The Shotgun Blog
« Is the Harper Government serious about selling crown assets? And what should be done with the cash? | Main | Rumours and John Tory »
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Harper to propose cutting public funding to political parties. He should also consider scrapping campaign finance laws
The National Post is reporting that the Harper Conservatives are going to move to scrap the public funding to political parties:
The federal Conservatives will propose Thursday that all public funding of political parties cease, a move that is sure to spark a war with the three opposition parties.
All political parties receive a public subsidy of $1.75 per year for each vote they receive in a general election. That subsidy costs taxpayers about $30-million.
The Conservatives believe they can withstand the loss of that subsidy because they, alone among the major federal parties, have a sophisticated national fundraising machine that brings in as much as $20-million to party coffers. They were the only party to finish the recent general election with money in the bank.
This is a great initiative, but Harper should now also move to scrap the campaign finance rules that make it difficult for parties to raise money from individuals and corporations. Otherwise, this move will be seen as self-serving and undemocratic.
Either way, it's bound to cause a raucous in the House tomorrow.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on November 26, 2008 in Canadian Conservative Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e2010536263546970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Harper to propose cutting public funding to political parties. He should also consider scrapping campaign finance laws:
Comments
Scrapping the subsidy would encourage parties to raise funds elsewhere. Tough on them if they can't do that. Taxpayers like me would prefer to not promote through tax dollars a party we do not like.
Posted by: dewp | 2008-11-26 6:45:53 PM
This is my favourite part:
"This is not a perk; it is a way of having fair democracy in Canada,"
If you need to force Canadians to fund you via tax dollars, it's not a way of making democracy fair, it's a signal that democracy has spoken.
Good on the Tories for this one. Hope we see lots of the same.
Posted by: Janet | 2008-11-26 7:59:42 PM
Why not merge the Liberal and NDP parties as a cost saving measure?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-11-26 8:07:49 PM
Would Imperial Oil which is incorporated in Canada and listed on the TSE but 70% owned by ExxonMobil, a US corporation, be able to contribute to a Canadian political party if this was enacted?
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-11-26 8:18:14 PM
"Otherwise, this move will be seen as self-serving and undemocratic."
That is exactly what it is seen as because that's what it is.
Harper must think we're all chumps. The unneccessary election he just put us through cost taxpayers a lot more than this measure will save.
Posted by: Binary Logic | 2008-11-26 8:27:39 PM
I've come to the conclusion that the Conservative Party is only interested in doing what's good for the Conservative Party and only does what's good for the country when it coincides with their own interests. Like the previous poster I wish Harper had showed the same concern for our finances before the Conservative Party blew over 300 million dollars of someone else's money on a whim and waste of an election.
Posted by: Nite Owl | 2008-11-26 8:55:30 PM
Good. Scrap the taxpayer subsidies.
Keep the campaign finance lasws as they are. I hate it when corporate interests corrupt our easily corruptable and simple minded politicians with excessive party donations.
You actually want Power Corp back in power? Good Lord!
Epsi
Posted by: epsilon | 2008-11-26 9:20:27 PM
We say let all official Canadian political parties operate lotteries, with equal set start & wrap up dates-- any registered party can offer lottery tickets offer whatever prizes they can muster up..to generate capitol from their loyal fans--silent auction, bingo, whatever- its time to get down to some serious pro democracy scratch and win action.
Posted by: 419 | 2008-11-26 9:45:49 PM
This is a good idea, but it wreaks of self-interest rather than a genuine commitment to fiscal conservatism.
My prediction: the other parties will unite in strong opposition, and commit to a three-way left wing coalition if the government falls. The Conservatives will eventually back off and drop the matter.
I hope they have enough tricks up their sleeve to prove me wrong, however. As far as I'm concerned, party subsidies are an illegal poll tax.
Posted by: Jeremy Maddock | 2008-11-27 1:42:26 AM
This is a good idea, but it wreaks of self-interest rather than a genuine commitment to fiscal conservatism.
Posted by: Jeremy Maddock | 27-Nov-08 1:42:26 AM
They're politicians and human beings, not angels sent from Heaven. Expecting more than them acting in their self-interest is foolish.
Posted by: Janet | 2008-11-27 2:54:18 AM
"Harper should now also move to scrap the campaign finance rules that make it difficult for parties to raise money from individuals and corporations."
It is widely understood, especially by Liberals, that these rules hurt the Liberal party far more than Conservatives. If there was ever any doubt that Matthew Johnston is a Liberal Party of Canada sockpuppet, there isn't now. Advocating for more corporate influence, at a time where corporations down south are getting bailed out by the trillions entirely because of their close relationship with politicians, has to be the most tin-eared "suggestion" I've ever heard.
Matthew Johnston wants Power Corporation and Goldman Sachs to run Canada, says it's more democratic. Right.
Posted by: Somewhat Amused | 2008-11-27 4:26:50 AM
Janet: "They're politicians and human beings, not angels sent from Heaven. Expecting more than them acting in their self-interest is foolish."
True, nobody expects them to be perfect. They have to judge policy proposals according to their own political self-interest and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.
But changing the party financing laws just because they're ahead in fund-raising seems a bit sleazy. I fully support what they're doing on principle (and don't buy the bit about it being undemocratic, etc. -- parties survived without subsidies for long enough), but I can also see why the Liberals are pissed off.
Posted by: Jeremy Maddock | 2008-11-27 9:25:56 AM
"Harper should now also move to scrap the campaign finance rules that make it difficult for parties to raise money from individuals and corporations."
It is widely understood, especially by Liberals, that these rules hurt the Liberal party far more than Conservatives. If there was ever any doubt that Matthew Johnston is a Liberal Party of Canada sockpuppet, there isn't now. Advocating for more corporate influence, at a time where corporations down south are getting bailed out by the trillions entirely because of their close relationship with politicians, has to be the most tin-eared "suggestion" I've ever heard.
Matthew Johnston wants Power Corporation and Goldman Sachs to run Canada, says it's more democratic. Right.
Posted by: Somewhat Amused | 27-Nov-08 4:26:50 AM
I know that I'm a Liberal Party of Canada sock puppet because I want the government to advocate privatizing health care.
Posted by: Janet | 2008-11-27 11:13:11 AM
Just to be clear, removing the subsidies is not undemocratic. The subsidies should be removed.
But the subsidies were introduced when restrictions on fundraising were put in place. If we are going to scrap the subsidies, which is an excellent idea, the party should relax the fundraising rules so that the other parties can raise money privately.
If these other parties fail to raise the money privately, then the people have spoken.
The risk in what Harper is proposing is that it looks as if he's engineering the system to his own advantage, which is undemocratic. Why expose the party this crticism?
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-11-27 11:24:34 AM
This would be an excellent move. Currently, the rest of Canada subsidizes the Bloc to the tune of three million dollars.
The only campaign finance rule that should apply is disclosure.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-11-27 11:43:03 AM
If there was ever any doubt that Matthew Johnston is a Liberal Party of Canada sockpuppet, there isn't now.
Posted by: Somewhat Amused | 27-Nov-08 4:26:50 AM
PS, I'm more than somewhat amused (you see what I did there?) by the fact that suddenly eliminating laws brought in by the Grits makes fiscal conservatives into Liberal puppets. You should take this show on the road.
Posted by: Janet Neilson | 2008-11-27 5:24:30 PM
How exactly this is going to help the economy is something left to the brains of Harper and Flaherty. They give $75 BILLION to the "solid banks" of Canada and then pinch in 30 Million as proof that they are fiscally responsible.
That's akin to me giving the guy on the corner $1000, then skimping on 30 cents tip on my cup of coffee because I am "fiscally conservative".
But I am sure there are more than enough people on here with ideological blinders who will applaud this "smart" move by our Fearless leader.
He's practicing btw: http://tinyurl.com/67m82q
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-11-27 5:33:37 PM
In a more perfect world, no subsidy of the democratic process ought to be necessary. But in a perfect world, democracy wouldn't be the system we use, because no one should be able to vote to affect my liberty or property.
One of the incentives of voting in Alberta for any party other than the Tories, or any riding in Canada where your Party is a no hoper, is that at least you get to designate $1.75 of your own tax payments to the political party you vote for. Its actually a directed contribution, the subsidy only goes to the Party that represents you, so you pretty well consent to that, in a way that is not possible with any other taxpayer levy. I'm sure if taxpayers could choose a list of spending options for their taxes, we'd prefer that. No to the military, yes to abortion, no tax money to laws that are used for the drug laws, those would be on my check-off list on my income tax return.
Then the budgets of the Canadian gov't would reflect the actual priorities of the taxpayers.
I like the Conservative economic update except the attempted cancellation of the $20-$25 million annum that is the party subsidy, because it is a cynical move to cripple the opposition, not a genuine attempt to save money.
In these dark economic times, end our multi-billion dollar participation in Afghanistan, end the billion dollar boondoggle called the war on drugs, end the Gun Registry, repeal the $490 billion dollar 20-year plan for the Canadian military, abolish the Human Rights Commissions, that would be cutting the bloated budget, that would be serious economic cutbacks that would not in any way negative to essential services.
Posted by: Marc Scott Emery | 2008-11-27 8:16:50 PM
Dewp ~
You seem to be clearly ignorant of the tenants and philosophy of democracy. Being funded by the public means that the wealthy do not have political advantage and that lobbyists do not dictate Canada's national agenda.
Please pick up a book, or at least do a google search before disseminating your misinformation.
It may make you look smart to all of the other voters that decide their policy stances on 30 second TV commercials, but to anyone with an internet connection and the will to do a google search, you look like a moron.
Posted by: brian | 2008-12-04 3:39:45 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.