Flaherty to slash public funding for federal parties

[Topaz]

I saw this story over on www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/26/update-subsidy.html and this is just another way for the Cons to get Canada to a one party rule. Even though the Cons have 10 Mil in subs, they have the strong fundraising base and so their subs are only 37% of the total party revenues. I would still believe this way if it were the Libs or the NDP in power and we Canadians need to have a choice of parties if we don't think the party seating is doing enough for us. The Cons will always have no problem with money because they have alliance supporters plus the pc supporters. Again I think the Cons are playing dirty!

[Argus]

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.

Gee, jdobbin, you appear to be saying that ordinary people will never donate to the Liberal Party of Canada, that the only way for them to survive is to sell themselves like whores to corporate interests - which they did so well over the previous few decades, or to be on the public dole.

Why is that?

[Argus]

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

You WANT corporate donations?? You like it when the rich can buy off politicians, do you?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

This whole thing could blow up in his face. Having another election would be a travesty, but an understandable consequence of our parliamentary system. I think Harper is wrong, and I think it will cost him.

[drewski]

You WANT corporate donations?? You like it when the rich can buy off politicians, do you?

don't twist my words. I never said I supported corporate donations. I only said if you're going to remove the government subsidy that was put in place to make up for corporate donations being banned and individual limits being lower, then its only fair to allow them again

Personally, seeing as its only a drop in the bucket, my preference would be to leave the subsidies and limits as is

[M.Dancer]

I don't like the idea of taxpayer money being directed simply because it is a statistical certainty that a party, any party will receive some votes...in my opinion that is a waste.

I would rather there be no corporate donations, lobbiest or union donations either. There should only be one two ways for a party to raise money, individual donations and lottery tickets...Just like the Hospitals...

[Alta4ever]

don't twist my words. I never said I supported corporate donations. I only said if you're going to remove the government subsidy that was put in place to make up for corporate donations being banned and individual limits being lower, then its only fair to allow them again

Personally, seeing as its only a drop in the bucket, my preference would be to leave the subsidies and limits as is

So why can't the other party get their s--t together and learn how to fund raise from their party base. Its not like this is rocket science, or is it that you just don't want to have to do the work?

[jdobbin]

Gee, jdobbin, you appear to be saying that ordinary people will never donate to the Liberal Party of Canada, that the only way for them to survive is to sell themselves like whores to corporate interests - which they did so well over the previous few decades, or to be on the public dole.

Why is that?

I personally think that some Liberals such as Rae and Ignatieff have shown that they can raise money in small donations. Between the two of them, they raised millions. Problem was that it was for their leadership campaigns and not the party.

The very low mark the Tories put on donations means that if a member of the party attends a convention, they have reached their max donation for the year. This year you can see that the Tories found that many of the members were not able to attend their own convention because they had reached their max donation. The party let those people come free. That to me sounds like a donation to the member under the present law because convention attendance has a cash value.

The only reason the Tories lowered the more reasonable limit of $5000 was to squeeze Liberals. They only way the Tories have gotten around the law this year for their convention is by playing games and making attendance free for some and making others pay.

I have explained where I think controls need to be made to on party financing. I think that parties have to be limited in what they spend in a year. Period. I don't care who donates and how much. It really doesn't matter if there is a rock solid law on how much can be spent annually or during an election campaign. Any extra money a party raises would have to sit in the bank and any influence someone hoped to get by donating would dwindle.

If need be, I think that the Liberals can completely turn their financing around to raise more than the Tories on $5 donations. I believe one of Dion's many mistakes was not to revamp party financing to bring in the small donations. Ignatieff and Rae have that it for themselves but it still hasn't hit for the central party.

None of this will solve the problem of the now low threshold and how parties have to get around it now by making things free and hoping Elections Canada doesn't call it an illegal donation. You really can't have a party or leadership convention and an election in the same year without trying to get around the law. I find that disturbing.

I personally don't think donation limits are the way to go. Want to limit donor influence? Limit how much a party spends.

[msj]

What did you want to show in your links?

Awww, poop.

I wanted to link directly to their charity returns which are a fun read.

You should be able to search for them here:

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/se...Type=Registered

[jdobbin]

Awww, poop.

I wanted to link directly to their charity returns which are a fun read.

You should be able to search for them here:

Thanks.

I wonder why more parties haven't set up a charity foundation to do a lot more of the nuts and bolts work of party policy development, polling and the like.

[Alta4ever]

I personally don't think donation limits are the way to go. Want to limit donor influence? Limit how much a party spends.

Please explain this it doesn't make sense. Limiting donor influence means limiting the amount that can be donated, putting a spending cap on an election does nothing to stop 100,000 donoations from people looking for favours as they donor will know have more influence over the party then someone who donates 1,000.

I suggest you pick up the phone for theliberal party and start building a donor base.

Edited November 27, 2008 by Alta4ever

[jdobbin]

So why can't the other party get their s--t together and learn how to fund raise from their party base. Its not like this is rocket science, or is it that you just don't want to have to do the work?

Some Liberals have shown they are quite adept at raising money. I suspect if Rae or Ignatieff were leader, the central party financing would be much better. However, I also suspect the Tories would lower the donor limit to $500 in another cynical ploy of advantage.

[jdobbin]

Please explain this it doesn't make sense. Limiting donor influence means limiting the amount that can be donated, putting a spending cap on an election does nothing to stop 100,000 donoations from people looking for favours as they donor will know have more influence over the party then someone who donates 1,000.

I suggest you pick up the phone for theliberal party and start building a donor base.

I have explained this more than once on these forums.

If the party is limited to a certain amount of money for spending each year and can't spend a penny above it, donors have less influence. Parties could finance their parties through a variety of ways all of them transparent and anything else raised would have to sit in the bank till next fiscal year.

In any event, the Liberals can and will reform their finances to bring small donations and I suspect that the Tories will again try to change the law to their advantage.

[eyeball]

This whole thing could blow up in his face. Having another election would be a travesty, but an understandable consequence of our parliamentary system. I think Harper is wrong, and I think it will cost him.

I agree. We're in a crisis that's largely been fueled by opportunistic financial greed and now Harper want's to initiate a crisis fueled by opportunistic political greed. Good timing eh?

With any luck the public will develop a demand for better controls and regulations over our parliamentary system as well as our financial system. Bring it on I say.

[Alta4ever]

I have explained this more than once on these forums.

If the party is limited to a certain amount of money for spending each year and can't spend a penny above it, donors have less influence. Parties could finance their parties through a variety of ways all of them transparent and anything else raised would have to sit in the bank till next fiscal year.

In any event, the Liberals can and will reform their finances to bring small donations and I suspect that the Tories will again try to change the law to their advantage.

Wrong the more you can give to the party the more influence that corporation, or person has with the party. Its like business the bigger the account the more attention and favors it gets. Most people can see right through your ploy, you want the big liberals bankers like power corp to beable to fund all of your camapaigns again. If you have people that are so good at getting donations, I suggest you put your money where you mouth is and start fundraising for the next election instead of borrowing for leadership races and then tring to pay off the debt.

[Alta4ever]

I agree. We're in a crisis that's largely been fueled by opportunistic financial greed and now Harper want's to initiate a crisis fueled by opportunistic political greed. Good timing eh?

With any luck the public will develop a demand for better controls and regulations over our parliamentary system as well as our financial system. Bring it on I say.

So the political parties shouldn't tighten their belts? They can just go on business as usual? What about those out their in the work force that will have to tighten their belts. Can your parties not fundraise, or is having to actually having to donate sometime and money of your own what scares you?

[Alta4ever]

Double post

Edited November 27, 2008 by Alta4ever

[jdobbin]

Wrong the more you can give to the party the more influence that corporation, or person has with the party. Its like business the bigger the account the more attention and favors it gets. Most people can see right through your ploy, you want the big liberals bankers like power corp to beable to fund all of your camapaigns again. If you have people that are so good at getting donations, I suggest you put your money where you mouth is and start fundraising for the next election instead of borrowing for leadership races and then tring to pay off the debt.

I am easy enough to track in terms of donations unlike your anonymous self. I do give and am involved in fundraising now.

As I said, Rae and Ignaieff raised millions and retired their debt. One of these men is likely to lead the party.

Everyone can see that the Tory move on financing is a cynical ploy at the moment. It is a party desperate to go to an election before the next six months are over because they know a lot of the Liberal spending will be on leadership.

The Liberals will be prepared for the next election. If the Tories really care about cutting back, they will cut their cabinet.

If the Tories are worried about the undue influence of money for political parties, they will limit what a party can spend in a year. That way they can say they have limited how much money in and out and not be seeing as some Machiavellian maneuver in Parliament.

Edited November 27, 2008 by jdobbin

[Oleg Bach]

Looks like Harper may be as ruthless as the late Trudeau. Evidently left and right are willing to destroy the other if possible. Old Conservatives used to refere to Pierre Trudeau privately as "the shark" - Looks like conservatives now have "the wolf".

[eyeball]

So the political parties shouldn't tighten their belts? They can just go on business as usual? What about those out their in the work force that will have to tighten their belts. Can your parties not fundraise, or is having to actually having to donate sometime and money of your own what scares you?

I think parliament needs to deal with the crisis in front of it not start another one. I think political parties all of them, should have leashes tightened around their necks.

If there was ever a time for our Govenor General to crack a whip it should be now. If the Conservatives are that determined to not govern then someone else should be given the chance.

[M.Dancer]

Crisis? What Crisis?

Who really cares if the parties cease being on the dole?

Don't like it, write your local fringe candidate a cheque with your own money...

[Michael Hardner]

Although I don't like what Harper is doing, and would like to see lower limits - I do want to point out that Canada's general approach to election spending is eons ahead of where the US is now where hundreds of millions of dollars are spent (all of which are favours that need to be repaid) and that money is used on mass advertising and the dumbing down of the discussion.

[Alta4ever]

I think parliament needs to deal with the crisis in front of it not start another one. I think political parties all of them, should have leashes tightened around their necks.

If there was ever a time for our Govenor General to crack a whip it should be now. If the Conservatives are that determined to not govern then someone else should be given the chance.

How does this create another crisis? This keeps tax payers monies in government programs, not political parties campaign teams.

You want a tight leash around the political parties necks this does it. Play to you base, or no money to fight elections it adds more accountablity to the system, and puts more power in the grassroots of the party. How is that ever a bad thing.

[Oleg Bach]

One party system in Canada would make us secure and competative - may as well join the internationalist socialists....I feel like singing - "it's a small world after all".

[Alta4ever]

I am easy enough to track in terms of donations unlike your anonymous self. I do give and am involved in fundraising now.

As I said, Rae and Ignaieff raised millions and retired their debt. One of these men is likely to lead the party.

Everyone can see that the Tory move on financing is a cynical ploy at the moment. It is a party desperate to go to an election before the next six months are over because they know a lot of the Liberal spending will be on leadership.

The Liberals will be prepared for the next election. If the Tories really care about cutting back, they will cut their cabinet.

If the Tories are worried about the undue influence of money for political parties, they will limit what a party can spend in a year. That way they can say they have limited how much money in and out and not be seeing as some Machiavellian maneuver in Parliament.

So what they should be easy to track, but no one person should have undue influence over a party and that is want huge donors have.

The cabinate runs the country, parties on the dole do not, while I am all for lower government spending, political party welfare is one of the most useless things to spending tax payer money on, all it does is fund signs and TV ads, it does nothing to further a country.

He is a solution for your leadership race, cut back on the expense and bank some money you may need it.