Poltical Party Welfare

[madmax]

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.

The tax money is mine. 40% of people don't vote. Its not like voters are pooling their money and dividing it. Money collected from all sorts of taxes, GST, Income Tax, EI, which should be used for infrastructure, health care, employment and other public works, as well as support our military is being used to fund political parties.

[bluegreen]

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.

Hmmm, you seem to be conflating my stated arguments with green party policy. An old political trick. I don't need the handout, neither does any Political Party. That is what you are obviously too dense to understand. It is the Canadian Citizen who would benefit from publicly funded parties, not the Parties themselves. I don't think you can read, or think, or you would have understood what I was talking about. Certainly every single response you have made has completely missed the point. Obviously you have little knowledge or interest in the topic of this thread. Since your preference is to discuss ideas with a mirror, I'll leave you to your own, no doubt self stimulating company.

[Brunopolis]

The tax money is mine. 40% of people don't vote. Its not like voters are pooling their money and dividing it. Money collected from all sorts of taxes, GST, Income Tax, EI, which should be used for infrastructure, health care, employment and other public works, as well as support our military is being used to fund political parties.

40% of the people don't vote because we have one of the least democratic most ridiculous voting systems in the world. I've been to and voted in countries which have proportional representation systems and the interest in politics is far greater than I've ever seen in Canada. Every single election I've voted in Canada has been a throw-away vote for me yet I still go. I'm not surprised people don't care when they are disenfranchised to such an extent.

So if you're against public funding and want pure private funding why do we even have a dollar limit? If I want to donate 50 million dollars to my political party who are you to tell me it's too much? Why do we have these "arbitrary" donation cap numbers at all?

Why not have a level playing field for all political parties? One voter has the exact same power as another voter. Not more power because he has more money to donate.

[jdobbin]

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.

Donation limits are far less important than spending limits. And the spending limits should cover national and local divisions of the political parties.

[Oleg Bach]

My dad saw the begining of the end in Soviet Russia. He said it got to the point where the bureaucracy got so full and top heavey that 20% of the people were doing the real work - Then the whole damned thing tipped over into the dirt...You can not make something out of nothing forever. You are supposed to get into politics in order to serve - not be served - that's called usery.

[bluegreen]

Donation limits are far less important than spending limits. And the spending limits should cover national and local divisions of the political parties.

Are you arguing that spending limits are more important because they are the direct link to the electorate?

Donation limits, for example, reduced the pervasive influence of public sector unions on the NDP. The NDP adapted quickly, and I think are more responsive to their small funders. Donation limits also crippled the Liberals, due to their prior dependence upon large corporate donations. The Liberals haven't seemed to notice yet that they have to change their fundraising model, but they will soon enough.

Before donation limits, Chartered banks, for example, covered all their bets by donating large amounts to both major parties. Normally the Lib's got twice as much, because they were normally in power. Note that the PC's got their Bankers donations topped up when in power. If donation limits didn't exist, then I would bet that this practice of hedging the bets would continue. Is there really any difference between a donor buying the election for one party, or a more subtle donor buying the affections of all contenders?

I don't believe that spending limits are, or ever will be truly effective by themselves. Whatever the rules, they will be gamed. If a Party, or EDA has excess money, they will figure out how to spend it. Third Party spending, pre-writ spending, under the covers spending, pseudo fundraising spending. I have seen evidence all these things in the three federal elections since the revised elections finance act.

In the next Federal election, only stupid campaign managers, who don't care about winning will fail to circumvent spending limits, unless, of course, they cannot get more money.

[jdobbin]

Are you arguing that spending limits are more important because they are the direct link to the electorate?

I am arguing that a cap on spending means that raising money in the millions beyond that is superfluous. Once the cap is achieved on the national and local levels, it doesn't matter how much is in the bank as it can only be used in the following year.

Donation limits, for example, reduced the pervasive influence of public sector unions on the NDP. The NDP adapted quickly, and I think are more responsive to their small funders. Donation limits also crippled the Liberals, due to their prior dependence upon large corporate donations. The Liberals haven't seemed to notice yet that they have to change their fundraising model, but they will soon enough.

Before donation limits, Chartered banks, for example, covered all their bets by donating large amounts to both major parties. Normally the Lib's got twice as much, because they were normally in power. Note that the PC's got their Bankers donations topped up when in power. If donation limits didn't exist, then I would bet that this practice of hedging the bets would continue. Is there really any difference between a donor buying the election for one party, or a more subtle donor buying the affections of all contenders?

All donors would have their influence diminished if there is a cap on spending, both large and small.

I don't believe that spending limits are, or ever will be truly effective by themselves. Whatever the rules, they will be gamed. If a Party, or EDA has excess money, they will figure out how to spend it. Third Party spending, pre-writ spending, under the covers spending, pseudo fundraising spending. I have seen evidence all these things in the three federal elections since the revised elections finance act.

In the next Federal election, only stupid campaign managers, who don't care about winning will fail to circumvent spending limits, unless, of course, they cannot get more money.

In other words, you say nothing matters?

If there is no cap on spending, my suggestion for the Liberals is to farm out research and polling and other party functions to a charitable foundation and go after the corporate support there.

[bluegreen]

I am arguing that a cap on spending means that raising money in the millions beyond that is superfluous. Once the cap is achieved on the national and local levels, it doesn't matter how much is in the bank as it can only be used in the following year.

All donors would have their influence diminished if there is a cap on spending, both large and small.

In other words, you say nothing matters?

If there is no cap on spending, my suggestion for the Liberals is to farm out research and polling and other party functions to a charitable foundation and go after the corporate support there.

I don't say nothing matters, I think it's vitally important. I think that capping donations, capping spending, a strict interpretation of spending, and publicly funded elections will help to re-focus our electoral process on what counts. Who has the best plans, people, and policies to govern the Nation. Expect smart operators to co-opt the media to an even greater extent, and the armies of lawyers who get involved in politics will be busy gaming it, but if you want to bring the political process out into the open, then these measures would bring the job started with the 2004 elections finance act to it's logical conclusion.

[madmax]

Hmmm, you seem to be conflating my stated arguments with green party policy. An old political trick

You have stated that the GP is needy for public money. That it needs public funding for conventions and ideas. But those on welfare are undeserving. That it is guilt money. Those thoughts are yours.

[jdobbin]

I don't say nothing matters, I think it's vitally important. I think that capping donations, capping spending, a strict interpretation of spending, and publicly funded elections will help to re-focus our electoral process on what counts. Who has the best plans, people, and policies to govern the Nation. Expect smart operators to co-opt the media to an even greater extent, and the armies of lawyers who get involved in politics will be busy gaming it, but if you want to bring the political process out into the open, then these measures would bring the job started with the 2004 elections finance act to it's logical conclusion.

I don't believe in capping donations. People and organizations should be free to donate who they want to. The controls should be on the parties and the political process. Spending caps and an interpretation of spending should be the main focus and the punishments should be severe. They should be costly and they should be criminal.

[Bryan]

I don't believe in capping donations. People and organizations should be free to donate who they want to. The controls should be on the parties and the political process. Spending caps and an interpretation of spending should be the main focus and the punishments should be severe. They should be costly and they should be criminal.

Allowing anyone to give any amount leads to corruption where a party "owes" an entity or individual for an unusually large contribution. Even if they can't use all of it in a campaign, they still have it for other operations. Cleaning that mess up was a long time coming. Not only should we not go back, we should continue to tighten both the funding and the spending restrictions.

I'd especially like to see the taxpayer funded portion scaled way back, and eventually eliminated. Phase it out over several years. A tax credit on the original contribution is enough public money for the parties as it is.

[madmax]

I'd especially like to see the taxpayer funded portion scaled way back, and eventually eliminated. Phase it out over several years. A tax credit on the original contribution is enough public money for the parties as it is.

You make some good points.

[jdobbin]

Allowing anyone to give any amount leads to corruption where a party "owes" an entity or individual for an unusually large contribution. Even if they can't use all of it in a campaign, they still have it for other operations. Cleaning that mess up was a long time coming. Not only should we not go back, we should continue to tighten both the funding and the spending restrictions.

I think the point is that the parties can't use it for other operations. Spending limits reduces the influences of all donators.

I'd especially like to see the taxpayer funded portion scaled way back, and eventually eliminated. Phase it out over several years. A tax credit on the original contribution is enough public money for the parties as it is.

It would have to be coupled with massive spending limits or cuts to be successful. No party is going to give up the taxpayer funded portion if another party can pile up other donations to use.

[gc1765]

Personally, I don't see why political parties need to spend so much money on a campaign.

With the internet, how hard is it to post your platform, press releases etc. on the internet, and for voters to do a little of their own research and actually read those platforms and base their decision on that?

[M.Dancer]

Personally, I don't see why political parties need to spend so much money on a campaign.

With the internet, how hard is it to post your platform, press releases etc. on the internet, and for voters to do a little of their own research and actually read those platforms and base their decision on that?

Not hard at all, and every party already does just that. What is hard is to get people interested enough to care.

[gc1765]

Not hard at all, and every party already does just that. What is hard is to get people interested enough to care.

That's what I meant.

[madmax]

I just thought I would bump this to the top. This same discussion has flared up again on babble and is just as split in comments. Which is a good thing, because it tells me that this is something open to discussion and is not strictly a "Left or Right" issue. Considering its roots were in election Reform of the National Party, it makes sense that no extreme left or right considered this issue partizan turf.

With the economy in the dumps, elections costing $300million+, is this the time to have Political parties belly up to the trough? Is there no other way to handle election financing without it falling into the hands of lobbiests or the tax payer?

[Oleg Bach]

We all end up equal in the end - My banker friend on welfare and me at the same time....oooh how the mighty have fallen - I still love him and will not pick on the old guy..

[madmax]

Earlier today these numbers were tied. Now the tie is broken 9,10

However, according to a poster on babble

Bob Fyfe on Mike Duffy Live scooped that the Tories are going to eliminate the $1.95 per vote subsidy to the political parties in tomorrows economic update.

It will be interesting to see how the Liberals spin this.

[OddSox]

Indeed - I wonder if that means they will cancel all payments related to the recent election (can they even do that?). That would leave the Liberals with virtually $0. I wonder how much the Green Party is depending on that income.

[Bryan]

Earlier today these numbers were tied. Now the tie is broken 9,10

However, according to a poster on babble

They were reporting the possible cut to the voter subsidy on Global National as well tonight.

edit: National Post has it now too: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=997382

I've mentioned in the past that Harper might find a wedge issue that the public will support, but that the opposition will be forced to vote down. This could be it, and it would be easy to promote it in such a way that the opposition looks really bad for voting against it.

[craiger]

They were reporting the possible cut to the voter subsidy on Global National as well tonight.

edit: National Post has it now too: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=997382

I've mentioned in the past that Harper might find a wedge issue that the public will support, but that the opposition will be forced to vote down. This could be it, and it would be easy to promote it in such a way that the opposition looks really bad for voting against it.

That just might be political suicide for the Tories if the other party's join together don't forget they got a minority government and with defecits comming his platform is toast. Personally i have never contributed to a party but i just might change my mind now if their not going to get government assistance.

2 party system would be a good thing for everyone you would be voting for or against, votes would not go wasted to party's who dont hold a chance.

Edited November 26, 2008 by craiger

[capricorn]

They were reporting the possible cut to the voter subsidy on Global National as well tonight.

edit: National Post has it now too: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=997382

I bet a lot of registered voters were unaware of this taxpayer funded subsidy to political parties.

There is an increasing sentiment among Canadians that politicians should not be exempt from belt tightening measures they are subjected to. It would be about time politicians placed themselves on the same footing as Canadians. If there's ever a time to lead by example, it is now.

I've mentioned in the past that Harper might find a wedge issue that the public will support, but that the opposition will be forced to vote down. This could be it, and it would be easy to promote it in such a way that the opposition looks really bad for voting against it.

This will look good on the Conservative party as it is the main beneficiary of the subsidy. With the doom and gloom forecasts of politicians and talking heads it would be difficult to argue in favour of maintaining this subsidy.

Let's suppose the opposition brings down the government in the next few weeks. Now that this proposition has seen the light of day, the majority of Canadians will want to see it passed by whoever forms the next government. IOW, the seed has been planted.

[Alta4ever]

I bet a lot of registered voters were unaware of this taxpayer funded subsidy to political parties.

There is an increasing sentiment among Canadians that politicians should not be exempt from belt tightening measures they are subjected to. It would be about time politicians placed themselves on the same footing as Canadians. If there's ever a time to lead by example, it is now.

This will look good on the Conservative party as it is the main beneficiary of the subsidy. With the doom and gloom forecasts of politicians and talking heads it would be difficult to argue in favour of maintaining this subsidy.

Let's suppose the opposition brings down the government in the next few weeks. Now that this proposition has seen the light of day, the majority of Canadians will want to see it passed by whoever forms the next government. IOW, the seed has been planted.

This would be an excellent wedge issue. Could you imagine fighting an election over this?

[capricorn]

This would be an excellent wedge issue. Could you imagine fighting an election over this?

Plus the fact that Dion would still be Liberal leader. But wait. Apparently Dion is scoring higher popularity numbers than Iggy, Rae and Dom. I don't doubt there are many Liberal supporters who think the Liberals could actually win an election if it was held today. I suppose there's nothing like the power of positive thinking.