To
quote the magnificent TV series the West Wing, “Money and politics is like
water on pavement... It finds all the cracks.” The notion of money and politics
together unnerves me. My political inclinations tell me that as soon as you
have to start asking for donations that will inevitably impact how you carry
out politics. Even if you do not believe Members of Parliament, Congressmen,
Senators or political parties are auctioned off like so much fine cattle, there’s
still an element of ‘playing to the donors’ that will inevitably occur. I
receive phone calls and letters from the NDP and ONDP trying to squeeze another
donation out of me, especially when some news of the day gives them a new talking
point, like the changes to Old Age Security, or the Kitchener-Waterloo
by-election.
As
repulsed as I was by money and politics and their disturbing mix earlier, I’ve
sadly come to see it as a necessary evil. Having volunteered for a campaign,
something has to pay to put gas in the campaign car, or pay for the phone line,
or the office space. Something has to pay for ads, and research is not free.
I
think some level of public support for political parties is a good idea. A vote
subsidy makes a lot of sense. It means that political parties have to
demonstrate a level of support to receive funding at all. $1.00 per vote, or
thereabouts, is a good way of helping parties pay off the cost of elections. Coupled
with the tax deduction, that is fair contribution by the public purse to the
political process. Political parties that are unable to inspire a level of
financing to remain sustainable probably do not have enough support to be a
major contender. The Canadian political process is not stagnant, new parties
rise and fall all the time at the federal and provincial levels. At the moment
we needn’t worry about a calcifying system.
Who
should be able to donate? Residents. Any person in Canada who is lives in
Canada, citizen or otherwise, over the age of say, fourteen, should be able to
donate. I’m not sure what sort of maximum cap should be put on donations. Right now you are limited to $1,200.00. My initial reaction is that that might be too low. Something like $2,500 might
be better.
I
think political donations should be limited to residents. That excludes
businesses, NGOs, and unions. The spending power of these organizations far
outweighs the spending power of individuals. Democracy is centred around
individuals, not organizations. If ‘big money’ interests push out the ability
of a normal citizen to exert influence, the system begins to break down. I am
not comfortable with the commercials in Ontario used by unions.
It is odd agreeing with Tom Flanagan, but there you have it.
Municipal
politics is worse than provincial or federal. There are far fewer restrictions
on political donations and poor oversight. In the St. Catharines Standard itwas recently reported that all but one candidate violated election spendingrules.
The problems facing Dean Del Mastro (CPC –
Peterborough, ON) and the Conservative Party in recent elections have been
troubling. Likewise, the stumbles by the NDP regarding union donations and the
mistake in regards to the Broadbent Institute are problematic. I don’t think
the two are equivalencies, but there you have it.
We
need much stricter rules on political ads in Canada. Frankly, I think they
should not be permissible outside of the writ period. The governing party has
control of when the election is called, which makes it a real conflict of
interest.
Money
isn’t everything though. Bill James, the fellow behind the movie Moneyball, as
played by Brad Pitt, proposed some ideas for politicians to succeed without alot of money. So
long as a candidate can make themselves stand out with meaningful policy
differences and something that gets the attention of the electorate they can
win. The major parties sometimes struggle to suit local needs. Parties are
money and organization machines, any funding strategy need to take into account
those who are outside the formal party process.
I
realize that my proposals are not radically different from what Canada has
today, but that is because I think Canada largely has the right system. I wrote
this because of the news streaming out of the United States. The 2012
Presidential election is likely to be the first multi-billion dollar election.
I cannot imagine how that is good for a nation’s democracy. The involvement of
corporation and Super-PACs is deeply disturbing. How can a private citizen have
any influence on national politics anymore? The President of the United States
is the leader of the largest economy in the world; it is no surprise that the
financial stakes are so high to buy it... win it. Perhaps more disturbing is
the impact these funding rules will have on local races. Super-PACs could swoop
in on a congressional race, drop a million dollars and obliterate a candidate.
Money
and politics will never be separated. It’s best to make it as transparent and
easy as possible. If we ban donations to $100 we will find secret trust funds
going to politicians at the time of their retirement. There are diminishing
returns on restrictions, and some benefits on a more liberal system. There
should, to some extent, be a market for the market of ideas, but as with all
markets, in my opinion, it should be regulated.
No comments:
Post a Comment