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

[Phaneuf3]

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.

More money does not equal a good campaign. Even if your own personal worst fears come true and this legislation passes, the liberal base does not bother to donate to support their cause and the conservatives receive twice the amount of money as the liberals... so what? Does this mean that the conservatives will run an inherently better campaign? There would be no better advertisement for your party than to say you managed to run an equal, if not better, campaign on 1/2 the budget of your opposition.

If the liberals (or any party for that matter) managed to do something like that - it proves they can work effectively under a tight budget and they'd probably get my vote as long as they weren't completely out to lunch on social policy.

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by fotze

The right leaners believe more in the survival of the fittest when it comes to finances, the left leaners believe in the state supporting the weaker for more equal footing. There should be no suprises here.

Also, I don't remember the chavezism that existed prior to this funding. and to those who thinks this is political opportunism, NO SH*T! That's kinda why people like to win elections, cause there are distinct benefits. The damn Detroit Red Wings are parading the Stanley Cup around only because they won it last.

I'm not beholden to any which way to finance parties. All my problem is is that this proposal moves to strengthen the party in power above the other parties. I don't think that's good for democracy. That's where my Chavez remark came from. He has done similar things in his time in power, reducing his opposition parties ability to raise revenue and get their message out.

And the public funding isn't as politically polarized as you make it out to be. I don't really see it as a left-right issue. You measure the survival of the fittest of the parties in their ability to raise revenue. I would measure survival of the fittest party in its ability to get itself elected. The public system rewards the latter. The private system can also do that but, it can also be perverse and distortionary as well. The public financing system has less problems in that regard.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

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.

Actually you have this completely backwards. The Liberal's depended on their fund raising through the wealthy minority, and corporate donations, and when that rug was pulled out from under them they didn't have enough of a base with average Joe Palutak.

The Conservatives went to work with the mantra of no donation is two small, and hustled their butts off everywhere. They are massive individual fund raisers and have built up their finances through donations from everywhere, not just from the wealthy.

The Liberal's can no longer go to the bank of nova scotia and grab a $250,000 cheque, and then get another 20 or 30 k on the way out from the CEO in personal donations.

The Liberals lived and died at the height of their fundraising on the corporate and individual elite and never established themselves with anyone else because in their minds it wasn't a productive use of their time.

And now they're paying for it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

I'm not beholden to any which way to finance parties. All my problem is is that this proposal moves to strengthen the party in power above the other parties. I don't think that's good for democracy. That's where my Chavez remark came from. He has done similar things in his time in power, reducing his opposition parties ability to raise revenue and get their message out.

If anything it should level the playing field. There's about 30 million people with pocket books out there and any party is free to fundraise. The numbers are skewed in terms of the Conservatives losing a smaller percentage of their dollars under this new plan because they get most of their money through donations. The Liberals lose a bigger chunk of their total dollers because their fund raising efforts have not yielded results.

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

And the public funding isn't as politically polarized as you make it out to be. I don't really see it as a left-right issue. You measure the survival of the fittest of the parties in their ability to raise revenue. I would measure survival of the fittest party in its ability to get itself elected. The public system rewards the latter. The private system can also do that but, it can also be perverse and distortionary as well. The public financing system has less problems in that regard.

Your right, a parties main goal is to get elected, however the ability to do this shouldn't be financed with the majority or a large chunck of it coming from the public coffers. Part of getting elected is building your grassroots movement who is willing to help you get elected and show their commitment to getting elected through donations.

[peter12]

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.

Then the Bloc should DO what Reform did and reach out their individual members for donations instead of relying on the taxpayers of Canada to fund your message.

[Ronald Pagan]

Actually you have this completely backwards. The Liberal's depended on their fund raising through the wealthy minority, and corporate donations, and when that rug was pulled out from under them they didn't have enough of a base with average Joe Palutak.

This is true. Lament for a Nation by George Grant was the major piece that exposed this truth.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by 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.

Haha, "if they lose"... No chance in hell any other party WANTS an election right now. Liberals are broke, the NDP is broke... Not to mention they would earn the ire of every single Canadian who cares about politics in this country.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

This is true. Lament for a Nation by George Grant was the major piece that exposed this truth.

Thanks for the name and the author, is it worth checking out?

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Thanks for the name and the author, is it worth checking out?

If you hate the Liberals and want to read an eloquently written little 100 page book then yes.

First chapter is bunk but the rest of the book is great.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

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?

Instead of another seal clapping along to this stupid slogan, why don't you actually give some good reasons as to how this might be true?

The silly fact of the matter is we live in a time with one huge political contradiction: It's NOT okay to run a deficit, but it's NOT okay to balance the books and cut programs.

I know exactly what Harper should do right now.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

If you hate the Liberals and want to read an eloquently written little 100 page book then yes.

First chapter is bunk but the rest of the book is great.

I don't hate the Liberals, I strongly dislike some of the people involved with the Liberal party though.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

$30M is chump change...less than $1 per citizen and I think that the impact upon the diveristy of our democracy will be severe.

I voted Conservative...but appreciated Parties like the Greens having the opportunity to put their platform into the mainstream (I think they ended up with the 2nd highest number of votes in AB IIRC). Without this funding I doubt they would have had ANY presence at all.

Count me in as against this proposal.

[flamesfever]

I think Canadians, on the whole, are fair minded people and this move seems a little mean spirited to me. It's like kicking a person when he's down.

This move may backfire on the Conservatives in the long run.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

$30M is chump change...less than $1 per citizen and I think that the impact upon the diveristy of our democracy will be severe.

I voted Conservative...but appreciated Parties like the Greens having the opportunity to put their platform into the mainstream (I think they ended up with the 2nd highest number of votes in AB IIRC). Without this funding I doubt they would have had ANY presence at all.

Count me in as against this proposal.

Yep, the Green wing of the Liberal Party is on its way out. Good riddance.

[Resolute 14]

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.

Whereas I would use this statement to reflect this as being a positive move.

First, groups like the Green Party are special interest groups masquerading as political parties.

Second, this move requires successful parties to build a broad base of support so as to fund itself. If the Liberal party wants to ignore Alberta/the west, in favour of eastern interests, then it loses out on valuable dollars that allows it to compete on an even basis.

That is not government's fault, that is the Liberal Party of Canada's fault.

[Ronald Pagan]

First, groups like the Green Party are special interest groups masquerading as political parties.

Do you know what a special interest group is?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Do you know what a special interest group is?

Come on... Don't tell me the Greens aren't anything more than a single-issue "party." Have you seen their platform? Anything not related directly to the environment, and more specifically climate change, is swiped right out of the NDP and Liberal handbooks.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

$30M is chump change...less than $1 per citizen and I think that the impact upon the diveristy of our democracy will be severe.

When you break it down that way, it is. But, you can look at it this way.

Its an additional cost of $120 million on average per election, on top of the burgeoning election costs.

How to best spend $30m per year?

$30m per year could be 30 MRI machines per year if savings are directed to health transfers.

$30m per year could mean that a research program for cancer/AIDS/other deadly disease remains funded.

$30m per year could mean new armored vehicles and kevlar gear for troops in Afghanistan.

$30m per year means that programmes to sustain the arts or other social policy stays intact to keep the socialites happy.

$30m per year in sustained transfers could mean an additional 850 post-secondary seats nationwide (and thats assuming each new seat costs $35k)

$30m per year could ensure we see Jack Layton 20 times a day during federal elections on our coin, rather than his.

Hmm... which one doesn't belong?

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

When you break it down that way, it is. But, you can look at it this way.

Its an additional cost of $120 million on average per election, on top of the burgeoning election costs.

How to best spend $30m per year?

$30m per year could be 30 MRI machines per year if savings are directed to health transfers.

$30m per year could mean that a research program for cancer/AIDS/other deadly disease remains funded.

$30m per year could mean new armored vehicles and kevlar gear for troops in Afghanistan.

$30m per year means that programmes to sustain the arts or other social policy stays intact to keep the socialites happy.

$30m per year in sustained transfers could mean an additional 850 post-secondary seats nationwide (and thats assuming each new seat costs $35k)

$30m per year could ensure we see Jack Layton 20 times a day during federal elections on our coin, rather than his.

Hmm... which one doesn't belong?

Very well stated.

I think the icon on this thread title should be changed to a thumbs up.

[Devils'Advocate]

The reason the Liberals put this change in was because they felt that the wealthy and big corporations had far too much say in the political process. I think $1,100 per year is far too much. I can't afford $1,100 per year... I give the NDP $20/month = $240. Someone out there has 4x as much say as I do. This program was put in place to level the playing field. I can understand the Conservatives wanting to make this a plutocracy. I can even understand the members of this forum wanting a plutocracy. I just believe that it is bad for Canada.