Party Fundraising

Nigel Hannaford, Calgary Herald

The cliche about putting one's money where one's mouth is gets overused for a simple reason: Approve or not, in our society, writing a cheque is the measure of commitment. That's why, if you can overlook the gamesmanship that's going on here for a moment, the Conservative government's proposal to end the public subsidy paid to political parties is not merely common sense but something akin to political virtue.

Quick recap. Before Jan 1, 2004, anybody could give anything they liked to the party of their choice. Arguing this might lead to elections bought by the highest bidder, though more likely trying to blow a hole in Paul Martin's boat, then prime minister Jean Chretien changed the law.

No more union or corporate donations: Instead people could give up to $5,000, and the government itself would pay parties a subsidy $1.75 per vote received in the last election.

Later, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Accountability Act slashed the annual donations limit to $1,100, though both it and the subsidy are inflation-adjusted.

Now, Harper is talking about dumping the subsidy altogether, and the opposition parties, none of which have the kind of financial support from members that the Tories have, are crying foul. From their perspective, it's an attempt to hobble them.

They're probably right. But, whose problem is that?

It's as if somebody said you should be a Flames fan, but never actually went to their games himself. You'd be thinking if that's how big a fan he was, what made him think he had anything to tell you about hockey pucks? How seriously can you take a political party that its own supporters won't give money to?

Take the Bloc Quebecois, for instance.

Based on the last election, you'd think they were popular. They pulled in nearly 1.4 mil-lion votes--38 per cent of the popular vote--and that got them two-thirds of Quebec's 75 parliamentary seats. Presumably, the Bloc articulates the deep convictions of a passionate people: Je me souviens, and all that. Right?

Well, not so much.

A pastor once said to me, "If all God had was your chequebook and your Daytimer, would He let you into Heaven?"

The Bloc isn't trying to get to Heaven, but if the chequebook test means anything it shouldn't be going to Parliament.

Since 2001, the average number of donors to party coffers has been a mere 5,500 a year: Between Jan. 1 and June 30 this year--an election year, mind you--precisely 1,070 Quebecers were sufficiently enamoured of Gilles Duceppe to actually put money behind him.

This can all be found somewhere on Elections Canada's website, but Herald columnist Mark Milke has pulled it together nicely in a report for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

To cut to the chase, in 2007-08, the Bloc and its candidates were reimbursed by Ottawa for 50 per cent of their election expenses, and the party itself received federal per-vote subsidies based on the 1.5 mil-lion votes they received in the 2006 election.

Conclusion: The rest of Canada had funded separatism to the tune of $5,970,311. And what were the separatists prepared to cough up for their francophone destiny in that 18 month period? Just $503,676.

Question for the rest of Canada: If Quebecers aren't prepared to pay for a separatist party, why are we buying it for them? And, apart from the loyal 1,070, how much can the rest of them really believe in the separatist philosophy?

And, this is really the question, regardless of party.

It appears Conservative supporters believe in the party enough to send in money. In 2007, 107,492 of them did so, and a further 78,178 in the first six months of 2008, for about $25 million. In the same time, rather less than 45,000 Liberal donations netted about $6 million.

Obviously, the Conservatives know how to raise funds. Even the NDP does not bad. But, the Liberals and the Bloc have had five years to build a matching system. They don't have one, so is it because they're incompetents, or their supporters simply don't believe in them?

The evidence suggests the latter.

Of course Harper is firing a torpedo at the opposition. But, if their armour is that weak, maybe they deserve to sink. It certainly shouldn't be up to the taxpayer to prop up a party that its supporters won't.

This was a racket to begin with, that had people who voted for one party, having to financially support others they wouldn't vote for. Let it go.

Published: Saturday, November 29, 2008

Send To a Friend

< Back