Flaherty to slash public funding for federal parties

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will slash almost $30 million a year in public funding for federal parties, in a move that would save taxpayers' money but deal a major financial blow to opposition parties, CTV News has learned.

Flaherty will present the measures in his fiscal update at 4 p.m. tomorrow.

"The government intends to run the economy and run the budget in a responsible way," he said Wednesday.

Currently, the major federal parties get $1.95 per vote on an annual basis. In the last election, roughly 14 million eligible voters cast their ballots, which translated to $27 million in taxpayers' money for the parties each year.

Under the new proposal, this is how much the parties stand to lose:

* Conservatives: $10 million

* Liberals: $7.7 million

* NDP: $4.9 million

* Bloc Quebecois: $2.6 million

* Green Party: $1.8 million

It is a pretty cynical ploy in the government doesn't intend to allow larger donations for the parties.

[Cameron]

Jeeez! I'll have to up my donation this year to the CPC.

That's too bad that the LPC sucks at raising money....sucks to be them.

[jdobbin]

Jeeez! I'll have to up my donation this year to the CPC.

That's too bad that the LPC sucks at raising money....sucks to be them.

It used to suck to be Tory too with all the Liberal corporate donations.

I think the Liberals should set up a foundation and do all their research, party operations and such there. They can solicit corporate donations and union donations then because it would not be for a political party but for a charitable research foundation.

It is sure to make Tories scream but if they try to change the law, they will hurt their buddies at the Fraser and C.D. Howe groups.

Edited November 27, 2008 by jdobbin

[msj]

It used to suck to be Tory too with all the Liberal corporate donations.

I think the Liberals should set up a foundation and do all their research, party operations and such there. They can solicit corporate donations and union donations then because it would not be for a political party but for a charitable research foundation.

It is sure to make Tories scream but if they try to change the law, they will hurt their buddies at the Fraser and C.D. Howe groups.

That would be fun.

Then we could view their finances just like the Fraser Institute and C.D. Howe.

[cybercoma]

Although it seems CTV (I didn't look at the other news stories yet) is spinning this as a blow to the opposition parties, with a quote from Bob Rae indicating as much, I applaud this move. Why is public money going to fund political parties anyway? If you want to support a party, send them your money of your own free will. The federal government should not take your income by force (try skipping out on your taxes to see what I mean) and distribute it out to the politicians and their parties. The savings that will come out of this is much needed.

[Alta4ever]

Sweeeeeet! I love it when the government reduces unneeded spending.

[cybercoma]

On the other hand, it's better for the parties to be accountable to the public, rather than large donors, such as businesses, unions or special interest groups. You don't bite the hand that feeds and if that hand happens to be a corporate donor, the electorate may get left out in the cold. If it is the electorate's money that goes to support the party, then the politicians and parties may be less in the pocket of corporate donors and special interest groups.

[cybercoma]

I don't know where I stand.

[Alta4ever]

On the other hand, it's better for the parties to be accountable to the public, rather than large donors, such as businesses, unions or special interest groups. You don't bite the hand that feeds and if that hand happens to be a corporate donor, the electorate may get left out in the cold. If it is the electorate's money that goes to support the party, then the politicians and parties may be less in the pocket of corporate donors and special interest groups.

There are no corporate donations, thats the beauty of this, the parties will be even more reliant on their base, which means average citizens not the tax payer, lobbists, special interests, or corporate big whigs.

[August1991]

Although it seems CTV (I didn't look at the other news stories yet) is spinning this as a blow to the opposition parties, with a quote from Bob Rae indicating as much, I applaud this move. Why is public money going to fund political parties anyway? If you want to support a party, send them your money of your own free will. The federal government should not take your income by force (try skipping out on your taxes to see what I mean) and distribute it out to the politicians and their parties. The savings that will come out of this is much needed.

Cybercoma, what's the difference between sending $1.95 each year to your party of choice or voting in an election and in effect doing the same?

Presumably, the Conservatives are going to refund this $30 million back to taxpayers and then we can either keep the cash or write a cheque for the political party of our choice.

By allocating the political donation according to our vote, we save all the costs of mailing out solicitation letters and making phone calls to cadge donations.

Under the $1.95 scheme, teh money may come from the government (and taxpayers) but it is individual voters who decide directly who gets the subsidy. It is hard to imagine a more democratic way to make government policy.

----

Before the Conservatives think that they've found the magic bullet, they should consider how Obama raised so much money compared to McCain. The Internet changes how some things work.

[Alta4ever]

Cybercoma, what's the difference between sending $1.95 each year to your party of choice or voting in an election and in effect doing the same?

Presumably, the Conservatives are going to refund this $30 million back to taxpayers and then we can either keep the cash or write a cheque for the political party of our choice.

By allocating the political donation according to our vote, we save all the costs of mailing out solicitation letters and making phone calls to cadge donations.

Under the $1.95 scheme, teh money may come from the government (and taxpayers) but it is individual voters who decide directly who gets the subsidy. It is hard to imagine a more democratic way to make government policy.

----

Before the Conservatives think that they've found the magic bullet, they should consider how Obama raised so much money compared to McCain. The Internet changes how some things work.

The difference is thew motivation, if you want to contribute by all means contribute, but to automatically hand over funds b ecause you voted for that party is different. How many times are we asked to pick from a bunch of bad candidates? You vote for the best of the three but you don't want to donate to their campaign, but according to the law now you vote also counts as a donation of $1.95. So the only way not to donate is not to vote. Sometimes money is the best factor in reforming a party instead of having the status quo, no donations sends a very clear message. Besides I can think of several different budget items that the 30 million would be better spent on.

[jdobbin]

That would be fun.

Then we could view their finances just like the Fraser Institute and C.D. Howe.

What did you want to show in your links?

[jdobbin]

Sweeeeeet! I love it when the government reduces unneeded spending.

They should reduce it on what is spent by political parties during elections as well. They should reduce it money spent for political operations overall.

[jdobbin]

Besides I can think of several different budget items that the 30 million would be better spent on.

Such as a larger federal cabinet?

[Alta4ever]

They should reduce it on what is spent by political parties during elections as well.

Why? This will in effect do exactly that, what will be spent on future campaigns is what the party will be able to afford.

[jdobbin]

There are no corporate donations, thats the beauty of this, the parties will be even more reliant on their base, which means average citizens not the tax payer, lobbists, special interests, or corporate big whigs.

The taxpayer still has to pay with personal income deductions for donors.

At the moment, the Tories are only thinking about helping themselves with the change. Go ahead and make it but raise the donation limit to what it was pre-2006.

If not, don't expect much cooperation in Parliament.

Harper wants an election before May. He'll call it if the Opposition doesn't.

[Alta4ever]

Such as a larger federal cabinet?

Why the venom? why not cut the tavel budget of that liberal CBC appointee who tavels like a queen?

Edited November 27, 2008 by Alta4ever

[Alta4ever]

The taxpayer still has to pay with personal income deductions for donors.

At the moment, the Tories are only thinking about helping themselves with the change. Go ahead and make it but raise the donation limit to what it was pre-2006.

If not, don't expect much cooperation in Parliament.

Harper wants an election before May. He'll call it if the Opposition doesn't.

I dare the libs and the bloc to vote this down......

[Bryan]

Under the $1.95 scheme, teh money may come from the government (and taxpayers) but it is individual voters who decide directly who gets the subsidy. It is hard to imagine a more democratic way to make government policy.

Except that you are in effect charging people to vote. The way it is now, you don't get the choice to vote and/or donate, you're forced to take both. Making funding by direct donation only is more democratic because then all donations are voluntary. You can vote, or donate, or both. Plus you can donate as little or as much as you want (up to the $1100 limit).

Before the Conservatives think that they've found the magic bullet, they should consider how Obama raised so much money compared to McCain. The Internet changes how some things work.

The CPC already raise more than twice as much money as all the other parties combined, and they have twice as many individual donor than all the other parties combined. They'd been doing online donations long before anyone ever heard of Obama.

This is the ultimate win-win issue for the CPC. It's brilliant. If they get it through, it chops both the Liberals and the Bloc off at the knees. If it gets defeated, even better. Any party that forces an election over this will face serious wrath from the electorate.

[drewski]

this reeks of nasty partisan politics which goes against Harper new policy of being less aggressive and "playing nice".

IF Harper was fair, this would be a temporary move combined with a matching temporary move to raise individual donation limits and allow corporate donations to make up for lost revenues for the parties

Edited November 27, 2008 by drewski

[Keepitsimple]

This is only an issue because the Conservatives happen to be the most efficient at raising funds via the rules instituted by Parliament. You might ask why that is? Keep in mind it was the Liberals who changed the rules. I acknowledge that the Conservatives further lowered the personal contribution limits - but the elimination of large corporate donations was a Liberal initiative. So why all the fuss? If the opposition parties continue to belittle the Conservatives for being ideological or "taking Canada on the wrong path"....then find people who agree with them and get them to donate. Getting donations from individual citizens is one of the best expressions of democracy that I can think of.

Edited November 27, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[cybercoma]

this reeks of nasty partisan politics which goes against Harper new policy of being less aggressive and "playing nice".

"Playing nice" is such a vague term that it can be used against Harper for nearly everything. It's silly to even pose that as an argument.

ie. Taking money from Canadians by force in the form of taxation is against the nature of Harper's policy to "play nice". It is not nice to rob from the working poor only to subsidize industries and give corporate tax-breaks.

[drewski]

"Playing nice" is such a vague term that it can be used against Harper for nearly everything. It's silly to even pose that as an argument.

ie. Taking money from Canadians by force in the form of taxation is against the nature of Harper's policy to "play nice". It is not nice to rob from the working poor only to subsidize industries and give corporate tax-breaks.

not really as it was in reference to his marching orders for Conservatives in Parliament to be less aggressive, and this plan goes totally against that directive

[capricorn]

If not, don't expect much cooperation in Parliament.

Pat Martin pretty well indicated the NDP won't support the move.

"This is huge. This is so audacious and outrageous," said Pat Martin, an NDP MP from Winnipeg. "This means war."

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...fe-4ed240b925f2

He repeated his words in an interview on CFRA radio this morning. He added that the opposition parties could vote against the government and ask the GG's permission to form a coalition government to avoid an election.

[Wild Bill]

What did you want to show in your links?

You'll have to excuse him, jdobbin. After all, those are GOVERNMENT links! Of course they don't work!

It's the same with lottery tickets. In Canada, they're all made by the government.