A Cynical Attack on Democracy

Sorry but this just doesn’t cut it with me. If I wanted to donate to any given political party I would and I don’t. My vote belongs entirely to me and just because I vote one way, one election, doesn’t mean its a given next time round nor should it be a financial endorsement of any political party. I no more want my vote to line the pockets of the Conservative Party, Liberals, NDP or the Greens. None of them have done anything to deserve it.

Then don’t vote. Or vote for an independent candidate.

I would support an amendment to the ballot that allows voters to check to cancel their monetary support. But changing the rules this suddenly isn’t a statement about any sort of principle, any more than it is a belt tightening move. It’s an attempt to thwart the opposition from doing its job, and that’s just cynical.

This is the danger of becoming dependent on the state for part or all of your funding - some unfriendly and anti-democratic rubes can gain power and yank the rug out from under you. I suppose in that narrow sense, I agree with Taylor.

But if the Conservatives are going to yank this kind of funding, they need to also drop the ban on corporate donations. And drop the donation limit so individuals can donate whatever they want.

Will they do it? Nope. This isn’t about “fiscal responsibility” as they claim, its a one-sided attack on their opposition, to weaken them financially and destroy them by means other than the ballot box.

That is anti-democratic, and proto-fascist. These guys are determined to make Canada a one party state, under the CPC.

Your argument that this is an attack on democracy is a red herring.

When it comes down to it, we all have one vote. If a party can’t fund raise to support themselves, I really doubt they have the support of the electorate to get into power anyway.

It’s all about grassroots at the end of the day. Any sort of “subsidy” just distorts economies and in this case would distort politics.

I disagree that this amounts to a “subsidy”, since the act of giving it to a political party is voluntary. If you don’t want to finance the Conservatives, don’t vote for them. If you don’t want to finance any party, don’t vote, or vote for an independent candidate. I am willing to consider an amendment where people can check a box on their ballot cancelling their $1.90 contribution, but to suggest that this is any less valid than your average political donation is suggesting that people who just go out to vote are less valuable to the democratic process than those who decide to join the campaign. I could counter-argue by saying that this process levels the playing field between average Canadians who vote, but don’t care strongly about politics — or who don’t have time to campaign — and those with axes to grind who sometimes pull parties towards the wings, making them less palatable to the mainstream, as we see happening in the United States with the Republicans and the Democrats.

Whatever the case, Flaherty isn’t trying to frame this as a debate on the merits of the policy. Instead, he’s introducing it as part of a series of “perks” that he wants to cut back on. Even though this represents a savings of just 0.01% of total government spending. Which strikes me that this isn’t an attempt to stand on principle; it’s an attempt to weaken the opposition parties using means other than the ballot box, and that’s undemocratic.

At the very least, there should be a year’s warning before such a cutback is implemented. The various parties campaigned on the assumption that these funds would be there. It’s not fair to change the rules while the game is being played.

And, personally, $30 million is a small price to pay to ensure that smaller parties have a chance to communicate to Canadians, and build that grassroots that you so care about.

I think emotions are flying a little high on this and perhaps everyone isn’t looking at the whole picture.

1. We don’t know what the motivation of this change is. We have been provided with an explanation by the government, and one by the opposition parties. There is precious little evidence of which of these two (or some third explanation) is true. Our beliefs concerning this are going to be based largely on our own suspicions and what our opinion is of the government, the opposition, etc.

2. The timing of this decision seems to be much of what is driving opinions. As I see it there are arguments on both sides concerning this timing. For those who think the CPC is attacking democracy, there is a legitimate question of why this wasn’t done earlier during the government’s first term. On the other hand, doing this now (a) hurts the CPC more than it would have in the first term since the CPC got more votes in the election last month so they’re now entitled to more money, (b) is more fair to the opposition since it is just after an election—if the CPC had done this a year ago, and had an election 10 months later, it would have totally saddled the opposition’s ability to wage a campaign. I think the timing argument can be used by either side.

3. The other issue that’s driving opinion seems to be the size of this spending cut. Once again, I think the argument works both ways. Against the government is that this isn’t much funding and won’t make a real dent in the budget. On the other hand, politicians taking the public’s money when economic times are tough just doesn’t look good. We saw the outcry over auto company CEOs flying to Washington, D.C. on their corporate jets to ask for a bailout. We all recognized that that was insensitive of them. So the government making small cuts that are symbolic is significant.

In general, my point here is that we shouldn’t focus on the motives of the government at this time since it is too hard to discern what they actually are with our current information—all we will do is end up speculating. Let’s instead focus on the policy change based on its merits or demerits. That seems a more useful discussion.

Mustafa Hirji

We know the motivation because Flaherty is not attacking the considerable public subsidy that helps his Party the most: The Federal political contributions tax credit.

At worst, that tax credit refunds 50% all all money donated to recognized federal parties. Per individual, that’s a public subsidy to a political party of up to $650 — a lot more than $1.95.

I detailed all this very well over at my blog.

This represents the bulk of Conservative funding.

Any sort of “subsidy” just distorts economies and in this case would distort politics.

Exactly. So, you’ll be agreeing with Mark then and see that the Federal Tax credit is a far bigger and far more distorting subsidy and should be gotten rid of then?

Consider that most CPC supporters donate less than $400 per year, meaning they get 75% of that back at tax time - about $300. From the Federal Government. Meaning that as a rough “guesstimate”, 75% of the CPC coffers are subsidized by the Government.

I wonder how many in that “grassroots” would still contribute, or contribute as much if they weren’t getting it back at tax time?

I hope then, that you are a man of principle and write your MP to demand this much larger and much more distorting state interference be gotten rid of.

You will, right JamesF?

Conversely, if Jim Flaherty and the Harper government don’t also announce the end to this tax credit, you will have to admit that this is really a partisan ploy to attack the opposition in an anti-democratic fashion.

Right JamesF?

I await your response.

At the very least, tax-deductible political donations should be treated the same as donations to charitable organizations. Lord knows that these organizations need these funds more than our political parties do.

James, my friend - I love your thoughts and I always have, and today really reminds me of why.

You’ve definitely altered my perspective, your argument is excellent. Still, I find I don’t agree.

I think the $1.50/$1.90 idea is a great idea, but better in theory. I can’t vote for Prime Minister, I can only vote for my local candidate. Say I hypothetically prefer a hypothetical candidate Rae as best person for Prime Minister, but Sylvia Watson is running under the Liberal banner in Parkdale High-Park, and Cheri DiNovo is replacing Peggy Nash. Of course, everyone knows that Sylvia Watson is a fink, and only a fink would vote for her. Now my question becomes: should I be one of those finks? Because I prefer DiNovo but come on, Jack Layton as Prime Minister??? And furthermore, what if I prefer the Green Party, but can’t believe this Robert Rishchynksi guy is actually a candidate? I can’t vote for him!

If there was a second column to X, for which party I wanted my money to go to, I’d totally agree with you. (Alternately, we could also use a T in one lone column) ;)

But most of all, I think Elizabeth May and Jack Layton and Stephen Harper should all be required to ask us directly, “I need your toonies and your c-notes, send them in to support us if you like our ideas”. If they can’t even ask, I sort of don’t believe they have what it takes. We require candidates to raise a certain amount of money to stand for office (or at least that’s my impression from books and movies, I could be wrong) as a test, so why not require party leaders to have to appeal to us face-on? If they believe in their ideas strongly enough and are leaders, they shouldn’t have a huge amount of trouble. Relying on this money-per-vote seems like the lazy way out for them. I just came from an evening with a news-reading friend who’d never heard of the $1.90 system - he’d had no idea he was earning the NDP money (and was thrilled to discover so). I think he shouldn’t be surprised - I think Layton should have emailed and radio advertisted or blog-vertised for his money personally.

But I agree with what you’re saying and all your ideas here, you make a great case and you should be a lawyer or a parliamentarian!

What do you think of this mornings development? A Liberal/NDP coalition government if the BLOC and GG agrees or another election where Harper probably will get his majority.

I don’t think I’d count on Harper getting his majority if an election is called. I think most Canadians can tell a cynical political move when they see it, and they can see that it’s Harper who’s unwilling to accept the judgement that they handed down. The latest polls show the Conservatives at 32% versus the Liberals 30%. I think we’d end up with another minority.

I agree with the assertion, or at least implication, that 2$/vote is a quite democratic way of funding political parties. Indeed, it’s something that I took into account when I voted last October (though I probably would have voted the same way even without the funding formula). I could justify voting for a party that would probably lose in my riding, knowing that they would at least get some kind of support from my ‘x’.

The talk of coalition is interesting. It would have been stronger had it come before the dissolution, however I’ve been wishing our politicians could come together and work in an environment of relative respect and compromise since the start of this string of minorities. It’s about time that they realize what they have: a mandate divided four ways (with a fifth party sitting on a significant number of votes, though without a seat due to the magic of FPtP).

I look forward in reading your take on things as they develop James!

You make a great argument, James — my only concern is that there’s often, for me, a difference between the local candidate I choose to support and the party/party leader I’d prefer to see in power.

Also, I think it’s just more leaderly to ask supporters: If you like our ideas, please consider donating to support us.

However — all that said, this is party first and country second kind of thinking on Harper’s behalf, and there are more important issues and events that I’d like to think our gov’t was more interested in tackling.

Re tax credit = subsidy. That’s an interesting argument and yes, I would still donate without the tax credit (which I believe was a Liberal policy fwiw).

Re: $1.90/vote. I’ve never liked this and am old enough to remember having a check-box on my T1 agreeing to donate $1 of my tax dollars to the party of my choice, which is much more democratic IMHO.

Here’s my suggestion:

Cancel the $1.90 nonsense, because I think that’s far less democratic than expecting the parties to fundraise (I’m in total agreement with Ashley on this issue).

Increase the tax credit on all political & charitable donations to be $ for $ (i.e. deducted from your income prior to calculating tax vs a tax credit).

Then every party can raise their own funds (like they should be doing anyway) and people - you and me, not the politicians or the government - decide which party gets funded by our money.

Candace,

When I vote, I decide which party gets funded, at the rate of $1.95/year.

I fail to see how maintaining or even raising the level of tax-credit-funded subsidy is any more democratic. Just because someone has money to donate to political causes (I certainly don’t) shouldn’t mean that my tax dollars get spent that way. I’d love to direct $650 of my tax money into a political party; I just don’t have the means to afford any of it.

Under the tax credit system, people who have the money to donate get to dictate how public funds are spent. I fail to see any moral superiority or any positive policy development in that.

Political donations should not be tax-deductible.