By Ashley Fitzpatrick
You can argue money does not buy influence in Newfoundland and Labrador politics, but it’s hard to say it doesn’t buy access. And voters have long since taken notice. The perception is absolutely of a pay-to-play political system.
It applies across all parties, where corporations or unions — as opposed to individuals — have become a target and basis for party fundraising. And when you look beyond the annual $500-ticket premiers’ dinners with 500 or 600 people in attendance, to golf tournaments and boat tours, there’s no denying these events offer face time with political decision-makers.
Dealing with the pay-for-play impression first and foremost requires greater transparency. It means providing information about donors and fundraisers faster, with easy access, so individuals can answer their own questions as they arise and investigations are less onerous.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, a legislated April 1st deadline for annual filings by political parties to Elections NL (Elections Act, 1991, Section 303) has been regularly surpassed, with Elections NL allowing extensions well into the summer. Elections NL then requires its own private review of the data before release.
While quarterly listings of major donations are available in some provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador struggles to provide public information even before the end of the calendar year following the year a donation was made.
Sticking to the stipulated deadline would be beneficial, as would posting information “as submitted,” with official confirmation to follow. That approach could apply even to specific events. Imagine posts immediately (within a week) following a fundraiser! Although few people know it, event information is already issued to Elections NL in “supporting schedules” with annual party financial filings. It is a basic form sheet, but these forms are sometimes handwritten and difficult to read. They are available in a binder kept at the Elections NL office in St. John’s, or, should they choose to disclose them, through the political parties.
The legislation specifies you can only donate as “a corporation, individual or trade union,” leaving unincorporated firms — legal, architectural, financial — unaddressed (Elections Act, 1991, Section 282). But these firms are large business entities with political interests.
While quarterly listings of major donations are available in some provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador struggles to provide public information even before the end of the calendar year following the year a donation was made.
The argument is you can identify individuals associated with a firm and determine a firm’s contribution, but that is easier said than done — and quite a burden to place on the average person looking for basic information on how much a partnership has provided to a given party. Omitting firms also creates a situation where an individual (a lawyer, for example), who is without any desire to contribute to a particular political party, is recorded as a donor simply because his or her firm has decided to secure a table at a fundraising dinner and the bill is split evenly between partners. At least with a corporation, the interest is clearly identified.
This province maintains the mindset that allowing corporations and unions to contribute allows for greater transparency, with fewer attempts at illegal workarounds. With a flat ban, corporations might attempt to make political contributions through individual employees and family members, with the promise of reimbursement later by the company. Essentially, it can be difficult to enforce. But at the same time, Newfoundland and Labrador already has large business entities with no clear record of contributions.
Potential limitations on donations are worth debating, if for no other reason than creating publicly visible awareness of the rules. There is no restriction right now, for example, on amounts contributed provincially or on contributions coming from outside the province. Political contributions in Newfoundland and Labrador can be made by corporations whether or not they carry on business here, and trade unions can contribute even if they have no bargaining rights in the province.
Wrenching the tap and shutting the flow of donations would spark pushback in the form of attempts by parties and potential donors at working around the restrictions, and would add pressure on remaining donors, and in both instances this could be no more than fertilizer for growing scandal. But placing at least some restrictions could force increased outreach and more creative fundraising that, by its very nature, would have to target individuals currently feeling alienated, ostracized, unneeded and unwanted by the system.
And while it is not required, there is precedence for review, as demonstrated by Ontario’s election finance reform legislation passed in late 2016, which bans corporate and union donations and the attendance of politicians at political fundraising events, among other measures.
Memorial University of Newfoundland’s department of political science can be a trusted source for the community in improving the understanding of campaign finance and related issues to support debate. Up to the 2015 election, professors had not made a point to dig into provincial campaign financing, and I suggest a research grant or other incentive might encourage this work. Given the many corporate donors stating their deep desire only to support our democratic system, there should be no shortage of financial contributions to help with that.
About the Author
Ashley Fitzpatrick (The Telegram) began as a journalist in Newfoundland and Labrador with The Western Star in Corner Brook and is now in her eighth year with The Telegram in St. John’s. She produced a series of stories on provincial party fundraising in 2015. This article is an excerpt from “The Democracy Cookbook: Recipes to Renew Governance in Newfoundland and Labrador” (ISER Books, 2017).
