. Coyne�s suggestion hands influence disproportionately to the wealthy.
Warwick
Nov 27, 2008 14:48
Report Abuse
For those bad-faith whiners who decry the death of democracy, just write the political party of your choice a cheque for 8 bucks every 4 year election cycle.
Or do you not think your chosen candidate is worth 2 buck a year?
Put your OWN damn money where your whiney, petulant, mollycoddled mouth is. You aren�t entitled to your entitlements.
Is there any question at all that if the libs were the main beneficiary that this wouldn�t already have been done and that you lot would be defending it?
Warwick
Nov 27, 2008 14:53
Report Abuse
TJ Cook
��hands influence disproportionately to the wealthy.�
What utter garbage. Over-all, we�re talking about just under 2 bucks a year per person in funding. Are you honestly so mathematically illiterate that you think you have to be rich to afford a lousy latte a year? Please.
If only 1% of the party supporters sent cheques for $200 a year you�d be covered. If you can�t do that, your entitlement-addled �make everyone else pay� deadbeat party isn�t worthy of survival. If your party�s own supporters won�t dig deep, let it go.
Save us the idiocy.
DWT
Nov 27, 2008 14:56
Report Abuse
�Aren�t you being a little dishonest here? Separatists are actually funded with� separatists� money simply because anyone who vote is actually choosing the political party that will receive his $1.95 per vote. So it�s idiotic to claim that a CPC/LPC/NDP/BQ voter (and taxpayer) actually finances anyone but the party of his choice.�
This comment would be valid under the assumption that each and every Bloq voter was paying taxes. Any voter who is in the non-paying bracket is effectively subsidized by every taxpayer in Canada for their vote choice. This holds true for every vote for every party, if you have not paid any tax, your vote has created a $1.95 transfer from those who have.
Andrew (not Potter or Coyne)
Nov 27, 2008 14:56
Report Abuse
Ok, the Obama thing is a fallacy. He collected donations from corporations and their proxies through large individual donations. Do the CPC suggest that they will eliminate all funding restrictions from unions, corporations and individuals? Coyne, I thought you were suggesting that the money should be able to speak.
Doug Smith
Nov 27, 2008 14:57
Report Abuse
baldygirl, I don�t see anything democratic about the per vote subsidy. It starts off well because vote = money, which is democratic I suppose. However, it of course leads to more money = more votes, which is the crux of the problem and is completely undemocratic in my view.
scanner
Nov 27, 2008 14:59
Report Abuse
Dear Mr. Coyne,
You are either incredibly naive or on the payroll. This has nothing to do with getting the Politicians off the dole, if it did the CPoC would all agree to work for $1 a year and accept no donations from numbered companies (Ha!). This is misdirection, because the Party in power has not a clue what to do about the current situation. They�ve been in deficit at least since May, and the bill for the Afghan adventure is running up faster than they can keep track. You can see fear in S. Harper�s eyes when he talks about what they�re doing for the economy, because he knows the Chicago school has failed (Epic Fail). Now he�s generating a storm about something else in the hopes no one will notice how bereft of ideas his party is. I hope the opposition calls his bluff, passes this in first reading then emasculates it in Committee.
d. andy jette
Nov 27, 2008 15:00
Report Abuse
It is my own money, warwickwackcaddyshackgiveadogabone. Just as your vote directs puts your money where your�food-chewing�teeth-brushing�words-saying mouth is.
baldygirl
Nov 27, 2008 15:04
Report Abuse
Doug Smith, I agree. I don�t think it�s totally democratic because I see that problem too. But I think eliminating it is a step backward, not forward.
d. andy jette: Best insult ever. :D
Warwick
Nov 27, 2008 15:06
Report Abuse
d. andy jette
So then what are you whining about then? the inconvenience of having to mail the money directly instead of having the government do it for you?? Ya, you must be a lazy-arse liberal (or dipper.)
boudica
Nov 27, 2008 15:06
Report Abuse
three cheers for scanner�s comment. One would think that our national press gallery would be able to see through Harper�s move. I�m sorely disappointed in Coyne.
TJ Cook
Nov 27, 2008 15:06
Report Abuse
Warwick, I�ll try yet again to explain this. Read carefully, it�s not complicated.
The problem is not the loss of current $2/vote financing. The problem is increasing dependence on individual political contributions. I can afford political contributions on my budget, but that�s relatively small.
The guy 6 blocks away in the big fancy house can make much, much bigger political contributions.
Who do you think is going to find their politicians more responsive? Whose needs do you think are more likely reflected in campaign platforms? Why are our public servants more responsive to the rich guy? Because his money will help them get re-elected. Under this system, his citizenship is worth more than mine. That�s antidemocratic.
Now do you understand? Maybe you ought not to be throwing around words like �idiocy�.
Demosthenes
Nov 27, 2008 15:07
Report Abuse
Hmm, yes, clearly the DEMOCRATIC move is to gut the opposition�s ability to plan and finance itself, while at the same time invoking the singular aberration in American public politics in, what, the last 50 years or so? Obama was historic, yes, but that�s the very reason he�s a terrible model to go on. And he�s not advocating removing public spending, now, is he?
Andrew, you answered your own question. If the limit is a thousand dollars, and only a few can donate a thousand dollars a year, then those few will have a greater voice, by definition. But the bigger problem is that those who will REALLY marshall a voice are those who can bundle together donations. If someone can wrangle together a million dollars, because they belong to the right organization, are they really deserving of a million times the influence of someone who can only donate a dollar?
I don�t get this. Public financing is a good idea. Public financing works. It is profoundly and obviously �citizen-based� and ensures that million-dollar bundlers don�t get million-dollar voices. I know that Andrew loses his mind whenever the word �public� is raised�his reaction to Obama�s Keynesian stimulus package is going to be desperately amusing�but this isn�t even up for debate. it was the best move Chretien made, and it shows just how odious Harper is that he would try to pull this.
Anon
Nov 27, 2008 15:08
Report Abuse
�Um, no. The money comes from general revenues. �
Um, yes. Because the Bloc only gets 1.95 times the number of votes. Therefore, it�s entirely reasonable to argue that Bloc voters are subsidizing the party of their choice.
Since voting is voluntary, it can also be argued that these voters are voluntary �checking-off� a contribution to the party of their choice.
Cutting off the 50% expense subsidy, on the other hand, would be entirely justified.
cambo
Nov 27, 2008 15:09
Report Abuse
This is excellent news. Now people have to make a real choice. A carton of smokes or a case of beer, or a few bucks to jack layton. Real money, real choices. Now everyone can see if ideas really matter.
Demosthenes
Nov 27, 2008 15:15
Report Abuse
TJ: here�s a better example.
Let�s say you have two neighbourhoods. Both have roughly the same number of people in them. One, however, is a group of prosperous professionals and capital-holders in single-family dwellings. Another is a group of struggling lower-class workers. The former can all donate somewhere between $350 to $1000 a year. The latter can donate, maybe, $100 a year. But probably won�t, because their credit situation is nonexistent and they have to save in case of catastrophe. Oh, and they�re in danger of losing their jobs.
Who has a bigger voice? The first neighbourhood, or the latter? Which is most likely to get responses to their needs? Yet�and this is the better question�which one probably needs the help more?
You know the answer. The idiot conservatives know the answer. Andrew �I have a minor aneurysm when government pays for something� Coyne knows the answer. But he apparently doesn�t want you to.
The current Canadian public financing system means that parties have a financial incentive to get VOTES. And VOTES are universal and egalitarian. You get one whether you�re rich or poor. That poor neighbourhood? Well, they know that they can �donate� at least $2 a year to the party they choose, in as much a �individual private� decision as giving is to anybody else.
You vote, you give. It�s elegant as hell. Except, I guess, to captain �ARGH I HEARD SOMEONE SAY PUBLIC MY BRAIN IT HURTS!� up there.
TJ Cook
Nov 27, 2008 15:15
Report Abuse
cambo - if you�re having to choose between a case of beer and a political donation, your ideas don�t matter.
There�s some rich bastard out there contributing 1000x your contribution who can get the PM on the phone personally if he doesn�t like the PM�s �ideas�. He can get the PM on the phone because the PM will need the money to get reelected.
This is not a move in favour of the little guy, this change favours the rich.
Warwick
Nov 27, 2008 15:16
Report Abuse
TJ Cook
The whole reason why the limit was lowered by Harper to 1100 from Chretien�s 5000 is because a lousy 1100 a year isn�t enough to buy a politician.
Just what do you think 1100 is going to get you? What difference does that make in a 19 million election campaign cost?
The politicians rely more on votes than the money. There are more poor and middle class than rich. Otherwise, there wouldn�t be a welfare state. Get it? If a handful of rich guys give their 1100 each, do you think the politician is going to screw over the millions of common people?
The elimination of corporate and union money altogether did a great deal to clean up politics. Having the politicians relying on the little guy for funding will do a lot more. Most of the conservatives donations are under $200. That isn�t the rich, that�s joe six-pack.
Your �it�s all about the rich� doesn�t hold with the facts.
Calgary Grit
Nov 27, 2008 15:22
Report Abuse
What�s so bad about having the parties subsidized based on how many votes they get? Doesn�t that make it a �citizen-based campaign finance system�? How the citizens vote decides who gets the money. There�s no undue influence at all then since it�s in 2$ chunks and anonymous.
Seems to fit the definition of your ideal system to me.
Warwick
Nov 27, 2008 15:23
Report Abuse
TJ Cook
�There�s some rich bastard out there contributing 1000x your contribution who can get the PM on the phone personally if he doesn�t like the PM�s �ideas�. �
Obviously you haven�t been paying attention. The �rich bastard� can�t give more than 1100. Corporations can�t give 2 cents - nor can unions.
You need to step back a half-decade or so and catch up to the facts - they seem to have passed you by. The reality you seem to think exists ended.
stephen
Nov 27, 2008 15:24
Report Abuse
Citizen based contributions�..goodness what an anti democratic concept.
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Parties still get reimbursements for expenses during election time. No issue there.
Have a point of view, one way to test it out and see if people believe in it is engage in the grassroots fundraising required to make it work. For crying out loud run a promotion with Starbucks to buy a Liberal Frappachino with half the money going to the Liberal Party�.all you need to replace is $1.95 per year�.in other words it shouldnt be that hard.
If you cant raise money to a basic level then perhaps your party isnt ready to govern or doesnt deserve a chance to speak to be in the debates etc etc. It is one signal amongst many of a Party�s ability to organize a parade and get something done.
I dont�t understand the vehemance here�..goodness the tories lowered the max contribution amoutn fromt he $5,000 the Liberals HAD it at.
This isnt that hard, I dont believe they provide the subsidy to Quebec parties and their election finanicng laws are well admired, I could be wrong though.
$1,000 is hardly corrupting but sure lower max contribution to $250 or $100 if you want. But then you need to watch what gets called a contribution, attending conventions etc�
I am sure the Liberals will be fine. Remeber elections are effectively free, this is inbetween election money. The lack of ability on the LIberals part today is what makes it look lopsided, but that will change.
This should be a small issue but clearly there is a nerve that has been struck�..funny to watch.
Loraine Lamontagne
Nov 27, 2008 15:27
Report Abuse
If it such a good idea, why did Harper not campaign on this? Did he not realize the state of the public purse three months ago? Why now?
d. andy jette
Nov 27, 2008 15:31
Report Abuse
Wicky, I�m happily unaffiliated. And I�m not lazy, I�m too cheap to buy a stamp. Which�hey, does that make me conservative?
And again, for those who keep getting hung up on the rich individual donor thing, $5,000 doesn�t buy anymore influence than $1,100.
On the other hand, the ability to (through whatever levers or skills you have at your disposal) rally your friends/community/church/baby-sitters club/whatever to collectively come up with $50,000, or $500,000, buys a hell of a lot more influence than an individual donation of $1,100.
Jim Pook
Nov 27, 2008 15:39
Report Abuse
Can Bob & Iggy, or Gille, please explain WHY I should be forced to donate money to their cause when I do not agree with them?
Did we not already stop big corporations and unions from giving political donations with other people�s money? Why is this any different.
If I want to support a political party, then I will be happy to do it with my own money. Having the government take it out of my pocket and give it to them is not something I would support.
In this new age of economic turmoil, everyone has to cut back, and the politicians should not be exempt.
Warwick
Nov 27, 2008 15:42
Report Abuse
d. andy jette
Fool, if other people are more organized than you or yours, what are you whining about? If you can�t run your party�s finances, why would we put you in charge of the nation�s?
You don�t do you point any favours.
Really, all you have is petty insults - and not very clever ones at that. And if conservatives were too cheap to buy a stamp they�d be smart enough to donate online - so no, you aren�t one.
TJ Cook
Nov 27, 2008 15:42
Report Abuse
Warwick,
Of course I understand that there are contribution limits in place. Frankly I�d given up on that aspect of the discussion since so many people here seem utterly ignorant of the basic dynamics of political contributions. That�s why I stripped it down to a cartoonish description. Also, a number of people above have argued against contribution limits altogether.
Demosthenes makes the point better than I did: Even under a maximum of $1100, no one person gains undue influence. But populations begin to gain influence - by province, neighborhood, race, etc. according to their aggregate donations.
The overall point is that public financing in proportion to share of vote is a fundamentally fair way to support political parties and avoids the kind of distortions that money introduces in politics.
And seriously - are you arguing that there�s a social safety net because huge number of poor people make tiny donations?
T. Thwim
Nov 27, 2008 15:46
Report Abuse
I dunno Jim. Can you explain why I should be forced to donate money to keep the roads paved in front of your house or keep gas flowing into your neighborhood?
Oh wait, maybe it�s because none of us are individualist supermen and part of the responsibility of living in a society is that we sometimes support things we don�t individually support because it benefits all of us.
Having politicians supported by the public at large instead of private donations benefits all of us, because it means politicians can concentrate on governing rather than fund-raising, and can try to present the best ideas for the country, without worrying that it will offend the donating base at the expense of the non-donating base.
Stephen: 60% refunded. Were it 100% refunded you might have a point. It isn�t. You don�t. If you believe that only parties that can raise money should be able to campaign then why bother having elections? It sounds like you�d be perfectly happy with an auction system.
Warwick
Nov 27, 2008 15:50
Report Abuse
TJ Cook
Money has nothing to do with it under small donation limits.
The reason that ��populations begin to gain influence - by province, neighborhood, race, etc. � is that they each get a vote. Your influence is proportional to the number of votes you deliver. You can�t pool donations - they�re still individual. But your �community leader� can promise to deliver votes.
Interest group politics is there regardless. It�s not a money issue.
Warwick
Nov 27, 2008 15:53
Report Abuse
�And seriously - are you arguing that there�s a social safety net because huge number of poor people make tiny donations?�
Sigh.
Obviously not. But in a system which the rich were able to buy politicians up until THIS decade, we still have the welfare state. Under your point, it wouldnt exist as the poor wouldn�t have put up as much bribe money. The point I WAS making, as you obviously missed it, is that the VOTES of huge numbers of poor and middle class people is the reason for a welfare state and the money wasn�t.
I�d say - given history - that my logic holds up better than yours.
T. Thwim
Nov 27, 2008 15:58
Report Abuse
Actually, Warwick, the reason for the welfare state was the money. Specifically that those against a welfare state took too much of it time after time. Eventually the poor will revolt. Fortunately in Canada, we had the vote rather than the guillotine. However it still meant a dramatic shift in policy and the politics of our nation, and dramatic shifts are simply not good for a country. They tend to cause serious upheaval and hurt a lot of real people.
Allowing private financing only exacerbates this growth-revolt cycle.
TJ Cook
Nov 27, 2008 16:01
Report Abuse
Warwick - again, I agree that contribution limits help control the influence of money
|
Responses:
|
Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.
|
|