Poltical Party Welfare

[DrGreenthumb]

At present, Canada's law forbids donations of greater than $1000 so a political party is forced to rely on many small donors (other than the $1.95 subsidy). I question whether this $1000 restriction is even necessary however since Obama and the Internet have shown that the way to raise substantial sums is not from several wealthy donors but from innumerable small ones.

1000 dollars may not seem like much to the average Conservative voter, but for the average working class Canadian it is about half their monthly income. Most non-conservative voters do not have 1000 dollars to give. For a lot of people 1000 dollars is more than their whole paycheque. I am lucky to have purchased some properties before the real estate prices skyrocketed, I don't have to rely on a paycheque from anyone. I do work at several part time jobs on a casual basis, but that is just for fun money, I don't even include it in my budget. For most supporters of parties whose policies benefit the poor, and disadvantaged they simply have no money to give. Therefore the vote subsidy is important so that these parties can have a more equal opportunity to present their ideas in an election campaign. The more support they recieve from the electorate the more money they recieve, sounds very democratic to me.

[August1991]

1000 dollars may not seem like much to the average Conservative voter, but for the average working class Canadian it is about half their monthly income.

You still miss the point, Greenthumb.

This $1.95 subsidy policy does not help parties on the left who defend poor people; it helps parties that have no party organization and no members.

The NDP could survive well without this subsidy. It is the Liberals, the Greens and the Bloc that would have problems.

Rich people are not funding Obama or Stephen Harper. It is ordinary people who donate a few bucks.

[Mr.Canada]

You still miss the point, Greenthumb.

This $1.95 subsidy policy does not help parties on the left who defend poor people; it helps parties that have no party organization and no members.

The NDP could survive well without this subsidy. It is the Liberals, the Greens and the Bloc that would have problems.

Rich people are not funding Obama or Stephen Harper. It is ordinary people who donate a few bucks.

August, rich and poor alike are supporting their parties there are just more middle class than the more well off. The rest I agree but the NDP would hurt too but not as much as the number of left wing folks that are able to donate the max is more limited.

[madmax]

You still miss the point, Greenthumb.

This $1.95 subsidy policy does not help parties on the left who defend poor people; it helps parties that have no party organization and no members.

The NDP could survive well without this subsidy. It is the Liberals, the Greens and the Bloc that would have problems.

I can only judge your comments based upon the "scream factor" when the public funding cuts were announced. The LPC treated it like certain death. The Green Party screamed, but were hard to hear over their screaming, or was it asking for a Senate seat..well, and the BQ would lose ALOT of money, they don't need. I think the NDP bought into the change, because it provided them extra revenues above and beyond their regular fundraising, and they could always use more. The CPC have so much money, they can't spend it all. They don't need more. The NDP might be pissed at the Tories for not being upfront about the change, prior to the September election. A political party spends whatever it can get its hands on, and the NDP has been economical in doing with less since their creation. The CPC would lose the most, but they can afford the hit. The LPC were broke and still are, the GP don't have money unless its given to them by government, and the NDP sounds like they borrowed on the expectation of the current fundraising policy.

August is correct. The $1.95 helps people that have no organization or members. And as for defending poor people. I believe every party attempts to defend/help poor people. Its just that, no matter which party it is, sometimes those policies unintentionally create more poor people.

I believe Blue Green said it most succinctly about his Green Party. They needed the $1.95 so that they could have a convention. Never mentioned anything about helping poor. He mentioned that people on welfare were undeserving, whereas the Green Party he felt was deserving of money.

[Mr.Canada]

madmax, I like your response a lot. Thanks for posting it. You must be feeling rational today, good for you for finding common sense

[madmax]

madmax, I like your response a lot. Thanks for posting it. You must be feeling rational today, good for you for finding common sense

Sorry Mr. Canada, that you showed up late to the party, but the invite has been since the poll thread started. Alta4ever and myself have been discussing public funding of political parties since November the 6th. I was wondering how many people shared our perspective, and Alta4ever made this poll. I was using the term political party welfare for sometime.

Perhaps it isn't that I am feeling rational today that you find yourself liking one of my posts...... what if today was the day you were rational Scary thought

Who knows now, the poll numbers are moving up up up.

Maybe there will be 86 votes here to.....

I figure you just voted. Please send alta4ever $1.95

[Mr.Canada]

Sorry Mr. Canada, that you showed up late to the party, but the invite has been since the poll thread started. Alta4ever and myself have been discussing public funding of political parties since November the 6th. I was wondering how many people shared our perspective, and Alta4ever made this poll. I was using the term political party welfare for sometime.

Perhaps it isn't that I am feeling rational today that you find yourself liking one of my posts...... what if today was the day you were rational Scary thought

Who knows now, the poll numbers are moving up up up.

Maybe there will be 86 votes here to.....

I figure you just voted. Please send alta4ever $1.95

I was suspended the last two weeks, just got back yesterday but have been following along

[madmax]

I was suspended the last two weeks, just got back yesterday but have been following along

Nice to have the freedom to vote again.

NEWSFLASH: NOs take the lead.....

[DrGreenthumb]

. And as for defending poor people. I believe every party attempts to defend/help poor people. Its just that, no matter which party it is, sometimes those policies unintentionally create more poor people.

pFFFT The Conservatives want to help poor people?hahahahahahah thats the funniest thing I've ever heard. Give your partisan head a shake! Help them into a private prison cell to be hired out as slave labour maybe.

[Mr.Canada]

pFFFT The Conservatives want to help poor people?hahahahahahah thats the funniest thing I've ever heard. Give your partisan head a shake! Help them into a private prison cell to be hired out as slave labour maybe.

And the Liberals who have been in power for roughly 40 of the last 55 years have helped this how again?

[Oleg Bach]

And the Liberals who have been in power for roughly 40 of the last 55 years have helped this how again?

I live in a private prison cell. It was liberal social engineering and experimenting that put me here..sure I can walk out the door and I am not hungry..but I am trapped...how did this happen? I did my best to work and contribute to the common good...Yet my mobilty rights are dashed - If I could leave this damned city and find a quiet place in the country to grow a garden _ I would leave you all behind in this prison...just want to go fishing ...is that to much to ask? - I want privacy - The idea of working my ass off for no pay to assist in keeping this rotten ship afloat while others have freedom is not my idea of a life well spent....Some how I have been pushed south from the meadows of my childhood to this place...took a ride up the corridor north of town - my meadows and lakes are gone - where am I to go? There must be a heaven left for this old man on this earth...whining? Yep _ I feel sorry for you all - but mostly sorry for myself...so this is progress?

[blueblood]

pFFFT The Conservatives want to help poor people?hahahahahahah thats the funniest thing I've ever heard. Give your partisan head a shake! Help them into a private prison cell to be hired out as slave labour maybe.

I now have the incentive to start investing in Alcan.

[Mr.Canada]

I live in a private prison cell. It was liberal social engineering and experimenting that put me here..sure I can walk out the door and I am not hungry..but I am trapped...how did this happen? I did my best to work and contribute to the common good...Yet my mobilty rights are dashed - If I could leave this damned city and find a quiet place in the country to grow a garden _ I would leave you all behind in this prison...just want to go fishing ...is that to much to ask? - I want privacy - The idea of working my ass off for no pay to assist in keeping this rotten ship afloat while others have freedom is not my idea of a life well spent....Some how I have been pushed south from the meadows of my childhood to this place...took a ride up the corridor north of town - my meadows and lakes are gone - where am I to go? There must be a heaven left for this old man on this earth...whining? Yep _ I feel sorry for you all - but mostly sorry for myself...so this is progress?

Many on the left are young idealists whereas the right are realists. I once supported the left in my late teens to early twenties but life experience has refined my mind and have realized that being a conservative isn't a bad word, this sentiment is growing. Even in the cities people are realizing that a vote for the Tories is a vote for Canada and a vote for Canada is never wasted. People are waking up.

[madmax]

pFFFT The Conservatives want to help poor people?hahahahahahah thats the funniest thing I've ever heard. Give your partisan head a shake!

I have seen many well intentioned Conservative policies meant to help people, end up being a total flop. I have seen many social experiments be a total flop. If you don't try, you won't always know. Some are obvious, and some Conservative policies are hate driven or marketed by tromping on the poor and downtrodden. Fact is, the number of working poor using food banks has risen to never before seen levels and it is going to increase dramatically.

Eventually the problem, like future unemployment levels and the lack of available opportunity for skilled workforce will no longer be able to be hidden with spin, and hiding behind globablization talk. We are about to have the largest pool of middle class enter the lower class regions not seen since the depression. The fact that even today, most middle class people believe it won't be them, put there faith in Conservative policies that can and will hurt them in the long run should there be a downturn. Many of these Conservative policies were adopted by the Liberals and still supported by Liberals.

Funding the Green Party with $1.95 or the Liberals or the Cons isn't going to change the above facts, nor are these parties considered the social conscious to stand up for the poor.

The NDP has stood up for the poor and they have done it without the $1.95 handout.

However, many Conservative/Liberal/Green activists will boldly state that NDP economic policies put people out of work.

I guess George Bush is a Socialist, as he is been effectiving in showing Americans the unemployment line. His fiscal policies have also put the nation near bankruptcy.

Harper has blown a massive surplus. Nobody knows where it went. Its just gone.

He is showing charity towards banks.... you have to start somewhere.

Mulroney was a total failure when it came to deficits, and unemployment.

Yet Harper is on the way to surpassing Mulroney and apparently Trudeau as unemployment has hit its highest level since 1982. Yet many of those job loses were layoffs with return dates. It was not unusual for factories to shutdown for months and reopen when things pick up. Since the Mulroney era, the practice has been to close down operations and relocate.

The attrition has taken on a rapid pace, and the tidal waves are yet to come in.

So, if you really think that $1.95 is really that important to political parties. I would like to hear them deal with the massive failure of government, yes this Harper government, who is also collecting $1.95/vote. I don't hear the NDP on this either.

[jdobbin]

I have given more thought to this $1.95 subsidy/welfare/charity scheme. At first, I was in favour of it but now I can see its drawbacks.

Of course is has its drawbacks but then so does reducing donations to $1000 or so a year. It means you can't attend a party convention and donate to an election in the same year without the risk of going over the limit. Party convention fees are around $800 to $900. That leaves about $200 for an election.

At the convention in Winnipeg many Conservative delegates attended free because they had already gone over their spending limit.

End the subsidy if you must but then raise the limit of donations to what it was in 2006. Also, cap spending by the parties on an annual basis.

[madmax]

Bump....

Since Mr. Canada hijacked his own Quebec Butt Kicking thread to talk about Political Funding.

Here is the Alta4ever poll.

[madmax]

Because it dimishes the need for parties to actualy engage the general public and to listen to them.

I think that is a drawback of funding political parties with a vote.

[madmax]

He was just trying to knee cap paul martin, it had nothing to with giving individual citizens more opportunity.

That is correct....

And.... I believe this topic is going to come around a 2nd or 3rd time as changes to the political party welfare are made.

And yes it is political party welfare imho.

[Progressive Tory]

Sorry about that. I didn't realize there was already a thread started for this topic. You can delete mine. Just wanted to add my 2 cents (or 1.95)

I don't know if this has been discussed before in a separate thread, but I'm finding a lot of criticism over the per vote subsidy (which is 1.95 per vote, not 1.75).

This is not party 'welfare', as some people suggest, but part of Bill C-24; an act that made the election process more democratic. Prior to this, corporations, unions and wealthy Canadians (in fact, you didn't even have to be Canadian), had too much power over elected officials; so Jean Chretien made sweeping changes that would bring the election process to the grassroots, by allowing them to help fund their party. It was done democratically; the more votes you received, the more funding.

In this way, voters who couldn't afford to contribute to political campaigns, did so with their vote.

So: A little history

1. After growing concern over political fundraising and financing of parties and election campaigns, in 1974, the Canadian government introduced the Election Expenses Act, which set spending controls and demanded disclosure of where money was spent. It also introduced partial funding of campaigns with public money.

2. In June 2002, Jean Chrétien introduced a new ethics package that forced all ministers to disclose any political donations, including contributions for potential leadership campaigns. "In July 2002, Paul Martin came under fire after he said he could not reveal the names of people who donated to his leadership campaign." He later published the list. And in October 2002, "then Canadian Alliance leader Stephen Harper refused to release information on who donated to his leadership campaign. He later backtracked, and quietly posted a partial list on his party's website. But, he only posted 54 donors who gave more than $1,075 each, leaving out the names of 10 other large donors who refused to go public, and more than 9,000 people who gave less than $1,000 each."

There were other infractions by different parties which you can read in the linked story.

3. 2003 Bill C-24, restricted contributions to Canadian citizens and permanent residents and enforced a limit on the amounts given. Recognizing that these limits would hamper campaign fundraising ability, the bill further increased public money put toward the political process. There was now a direct subsidy given to the party. And the money given was directly tied to votes.

This was a good thing for Canadians, because it meant that we could now DIRECTLY help to fund our Party by casting our vote. Elected officials are therefore inspired to represent all citizens, because those small contributions can really add up.

[Alta4ever]

Sorry about that. I didn't realize there was already a thread started for this topic. You can delete mine. Just wanted to add my 2 cents (or 1.95)

I don't know if this has been discussed before in a separate thread, but I'm finding a lot of criticism over the per vote subsidy (which is 1.95 per vote, not 1.75).

This is not party 'welfare', as some people suggest, but part of Bill C-24; an act that made the election process more democratic.

This did nothing to make the country more democratic, it just made it so politicians don't have to justify themselves ot the base of the party. The Bloc hasn't raised any money in years the fund their campaigns based on taxpayer funding. The Liberal party Canada's Natural Governing Party could not have existed off the ideas and donations made to them during the last 5 years.

If anything it has made the country less democratic becuase parties don't have to justify their ideas and be supported by people they just get to exist as an entitlement. Had this been the case back in 93 we would still have a federal PC party, and party that deserved to die after the mulrooney years. Just because they said it would be more democratic didn't make the country any more democratic.

It is party of the political party welfare, it all needs to be eliminated, if a party wants to exist it should have to ask for donation and be made to live off its donations. If it can't then their aren't enough people who want to support it and it will dissapear and someone with a better idea will come along in thier place. As it sits now we will be stuck with the same old crap in all the parties for a long time come.

[Progressive Tory]

This did nothing to make the country more democratic, it just made it so politicians don't have to justify themselves ot the base of the party. The Bloc hasn't raised any money in years the fund their campaigns based on taxpayer funding. The Liberal party Canada's Natural Governing Party could not have existed off the ideas and donations made to them during the last 5 years.

If anything it has made the country less democratic becuase parties don't have to justify their ideas and be supported by people they just get to exist as an entitlement. Had this been the case back in 93 we would still have a federal PC party, and party that deserved to die after the mulrooney years. Just because they said it would be more democratic didn't make the country any more democratic.

It is party of the political party welfare, it all needs to be eliminated, if a party wants to exist it should have to ask for donation and be made to live off its donations. If it can't then their aren't enough people who want to support it and it will dissapear and someone with a better idea will come along in thier place. As it sits now we will be stuck with the same old crap in all the parties for a long time come.

I'm sorry but I don't agree. This would mean that ONLY THE WEALTHY HAVE REPRESENTATION AND ONLY THE WEALTHY GET TO TELL US WHAT PARTIES ARE ALLOWED TO RUN. This is so not a democracy. We might as well cut to the chase and let Esso govern Canada...or the Powers Corporation. Hell, why have elections at all. Public funding means grassroots select parties.

[DrGreenthumb]

I'm sorry but I don't agree. This would mean that ONLY THE WEALTHY HAVE REPRESENTATION AND ONLY THE WEALTHY GET TO TELL US WHAT PARTIES ARE ALLOWED TO RUN. This is so not a democracy. We might as well cut to the chase and let Esso govern Canada...or the Powers Corporation. Hell, why have elections at all. Public funding means grassroots select parties.

I SOOO agree with you on this one.

[Alta4ever]

I'm sorry but I don't agree. This would mean that ONLY THE WEALTHY HAVE REPRESENTATION AND ONLY THE WEALTHY GET TO TELL US WHAT PARTIES ARE ALLOWED TO RUN. This is so not a democracy. We might as well cut to the chase and let Esso govern Canada...or the Powers Corporation. Hell, why have elections at all. Public funding means grassroots select parties.

Really only the wealthy do you even know what the average contribution is to the political parties? The average to the CPC is $117. $10 dollars a month. I don't know about yuou but I can afford that, but many contribute even less, 10, 15 20, 30 or even 40. Is getting these amounts impossible form any party. These aren't the wealthy people. Donations being capped at 2200 makes it so that even the wealth can contribute enough to buy influence. So what you have said aboive has really no merit.

Private funding through grassroots donations means that the grassroots has final say over the party, if you can't apeal to your grassroots and get funding from them your party can't survive.

[Wild Bill]

I'm sorry but I don't agree. This would mean that ONLY THE WEALTHY HAVE REPRESENTATION AND ONLY THE WEALTHY GET TO TELL US WHAT PARTIES ARE ALLOWED TO RUN. This is so not a democracy. We might as well cut to the chase and let Esso govern Canada...or the Powers Corporation. Hell, why have elections at all. Public funding means grassroots select parties.

Reality totally disagrees with you! I personally was involved in fundraising for the Reform Party. We had bake sales, car washes, passed KFC buckets at meetings for coin and paper, yard sales, individual donations of anything from a buck to a few hundred bucks...whatever we could get!

Few of the members in my riding were 'upper class'. Most were lower middle. Just ordinary working joes and retirees, for the most part.

That's what grassroots means! There is no virtue in just being handed money. Or in promoting getting your money from OTHER PEOPLE'S TAXES!

We did it! With phenomenal success! Why? Because we had a cause that appealed to enough grassroots folks!

If a new party can't do the same, they don't deserve to survive. They would be just another bunch of parasites, sucking at the government teat for free money while deluding themselves they have significant popular support.

In fact, I don't think 'elitist' would be too strong a word.

[Progressive Tory]

Really only the wealthy do you even know what the average contribution is to the political parties? The average to the CPC is $117. $10 dollars a month. I don't know about yuou but I can afford that, but many contribute even less, 10, 15 20, 30 or even 40. Is getting these amounts impossible form any party. These aren't the wealthy people. Donations being capped at 2200 makes it so that even the wealth can contribute enough to buy influence. So what you have said aboive has really no merit.

Private funding through grassroots donations means that the grassroots has final say over the party, if you can't apeal to your grassroots and get funding from them your party can't survive.

Clearly you've never been poor. Good for you. $ 10.00 a month can make a big difference to many families in this country. I'm thrilled that my vote gives my selected party 1.95 Absolutely thrilled. Finally a government expenditure that makes sense. It means I'm not just a member of the proletariat and I can use my $ 10.00 a month for bread.

Now I can't get that song out of my head... "You say you want a revolution..."