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

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by peter12

Do you like funding Quebec separatists?

I like funding a system that allows a party with enough support to have a voice and a fighting chance, instead of letting big business unilaterally decide who our government is.

Also, your vote is bringing funds to your party, not the BQ. Those who voted for the Bloc are the ones funding them.

[transplant99]

Letting political parties fend for themselves. No problem here. I remember when the PC's were decimated to 2 seats at one poing, I doubt the libs commenting in this thread would of had any problem with this legislation had it been introced at that time. No surprise the left disagrees with such a democratic theory either.

And larf at RP suggesting the Greens aren't a special interest group...being they only have ONE interest in their platform.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

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.

There's very little that can be done, short of a socialist revolution to change the inherent plutocracy of the Western World in general. Every group can claim some sort of grievance in the name of the pursuit of equality.

The poor claim they can't afford to have a voice, the rich claim their voice doesn't match what they put in. The poor claim they shouldn't pay the same tax as the rich, the rich claim its not fair for them to pay a higher percentage of their earnings. And so on...

Yes, that $30m/yr or $120m/election cycle evens the playing field, but it comes from someone... namely the Canadian Taxpayer, and primarily, the higher income taxpayer. The poor claim that this $30m gives them a voice. The rich claim its their $30m being used to pay for parties that don't represent them.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Letting political parties fend for themselves. No problem here. I remember when the PC's were decimated to 2 seats at one poing, I doubt the libs commenting in this thread would of had any problem with this legislation had it been introced at that time. No surprise the left disagrees with such a democratic theory either.

And larf at RP suggesting the Greens aren't a special interest group...being they only have ONE interest in their platform.

I'm a Conservative and right of centre, and I think this legislation is foolish politically. It may be just the thing to get the Liberal hordes fired up and donating again. My approach would be to "Let sleeping dogs lie".

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I like funding a system that allows a party with enough support to have a voice and a fighting chance, instead of letting big business unilaterally decide who our government is.

Also, your vote is bringing funds to your party, not the BQ. Those who voted for the Bloc are the ones funding them.

Do some people honestly not understand Canada's Elections Act? Wow.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

There's very little that can be done, short of a socialist revolution to change the inherent plutocracy of the Western World in general. Every group can claim some sort of grievance in the name of the pursuit of equality.

The poor claim they can't afford to have a voice, the rich claim their voice doesn't match what they put in. The poor claim they shouldn't pay the same tax as the rich, the rich claim its not fair for them to pay a higher percentage of their earnings. And so on...

Yes, that $30m/yr or $120m/election cycle evens the playing field, but it comes from someone... namely the Canadian Taxpayer, and primarily, the higher income taxpayer. The poor claim that this $30m gives them a voice. The rich claim its their $30m being used to pay for parties that don't represent them.

I know you are trying to say here, and I am not directing this comment at you, but I hate it when people throw the terms "rich" and "poor" around. I'd like to see some justification and reasoning as to what these terms really mean.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

I know you are trying to say here, and I am not directing this comment at you, but I hate it when people throw the terms "rich" and "poor" around. I'd like to see some justification and reasoning as to what these terms really mean.

I should have said "high income earners in top tax brackets" v. "low income earners in bottom tax brackets." I figured a simplification for this forum would be fine. I agree, they are fairly vague descriptors.

[Joborule]

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.

Agreed, seems proper. If a party is powerful enough and has enough backing. They should be able to find the finance to function and compete.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

There's very little that can be done, short of a socialist revolution to change the inherent plutocracy of the Western World in general. Every group can claim some sort of grievance in the name of the pursuit of equality.

If that be the case then we should outright claim that Canada is no longer a democracy. If we are going to allow the rich to have a greater say because "they put more into the country than Joe that stocks shelves at the 5-n-dime" then we should put that front and centre and claim that we are now going to value people in this country by their income rather than their inherent value as an individual.

Yes, that $30M does come from the taxpayers. However, I think I'm willing to pay $1 to call this country a democracy. Hell, I'll even be a big spender and throw in $2. Democracy means that much to me.

[Kerplunk]

Maybe this will help some of the smaller parties in the long run. Instead of giving them just enough money to put candidates in every riding with next to no chance of being elected, they will now be forced to target ridings with the greatest chance of success and build out from there.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

Maybe this will help some of the smaller parties in the long run. Instead of giving them just enough money to put candidates in every riding with next to no chance of being elected, they will now be forced to target ridings with the greatest chance of success and build out from there.

Sorta like Reform Party? Yes. Yes it is.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by peter12

Do some people honestly not understand Canada's Elections Act? Wow.

Do some people contribute nothing to a thread but one liners and snide remarks? Wow!

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Do some people contribute nothing to a thread but one liners and snide remarks? Wow!

Well you're arguing a point that has already been covered. There is a cap on corporate and individual donations. I fail to see how this will empower big business.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Yes, that $30M does come from the taxpayers. However, I think I'm willing to pay $1 to call this country a democracy. Hell, I'll even be a big spender and throw in $2. Democracy means that much to me.

The ultimate democracy is forcing parties to gain support on their own, and with it raise funds.

I'll keep my loonie.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

The ultimate democracy is forcing parties to gain support on their own, and with it raise funds.

I'll keep my loonie.

Agreed, I don't think want any % of my dollar to go to any party other than the one I support. I know you say that my vote gives the party of my choosing money but all of that money comes from the taxpayers. Like it or not the way it is some of that loonie is going to The Greens, The Communist Party of Canada, and other garbage like that.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Well you're arguing a point that has already been covered. There is a cap on corporate and individual donations. I fail to see how this will empower big business.

Becuase the cap is still much higher then what most individuals can pay. My assumption is that Conservatives get much more support from the wealthy and big business then parties like the NDP and Green. Therefore if there's 10 private donations to the Conservatives vs 10 private to Green the differnence in amounts will be huge, allowing the Conservatives to campaing much better in the interests of their voters.

There always was and should be a difference, but this will only make it bigger, and IMO, it doesn't need to be. I have no problem with the Conservatives having more money to campaign, when they are the governing and most popular party, but the tax system helped the smaller parties have a voice they might not be able to have with private funding alone. It was a system based on # of supporters, where as private funding comes down to wealth of supporters.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

The ultimate democracy is forcing parties to gain support on their own, and with it raise funds.

I'll keep my loonie.

Thats precisely it. Democracy also isn't money transfers and propping up parties that clearly are not reaching the people. One could easily argue playing Political Robin Hood isn't very democratic either, especially since the 6 year old system that was put in place clearly benefitted the ruling party. If the people choose them, the people will donate to them. Rich, poor, or otherwise. No donation is too small.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

Like it or not the way it is some of that loonie is going to The Greens, The Communist Party of Canada, and other garbage like that.

And some of their loonie goes to the Conservatives. Does it matter if you trade quarters? The amount is still proportionate to voter support.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Finner

The original rule of $1.95 was only brought in SIX years ago under Chretian.

So unless I am mistaking some posters on this board before 6 years ago there was not true democracy in Canada?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Do some people contribute nothing to a thread but one liners and snide remarks? Wow!

Well, seeing as how you apparently know next to nothing about the current legal landscape regarding Canadian electoral law, I'd say my comment was totally fair.

Big business is out of elections and we should all realize that and be grateful.