I think Harrison misses the point. One of the reasons that money is bad for politics is that it forces politicians to spend time raising funds. If at least some if their funding comes from the money generated from votes, they can focus on earning those votes, appealing to a broader constituency. I see that as a good thing.
Without it, politicians are tempted to seek out larger pots of money from big donors to whom they may become beholden.
Here is Mr Trudeau’s fundraising events for the Liberal Party: Vancouver August 25 at 5pm regular $1,700, 35 and under $850, August 25 at 7pm $1700, Edmonton August 26 3pm $1000. Anita Anand Vancouver August 25 $300, Kitchener September14 $175 to $250. As you stated 75% foundered by our tax dollars 💸 per vote subsidy funded 100% by tax dollars 💵. Private citizen doesn’t donate to any party 0 dollars 💵 Priceless!
To some extent they already do this. There is always a fundraising stop or two every time the PM leaves Ottawa. They just aren't very well publicized or covered by the media-folk.
Garret Woolsey: Agreed, but when you are fundraising, you are trying to pry money from people. The per vote subsidy means people need to vote for you. It is also means that smaller parties benefit. It creates a reason to vote for politicians who have no chance of winning. At least the party will gain a bit of funding.
Unfortunately, the vote winner gets the biggest share of funding (unless some kind of cap or diminishing return is in place) - creating a rich-get-richer situation. Smaller parties tend to be vanity projects with not a lot of public utility or contribution to the discussion. If they want to participate they should work at it and raise their own funding.
PMJT is hosting a fundraising event on Thursday in Vancouver, hosted by a major real estate developer (?!?!?) and declared a "private event". I won't hold my breath for details or any critical coverage of this.....
Well, I was thinking more mainstream small parties like Green and also politicians running in places where they have no chance of winning, like, say, the CPC in my riding of Kingston and the Islands. It gives voters one more small incentive to go to the polls. Sure, my choice is not going to win, but at least I can provide some funding for the next election.
On the one hand, per-vote subsidy privileges the electoral status quo and splinter groups who little broad accountability to an entire community; on the other hand, tax-preferred donations benefit the wealthy and therefore the lower-tax (Conservative) parties. I therefore suggest a compromise (the details of which I had worked out a few years ago but I now forget): that per-vote subsidies be capped at @$1 per vote and parties be asked to raise the rest, with donation limits set to balance the two different sources of revenue.
I think I remember the rest of my old proposal: reduce the tax write-off from 75% to 50% --except perhaps for the first $100 or $200 so as to not discourage small donors.
Like many things in Canadian life we seem to look to government(s) to regulate and micro-manage every aspect of our lives, and the taxpayer to fund it. I'd like to see a third point of view; lets eliminate the campaign spending caps. We fear US politics, although our federal system is structured much differently, and we won't slip immediately into US-style pay to play politics without caps.
The money (and influence) is already present in the form of lobbyists, corporate subsidies, ad buys, activist-funding, nepo-appointments, social media bot-armies, etc. etc. The primary rule should be that the parties have to publicly disclose all their funding sources, not just during campaigns but at all times; in real time, in a web format that is easily searchable by any Canadian.
To be honest, I was prepared to disagree with your assessment (that the per-vote subsidy was a bad idea). I'm still not sure about your observation about how the per-vote subsidy could serve to prevent the sorts of "reinvention" that defeated political parties must engage in if they are to "live to fight another day".
However, your argument (about how money feeds the efforts of political parties and special interest groups to sow division in society) looks indisputable to me.
I wonder, though, how you feel about the law that makes political donations into tax deductions (indeed, the most lucrative tax deductions most of us can access)?
If, as you assert, the per-vote subsidy should be abolished because of its support for the pathologies you correctly identified, why not change the law so that political donations are no longer tax deductible?
PS: I realize that dropping the preposition "of" (and thus making "couple" into what amounts to an adjective) is increasingly common, but in formal settings, it does strike (some of us) as quite jarring.
Perhaps avoiding "couple" altogether (at least as you've used it here) and using "a few" might be better? E.g. "a few billion" and "a few allowances"?
A very well written rebuttal and one with which I agree entirely. Political parties are private organizations and should not be getting government funding any more than car companies or, dare I say, newspapers and other media outlets.
Change it. Something need to change. We have to much rage farming but the Cons and it is not at all healthy. We should also have mandatory civics courses before anyone is allowed to vote and you should need to score 80% on these courses. Of course this will never happen but it sure would be nice if people were educated before they vote.
You know basic stuff, who controls what under the constitution, what a parliamentary democracy is and how the work. Stuff that unfortunately, most of the posters on the right in the G&M and NP don't seem to know or understand.
I think that if parties had to work for their funding after a good trouncing is a good thing. It incentivizes the party to clean up the rot and reconnect with voters. With the subsidy, they can get trounced, but still get a (smaller) bag of money with no work.
Also, I resent finite tax dollars going to political parties of any stripe. No subsidies, but capped donations is the way IMHO.
Great stuff from Herr Ruess.( so who wrote the headline?) and continued justification for my hard earned money.
Tend to agree that more money won't 'fix ' our politics. The question for me is how you define ' fix ' ? Bearing in mind and paraphrasing that catchy truism, ' It is really hard to fix stupid ', I contend , putting truisms aside, that what is right with our current political system is our ability to regularily change the players.
If by chance / design / devine miracle , the players make ' right ' decisions then whoopeedo for us. When they fuck it up we get to shift them off to a suitably appropriate career change.
I started off skeptical but I’m (sort-of) convinced.
I think Harrison misses the point. One of the reasons that money is bad for politics is that it forces politicians to spend time raising funds. If at least some if their funding comes from the money generated from votes, they can focus on earning those votes, appealing to a broader constituency. I see that as a good thing.
Without it, politicians are tempted to seek out larger pots of money from big donors to whom they may become beholden.
There are no big donors in Canada. The maximum contribution for 2023 is $1,700.
That is what all the rage farming is about. Keeping those little donors sending in the cheques.
Fact is those checks are 75% funded by our tax dollars. A per vote subsidy and no donations of any kind.
Here is Mr Trudeau’s fundraising events for the Liberal Party: Vancouver August 25 at 5pm regular $1,700, 35 and under $850, August 25 at 7pm $1700, Edmonton August 26 3pm $1000. Anita Anand Vancouver August 25 $300, Kitchener September14 $175 to $250. As you stated 75% foundered by our tax dollars 💸 per vote subsidy funded 100% by tax dollars 💵. Private citizen doesn’t donate to any party 0 dollars 💵 Priceless!
To some extent they already do this. There is always a fundraising stop or two every time the PM leaves Ottawa. They just aren't very well publicized or covered by the media-folk.
Garret Woolsey: Agreed, but when you are fundraising, you are trying to pry money from people. The per vote subsidy means people need to vote for you. It is also means that smaller parties benefit. It creates a reason to vote for politicians who have no chance of winning. At least the party will gain a bit of funding.
Unfortunately, the vote winner gets the biggest share of funding (unless some kind of cap or diminishing return is in place) - creating a rich-get-richer situation. Smaller parties tend to be vanity projects with not a lot of public utility or contribution to the discussion. If they want to participate they should work at it and raise their own funding.
PMJT is hosting a fundraising event on Thursday in Vancouver, hosted by a major real estate developer (?!?!?) and declared a "private event". I won't hold my breath for details or any critical coverage of this.....
Well, I was thinking more mainstream small parties like Green and also politicians running in places where they have no chance of winning, like, say, the CPC in my riding of Kingston and the Islands. It gives voters one more small incentive to go to the polls. Sure, my choice is not going to win, but at least I can provide some funding for the next election.
Well stated, agree.
On the one hand, per-vote subsidy privileges the electoral status quo and splinter groups who little broad accountability to an entire community; on the other hand, tax-preferred donations benefit the wealthy and therefore the lower-tax (Conservative) parties. I therefore suggest a compromise (the details of which I had worked out a few years ago but I now forget): that per-vote subsidies be capped at @$1 per vote and parties be asked to raise the rest, with donation limits set to balance the two different sources of revenue.
I think I remember the rest of my old proposal: reduce the tax write-off from 75% to 50% --except perhaps for the first $100 or $200 so as to not discourage small donors.
Like many things in Canadian life we seem to look to government(s) to regulate and micro-manage every aspect of our lives, and the taxpayer to fund it. I'd like to see a third point of view; lets eliminate the campaign spending caps. We fear US politics, although our federal system is structured much differently, and we won't slip immediately into US-style pay to play politics without caps.
The money (and influence) is already present in the form of lobbyists, corporate subsidies, ad buys, activist-funding, nepo-appointments, social media bot-armies, etc. etc. The primary rule should be that the parties have to publicly disclose all their funding sources, not just during campaigns but at all times; in real time, in a web format that is easily searchable by any Canadian.
Transparency is what we really need.
Let's hear it for 'transparency'....waiting....not hearing much ....hello... Ottawa.. ...can you hear us ?....more silence....full comment redacted.
Thank you for this op-ed.
To be honest, I was prepared to disagree with your assessment (that the per-vote subsidy was a bad idea). I'm still not sure about your observation about how the per-vote subsidy could serve to prevent the sorts of "reinvention" that defeated political parties must engage in if they are to "live to fight another day".
However, your argument (about how money feeds the efforts of political parties and special interest groups to sow division in society) looks indisputable to me.
I wonder, though, how you feel about the law that makes political donations into tax deductions (indeed, the most lucrative tax deductions most of us can access)?
If, as you assert, the per-vote subsidy should be abolished because of its support for the pathologies you correctly identified, why not change the law so that political donations are no longer tax deductible?
PS: I realize that dropping the preposition "of" (and thus making "couple" into what amounts to an adjective) is increasingly common, but in formal settings, it does strike (some of us) as quite jarring.
Perhaps avoiding "couple" altogether (at least as you've used it here) and using "a few" might be better? E.g. "a few billion" and "a few allowances"?
C.f.: Beth Hill, Couples Policy, The Editor's Blog, 22 June 2016, https://theeditorsblog.net/2016/06/22/couples-policy/
A very well written rebuttal and one with which I agree entirely. Political parties are private organizations and should not be getting government funding any more than car companies or, dare I say, newspapers and other media outlets.
Change it. Something need to change. We have to much rage farming but the Cons and it is not at all healthy. We should also have mandatory civics courses before anyone is allowed to vote and you should need to score 80% on these courses. Of course this will never happen but it sure would be nice if people were educated before they vote.
You know basic stuff, who controls what under the constitution, what a parliamentary democracy is and how the work. Stuff that unfortunately, most of the posters on the right in the G&M and NP don't seem to know or understand.
Actually this should refer to all parties supporters
compelling argument
they say the 'side' you hear first usually wins, but this brought alot of food for thought: flipping the line is a great segment
I think that if parties had to work for their funding after a good trouncing is a good thing. It incentivizes the party to clean up the rot and reconnect with voters. With the subsidy, they can get trounced, but still get a (smaller) bag of money with no work.
Also, I resent finite tax dollars going to political parties of any stripe. No subsidies, but capped donations is the way IMHO.
Great stuff from Herr Ruess.( so who wrote the headline?) and continued justification for my hard earned money.
Tend to agree that more money won't 'fix ' our politics. The question for me is how you define ' fix ' ? Bearing in mind and paraphrasing that catchy truism, ' It is really hard to fix stupid ', I contend , putting truisms aside, that what is right with our current political system is our ability to regularily change the players.
If by chance / design / devine miracle , the players make ' right ' decisions then whoopeedo for us. When they fuck it up we get to shift them off to a suitably appropriate career change.
SO...MAY ( insert deity of choice ) SAVE CANADA.