The Shotgun Blog
« Giving the gift of 'choice' | Main | $290 million in subsidies to political parties since 2004: Frontier Centre for Public Policy »
Thursday, November 27, 2008
CTF enters political party subsidy fray: “Cut the per vote subsidy”
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) is applauding the federal government for committing to end the $28.6-million annual “political welfare subsidy scheme.”
The subsidy scheme, passed in 2003 by the Chretien government, provides political parties with $1.95 for each vote it received in the previous election. (The National Post is reporting that the per vote subsidy amount is $1.75, a number I've seen before.)
“We’re in tough economic times, so this is exactly the place to start tightening the belt,” said Kevin Gaudet, acting CTF Federal Director. “We’ve opposed the subsidy scheme since 2003 because political parties should have to seek voluntary donations from Canadians, not steal tax dollars from the public treasury.”
According to research provided by the CTF, for 2008, each party received:
Conservative Party of Canada - $10.5 Million
Liberal Party of Canada - $8.7 Million
NDP - $5.1 Million
Bloc Quebecois - $3.0 Million
Green Party - $1.3 Million
“Many politicians will claim that parties need the financing to stay afloat,” added Gaudet “But how can they justify forcing taxpayers to pay for political attack ads, especially when we’re about to run a deficit?”
“It’s absurd that Canadian taxpayers are forced to subsidize through their taxes, political parties that they do not support, especially in the case of the Bloc Quebecois – a party that seeks to break up our country” added Colin Craig, CTF Manitoba director.
UPDATE: Scott Hennig, Alberta director of the CTF, explains the $1.75 versus $1.95 per vote subsidy amount:
The difference between the $1.75 and $1.95 is the inflationary increase that is built in each year. The Act still says $1.75, but it allows for an inflationary increase each year. So, you actually have to work backwards and look at the dollar amount they receive, and then divide by the votes to find out how much it went up by each year.
Plus, this doesn't address the reimbursement candidates get for their campaign expenses. Those still remain as a burden taxpayers have to pay, even if the government eliminates the per vote subsidy.
Thanks, Scott.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on November 27, 2008 in Canadian Conservative Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e2010536279158970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference CTF enters political party subsidy fray: “Cut the per vote subsidy”:
Comments
Matthew, the CTF is 100% correct.
The outrage from the Liberals, NDP, and Greens, is no less self serving than what they accuse the Conservatives of being.
Still, I side with the conservatives. A political party should be able to raise its own funds otherwise they are little more than a government funded special interest group.
Posted by: TM | 2008-11-27 12:02:16 PM
For the record, we will still subsidize political parties we don't support through tax dollars even if they scrap the explicit subsidy via the extremely generous tax receipts political parties are able to issue.
(Donate $100 - get $75 back. The $100 gets spent in the campaign and they get a high enough vote count - they get $60 back. Assuming that money is never spent again it still costs you $25 and taxpayers $135.)
Posted by: Janet | 2008-11-27 12:08:59 PM
I agree, TM. But I think the Conservatives could get through this cleaner if they also proposed relaxing the new political fundraising rules.
Talking to the people with the Libertarian Party, they find the new campaign finance rules extremely onerous and complex, for example.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-11-27 12:23:30 PM
Janet:
The difference is the donations you describe are voluntary.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-11-27 12:27:59 PM
The difference between the $1.75 and $1.95, is the inflationary increase that is built in each year. The Act still says $1.75, but it allows for an inflationary increase each year. So, you actually have to work backwards and look at the dollar amount they receive, and then divide by the votes to find out how much it went up by each year.
Plus, this doesn't address the reimbursement candidates get for their campaign expenses. Those still remain as a burden taxpayers have to pay, even if the government eliminates the per vote subsidy.
Posted by: Scott Hennig | 2008-11-27 2:57:51 PM
Thanks for that clarification, Scott.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-11-27 3:25:01 PM
@set you free: It doesn't matter that they are voluntary. If I write a cheque for $100 to a political party, I get a $75 subsidy courtesy of all Canadian taxpayers. The difference is only the dollar amount -- with voting it's a flat $1.95 per vote. With donations, the amount varies with your province -- look at the provincial worksheet in your tax return to see the calculation.
If what Harper intended was to make politicians pay their own way, he should have cut off ALL of the subsidies available to them -- cherry picking like this is just dishonest.
Posted by: momo | 2008-12-01 5:32:40 AM
Conservative philosophy of give to the rich and let the wealth trickle down. Top 100 CEOs of public companies in less than 2days earn what working families earn in one year. Of course they don't want the golden egg killed. If each one donates 2 weeks earnings to the conservative party then the conservative party has it made. Unfortunately the other parties that are more concerned about the working families would have a very difficult time equaling one tenth of the amount to fight elections with, especially with the current unbalance working family incomes versus cost of living index. Therefore I support political subsidies and limits of political expenditures during elections.
Posted by: Wally | 2008-12-01 3:18:49 PM
Who is John Galt?
Posted by: Ayn Rand | 2008-12-03 5:55:43 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.