- Sasha Shimizu
- June 08, 2011 - 10:26
I whole heartfelt agree. There should be a cap to total fundraising, period. Attack ads and pre election ads should be illegal. All ads should be factual and if not there should be mechanism in place for complaints, etc.
- June 07, 2011 - 23:53
Astounding. So what if someone rich makes a thousand dollar contribution and gets 750 of it back. And conversely, so what if I give 100 dollars and only get 75 of it back. The point is, people should have the choice to contribute to a party of their choosing or withhold that money. Every party should do its own fund raising. Which really means, get the support from the people who really, and I mean, REALLY give a damn about the party. What it boils down to is, the voter subsidy was brought about because the Liberals were lazy in their fund raising efforts, as is typical of the socialist ideal. Why should someone who might have "some" issue with a particular party they normally like but want to strategically vote for another party for whatever reason, subsidize that other party indirectly by subsidy? Afterall, this is exactly what went on in the last few elections, in particular this most recent one. All the parties can garner support however they want through their own efforts at fund raising. Afterall, if people really do care about one party or another, they will contribute. It should never be forced taxation, which is what this really is. And if a rich dude contributes 1000 to any party of his choice gets that $750 back in tax deductions, good for him.
- Geraldine M Chafe
- June 07, 2011 - 23:17
I believe the Party subsidies should be left alone. This seems to me to be an investment in our Democracy, ^NOT the spin the Harper Cons put on it. " Finally, let’s even the whole thing out: cap the amounts that parties can spend on expenses, campaign or no campaign. " well said Russell Wangersky. ...nice to see a piece which shows the writer has a memory and discusses things with relevance. Bravo! Always good to get the view of those Back Home. Regards.
- Maggy Carter
- June 07, 2011 - 16:31
Wangersky shows extraordinary naivety when it comes to the murky world of political finance. Commissioned bagmen, slick fund raising schemes, nominal dollar receipts for purchases, the in-and-out scam for which the Harper Tories were already convicted, and - when all else fails - the manilla envelope stuffed with cash. Where once the corporation coughed up with the full $25,000 donation that guaranteed its place at the public trough, it now takes fewer than a half dozen senior executives, directors or shareholders to spontaneously volunteer a donation that keeps the gravy coming. Last year it was reported that an analysis of Elections Canada records identified 20 patronage appointees who had given money to the Conservative party or its candidates. But there are so many other ways to reward generous donors. Eliminating the per-vote subsidy merely shifts party financing to a donor system in which the taxpayer is still on the hook for 75% (more than 100% after admin costs are included) of the shortfall. The principal difference of course is that, whereas the per-vote subsidy was equitable to all parties, the new arrangement heavily favours the governing party. The public - like Wangersky - will probably view this latest move favourably, thinking it will shift the burden from taxpayers to the hordes of affluent $1,000-$5,000 private donors who, of course, seek nothing in return. You might as well tell them Santa drops it off in a sack.
- June 07, 2011 - 10:03
''...cap the amounts that parties can spend on expenses, campaign or no campaign.'' No - because that would only make the government more powerful by giving them a monopoly on communications with citizens. Nobody caps what they pay between elections.
- June 07, 2011 - 08:17
To paraphrase Woody Allen: democracy is the most beautiful thing money can buy.