Conservatives To Slash Federal Funding of Political Parties [Update-CPC backs down]

[Nehkara]

Flaherty to slash public funding for federal parties

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will slash almost $30 million a year in public funding for federal parties, in a move that would save taxpayers' money but deal a major financial blow to opposition parties, CTV News has learned.

While the Conservatives would lose the most money, it would be a smaller share of their overall revenue because they get most of their funding through private donations.

"They're going to have a hell of a fight on their hands. This is not the way to behave in a democracy," Liberal leadership contender Bob Rae told CTV News.

In 2007, the Conservative Party received just 37 per cent of its funding from the public subsidy, according to The Canadian Press. That's far lower than the other parties, including the Liberals:

• Bloc Quebecois: 86 per cent
• Green Party: 65 per cent
• Liberals: 63 per cent
• NDP: 57 per cent

"For the smaller parties, this public funding is what allows us to participate fully in democracy," said New Democrat MP Pat Martin.

It's unclear how the Green Party would be able to stage an effective cross-country campaign without the money, especially since they were unable to elect a single MP to Parliament.

To me this is inexcusable and must be stopped. $30 million is a drop in the bucket and it jeopardizes our democracy by compromising the ability of small parties to effectively campaign. It also just happens to hurt all of the other parties more than the Conservatives... that is just too convenient for my liking. I just now discovered a reason to truly despise the Conservatives again.

[FLAMESRULE]

As a taxpayer why would I want to support any party other than the one I voted for?? Especially considering separatist parties (BQ), fringe / single policy parties (IMO Green Party) etc. Yes $30MM is a drop in the bucket by any measure, but its a start.

If a party truly has global appeal (enough to get an elected MP) then they should be able to fundraise and collect donations from the public / corporate Canada. It shouldnt be taxpayers funding any party.

[HOZ]

Sounds like the right thing to do. Why should tax payer fund wingnut parties they would normally not? If these parties cannot fund raise enough money it may just be a VERY telling signal!


Now if the Conservatives would cut the Mother Corp loose.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Seems ok to me. If no one will freely give their money to a party, how is it democratic to be forced to?

When was this brought in? 10 years ago? Were we horribly undemocratic before that?

[Jetsfan]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Sounds like the right thing to do. Why should tax payer fund wingnut parties they would normally not? If these parties cannot fund raise enough money it may just be a VERY telling signal!


Now if the Conservatives would cut the Mother Corp loose.

I absolutely agree!!!

[Nehkara]

I disagree. This money is dependent on votes, so it is very legitimate. The number of votes * $1.95 = the amount of money.

Only parties able to campaign effectively enough to get people to vote for them get any money.

As I see it, this is a big problem because it doesn't let people vote for who they want... they get to vote for who has the most money because now smaller parties will likely be unable to field a full slate of candidates.

Also, it just so happens that the Conservatives are by far the party that receives the most amount of money from fundraising and private donations.

I see it as Harper setting himself up to win a majority by crippling the other parties ability to compete.

/end rant.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

As a taxpayer why would I want to support any party other than the one I voted for?? Especially considering separatist parties (BQ), fringe / single policy parties (IMO Green Party) etc. Yes $30MM is a drop in the bucket by any measure, but its a start.

If a party truly has global appeal (enough to get an elected MP) then they should be able to fundraise and collect donations from the public / corporate Canada. It shouldnt be taxpayers funding any party.

Fully agree with you! This isn't about democracy, look at independents for instance, they have proven that even with limited or no public funding a citizen can become an MP. There is nothing that AGGRAVATES me more than watching idiots on TV waste our money bashing each other regarding sweaters and speech impediments. Raising and Spending their own damn money might make some of these politicians appreciate a little more where it comes from! I would gladly pay donate $5 to a representative in my area that comes and talks to me for 5 minutes about what he will do for me.

END RANT!

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by fotze

Conservative to lose the most funding. Never understood why you got a tax break for donating to a party, seems the people in power are pretty self serving with that rule. If I ever get into power I am going to give tax shelters to people who give me money.

The most money, sure... but only 37% of their total funding... whereas the Liberals would lose 63%, etc.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

The most money, sure... but only 37% of their total funding... whereas the Liberals would lose 63%, etc.

Boo friggin hoo. The Liberals spent 12 years in power before the Cons got in on their private funding. And the cons spent that time whining about how the libs treat tax coffers like a personal bank account.

I don't want to get into a war over which party has wasted more money, but this proposal is a great one.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

I disagree. This money is dependent on votes, so it is very legitimate. The number of votes * $1.95 = the amount of money.

Only parties able to campaign effectively enough to get people to vote for them get any money.

As I see it, this is a big problem because it doesn't let people vote for who they want... they get to vote for who has the most money because now smaller parties will likely be unable to field a full slate of candidates.

Also, it just so happens that the Conservatives are by far the party that receives the most amount of money from fundraising and private donations.

I see it as Harper setting himself up to win a majority by crippling the other parties ability to compete.

/end rant.

I hear what you are saying. No doubt this is aimed at the Libs who brought the rule in themselves after their own private support started to crumble I think. They're broke and need the cash.

But the rest is tough to accept. The NDP, the Bloc, the Reform party...these all started without such funding.

I'm sure smaller parties have spent more, but have they had any more success since they got the new funding? If all we're doing is giving the usual parties 25 mil a year so we can throw the greens 2 mil in the hopes they'll accomplish something, that's bad math.

[FLAMESRULE]

Nekhara, like you said if only the most effective parties get public funding (federal or private/corporate) isnt that the best thing for democracy?? Effectiveness = increasing popularity = democracy in action...look at the Reform movement in Alberta. It destroyed the federal PC's because it had a message that was well received at the time.

I simply have problems with my tax dollars going to parties that will NEVER make a difference or destroy the country. If I like the party then I'll support them how I see best fit, not the federal govt.

I do however, tend to agree that this may be political oppurtunism by the PC's. Optics may look good (saving $30MM) but like you said there definitely could be a hidden agenda.

[Eric Vail]

The problem with this is it gives the wealthy coorporations more power than they should have and takes power away from ordinary Canadians. By doing this, parties would be hesitant to take on corrupt coorporations and would be tempted to give tax breaks to big business because they would be the absolute key to getting elected. I think this change opens up far greater opportunities for corruption.

[FLAMESRULE]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

The problem with this is it gives the wealthy coorporations more power than they should have and takes power away from ordinary Canadians. By doing this, parties would be hesitant to take on corrupt coorporations and would be tempted to give tax breaks to big business because they would be the absolute key to getting elected. I think this change opens up far greater opportunities for corruption.

I thought the Conservatives put in a law that says corporations could only give up to $1000 max. I think this hurts the Libs more...but I could be mistaken

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

The problem with this is it gives the wealthy coorporations more power than they should have and takes power away from ordinary Canadians. By doing this, parties would be hesitant to take on corrupt coorporations and would be tempted to give tax breaks to big business because they would be the absolute key to getting elected. I think this change opens up far greater opportunities for corruption.

I'm not sure the taxpayers can win a bidding war with big corporations if thats in fact the issue.

If they were so inclined and if we didn't have limits, the big banks alone could cut this cheque from their couch money.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

I see it as Harper setting himself up to win a majority by crippling the other parties ability to compete.

I am sure that the Liberals will really struggle to compete in the next election because of funds.

How will the Bloc raise enough money to compete in the seats in Quebec, basically can write them off as well.

Looks like a clean sweep for the Conservatives due to the poor, poor political parties unable to compete.

I am not sure why the Conservatives should be punished for raising more money than other parties. Perhaps next we can punish the Bloc for being better at appealing to Francophones.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

As a taxpayer why would I want to support any party other than the one I voted for?? Especially considering separatist parties (BQ), fringe / single policy parties (IMO Green Party) etc. Yes $30MM is a drop in the bucket by any measure, but its a start.

If a party truly has global appeal (enough to get an elected MP) then they should be able to fundraise and collect donations from the public / corporate Canada. It shouldnt be taxpayers funding any party.

I totally agree with your post. It's always ticked me off that a portion of my tax dollars go to subsidizing parties I don't support, and in some cases strongly disagree with (Bloc's separatist platform). The amount isn't the issue either, it's the principle. Give that $30 million to women's shelters and food banks and let political parties do their own fundraising. It might make their platforms more representative of the public and corporate interests in this county, rather than separation or utopian ideals.

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

I thought the Conservatives put in a law that says corporations could only give up to $1000 max. I think this hurts the Libs more...but I could be mistaken

That's my understanding as well. And the reason the Conservatives have faired better at fundraising under this model is because the majority of their donations have always come from small, private supporters rather than corporate big daddies *cough, Maurice Strong, cough*.

[Thunderball]

The government is facing multi-billion dollar deficits and rather than raising taxes (like an incompetent government would), they are trying to slice fat from the budget.

Using tax dollars to prop up fringe parties that can't generate their own funding is a huge waste of money. If the NDP/Green/Bloc/Liberals can't generate enough grassroots donations, then maybe that says something about them as parties. Lets not forget, these same "evil" conservatives are the ones who approved the elimination of the massive corporate donation. That surely gave an advantage to the NDP, Green and Bloc.

Why cry now that another measure of fair and efficient practice is brought in that hurts them?

[Flames in 07]

Perfect best thing I've heard in awhile. This is the right thing to do on so many levels.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Sounds like the right thing to do. Why should tax payer fund wingnut parties they would normally not? If these parties cannot fund raise enough money it may just be a VERY telling signal!


Now if the Conservatives would cut the Mother Corp loose.

Helps the Democratic process IMO. Good to have many voices in the conversation.

Also, this will make parties cater more to business because they will have the most money to give away. Not good for the working class.

Let's say a party is supported by 30,000 working class people. Another is supported by 30,000 business professionals. Who will receive more funding?

It seems to me, the current system is simply more democratic. Which is something I support.

[photon]

I have a thought but I'm having problems articulating it, but I'll try.

On the surface I don't have a problem with this, except for one thing.

I think that most people are sheep, don't really think about the issues or get informed, they just react to what the media tells them to think (not that the media necessarily manipulates things, they just report what politician X said about politician Y, or run commercial A). We can see this easily by watching polls and how they change depending on whats going on in the media.. Run a particularly effective negative ad, 5 points off the other party's lead, etc.

So at some level money translates into public mindshare. Which means that the haves have the ability to get more, while the havenots don't, they have a MUCH steeper hill to climb since they don't have the advantage of $$ from existing votes which were won on the basis of money spent to get more mindshare...

In business there's laws against monopolies to prevent a giant squeezing out all possible competition and doing things unfairly.

Is this a similar type of situation?

Hope I got my point across; it's based on the idea that money => facetime with voters => mindshare => votes.