What is wrong with the political class appealing to small donors?
These various commentaries have certainly made it seem as if it was a dreadful idea, full of sin, you know. Personally, I think that it is a display of democracy, i.e. many people are voting with their wallets in small ways simply because they felt that the particular party or cause was worthwhile.
In fact, it seems to me that most of the opposition to small donations is simply that YOU, the "correct thinkers" abhor we little people trying to influence what happens in politics. You know, as if we BELIEVED all that tripe that you throw at us about how democracy is important; but you then get upset when we, "the littles," try to participate in said democracy.
Populism is just fine, thank you very much.
So, for you who just know better than we, "the littles," to Hell with you. I think that it is perfectly democratic for me to vote with my $10 or $25 or whatever.
So, you say, the individual to whom I sent my 10 cents or whatever is lying to me and you and your kind are going to save me from that lie. Do I have that right?
Well, perhaps I bought into that "lie" because it beats the Hell out of the truth that you and your kind are scurrying furiously to obscure and because you and your ilk (another word for "kind") just know better than me what is good for me.
To Hell with your self-righteous, smug "correctness." To Hell with it!
There is nothing wrong with populism. In fact, if you and your ilk would truly try to appeal to me and mine then perhaps things would improve. But, no, you know better than we do what is best for us.
I repeat, to Hell with your self-righteous, smug "correctness."
And, I do hope that Matt (only Matt because Jen is a way this week) doesn't ban me for being so outspoken.
My observation: most people aren't really that interested in public policy. To effectively fundraise, parties have to make emotional appeals or imply they can deliver things (quickly) that people want (like never-ending prosperity and ever-lower taxes).
It incentives parties to 'sell' something lots of small donors care about, which would be awesome if it had anything to do with what governments will actually deliver. But, it doesn't.
Take housing affordability for example. There's a bunch of boring policy that drives this -- local zoning and decades of policies that encourage home ownership to name two. But, there's lots of other things going on too -- people moving to cities for employment for example and the clustering of economic opportunities in a relatively few places across Canada. Anyone promising to solve this problem quickly is not being entirely honest and is banking on the very emotional experience of people prices out of the market. Good for fundraising. Crappy for coming up with workable public policy. Also see: current legislation aimed to 'save' news.
No tax dollars for any political parties. Period. No union dues for any political parties. Period. No third party advertising during election periods. Democracy is already in sad shape, the above only do more harm.
I wonder if there could be a benefit of cutting back or eliminating the extremely generous tax credits provided for political donations? Donations to most charitable causes receive a tax deduction at your lowest tax bracket; political donations receive a credit of up to 75% of their value. This is a subsidy to political parties that they often cite in their fundraising efforts - why is sending money to the Liberals, NDP, or Conservative Party somehow more worthy than supporting Medicines San Frontiers or your local food bank?
Just realized I didn't finish my thought: if we cut the political donation tax credit, it'd make it more expensive for a lot of those small donors to donate, making them less likely to donate and making chasing small donors less lucrative. I like the idea of easing restrictions on large donors as well, for the reasons cited by Jonah Goldberg. However, Goldberg also emphasizes that those donations need to be accompanied with extreme transparency about who the donors are for the purposes of accountability.
In this information age, I think we should focus on making campaigns as inexpensive as possible to cut down on the impact dollars have. I'd be happy if taxpayers paid for legit parties to have a website, social media presence (no boosting/advertising) ... And maybe give televised debates and that's it. No junk flyers, no stipid lawn signs. Government money could advertise that there is an election and point everyone to the parties websites.
At the end of the day most things governments can actually do bore most people to death. Most of the things campaigns talk about won't happen -- most campaigns are about vague platitudes (sunny ways; gatekeepers) and a promise of unending prosperity. Force the parties to talk about actual policy and accept that a lot of people won't be interested -- and leave it to those of us that do care about policy to read the platforms and vote!
Completely unrealistic (and probably unconstitutional) but I'm losing patience with the unseriousness of what passes for 'politics' today. Probably a sure sign I'm becoming a cantankerous old man!!
"But should we outright prevent people from putting their money where their political convictions are?"
Beyond a very low limit, yes. Absolutely yes. I could be convinced that a per-vote subsidy is good or that a New Zealand-type system is good, but to the extent we allow politicians to raise money from Canadians, they should be forced to appeal for funding to the broadest possible number of Canadians.
We know from the American experience that voting records track donor priorities very closely, an effect I suspect grows stronger as the fish in the donor pool grow bigger. Making it possible for a party's donor list to consist of two billionaires and a nice old lady from Kitchener who set up a $5 monthly auto-donation and then forgot about it would be a cataclysm for Canadian politics.
So, a question for my fellow readers.
What is wrong with the political class appealing to small donors?
These various commentaries have certainly made it seem as if it was a dreadful idea, full of sin, you know. Personally, I think that it is a display of democracy, i.e. many people are voting with their wallets in small ways simply because they felt that the particular party or cause was worthwhile.
In fact, it seems to me that most of the opposition to small donations is simply that YOU, the "correct thinkers" abhor we little people trying to influence what happens in politics. You know, as if we BELIEVED all that tripe that you throw at us about how democracy is important; but you then get upset when we, "the littles," try to participate in said democracy.
Populism is just fine, thank you very much.
So, for you who just know better than we, "the littles," to Hell with you. I think that it is perfectly democratic for me to vote with my $10 or $25 or whatever.
It's that they do it by trying to flat-out lie to and mislead the donors in order to wring the money out of them.
So, you say, the individual to whom I sent my 10 cents or whatever is lying to me and you and your kind are going to save me from that lie. Do I have that right?
Well, perhaps I bought into that "lie" because it beats the Hell out of the truth that you and your kind are scurrying furiously to obscure and because you and your ilk (another word for "kind") just know better than me what is good for me.
To Hell with your self-righteous, smug "correctness." To Hell with it!
There is nothing wrong with populism. In fact, if you and your ilk would truly try to appeal to me and mine then perhaps things would improve. But, no, you know better than we do what is best for us.
I repeat, to Hell with your self-righteous, smug "correctness."
And, I do hope that Matt (only Matt because Jen is a way this week) doesn't ban me for being so outspoken.
My observation: most people aren't really that interested in public policy. To effectively fundraise, parties have to make emotional appeals or imply they can deliver things (quickly) that people want (like never-ending prosperity and ever-lower taxes).
It incentives parties to 'sell' something lots of small donors care about, which would be awesome if it had anything to do with what governments will actually deliver. But, it doesn't.
Take housing affordability for example. There's a bunch of boring policy that drives this -- local zoning and decades of policies that encourage home ownership to name two. But, there's lots of other things going on too -- people moving to cities for employment for example and the clustering of economic opportunities in a relatively few places across Canada. Anyone promising to solve this problem quickly is not being entirely honest and is banking on the very emotional experience of people prices out of the market. Good for fundraising. Crappy for coming up with workable public policy. Also see: current legislation aimed to 'save' news.
No tax dollars for any political parties. Period. No union dues for any political parties. Period. No third party advertising during election periods. Democracy is already in sad shape, the above only do more harm.
I wonder if there could be a benefit of cutting back or eliminating the extremely generous tax credits provided for political donations? Donations to most charitable causes receive a tax deduction at your lowest tax bracket; political donations receive a credit of up to 75% of their value. This is a subsidy to political parties that they often cite in their fundraising efforts - why is sending money to the Liberals, NDP, or Conservative Party somehow more worthy than supporting Medicines San Frontiers or your local food bank?
Just realized I didn't finish my thought: if we cut the political donation tax credit, it'd make it more expensive for a lot of those small donors to donate, making them less likely to donate and making chasing small donors less lucrative. I like the idea of easing restrictions on large donors as well, for the reasons cited by Jonah Goldberg. However, Goldberg also emphasizes that those donations need to be accompanied with extreme transparency about who the donors are for the purposes of accountability.
In this information age, I think we should focus on making campaigns as inexpensive as possible to cut down on the impact dollars have. I'd be happy if taxpayers paid for legit parties to have a website, social media presence (no boosting/advertising) ... And maybe give televised debates and that's it. No junk flyers, no stipid lawn signs. Government money could advertise that there is an election and point everyone to the parties websites.
At the end of the day most things governments can actually do bore most people to death. Most of the things campaigns talk about won't happen -- most campaigns are about vague platitudes (sunny ways; gatekeepers) and a promise of unending prosperity. Force the parties to talk about actual policy and accept that a lot of people won't be interested -- and leave it to those of us that do care about policy to read the platforms and vote!
Completely unrealistic (and probably unconstitutional) but I'm losing patience with the unseriousness of what passes for 'politics' today. Probably a sure sign I'm becoming a cantankerous old man!!
"But should we outright prevent people from putting their money where their political convictions are?"
Beyond a very low limit, yes. Absolutely yes. I could be convinced that a per-vote subsidy is good or that a New Zealand-type system is good, but to the extent we allow politicians to raise money from Canadians, they should be forced to appeal for funding to the broadest possible number of Canadians.
We know from the American experience that voting records track donor priorities very closely, an effect I suspect grows stronger as the fish in the donor pool grow bigger. Making it possible for a party's donor list to consist of two billionaires and a nice old lady from Kitchener who set up a $5 monthly auto-donation and then forgot about it would be a cataclysm for Canadian politics.
Now, that is a splendid idea: personal responsibility!
And that is the reason that it would never happen - they the political class - want to spend OUR money because it is not THEIR money.
But, yes, you have a splendid idea.