Poltical Party Welfare

[Alta4ever]

Moving this over from the Green vote thread.

Should we the taxpayers be paying for Poltical Party Welfare?

[M.Dancer]

No but if enough people believe you are not a goof you should get your reg't fee back.

[Alta4ever]

No but if enough people believe you are not a goof you should get your reg't fee back.

I am only speaking about the $1.95/vote paid by the taxpayer.

[Bryan]

No, this should definitely not be allowed. All parties should live and die by their own fund raising. If not enough people support them to make their party viable, the taxpayers should not be forced to make up the difference.

[Keepitsimple]

Does anyone know the "principle" behind the $1.95? What was the intention of the legislation that brought it about? I've found the rules and regulationsw but not the purpose of why it exists in the first place.

[Riverwind]

Does anyone know the "principle" behind the $1.95? What was the intention of the legislation that brought it about? I've found the rules and regulationsw but not the purpose of why it exists in the first place.

My understanding is the ban on large donations would have made it impossible for some parties to raise the money required to run a campaign. The taxpayer funding was a compromise that made the ban on large donations politically possible. Eliminating the public funding would require that the ban on large donations be eliminated too which would create its own problem.

Given that context I have no problem with the public financing.

[Brunopolis]

I personally think party funding should be solely based on votes. Every party getting paid an X amount based on each vote cast. Every voter should be treated equally and I´m not a big fan of seeing wealthy voters having more pull in elections due to the ability to donate larger amounts. If you want to donate something to your party it should be your personal time and nothing else. This way we´re all on an even playing field.

I´d personally like to see the Election Canada subsidy pot double and then remove all private financing options altogether.

[scribblet]

I don't agree with public financing, if a party can't raise enough on it's own to support a campaign too bad, obviously they don't have a following.

I think the U.S. has that option, Obama at one point said he would use it, then changed his mind when he found out how much was to be had from donors.

[jdobbin]

Does anyone know the "principle" behind the $1.95? What was the intention of the legislation that brought it about? I've found the rules and regulationsw but not the purpose of why it exists in the first place.

The principle was supported by all parties because if you limit all other donations, you will not be able to run a $20 million campaign or fund your office operations.

Even the Tories will with their vaunted small donor fundraising would have to scale back dramatically with a cut in this subsidy.

My personal opinion is that all donations should be allowed and that the recording of who makes the donation be strengthened dramatically. The subsidy should end for party operations.

I think the parties should have strict spending limits on a yearly level and for a campaign. Kind of like an NFL spending cap.

Rich parties would be able to fund a rich operation but have to come under the cap. The rest of the money would have to banked or transferred to the local riding operations. To ensure that transfers aren't a shell game, reporting would have to be tightened significantly and caps placed on local riding operations as well.

The punishment for exceeding the cap would have to be significant and possibly involve criminal charges. There would be no simple slap on the wrist but very large fines and sentencing.

The taxpayer in the present system is on the hook in many ways. First, the tax deduction on donations is a cost to the treasury, next, the annual subsidy based on the vote is a cost.

If the electorate wants to remove some or all of the public subsidy, they will have to consider how the party system that our government is based on will work.

Edited November 7, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

I don't agree with public financing, if a party can't raise enough on it's own to support a campaign too bad, obviously they don't have a following.

The tax deduction is also public financing. Do you wish to remove that as well?

[Alta4ever]

I personally think party funding should be solely based on votes. Every party getting paid an X amount based on each vote cast. Every voter should be treated equally and I´m not a big fan of seeing wealthy voters having more pull in elections due to the ability to donate larger amounts. If you want to donate something to your party it should be your personal time and nothing else. This way we´re all on an even playing field.

I´d personally like to see the Election Canada subsidy pot double and then remove all private financing options altogether.

Wealthy voters have no pull the donation limits are $1100 for the eda and $1100 nationally. In fact the average donation to all 3 parties is less then $100. The different between the fundraising numbers is the size of the Donor base.

Why should they all receive funding? They should require their base to pay for their campaigns, not the taxpayer. If you have a policy idea you should be the person responsible for selling to the masses not the taxpayer.

So again I ask why this is necessary?

[Alta4ever]

The principle was supported by all parties because if you limit all other donations, you will not be able to run a $20 million campaign or fund your office operations.

Even the Tories will with their vaunted small donor fundraising would have to scale back dramatically with a cut in this subsidy.

My personal opinion is that all donations should be allowed and that the recording of who makes the donation be strengthened dramatically. The subsidy should end for party operations.

I think the parties should have strict spending limits on a yearly level and for a campaign. Kind of like an NFL spending cap.

Rich parties would be able to fund a rich operation but have to come under the cap. The rest of the money would have to banked or transferred to the local riding operations. To ensure that transfers aren't a shell game, reporting would have to be tightened significantly and caps placed on local riding operations as well.

The punishment for exceeding the cap would have to be significant and possibly involve criminal charges. There would be no simple slap on the wrist but very large fines and sentencing.

The taxpayer in the present system is on the hook in many ways. First, the tax deduction on donations is a cost to the treasury, next, the annual subsidy based on the vote is a cost.

If the electorate wants to remove some or all of the public subsidy, they will have to consider how the party system that our government is based on will work.

I think that a smaller spending limit in campaign on the national level isn't such a bad thing. I still would want to see donation limits imposed though. The limit could be raised to 2000 at both the eda level and the national.

[Brunopolis]

Wealthy voters have no pull the donation limits are $1100 for the eda and $1100 nationally. In fact the average donation to all 3 parties is less then $100. The different between the fundraising numbers is the size of the Donor base.

Why should they all receive funding? They should require their base to pay for their campaigns, not the taxpayer. If you have a policy idea you should be the person responsible for selling to the masses not the taxpayer.

So again I ask why this is necessary?

Because usually the taxpayer and the voter are one and the same?

If 40% of the population support a particular party then that party should get 40% of election financing. For some people $1100 is more than they can afford. What about low income or minimum wage earners? They are generally not fiscally able to support their party as well as a higher income voter.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Listen folks, we need to consider the nature of the beast. Politics have the reputation in this and other democratic nations of being at least suspected of corruption as a normal consequence of being placed in power. Knowing this do we not need to consider the impact of the facets relevant to elections and the responsibilities of public office?

It is like dealing with the law. The individual with the most money has a greater opportunity of prevailing in a court of law than an individual without such means. Is it a matter of corruption of a matter of abuse of opportunity? Should an individual be allowed to subvert the will of the people or should a representative of the people be able to subvert the will of the people?

Government is a fickle creature at best. It is subject to all of the fundamental human flaws inherent within the individuals in its own ranks. Elections and electoral funding is a cornerstone of representative democracies. I ask you folks a simple question; should a government have a foundation upon which any citizen may have opportunity or leverage over any other citizen?

[Alta4ever]

Listen folks, we need to consider the nature of the beast. Politics have the reputation in this and other democratic nations of being at least suspected of corruption as a normal consequence of being placed in power. Knowing this do we not need to consider the impact of the facets relevant to elections and the responsibilities of public office?

It is like dealing with the law. The individual with the most money has a greater opportunity of prevailing in a court of law than an individual without such means. Is it a matter of corruption of a matter of abuse of opportunity? Should an individual be allowed to subvert the will of the people or should a representative of the people be able to subvert the will of the people?

Government is a fickle creature at best. It is subject to all of the fundamental human flaws inherent within the individuals in its own ranks. Elections and electoral funding is a cornerstone of representative democracies. I ask you folks a simple question; should a government have a foundation upon which any citizen may have opportunity or leverage over any other citizen?

I ask you this how these entities function creat policy run elections and function prior to polictical welfare being brought in by Chreiten. The system seemed to work pretty good. He was just trying to knee cap paul martin, it had nothing to with giving individual citizens more opportunity.

[Alta4ever]

Because usually the taxpayer and the voter are one and the same?

If 40% of the population support a particular party then that party should get 40% of election financing. For some people $1100 is more than they can afford. What about low income or minimum wage earners? They are generally not fiscally able to support their party as well as a higher income voter.

If they get 40% of the vote then that 40% shoulbe beable to decide to fund the party voluntarily, not be forced to through their taxes.

[jdobbin]

I think that a smaller spending limit in campaign on the national level isn't such a bad thing. I still would want to see donation limits imposed though. The limit could be raised to 2000 at both the eda level and the national.

Why have donation limits if there are spending limits? Harper never wanted any type of limit out of office but changed his mind when in office.

Why is it Democratic for small donors and not democratic for large donors? Absolute reporting of all donations and spending limits by the parties will achieve fairness and accountability. Harper wants to choke off the Liberals and other parties but his own party could easily run into the same problem if they try to do a leadership campaign and an election in later years. People simply run head on into donation limits.

Edited November 7, 2008 by jdobbin

[Alta4ever]

Why have donation limits if there are spending limits? Harper never wanted any type of limit out of office but changed his mind when in office.

Why is it Democratic for small donors and not democratic for large donors? Absolute reporting of all donations and spending limits by the parties will achieve fairness and accountability. Harper wants to choke off the Liberals and other parties but his own party could easily run into the same problem if they try to do a leadership campaign and an election in later years. People simply run head on into donation limits.

It keeps lobbists and vested intrests from having over representation in the party do to contribution sizes. That is precisely the problem the Americans are having. Freddie Mac and Fannie May hevily donated to politicians that they new would alow them to keep operating in the hap hazard fashion that led to the housing bubble and economic down turn that it created.

[Oleg Bach]

It keeps lobbists and vested intrests from having over representation in the party do to contribution sizes. That is precisely the problem the Americans are having. Freddie Mac and Fannie May hevily donated to politicians that they new would alow them to keep operating in the hap hazard fashion that led to the housing bubble and economic down turn that it created.

Economic downturns are the result of economic up turns and blind greed. Politicans should not make more than our good and honest buisness elite - who limit their own salary and do their duty and still live in security. I really don't see public interest in being in line so the spawn of Maggy Trudeau having a gold pated toilet seat...sure he is god to some as is Layton to others - but poop is poop..the great equalizer...all should have a living wage - but to pay tribute to demi-gods that are hold a clouded mind in delluded self importance is not an option - they should be thankful for what they have - after all they are servants.

[jdobbin]

It keeps lobbists and vested intrests from having over representation in the party do to contribution sizes. That is precisely the problem the Americans are having. Freddie Mac and Fannie May hevily donated to politicians that they new would alow them to keep operating in the hap hazard fashion that led to the housing bubble and economic down turn that it created.

Lobbyists have any other matter of influencing politicians aside from donating to their parties.

I think complete listing of who donates and how much is essential to see which parties are being influenced. I think spending limits should be on the parties, not on who donates. That would be democratic.

I think if you want to curb the influence of lobbyists, you ensure transparency on who employs them, who they meet, what do the lobby on and where their money comes from and goes.

If parties are restricted on spending only X amount of dollars in a year for the central office and X amount for each riding, it sets some limits on how donations can be used. Blow it all on ad spending in an non election year and it restricts money for policy research. Reach the limit on how much you spend national, transfer it to the riding associations. Make it transparent, make offences punishable and it doesn't matter who donates.

It isn't who donates that is a problem, It is on not curbing spending by the parties that is the problem.

In such a system I describe, a big bank could donate $5 million to the Conservatives but they would be only allowed to spend maybe $5 million annually on national operations. So what to do with any extra money? Well, the only option is to transfer it to the ridings. They too would have limits.

If the party reached its limits nationally and at the riding level, all other money could be banked.

A large donor's influence is circumscribed by the party's spending limits.

The money become more a support of the political process and less a case of influence peddling.

Edited November 7, 2008 by jdobbin

[Oleg Bach]

Lobbyists have any other matter of influencing politicians aside from donating to their parties.

I think complete listing of who donates and how much is essential to see which parties are being influenced. I think spending limits should be on the parties, not on who donates. That would be democratic.

I think if you want to curb the influence of lobbyists, you ensure transparency on who employs them, who they meet, what do the lobby on and where their money comes from and goes.

If parties are restricted on spending only X amount of dollars in a year for the central office and X amount for each riding, it sets some limits on how donations can be used. Blow it all on ad spending in an non election year and it restricts money for policy research. Reach the limit on how much you spend national, transfer it to the riding associations. Make it transparent, make offences punishable and it doesn't matter who donates.

It isn't who donates that is a problem, It is on not curbing spending by the parties that is the problem.

In such a system I describe, a big bank could donate $5 million to the Conservatives but they would be only allowed to spend maybe $5 million annually on national operations. So what to do with any extra money? Well, the only option is to transfer it to the ridings. They too would have limits.

If the party reached its limits nationally and at the riding level, all other money could be banked.

A large donor's influence is circumscribed by the party's spending limits.

The money become more a support of the political process and less a case of influence peddling.

Leadership should not be dependent on money. Look at the Obama Phenomena. I could take YOU - and put a billion dollars behind you and YOU would be president of the US of A...and not even need to be a natural citizen. What brought about the destruction of the greatest resourse of clean water in the world - The Oak Ridge Moraine..was lobbying by Italian developers to bring in more home buyers...It was not enough that these sons of brick layers and road builders had on Van Gough painting - then wanted ten...and a Farrari for every nephew in Canada. Ottawa allowed itself to be lobbied by power crazed sewer pipe builders..and created a delema in regards to becoming addicted to constant and mindless growth. Now our best water supply is paved over - thanks Ottawa...fools.

[madmax]

Ideas don't always cost nothing. Access to some data does cost. Have you ever tried to organise a policy convention without any money? It can be done via wiki's etc. but that really narrows down participation, to the point where policy formulation is captured by wiki nuts. Publish, and disseminate a information? Costs big $$. The fact is that facilitating the interaction of thousands of people cannot be done for free.

If you party wants to organize a Policy Convention, do it with your own money. Raise your money and fund your convention. Political Parties have been doing this for centuries. If a party doesn't have the funds for a convention, then it shouldn't have one, unless it chooses to go into debt.

If you don't have money, don't hold a convention.

I see no reason to have public funds provided so that political parties can have big conventions, while people go hungry. This is just political pork. The parties collecting the $1.95 do not need this money. They are the largest parties.

Edited November 8, 2008 by madmax

[bluegreen]

Lobbyists have any other matter of influencing politicians aside from donating to their parties.

I think complete listing of who donates and how much is essential to see which parties are being influenced. I think spending limits should be on the parties, not on who donates. That would be democratic.

I think if you want to curb the influence of lobbyists, you ensure transparency on who employs them, who they meet, what do the lobby on and where their money comes from and goes.

If parties are restricted on spending only X amount of dollars in a year for the central office and X amount for each riding, it sets some limits on how donations can be used. Blow it all on ad spending in an non election year and it restricts money for policy research. Reach the limit on how much you spend national, transfer it to the riding associations. Make it transparent, make offences punishable and it doesn't matter who donates.

It isn't who donates that is a problem, It is on not curbing spending by the parties that is the problem.

In such a system I describe, a big bank could donate $5 million to the Conservatives but they would be only allowed to spend maybe $5 million annually on national operations. So what to do with any extra money? Well, the only option is to transfer it to the ridings. They too would have limits.

If the party reached its limits nationally and at the riding level, all other money could be banked.

A large donor's influence is circumscribed by the party's spending limits.

The money become more a support of the political process and less a case of influence peddling.

Hmmm,

spending limits are important, as are donation limits. Most people aren't aware though, that there are loopholes big enough to drive a bus through. Look at the way the CPC gamed the system in 2006. They made in-and-out transfers that allowed them to attribute national television advertising spending to a series of relatively underfunded EDA's, thus exceeding their national spending limit while at the same time transferring taxpayer funded election expenses rebate (65% of eligible 'local' expenses), to the local EDA's willing to participate in the scheme.

There isn't a whole lot of debate about the other totally absurd, and not yet fully exploited loophole in spending limits. Namely, that 'legitimate' fundraising expenses are exempt from election expenses. Legitimate in the first instance is at the discretion of the financial agent. In general the guideline for legitimate is that the expense must be incurred for the purpose of raising funds. I have seen the extreme instance used municipally, by a hybrid Tory, Liberal campaign team. 40,000 - 11" x17" glossy, two sided, folded process colour flyers were produced, printed, and distributed by paid delivery service. These professional conversion pieces highlighted all the endorsements, policy prescriptions, ribbon cutting photo's etc. And the print run was repeated 1/2 way through the campaign for a total of 80,000 copies printed and distributed. At the bottom of the piece, there was a 1 inch by 2 inch section inviting people to come to the candidates campaign office, and meet the candidate for a coffee night. Admission cost $5. This made the piece a 'legitimate' fundraising expense.

I dropped by at the 'event' and 40 people or so showed up. The coffee bill was of course claimed as a fundraising expense as well.

I would estimate that the full cost of this 'fundspending' event was about $16,000, and the funds raised were about $200.

In Toronto, one municipal candidate once held ahuge campaign launch party, where a hall was rented, free everything, and a big name musical band hired. This event cost far more than the legal spending limit for an entire campaign, but it was a fundraising event you see.

This illustrates why both donations, and spending should be regulated in some respect. It also illustrates why I have here, and elsewhere supported publicly funded campaigns. It is really hard to think of equitable sets of rules that keep very interested people from unduly influencing the electoral process, unless you really simplify things.

For those who quote examples where money couldn't defeat the little idea that could, well, you're dreaming in technicolour. On balance, resources win campaigns. If you can widely publicise a lie, or misdirection, and your opponent cannot publicise his/her rebuttal, game over.

Edited November 8, 2008 by bluegreen

[madmax]

or will you retreat to your mantra about political welfare? Welfare is an undeserved handout motivated by guilt. The sources and uses of cash in politics are of public interest. I am not talking about the equity, or which party gets what. It would be nice if you could come up with a cohesive response to my points about politics being a marketplace for ideas.

Wow!!!

See, I have thought, in my naivety, that Welfare was defined as follows.

(Social welfare is government programs that seek to provide a minimum level of income, service or other support for disadvantaged peoples)

You see, it is a program based upon need. Many people challenge the "means test" but few would suggest it could ever be completely eradicated.

Political Welfare is an "Undeserved Handout" and I am sick to my stomach that the Green Party, with thoughts such as yours, could ever envisions yourselves more needy then people on welfare.

For you to suggest that others less well off then yourself are underserved while you need a government handout so that GP can have Convention Money.

What a pathetic disgrace.

This is why we shouldn't fund political parties. For arrogance like this.

Edited November 9, 2008 by madmax

[madmax]

You are starting to irritate me with your' insistence that I am supporting a Partisan position. I am not.

Clearly you are supporting a partisan position. It supports the need of your party.

It would be nice if you could come up with a cohesive response to my points about politics being a marketplace for ideas.

You don't want your party fundraising to be in the market place of ideas. Where people support them with their wallet and time. You have chosen the path of the public purse. Not the Market.

Your' crowd are next, as we emphasise our fiscal and environmental conservatism and we'll show you what the grassroots can do!

You do understand the irony of mentioning the market place and fiscal conservatism with your hat in hand.