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

[CaptainCrunch]

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.

It doesn't work this way, especially with the corporate donation limitations that was bought on board with (ugh) thanks to Jean Chretien. However the positive part of that rule is it removed the large corporations from getting favoritism through donation sizes. A few years ago, Dion would have had his debt cleared through donations from 2 or 3 large donations, he can't do that now.

The government shouldn't be providing the lions share of a political party's budget. The Conservatives became successful because they fund raised in their grassroots areas like demons, whereas the Liberal's who lost their big bank and corporate backing in one foul stroke also lost out on their grass roots power base.

I get the Liberal news letters from my membership with their party and the tone has taken on desparation in terms of calls for cash. They're going to have to find a way to reconnect with the voters, they're going to have to get on the phone, go out shake babies and kiss fathers and work their way out of their situation a dollar at a time.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

I love this board's political bias sometimes.

If the Liberals did a move like this, like capping the share of party funding that you could receive from individuals you'd all be screaming bloody murder.

The savings are so minuscule and the implications are so severe that I can't believe the Conservatives are trying this. This is a Chavez-like move to cripple the opposition all in the name of saving $30 million.

Yup, go Cons go.

I can get on board with capping a single person's donation but total donations? Damn right people would be upset if that was capped. Why would you want to limit the amount that citizens can participate in democracy - doesn't matter if its via votes, donations or volunteering.

A political party should not need government money to run its campaign. If they do, either they don't have enough support or they can't run an effective campaign on a reasonable budget. In either case, why should they run the country?

Its quite possible to create a very effective grassroots fund raising effort. A recent example would be Ron Paul in the GOP primaries this last election. He raised a very considerable amount of money through private citizen donations. All he needed was an appealing message.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I fail to see how it would make it easier for the elites. Look at the liberal party as an example, the last two Liberal Prime Ministers could for all intents and purposes be called elite. I dont think too many average Canadians own steamship lines. If anything Cretien made it more difficult for elite people to gain power or force policy.

The more a political party relies on private funding, the more private interests get brought to the caucus table. Think about the legislation we would see from the RIAA/MPAA and other such lobby groups being put forward in a majority government formed by a party who won largely on the backs of the private funding they received.

Elites have more money then the rest of the people. They also have more influence.

If you allow them to contribute more, they will overshadow the rest of the people (which public money represents) and we will be stuck in a mire like the American Congress currently is.

Anything that reduces special interest groups is a positive. Anything the increases their power is a negative. This move falls squarely on the negative side.

[The Ditch]

This rules hasn't even been in that long, parties survived before then. I would also like to see the government cut the CBC, that would save about a billion dollars a year for tax payers, this is a good start though.

[Finner]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

I love this board's political bias sometimes.

If the Liberals did a move like this, like capping the share of party funding that you could receive from individuals you'd all be screaming bloody murder.

The savings are so minuscule and the implications are so severe that I can't believe the Conservatives are trying this. This is a Chavez-like move to cripple the opposition all in the name of saving $30 million.

Yup, go Cons go.

I can't even believe this. "In the name of saving 30 million." What, that's to small for you? If they can make 100 small cuts like this from various programs where they see waste, it adds up pretty quickly.

The reason why governments are so wasteful is because citizens like you sit and think its all fine and dandy while the government blows 30 million all over the place, because its "miniscule".

[flamesfever]

I wonder how the Conservatives expect it to get it passed in Parliament. I think it would be a vote of confidence and if they lose, it would be another "Joe Clark" situation.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by llama64

Anything that reduces special interest groups is a positive. Anything the increases their power is a negative. This move falls squarely on the negative side.

If the parties did some fund raising targeting the average citizen this would not be an issue at all. And it wouldn't have to be much either. Ask around for a $5 donation. If people really believed in the party's message, they could spare $5 every four years. If even half of the voting base got on board for an idea like that they'd actually increase their funding.

PS: And legislation like this could be a big key in getting the word out about the importance of funding politics.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by llama64

The more a political party relies on private funding, the more private interests get brought to the caucus table. Think about the legislation we would see from the RIAA/MPAA and other such lobby groups being put forward in a majority government formed by a party who won largely on the backs of the private funding they received.

Elites have more money then the rest of the people. They also have more influence.

If you allow them to contribute more, they will overshadow the rest of the people (which public money represents) and we will be stuck in a mire like the American Congress currently is.

Anything that reduces special interest groups is a positive. Anything the increases their power is a negative. This move falls squarely on the negative side.

Isnt there a cap on personal and corporate donations? I dont see how my $1000 is going to buy anymore influence than your $1000.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by llama64

The more a political party relies on private funding, the more private interests get brought to the caucus table. Think about the legislation we would see from the RIAA/MPAA and other such lobby groups being put forward in a majority government formed by a party who won largely on the backs of the private funding they received.

Elites have more money then the rest of the people. They also have more influence.

If you allow them to contribute more, they will overshadow the rest of the people (which public money represents) and we will be stuck in a mire like the American Congress currently is.

Anything that reduces special interest groups is a positive. Anything the increases their power is a negative. This move falls squarely on the negative side.

I don't quite get what your saying. Individual donations in a calender year can be no greater then $1,100.00 so I don't see how some elite rich old millionair with thoughts of young boys dancing in his head using the NAMBLA example from earlier is going to influence government or the passing of rules? Even if some bright organization got all of their members to donate the $1,100.00 max, I don't think it would change government policy unless your talking about a group with 100,000 members donating at the same time.

In terms of monetary sure $30 mil is small potatoes for a government that spends billions, however the old saying of a dollar here and a dollar there and soon your talking about real money applies.

[CaptainCrunch]

From a strategy view point its brilliant, there's no way that the parties that are having financial parties (Liberals, Greens needing more money to compete) are going to pass this. The Bloc would be ok with this, and the NDP would love this because it would stick a knife deep into the Liberal bank accounts.

But it will be voted down, and Harper will have another bullet to use.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Indeed, and we don't see the Liberal minded people here trashing Chretien for that one, do we?

Frankly, this is the right move. Democracy, at it's core, is a grassroots movement. If your party does not have the ability to gain support from the grassroots, why should the government itself support you?

Grassroots support and the ability for certain segments of society to donate money to political parties are not one in the same.

Take for instance countries like Myanmar that are run by elites, but there are also large grassroots democratic movements... which group do you think has the ability to raise more money for their cause?

When you look at how roughly only around 1/3 to 1/2 of Canadians voted for the Conservatives, compared with how much private funding they got, it's easy to tell that they are party largely financed by a wealthy minority. That does not equal grassroots by my definitiion.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by llama64

Canada has never been a country to be run by elites -- for an example of that look to America. What the Conservatives are doing with this move is adjusting the system to make it easier for the elites to get their policy through at the expense of any other political voice.

You're joking right?

Ignoring the fact that Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy.... Canada has NEVER had a PM who wasn't of British or French ancestry. Eight of the first Nine were knighted, nearly every one carries either a masters degree or a law degree, and most have been affiliated with big business and worth millions. Surely that is run by elites? The Liberals represent much of the old wealth and have been traditionally funded by them. Yes, the Conservatives tend to represent the nouveau riche in the West and corporate Canada. The NDP represent Union elites. To think Canada is not run by elites is ridiculous.

Regardless... its not like the rich and the corporations can dump millions into CPC coffers... there is a very strict individual limit. All this means is other parties need to fix their donation system and get more grass-roots.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

From a strategy view point its brilliant, there's no way that the parties that are having financial parties (Liberals, Greens needing more money to compete) are going to pass this. The Bloc would be ok with this, and the NDP would love this because it would stick a knife deep into the Liberal bank accounts.

But it will be voted down, and Harper will have another bullet to use.

And then he will shoot himself in the head with that bullet with his 11 digit deficit. Tory Times are Tough Times, and Harper is proving it again. Guy blows all the fiscal room due to his lack of experience and education in economic matters, and now we are set for the little leprechaun pissing on my leg today and telling me it is rain. C'est la vie I guess.

I am sure that everyone on this board believes that the Tories should abolish 10 percenters as well, which is a huge waste of my tax dollars? Where is the outrage over 10 percenters, the most blatant misuse of my tax dollars?

[mykalberta]

I love it how people try to penalize the Conservatives because they can raise enough money where the other parties cannot.

Lets face it, if you support the Conservatives you will say great, if not you will say how evil they are.

I think the money should be based on seats won and only seats won. If your particular party matters enough in Canadian politics then it should be able to win 1 seat.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by llama64

Yes, the Bloc is a legitimate party. It's as legitimate as the Reform party ever was. Just because you disagree with their platform doesn't give you the right to challenge their validity.

My "freak out" is directed at the Conservative leadership, not the baseline support. Most Albertan's support the Conservatives either due to some odd form of loyalty, or because they believe in the ideals of smaller government, less taxes and all that other good stuff (fiscal conservatism).

Canada has never been a country to be run by elites -- for an example of that look to America. What the Conservatives are doing with this move is adjusting the system to make it easier for the elites to get their policy through at the expense of any other political voice.

Cutting spending is important, but this was NOT the way to go about it.

I haven't seen the BQ run a candidate in every riding like the reform did.

[Ronald Pagan]

I love it how people try to penalize the Conservatives because they can raise enough money where the other parties cannot.

You got the wrong way round, the Conservatives are penalizing the other parties.

I don't disagree with your funding model though.

Seriously, if the Liberals proposed to cap the share of personal donations that a party could receive of its total funding would people support that? Similar proposal.

The Liberals would be sticking it right where the Conservatives were strong just as the Conservatives are sticking it to the other parties now.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

You're joking right?

Ignoring the fact that Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy.... Canada has NEVER had a PM who wasn't of British or French ancestry. Eight of the first Nine were knighted, nearly every one carries either a masters degree or a law degree, and most have been affiliated with big business and worth millions. Surely that is run by elites? The Liberals represent much of the old wealth and have been traditionally funded by them. Yes, the Conservatives tend to represent the nouveau riche in the West and corporate Canada. The NDP represent Union elites. To think Canada is not run by elites is ridiculous.

Regardless... its not like the rich and the corporations can dump millions into CPC coffers... there is a very strict individual limit. All this means is other parties need to fix their donation system and get more grass-roots.

I'm not being clear.

I'm not talking about the actual people holding the office. It's obvious that elites are going to hold the highest offices. After-all, we do want our supposed "best" to be in those lofty positions.

What I'm saying is that this move only solidifies their control, while degrading the control of everyone else. And this shift is anti-democratic.

People are making a jump in logic to equate fundraiser power with a governing mandate and support for the people. I'm arguing that the two don't correlate. In a system that equates the two (as the Conservatives are attempting to implement), the rich and powerful will gain a greater share of governing. I see this as a bad thing.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

You got the wrong way round, the Conservatives are penalizing the other parties.

I don't disagree with your funding model though.

Seriously, if the Liberals proposed to cap the share of personal donations that a party could receive of its total funding would people support that? Similar proposal.

The Liberals would be sticking it right where the Conservatives were strong just as the Conservatives are sticking it to the other parties now.

I don't see how this justifies the move...

[Mccree]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's easier for the Conservatives to get private funding because they are the party that most appeals to the wealthy individuals and corporations.

I beleive the liberal but in the new rules and they but this little bad boy in

"Corporations, trade unions, associations and groups can no longer make political contributions. However, your employer can give you a paid leave of absence during an election period to allow you to be a nomination contestant or a candidate without that leave being considered a contribution."

http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?...textonly=false

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by llama64

I'm not being clear.

I'm not talking about the actual people holding the office. It's obvious that elites are going to hold the highest offices. After-all, we do want our supposed "best" to be in those lofty positions.

What I'm saying is that this move only solidifies their control, while degrading the control of everyone else. And this shift is anti-democratic.

People are making a jump in logic to equate fundraiser power with a governing mandate and support for the people. I'm arguing that the two don't correlate. In a system that equates the two (as the Conservatives are attempting to implement), the rich and powerful will gain a greater share of governing. I see this as a bad thing.

Okay, even that way... before campaign finance changed, two parties got huge corporate and elite funding. Funders included banks, oil companies, power companies, aerospace, etc. These parties are also the only two to ever be elected. Then there were your less governable parties who still managed to make due and win 20-40 seats like the Broadbent NDPs. Elites have always been elected and always dictated policy. Some parties simply allow for more input from the common man.

This is more like ripping off a band-aid. These other parties will be fine once they ween themselves off the hind-tit of the taxpayer and get back to regular fundraising. Unless of course, they do not resonate with the people. If that is the case, then there's the question of whether they should ever have been propped up in the first place.