Poltical Party Welfare

Progressive Tory · January 17, 2009

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.

So Conrad Black was grassroots? I have a list of the Reform Party's contributors back in the day of garage sales and bake sales. Pretty impressive lot. 20,000.00 from Hollinger in 1993 alone. Connie must really like brownies.

Alta4ever · January 17, 2009

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..."

I am by no means wealthy. But I do understand democracy something the liberals party doesn't. Please remind me how it is you people pick a leader ( when you don't just a have a coronation) You send delgates that each have so many votes. How the CPC does it, one member on vote. Which is more democratic? You should also read wild bills response above.

And as I said many only can give 10 or 20 dollars a year. Heck if all you wanted to donate was the 1.95 the party would be happy to accept that.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Alta4ever

Wild Bill · January 17, 2009

Heck if all you wanted to donate was the 1.95 the party would be happy to accept that.

Hell, he doesn't even actually give the $1.95 out of his own pocket! It comes from general tax revenues!

If someone is that poor that they can't afford a toonie out of their own pocket for a party they supposedly support then the least they could do is get off their butt and help out at a car wash rally or something. We never saw Conrad Black's $20,000 in our riding's bank account but we raised more than $20,000 when the average donation was more like $20!

Some folks would appear to want revolution either on the cheap or on someone else's tab.

Molly · January 17, 2009

If Alta4ever is correct on the '$117.10 a month', then the average Conservative donation is giving $695 of taxpayers money to the Conservative party-- the equivalent of 356 votes-- and only $710 of their own.

So long as there is a generous tax deduction on political donations, Conservative partisan objections to 'giving taxpayers money to political parties' is entirely specious, and so are any claims that the Conservative party is living on anything other than the largesse of taxpayers.

Wild Bill · January 17, 2009

If Alta4ever is correct on the '$117.10 a month', then the average Conservative donation is giving $695 of taxpayers money to the Conservative party-- the equivalent of 356 votes-- and only $710 of their own.
So long as there is a generous tax deduction on political donations, Conservative partisan objections to 'giving taxpayers money to political parties' is entirely specious, and so are any claims that the Conservative party is living on anything other than the largesse of taxpayers.

Molly, we never got a tax deduction for running bake sales and car washes! To get a deduction you had to give at least $100, of which maybe 75% became a deduction. So you were still out $25. Huge sums of money were raised by volunteer EFFORT and not sitting on your ass expecting the government to give tax dollars, which essentially comes from everybody's money and not just your own, in your name so you can take the credit and feel all smug.

Whatever. The other parties all get the same deduction. They also could run the bake sales and car washes. They historically chose to get their money from fat cats, big corporations and unions. Somehow they either can't or won't make the effort to get money from ordinary people, with grassroots volunteer energy.

My point still stands. New parties have the same opportunity. It would seem they choose not to do so, for whatever reason. Essentially, they want it for free or they won't get off their ass.

Some show of passion and dedication to their ideals, eh?

Edited January 17, 2009 by Wild Bill

Progressive Tory · January 17, 2009

I am by no means wealthy. But I do understand democracy something the liberals party doesn't. Please remind me how it is you people pick a leader ( when you don't just a have a coronation) You send delgates that each have so many votes. How the CPC does it, one member on vote. Which is more democratic? You should also read wild bills response above.
And as I said many only can give 10 or 20 dollars a year. Heck if all you wanted to donate was the 1.95 the party would be happy to accept that.

You people? What people? I'm only now a Liberal by default, and am throwing my energies into supporting Michael Ignatieff because he best represents my Red Tory views. NDP too far left...CP too far right. I'm hardly a 'you people'.

For most people political contributions are not on their lists of priorities. I made my first ever political contribution this year. $ 100.00 to the Liberals (BTW money is coming in quite steadily for them now, or so I'm told by the local rep.) Still want the 1.95 in place because I know that most people can't do that. I won on a scratch ticket and was feeling particularly 'Iggy' that day.

Muddy · January 17, 2009

As long as we the people are forced to pay for established political partys ,that means we can never have new partys emerge with new ideas. Never again will a CCF,NDP or Reform Party come out of nowhere to shake up the establishment. We are destroying our own empowerment. What happens if we do get coalition governments that will leave us but one party left standing. What would you call it? The Communist Party? No to using tax payers money for established partys!

Molly · January 17, 2009

Bill, I understand what you are saying- truly do, since I've done enough political fund-raising myself, but know this:

Firstly, everything over $20 is supposed to be reciepted and reported; secondly, there is no minimum contribution deduction, and up to $400, it IS 75%, not 'maybe', but just plain IS, so by donating an actual $25 of your own money and claiming a deduction for it, you are also commandeering $75 of taxpayers money.

However, I think you mistake the real source of the cash your party spends. The real function of bake sales and car washes and the ilk is 'team building', through public branding and 'tribal' engagement. The actual money raised is minimal, and often not enough to cover the costs incurred- costs like candidates travel to be there to shake hands, site rental, advertising of the event. Often enough, cash collected from event participants is based more in the concept of 'percieved value' than actual cost-recovery. If it was free, it would be deemed not worth attending, but if a price tag is attatched, it is percieved as actually having value- more folks attend, and feel more as though they've done something important.

So you are right in that those things exhibit/build commitment, but wrong, IMIO, in believing that they are a very important source of party income.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Molly

Progressive Tory · January 17, 2009

As long as we the people are forced to pay for established political partys ,that means we can never have new partys emerge with new ideas. Never again will a CCF,NDP or Reform Party come out of nowhere to shake up the establishment. We are destroying our own empowerment. What happens if we do get coalition governments that will leave us but one party left standing. What would you call it? The Communist Party? No to using tax payers money for established partys!

WE...you and I...and everyone else on this board and in this country have the power to not allow that to happen. Harper united the Right, but also united the Left. He removed the competition for all those leaning right of centre. Now all those Left of centre may have to unite, albeit temporarily, to break down the monopoly.

By using OUR money, a mere $1.95 from our staggering tax burden, to ensure that any political Party with enough support can stand for US, is an investment.

The Right may be united but that doesn't mean that another Right Wing Party can't move up the ranks. There is already rumbling that the Reform may rise from ashes, since their social conservative agenda has had to take a back seat. Some may call them right-wing nutjobs, but their MPs were not elected despite their views, but because of them. How can they represent their constituents, if they're not even allowed to express those views because Harper needs to convince Canadians that they DON'T HAVE THEM. That's Democracy?

My alluding to revolution was supposed to be tongue in cheek. As a 'proletariat' in a socialist regime, I would have no choice. Maybe instead of tax breaks for political contributions, which give the wealthy more voice, we should eliminate them and instead make the subsidy $ 5.00 per vote. That way all voters are on the same level.

BTW: When I volunteered for Flora MacDonald, we did all kinds of things too...car washes, tag sales. Nothing new there and still not enough to run a multi-million dollar campaign.

Smallc · January 17, 2009

With the vote subsidy in place, if I vote Liberal or NDP in Dauphin - Swan River - Marquette, then my vote counts for something. With no vote subsidy, my vote ceases to count.

Progressive Tory · January 17, 2009

With the vote subsidy in place, if I vote Liberal or NDP in Dauphin - Swan River - Marquette, then my vote counts for something. With no vote subsidy, my vote ceases to count.

That's it exactly. At least our vote is worth $ 1.95 to our party of choice.

madmax · January 17, 2009

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)

Just helping get a better handle on the topic and promoting this poll that Alta4ever started back in November.

madmax · January 17, 2009

Public funding means grassroots select parties.

Public Funding didn't create the Reform Party, National Party, CCF, NDP, LPC, PC, Progressives, and a myriad of others including the BQ and Conservative Party.

Votes should not be used as the method to dip into the government coffers. It is a smokescreen. Just what "Grassroots" has public funding given the CPC?

Just what Grassroots has public funding given the LPC?

A Green Party activist on this site put it clearly. THey needed political funding so that they could hold a convention?

The CPC have so much money, they use the extra Public Funding to bash the LPC with more literature, propoganda and television and radio attack adds.

We should not be using government money to support political parties.

THe fact is, if you have grass roots, you will not need political funding.

If people don't believe enough to give to your party, or don't care enough to work on a campaign.

THen that isn't grass roots.

madmax · January 17, 2009

With the vote subsidy in place, if I vote Liberal or NDP in Dauphin - Swan River - Marquette, then my vote counts for something. With no vote subsidy, my vote ceases to count.

That is such a crock and a copout.

If that $1.95 was so damned important, pass up on the coffee and donut, and give $1.95 to the party directly.

The $1.95 is a red herring for people who make hey over it.

I still see no reason for my taxes to go to the BQ, let alone the wealthy fat cats CPC, or the LPC which has governed for over 100years. There are other parties, that if they are going to make their mark are going to have to do it through Grass roots, not my pocketbook.

Essentially these parties are picking the taxpayers pockets of the near 50% who do not vote. This money doesn't go to government services, it goes to selfish, greedy political parties.

BTW the pro public financing vote has a large lead.....

Edited January 17, 2009 by madmax

Smallc · January 17, 2009

If that $1.95 was so damned important, pass up on the coffee and donut, and give $1.95 to the party directly.

I do donate the the party directly. I still want my vote to count.

DFCaper · January 17, 2009

That is such a crock and a copout.
If that $1.95 was so damned important, pass up on the coffee and donut, and give $1.95 to the party directly.

The $1.95 is a red herring for people who make hey over it.

I still see no reason for my taxes to go to the BQ, let alone the wealthy fat cats CPC, or the LPC which has governed for over 100years. There are other parties, that if they are going to make their mark are going to have to do it through Grass roots, not my pocketbook.

Essentially these parties are picking the taxpayers pockets of the near 50% who do not vote. This money doesn't go to government services, it goes to selfish, greedy political parties.

I pay taxes like every Canadian resident. And on election day, I get to actually decide where some of it gets spent. $1.95 of my taxes dollars. If I lived in Quebec and voted BQ, then I have made thesame decision. I don't feel that my tax dollars went to the BQ, as I never voted for them.

I have not voted the same way twice in a long time. I have no association with any party. Aspects of each offend me, and thus are not worth more than my 1.95 donation. I am more comfortable with the open minded people of this country are funding the parties as strongly as the sheep. I give enough of my money to the government on payday and whenever I spend any.

I don't have your level sympathy for non voters... Plus they result in less tax money going to the parties.... Almost makes their indifference actually cost the parties money. This may help motivate the politians to engage the people so they can receive the extra money that is available.

I do agree with smallc that it does make a green vote count in Alberta....

Progressive Tory · January 17, 2009

That is such a crock and a copout.
If that $1.95 was so damned important, pass up on the coffee and donut, and give $1.95 to the party directly.

The $1.95 is a red herring for people who make hey over it.

I still see no reason for my taxes to go to the BQ, let alone the wealthy fat cats CPC, or the LPC which has governed for over 100years. There are other parties, that if they are going to make their mark are going to have to do it through Grass roots, not my pocketbook.

Essentially these parties are picking the taxpayers pockets of the near 50% who do not vote. This money doesn't go to government services, it goes to selfish, greedy political parties.

BTW the pro public financing vote has a large lead.....

If democracy is to survive in this country we have got to get people engaged. The last election posted THE WORST VOTER TURNOUT IN OUR HISTORY! Someone here suggested that lower voter turnout works in favour of his Conservative Party. This can't be used as a strategy.

Every election for the last 20 years that Peter Milliken has represented Kingston, his office calls me to remind me to vote and asks if I need a ride. I told them one year that I wasn't voting for him. They said it didn't matter, they just wanted to make sure I voted. Last election was the first time I ever voted for the poor man, though I never hit him up for a ride either. That has stuck with me.

Under Karl Rove, the Republicans tried to stop this practice by the Democrats, and some have been jailed when they were caught. http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/4/4/16157/21121

I will campaign for candidates I like, but first and foremost encourage people to vote. Last election, my son's friend said he wasn't going to bother because his Party, the NDP, didn't have a chance. I reminded him that at least they got $ 1.95 of his tax money, so his vote did count. He went with my son to cast his ballot.

I would absolutely hate to think that wanting to scrap the subsidy was about more than just wanting to bankrupt his opponents; but also take away any incentives to vote for anyone else. If so, Karl Rove will be very proud. Me, not so much.

Barts · January 17, 2009

What you're all forgetting is the concept of a new political party forming under the current election law. A federal political party can be formed with one person running in an election or a by-election being endorsed by 250 people. Now how does that one person who may have the best possible idea and be the best possible person to lead the country go about raising the funds necessary to run a campaign that will compete with the established parties? Can't be done. Those who think that good ideas and good people will simply rise to the top and gain support are delusional.

The fact is the present system is so grotesquely anti-democratic that it makes forming new political parties or movements impossible. Had the current election finance regulatory structure been in place in 1987, there would have been no Reform Party, and, therefore, no Conservative Party today. Nor would there be any Bloc Quebecois. The House of Commons after 1993 would have been the Liberals and the NDP.

I'm not an advocate of going back to the hoary old days of unlimited corporate and union financing, but the current system needs reform so that it encourages not discourages political participation. For a start, individual political donations should be increased back to the $5,200 that the Conservatives reduced to the current $1,100.

As well, parties without sitting members, ought to have a more lenient fund raising regime so that they can raise the start up funds they need. After all, how can a party without MPs be corrupted to unduly influence legislation for a contributor?

bush_cheney2004 · January 17, 2009

....I would absolutely hate to think that wanting to scrap the subsidy was about more than just wanting to bankrupt his opponents; but also take away any incentives to vote for anyone else. If so, Karl Rove will be very proud. Me, not so much.

Karl Rove doesn't give a crap what you do, or how you do it. Just sayin'....

Vancouver King · January 17, 2009

Karl Rove doesn't give a crap what you do, or how you do it. Just sayin'....

Got your tickets to the inaugaration?

bush_cheney2004 · January 17, 2009

Got your tickets to the inaugaration?

What inauguration? It's more fun to watch the state funerals.

Wild Bill · January 17, 2009

Bill, I understand what you are saying- truly do, since I've done enough political fund-raising myself, but know this:
Firstly, everything over $20 is supposed to be reciepted and reported; secondly, there is no minimum contribution deduction, and up to $400, it IS 75%, not 'maybe', but just plain IS, so by donating an actual $25 of your own money and claiming a deduction for it, you are also commandeering $75 of taxpayers money.

However, I think you mistake the real source of the cash your party spends. The real function of bake sales and car washes and the ilk is 'team building', through public branding and 'tribal' engagement. The actual money raised is minimal, and often not enough to cover the costs incurred- costs like candidates travel to be there to shake hands, site rental, advertising of the event. Often enough, cash collected from event participants is based more in the concept of 'percieved value' than actual cost-recovery. If it was free, it would be deemed not worth attending, but if a price tag is attatched, it is percieved as actually having value- more folks attend, and feel more as though they've done something important.

So you are right in that those things exhibit/build commitment, but wrong, IMIO, in believing that they are a very important source of party income.

We all comment from our own experience. I don't know for what party you worked at fundraising, Molly. I have no experience with the present Conservative Party. To me, it has become a clone of the old PC party from the days of Mulroney and has actually deliberately removed any reference or party plank from the Reform/Alliance days. As I'm prone to say, I no longer know why Manning bothered.

I comment only from my own experience of the late 80's and early 90's. Documenting anything over $20 in a passed-around bucket would have been impossible. Car washes, bake sales, entertainment nights and even street corner busking earned much more than you imply. Sure it built a sense of team involvement but it also paid for a LOT more than just coffee and doughnuts at the meetings!

The effect of having large numbers of free volunteers almost has to be seen to be believed. I still remember my first time as a scrutineer at my local polling station. The usual practice was for the Liberals and PCs to have a scrutineer or two at each polling station, PAID by their party! They tended to wear suits, especially the Liberals.

We had a Reform scrutineer at EVERY polling booth in EVERY polling station, volunteering for FREE! The Liberals were obviously shocked.

Those days seem to be gone. The missing factor is inspiration. Manning was leading a movement that appealed to large numbers of people, targeting many of the things about our system and how we are governed that are not respected by many citizens. We seem to have slid back to the old ways. Is it any wonder that the voter apathy problem keeps growing? Our choices now are the same as they've always been; "Huey, Dewey and Screwy!"

This issue of political welfare seems to be peculiarly Canadian. We like to compare ourselves to the Americans as being 'kinder and gentler' by having more government run social problems but if you look at the data you see that if we talk PRIVATE charity we Canadians are skinflints to them by comparison! We donate only a small fraction out of our own pockets as compared to the Americans to charities like the United Way, the Sally Ann or others. We are more content to let charity flow from general tax revenues and feel all warm, fuzzy and frankly elitist about it!

Where's the equivalent to Obama-mania here in Canada? Sure it may be a bit over the top but you can't deny the man is inspiring. Maybe there will be a bit of a letdown when they realize they are expecting too much of him. He's a human being and not a magician, after all. Still, if a leader is inspiring it can be amazing what can be accomplished. JFK put America on the moon through inspiration.

Speaking of JFK, there is that famous quote of "Ask not what your country can do for you but rather what you can do for your country!" Here we are discussing having our country pay for our political parties rather than doing it ourselves.

It may drift the thread a bit but I feel it is connected to say that letting general tax revenues pay parties is another symptom of our lack of inspiration and a direct reflection of why fewer and fewer citizens are bothering to vote. None of our party leaders have the inspiration of a turnip! Compared to Manning, a Harper speech could freeze water.

The parties are all run by suits and admen, so busy fighting for the middle that they have lost everyone on either side of that mystical mean. Mulroney's two record-setting majorities, the two of Mike Harris and 'Trudeau-mania' were not spawned from fighting for the lowest common denominator.

If anyone thinks that letting $1.95 from EVERYONE'S taxes follow his vote makes him a political revolutionary then I submit he needs to spend more time off his couch. It is about as significant as an NDP 'Rent-A-Protester'.

Molly · January 17, 2009

Gosh Bill, that report is so sadly... ONTARIO! (I live in Ontario now, and just shake my head over some of what I see here. )

I worked with/for the Progressive Conservatives, for a couple of decades, a tiny bit with Reform, and a couple of elections for the Liberal party (and a whole bunch of non-partisan and/or single issue stuff). I personally arranged for hundreds of scrutineers for the PCs- wouldn't even want to try to count up the elections, federal and provincial- and never once, ever, were any of those scrutineers offered a dime for their services, not even in reimbursement of obvious, recieptable out-of-pocket costs. The biggest (only) perk was supper delivered to some that pulled very long inside shifts at out-of-the-way polls, and it was supplied by other volunteers, not the party.

We aimed for 3 or 4 outside and one or more at all times inside per poll.

Muddy · January 17, 2009

What you're all forgetting is the concept of a new political party forming under the current election law. A federal political party can be formed with one person running in an election or a by-election being endorsed by 250 people. Now how does that one person who may have the best possible idea and be the best possible person to lead the country go about raising the funds necessary to run a campaign that will compete with the established parties? Can't be done. Those who think that good ideas and good people will simply rise to the top and gain support are delusional.
The fact is the present system is so grotesquely anti-democratic that it makes forming new political parties or movements impossible. Had the current election finance regulatory structure been in place in 1987, there would have been no Reform Party, and, therefore, no Conservative Party today. Nor would there be any Bloc Quebecois. The House of Commons after 1993 would have been the Liberals and the NDP.

I'm not an advocate of going back to the hoary old days of unlimited corporate and union financing, but the current system needs reform so that it encourages not discourages political participation. For a start, individual political donations should be increased back to the $5,200 that the Conservatives reduced to the current $1,100.

As well, parties without sitting members, ought to have a more lenient fund raising regime so that they can raise the start up funds they need. After all, how can a party without MPs be corrupted to unduly influence legislation for a contributor?

I believe you are in agreement then with my post earlier. This party welfare is very undemocratic. They make it impossible for a new party to rise and challenge the status quo. I enjoyed my time raising money and organizing for the Reform Party. I ,a truely conservative gent in his later years became a rebel with a cause.

We could never have done what we did under todays financing of established Partys.

Smallc · January 17, 2009

They make it impossible for a new party to rise and challenge the status quo.

Why? It really changed nothing in that regard. What it did was take the larger parties out of the hands of the rich and the corporate world and place them into the hands of the public in terms of a funding model.