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

[Flame Of Liberty]

The government already funds every imaginable interest group out there so why not political parties? There's enough money for everyone.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

How is that Democratic? I will reiterate a point I made earlier in this thread. People in higher income brackets will have more money to give their preferred political party. People in lower income brackets will have less money to give to their preferred political party. Each group is bound to have different issue concerns and support a different party. Therefore under a system where parties raise their own money, a working class party with the same amount of voting support as a business party will raise less funds. Which makes in harder for the working class party to compete. You see how that isn't democratic?

Removing this funding is definitely more capitalistic but definitely not more democratic. Let's not pretend this upholds democracy no matter what your view on the issue is.

Implementing policies that are designed to benefit certain parties (e.g. working class party) isn't democratic.

It's the job of the working class party to attract people with deep pockets to donate to their cause. It's not the job of the government to give them that money.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

The government already funds every imaginable interest group out there so why not political parties? There's enough money for everyone.

Because its my money and I don't want it to be used for this.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Because its my money and I don't want it to be used for this.

It's Flame of Liberty... I am totally certain there was a huge degree of sarcasm in his post.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Are you really making up numbers to prove that numbers someone else made up are inaccurate?
I may be misunderstanding you but if I am not it seems kinda silly.

Fair enough... I should have worded that more clearly. My numbers are made up too and I'm not claimning their 100% accurate, but the original story shows that the Conservatives get by far the largest proportion of their funding privately.
Therefore the smaller parties getting enough small donations to compete (as his example was showing) is not happening, and the larger donations from the wealthier supporters are trumping them by a landslide.
Again, I'm under the assumption that the Conservatives benefit most from the support of the wealthy, which if not true, please let me know.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by peter12

It's Flame of Liberty... I am totally certain there was a huge degree of sarcasm in his post.

Absolutely not. How are you going to build a liberal democracy if you dont extort money from people against their will and use it for your own benefit and at the time claim it is actually in the best interest of said people?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Fair enough... I should have worded that more clearly. My numbers are made up too and I'm not claimning their 100% accurate, but the original story shows that the Conservatives get by far the largest proportion of their funding privately.
Therefore the smaller parties getting enough small donations to compete (as his example was showing) is not happening, and the larger donations from the wealthier supporters are trumping them by a landslide.
Again, I'm under the assumption that the Conservatives benefit most from the support of the wealthy, which if not true, please let me know.

Yeah, they get the most private donations because they work for it and don't rely on the federal subsidies. What is wrong with that?

Lordy, I have to find the Elections Canada data on how much the parties bring in. I can assure you that the NDP do just fine. Much better than the Liberals.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Implementing policies that are designed to benefit certain parties (e.g. working class party) isn't democratic.

It's the job of the working class party to attract people with deep pockets to donate to their cause. It's not the job of the government to give them that money.

In a true democracy, how deep peoples pockets are wouldn't matter at all. Why should any party have to attract deep pockets to win an election. I thought the whole point almost everyone in this thread was defending was that this isn't advantages to the wealthy?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yeah, they get the most private donations because they work for it and don't rely on the federal subsidies. What is wrong with that?

Lordy, I have to find the Elections Canada data on how much the parties bring in. I can assure you that the NDP do just fine. Much better than the Liberals.

Sure they work for it, but they also cater to the group with the most wealth. I don't like to see wealth play such a strong roll in shaping funding. That's what's wrong with it IMO.

You don't need to find anything, the orignal post shows the NDP atleast propertionately bring in more private funding then the Libs. I'm not arguing with you there. The Libs inability to draw solid private support is not something I'm arguing with.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Sure they work for it, but they also cater to the group with the most wealth. I don't like to see wealth play such a strong roll in shaping funding. That's what's wrong with it IMO.

You don't need to find anything, the orignal post shows the NDP atleast propertionately bring in more private funding then the Libs. I'm not arguing with you there. The Libs inability to draw solid private support is not something I'm arguing with.

Is the ability to donate $1100 to a political party with the benefit of a huge tax break (can't remember exact numbers, but I think you get about 2/3 back) really a good indicator of wealth in this country? By your definition, like 85% of Canadians are "wealthy."

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

In a true democracy, how deep peoples pockets are wouldn't matter at all. Why should any party have to attract deep pockets to win an election. I thought the whole point almost everyone in this thread was defending was that this isn't advantages to the wealthy?

Sure if you want to debate how the entire system is setup we can do that. But that takes us off course.

It comes down to this: I don't want my money to be used for political parties of any kind. That's not appropriate use of tax payer dollars. It's an abuse of taxation.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by peter12

Is the ability to donate $1100 to a political party with the benefit of a huge tax break (can't remember exact numbers, but I think you get about 2/3 back) really a good indicator of wealth in this country? By your definition, like 85% of Canadians are "wealthy."

If you contribute $1,100, you get $600 back as a tax credit and it is $500 out of your own pocket, which is 54% not 67%. And even at that - I can't afford to give away $500/year and I'm making almost 6 figures. I don't think you will find too many families making under $100,000 that are donating $1,100. Can I get a show of hands of people that do?

Also, that $1,100 is not a total. I could give $1,100 to the Liberal party, I can give $1,100 to candidates for nominations, I can give $1,100 to leadership candidates..... if I sold my house and lived in a shack I might be able to keep up with the contributions of Gaelen Weston.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Sure if you want to debate how the entire system is setup we can do that. But that takes us off course.

It comes down to this: I don't want my money to be used for political parties of any kind. That's not appropriate use of tax payer dollars. It's an abuse of taxation.

I disagree. As does John McCain who went with public money to finance his campaign. The whole McCain-Feingold bill was to stop the wealthy from hijacking the electoral system in the United States. Here the Conservatives have decided to hand the system back to the wealthy. Which is absolutely no surprise whatsoever.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

If you contribute $1,100, you get $600 back as a tax credit and it is $500 out of your own pocket, which is 54% not 67%. And even at that - I can't afford to give away $500/year and I'm making almost 6 figures. I don't think you will find too many families making under $100,000 that are donating $1,100. Can I get a show of hands of people that do?

Also, that $1,100 is not a total. I could give $1,100 to the Liberal party, I can give $1,100 to candidates for nominations, I can give $1,100 to leadership candidates..... if I sold my house and lived in a shack I might be able to keep up with the contributions of Gaelen Weston.

I am making decent money for a young lad in this city and I easily give away $500 to different charities. I don't give any money to political parties, because I don't want to give them any money. It's all about being able to CHOOSE who you want to give your money to and why. Besides the vast majority of people are only donating what they can afford.

It's all about the proper distribution of money. We live in a world of finite economic opportunities. Obviously, alot of people find that giving some money to political parties is more important than other spending options. Better to choose than be forced through taxation.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I disagree. As does John McCain who went with public money to finance his campaign. The whole McCain-Feingold bill was to stop the wealthy from hijacking the electoral system in the United States. Here the Conservatives have decided to hand the system back to the wealthy. Which is absolutely no surprise whatsoever.

You do know that Barack Obama didn't accept a dime of public money for his campaign, right? All private donations. I guess Barack Obama is a tool for the wealthy too.

[octothorp]

My complaint is primarily with the timing of the announcement. A major electoral reform proposal, tabled only weeks after a federal election, should have been part of the Conservative election platform. The optics make it seem that the reason this wasn't brought up during the election campaign is that the Conservatives were hoping for a majority, in which case they would have kept the status-quo and profited from it in the same way that the Cretien Liberals did.
The first year or so of a government's mandate should be primarily to implement the platform that they ran on in the previous election; the Conservatives were given a mandate to continue their health care reform, the economic development policies and similar pillars of their election platform. They were not given a mandate to go screwing with the election laws, especially since their proposals will hurt those parties that account for more than 60% of the national vote.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by peter12

I am making decent money for a young lad in this city and I easily give away $500 to different charities. I don't give any money to political parties, because I don't want to give them any money. It's all about being able to CHOOSE who you want to give your money to and why. Besides the vast majority of people are only donating what they can afford.

It's all about the proper distribution of money. We live in a world of finite economic opportunities. Obviously, alot of people find that giving some money to political parties is more important than other spending options. Better to choose than be forced through taxation.

You mean limited resources, no?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

You mean limited resources, no?

Essentially the same thing, isn't it? Finite resources limit your opportunity to spend.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by peter12

I am making decent money for a young lad in this city and I easily give away $500 to different charities. I don't give any money to political parties, because I don't want to give them any money. It's all about being able to CHOOSE who you want to give your money to and why. Besides the vast majority of people are only donating what they can afford.

The system the Liberals put in place costs $1 per taxpayer per year so that the playing field is more level. The one the Conservatives are putting in place is saying that I have to stop making my car payments if I want as much as say as Gaelen Weston in this democracy.

As for the $500, I give far more than that to United Way, Amnesty and Foster Parents Plan. If the Conservatives go ahead with this, I most assuradly be stopping those contributions and maxing out my political contributions. I'd much rather give my $1 and continue giving to charities, but the Conservatives are forcing my hand here.... if I want to have as much say as the wealthy I have to give up those things.

As for Obama - the vast, vast majority of his money came from people giving under $200. Which is what I said earlier in this thread. If the Conservatives want to do this then they should lower the $1,100 and make it a total. You can only give $200 MAX to political parties IN TOTAL. That is a reasonable amount that even Joe the shelf-stocker might be able to come up with and we don't have the wealthy controlling the system.

[Flame Of Liberty]

I don't think its the same thing. You have a finite amount of resources but you don't have limited number of options how to use them (that is how I would understand "economic opportunity"). That is pretty much the gist of enterpreneurial discovery (Hayek, Kirzner et all).

Waaay off topic thought.