Political Party/Candidate Financing -How?

[August1991]

At present, if you vote in a federal election and assuming your ballot is accepted, you choose to give tax money ($1.75 each year) to the political party of your choice. (The party must meet a minimum threshold to receive the money.) This is one incentive to vote.

At the same time, federal regulations supposedly limit all other donations to $1,100 per "legal entity" per year. Link

There are ways around this.

Pierre-F. Côté, who wrote Quebec's party financing law, allowing only voters in the province to give money to political parties, now thinks corporate donations should also be allowed.

Addressing a citizen jury, made up of 12 ordinary Quebecers - six men and six women - Côté said yesterday the parties need a new source of funding.

Companies now find ways to get around the law, reimbursing employee contributions to parties, he said.

It would take "an army of investigators" to prove the law is being broken, Côté said.

Instead he proposed that corporate donations be regulated.

The Gazette

----

In democracies around the world, candidates and political parties need money to run campaigns and get elected. How to get this money? The problem exists (but is different) in municipal elections, regional elections and national elections.

Many societies in the world suffer from autocratic regimes. If there were a fair, simple, universal scheme to finance candidates and political organizations, democracy would be a more viable form of organizing the State.

In many ways, I like the American federal approach. The State subsidizes candidates under certain conditions. Otherwise, individuals are free to collect however much in whatever way they want. (BTW, Obama financed his campaign using private money and without State subsidy.)

It seems to me that the question is how to regulate campaign finances. The comment of Pierre F. Côté is relevant here.

IMV, municipal politics are the worst for influence. Dunno.

[Michael Hardner]

Well, as I recall all parties signed on to this around the time Martin was PM. Since it came in, Harper has won a few elections, and I would say the level of dialogue is better.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[August1991]

Well, as I recall all parties signed on to this around the time Martin was PM. Since it came in, Harper has won a few elections, and I would say the level of dialogue is better.

Harper? You miss the point, Michael.

If you care, go back and read the OP, and its link.

Edited January 19, 2010 by August1991

[ToadBrother]

I'd like to see an end to political donations as tax credits and political parties taxed for the fundraising and other money making ventures. Let parties raise as much as they want, and surrender, say, 50% to government coffers. That way, at least these foul dens of inequity could do some actual good.

[Michael Hardner]

Harper? You miss the point, Michael.

If you care, go back and read the OP, and its link.

I guess I did miss the point. The first link is about elections Canada, and you present the problem of funding political parties. I say that what we have now works on the federal level.

[Keepitsimple]

I think the $1.75 could be put to good use if the goal was to help new political parties get started......but there should be a threshold to be reached before the party qualifies and there should be diminishing per-vote funding as the party grows. I won't try to design the qualification formula on the fly but let's just say that any new party must be able to garner 100,000 votes with at least 10,000 in at least 3 provinces. All parties would qualify for funding as follows:

First 100,000 votes: $2.00 each

Next 200,000 votes: $1.50 each

Next 200,000 votes: $1. 00 each

All other votes: zero

The point is, the bigger the party, the better organized they would be to raise their own funds. At the same time, smaller parties would have access up to $700,000 to help them establish some infrastructure so they too, can learn (and earn the right) to stand on their own two feet. The qualification formula should be established to weed out local protest parties and reward a true national - or at least substantial regional party.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Bonam]

I don't see why public funding is necessary for political parties at all. If a party appeals to voters, they can donate. If a party can't get enough money to invest in physical infrastructure and media, there are plenty of free or cheap ways to get their point across (i.e. online). If a party doesn't appeal to voters and can't get any donations, and furthermore the members of the party are too lazy to get their message out online, I see no reason why they should be given money that is taken from already overtaxed citizens.

[William Ashley]

I think both regulation and tax dollar funded party funding is bogus especially when there are "vote" thresholds for people getting a few votes not getting any funding at all.

It is party slanted legislation plain and simple.

1. Get rid of financing restrictions, and spending restrictions.

2. Remove tax free status and NFP characteristics

3. Erase the requirement for auditors and deposits to run.

If they don't want their party to count as individual members income tax receiving gifts then have them register a corporation.

Politics is not a form of charity or philanthropy so it shouldn't be taxed as one.

[williat]

Politics is not a form of charity or philanthropy so it shouldn't be taxed as one.

Couldn't agree more.

[dre]

Couldn't agree more.

I dont want corporate money in politics.

I think the only reason why campaigning is getting more expensive is because of the tactics used. Its the political equivalent of spamming or email blasting... you broadcast your message over and over and over again and hope eventually it sinks in.

If we just accept that campaigns need to cost more money and find new ways to bring MORE money into the system then we move further and further away from a system where ordinary people can participate and closer and closer to a system where only political insiders and career politicians rule.

Why does an election have to be so expensive?

What can you find out from a zillion dollar ad campaign that you couldnt learn from a single well written essay from each candidate followed up by maybe a couple of speeches and townhall style meetings?

How does a system where the winner is the guy that sends the most spam make sense or serve anyone?

[dre]

I don't see why public funding is necessary for political parties at all. If a party appeals to voters, they can donate. If a party can't get enough money to invest in physical infrastructure and media, there are plenty of free or cheap ways to get their point across (i.e. online). If a party doesn't appeal to voters and can't get any donations, and furthermore the members of the party are too lazy to get their message out online, I see no reason why they should be given money that is taken from already overtaxed citizens.

Its in the publics best interest to fund elections because thats the only way the government elected will truly represent their interests.

Campaign contributions come with strings attached. In places where they are not limited you basically have a system where legislation is brokered during campaigns and by the time a government gets into office they have sold so much government action to private and special interests that serving the public is basically an after thought.

I have a theory that the more elections cost the worse the quality of government will be. The more money there is in politics the worse the result will be.

[Bonam]

Its in the publics best interest to fund elections because thats the only way the government elected will truly represent their interests.

...

I have a theory that the more elections cost the worse the quality of government will be. The more money there is in politics the worse the result will be.

How do you reconcile these two sentences? You say that to get the best government elected we need to fund elections... and yet the more elections cost the worse the quality of government will be. Methinks you be confused.

[dre]

How do you reconcile these two sentences? You say that to get the best government elected we need to fund elections... and yet the more elections cost the worse the quality of government will be. Methinks you be confused.

Not at all. Publically funded elections are usually cheap no-frills affairs. If you let corporations and special interests into the mix they bid the price of elections way up getting more and more power over government as the price increases.

The best result for the public is to have small, cheap, quick publically funded elections. The more money you get in the game and the higher you set the bar the more political insiders with big corporate backing trump candidates with real ideas and virtues.

[Bonam]

Well they would be even cheaper if they had neither public funding nor allowed corporate/lobby sponsors. Would that make them even better then?

[williat]

I dont want corporate money in politics.

I think the only reason why campaigning is getting more expensive is because of the tactics used. Its the political equivalent of spamming or email blasting... you broadcast your message over and over and over again and hope eventually it sinks in.

If we just accept that campaigns need to cost more money and find new ways to bring MORE money into the system then we move further and further away from a system where ordinary people can participate and closer and closer to a system where only political insiders and career politicians rule.

Why does an election have to be so expensive?

What can you find out from a zillion dollar ad campaign that you couldnt learn from a single well written essay from each candidate followed up by maybe a couple of speeches and townhall style meetings?

How does a system where the winner is the guy that sends the most spam make sense or serve anyone?

I probably shouldn't have put that out there without explanation. I don't think I should have to fund any political party nor do I think campaign money should come from corporate sponsors. I know this seems sort of contradictory because one might say well where would the money come from? But as you stated I don't think money really needs to be an issue at all, I can't speak for anyone else but those campaign commercials usually get me laughing more then wanting to vote for the party. I mean they just feed Rick Mercer stuff to make fun of them. I would whole heartedly support the system of "a single well written essay from each candidate followed up by maybe a couple of speeches and townhall style meetings", the fact is most people probably wouldn't read it or attend/listen to the speeches and most people would still just vote by party/leader without knowing much about either. This is why I don't support any "party" per se, every election I do exactly the same thing, take a sunday morning sit down and read what these guys are saying they "will do" for Canada, if I could just pick parts from each party that I liked and vote that way I would because I really don't agree with voting for a party that only represents 1/2 of what I want and the other 1/2 is totally against what I want. Maybe I'll just start my own party and call it something really obvious so people vote for me like "The Rational Party of Canada".

To paraphrase Chris Rock on political parties "if you know how you would deal with a situation before hearing the issue, then you're a fucking moron". Sorry for the language folks.