This is not a post about Occupy!

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

This is not a post about Occupy Wall Street or the Occupy movement. This is about Canadian politics, a little recent history of political funding in Canada, the unforeseen scandal that resulted and some of the current ongoing scandals.

First, understand that a Canadian Prime Minister in a majority government is much more powerful then a US President. A PM can introduce a bill, whip his party into supporting this bill (to "whip" means that if party members vote "nay" they are removed from party membership) and since they have more then 50% of Parliament the bill passes.

PM Chretien passed campaign reform (bill C-24 2003) as part of his 8-part government ethics promise. It was much to the dismay of then finance minister (soon to be PM) Paul Martin. Paul Martin warned this would lead to the downfall of the Liberal Party. It didn't matter to PM Chretien as he was retiring after 40 years in politics (10yrs as Prime Minister) because he felt it was great for Canadian democracy.

Bill C-24 had several components
#1 a ban (with minor exceptions) on political donations by corporations and unions;
#2 a $5000/year/party limitation on individual donation/contributions and $1000 limit for election campaigns
#3 the registration of constituency associations, with reporting requirements;
#4 the extension of regulation to nomination and leadership campaigns, including election spending limits
#5 enhanced public financing of the political system, which meant each party would receive public subsidy (currently set at $2.04) per vote

Also the parliamentary ethics commission was given broader and greater powers and shortly after a senate ethics commission was born. Even better for Canadian democracy.

I'm surprised these laws ever passed in Canada. It really removed the influence of corporate Canada in Ottawa. I can't see how anyone in Washington would ever support such reforms for America, because US Senators and Congressmen don't exactly get rich on salaries.



First of all The Liberal Party of Canada went into the red. Party finances are private and they may have been in the red for a long time before. But based on record and reputation they were able to secure loans and huge donations before 2003. After all the Liberals were (are) a political party of billionaires, backed by a who's who of corporate elites. With corporate and private political donations limited the Liberal Party went into the red. The would still max out on campaign spending limits, but would go deep in debt to do so.

This also hurt the socialist NDP who would no longer have the financial of unions, although NDP's ability to raise small private donations remained firm.

The then newly formed Conservative Party had a nice bank account since the merger of the PC's and Reforms. And the Tories ability to raise money from small business and people was always vast where it wasn't deep. (Reform was grass roots after all)

But what stings a lot of political minds is that separatist BlocQuebecois and GreenParty is actually managing better off with voter subsidies then they ever did with corporate donations. The political right is pissed the Federal government was supporting those who vow to break up the country! It makes me sooooo proud that our democracy is more then simply self interested.

So six weeks after the Harper government was elected to form a minority government, they introduced a fiscal update which announced the governments intention to remove to per-vote-subsidy. As I explained above, with all opposition parties depending on per-vote-subsidies this threw Parliament into a Constitutional Crisis of great historical importance. The government soon withdrew the notion, never really justifying it. Conservative pundits then would explain that subsidizing Separatists (aprox.ly $2.1 million/year) was/is morally wrong.

Then constitutional crisis came as a direct result of the effort to remove the per-vote-subsidy. Running scared, the opposition formed a Tripartite-Coalition (Liberals-NDP_BlocQuebecois) who together held more votes then the minority Conservatives. It came down to the Governor-General (Queen's representative) accepting or declining the proposal. She wisely instead deferred the matter over an extended Christmas hiatus, and by that time all the fury had evaporated into a whimper.

There was also the significant issue of the In and Out scandal" where in the 2006 election some shoe-in Conservative Party candidates funnelled money to the Federal Conservative Party campaign, where in turn the money was resent into Conservative Party candidates where it was a more of a race. Under Bill C-24 (2003) this was no longer an acceptable practice as parties adhere to strict campaign spending limits.

And just this week, finally, the courts dropped all charges (they were non-criminal charges) against four members, but fined the Conservative Party $52,000 in exchange for a guilty plea over accounting discrepancies. It would seem worth it to break campaign reform law if the consequence is to only to receive such a modest fine.

And now we have the per-vote-subsidy issue raised again. This time it's not devolving into a constitutional crisis. The current $2.04 per-vote-subsidy will fall to $1.50 in 2012 and $1 in 2013, $50 cents in 2014 and be abolished in 2015. The justification is that taxpayers should not paying for democracy. Instead it should be voluntary of party/candidate supporters.

Like I said, this is not a post about the Occupy movement. But this is a post about the power and influence that the wealthy have in politics, and how former Prime Minister Chretien not only recognized this, but attempted to thwart it. Perhaps some Occupy supporters should take note if they earnestly want to reform government.

Comments

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

This is a fantastic post and I think you're absolutely right in suggesting that the Occupy movement should make this their agenda.

Certain people around here have made a habit of talking about how it's not Wall Street that's the problem, it's Washington DC*, but of course the issue is that Wall Street AND Washington are scratching each other's backs here and it doesn't really matter where the cycle started - what matters is breaking the cycle of mutual dependence between elected officials and capital holders.

And the best way to do that, imho, is to block off all the avenues by which capital holders can repay the favours they get from said elected officials. One *very big* way to do this is by regulating campaign spending and campaign donations much more heavily.

I think another way to do this is by making our elected officials richer and thus more bribe-proof: As you point out, US Senators and Congressmen don't exactly get rich on salaries. Why don't they? The cost to make them *all* multimillionaires would be a tiny, tiny fraction of the federal budget, and I'm certain that investment would pay for itself many times over, in the form of better decision-making. See, when a Congresscritter makes a bad(from the constituency's pov) decision in order to appease a campaign donor, they're securing themselves a far smaller amount of donor money than they are wasting from public coffers. They're giving million-dollar favours in order to protect thousand-dollar donations. that's spectacularly inefficient and we would do much better, as taxpayers, to just fuckin' pay them out of our own pockets.



* (I love when they say it's off the mark 'cause we should be protesting Washington, as if the symbolic Wall Street's undue influence on the symbolic Washington hasn't been a running theme of this protest from the start." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9zkQcLi4Yo))

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

This just in...
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/insight-why-wall-street-still-doesnt-120409014.html

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

As I remember it isn't one of Canada's problems with being truly democratic that the people on the East Coast can decide an election before people in the north and northwest even get to vote? The geographic-demographic reasons behind that wouldn't change no matter how successful an attempt to level the overall playing field would be. I think your entire point is good and accurate, mind, which is why I'm not addressing it, as I agree with it.

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

well, every districted representative-democracy has this "problem", it's just that time zones make it more obvious. If we decided that the votes should happen simultaneously instead, Eastern Canada would still have the lion's share of the say in who gets elected, it just wouldn't feel so much like a foregone conclusion to westcoasters because their election is being decided by other people now instead of this morning.

option a: i write something down and put it in an envelope, you wait 5 hours and then read it
option b: we both wait 5 hours, then i write something down, put it in an envelope, then hand it to you and you read it

In fact, come to think of it, this system subtly advantages the West Coasters because they have data from the East Coast to help them vote strategically. The news media are constrained by law not to report on results from the East before the West has finished voting, but in the Internet age that rule is practically ineffectual.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

The same thing happens in the States. Think about the multi-hour lag between the East and, say, Hawaii or the Aleutians.

When I was younger, Reagan was called the winner before many here in the West Coast got off work to vote.

If I had my druthers, I would make it a felony to "manipulate elections" by even speculating before every polling place was closed in the entire US.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

That's a law I can get behind. It's no different than electioneering.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Yes and no. It has been an issue. By law people in the east have not been allowed to report the results of the election until polls close in the west. This has been so everyone gets the same 12 hour opportunity to vote on election day and more importantly so results from Quebec do not influence strategic voting in BC/Yukon.

On August 17, 2011, Elections Canada Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand suggested to Parliament that the current voting system needs to be improved, the improvements including a repeal on the ban of early election results in areas where polls are still open; this is in light of the expanded use of social media to transmit results outside of radio and television.[2] According to his report, Mayrand says that "the growing use of social media puts in question not only the practical enforceability of the rule, but also its very intelligibility and usefulness in a world where the distinction between private communication and public transmission is quickly eroding. The time has come for Parliament to consider revoking the current rule." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackout_(broadcasting)#Federal_Elections)

I expect by the next federal election (2013?) the blackout will have been removed.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

Neither Republicans nor Democrats, for the most part, would accept this kind of change. Unless we elect a president with enough influence and principle to force this kind of plan by threatening to block anything else from Congress, it will never happen. I don't see enough popular outrage, either. Unless the issue can fit on bumper stick with a clever slogan, it's over the heads of our apathetic public.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Well, this Occupy movement has been deemed by media, and nearly everyone else as a left wing movement. But this is precisely the kind of thing Occupy supports (I don't speak for the group). It's really a non-partisan issue.

Wall Street has obvious undulant influence, no matter if badlydrawnjeff disagrees. Most of OWS want that sphere of influence removed or restricted or at the very least regulated. I don't know that it's been compacted down into a nifty t-shirt worthy slogan yet, but the sentiment is everywhere Occupy is present.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Or if the country rises up in a gnashing mass of angry anger at the power the 1% exerts. That won't happen though because a large part of the power the 1% exert is telling the 99% that anyone who wants change hates America and loves Islam.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Whether or not I agree or disagree with the specifics, I agree that OWS would at least be doing something if they focused on getting something like this into place, and that it would be a step up for them.

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

That's good of you to say, but do you disagree with the specifics here?

I generally think of you as the kind of conservative who likes smaller budgets and less meddling-with-markets in general, and what I see in the OP is a viable way to significantly cut down on both of those things.

If you doubt that would be the result, i'd be interested in hearing about why.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

Excellent recap of the bill and the fallout from it. I'm slightly disappointed in the outcome of the In and Out scandal, but you know my bias there ;o)

Chretien did an amazing thing with this bill, perhaps the greatest of his time in office, even with the issues that have arisen. I hope it will be remembered up there with Trudeau's victory with the Constitution Act in defining moments in Canadian politics.

I absolutely agree a similar bill would do wonders in enacting change in American politics. I hope the Occupy movement can take some notes from us. Eh? ;o)

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Ever since OWS first started I have been thinking about writing this post. I know I wrote a little something to you earlier this week about it. The final nail in my coffin was amazments saying she was sick of posts about OWS. I thought maybe I shouldn't mention OWS at all and let folks draw their own parallels. But I know how hard it can be to call the cows home when it's not milking time.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

You can't buy politicians in canada? SOCIALISMS!!!!!

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes you can. I could tell you about AdScam (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/groupaction/), L'Affair Grand-Mere (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/chretien/shawinigan.html), Airbus Affair (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/03/27/f-mulroney-schreiber.html) all of which at some point involve a briefcase or paperbag full of cash.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

#1 I've commented on how I'd work this kind of thing without trampling on the public's right to donate as speech, which was to disqualify candidates who accepted from those entities.

#2 I can't agree to this based on the same reasoning I arrived at my alternative for #1.

#3 I'm not sure of the meaning of this one, but in general the ideas of registration and reporting are red-flagged in my book.

#4 It's not clear even what the objective of a spending limit would accomplish.

#5 Unless the bar for deciding who receives public campaign funding is essentially at ground level, I can't see this as doing anything but reinforcing parties at the expense of independents. It is preferable for governments, as with most other institutions, to encourage variety in perspectives that the inflexibility of party platforms tend to discourage.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

#1 I don't understand
#2 I don't understand
#3 being held accountable requires identification. Without accountability there are no ethical standards to maintain.
#4 spending limits create a fair environment for everyone who reaches the thresh-hold. I guess it depends on how you view your democracy. America's democracy has been distorted into a spending contest, rather then having the competition focused on rival platforms.
#5 as I explained in my post, 4th and 5th parties receive more money through public subsidy-per-vote then they could ever raise. The Green Party's base are not only ideological, but many are casually political, meaning they are not passionate enough to donate, but will vote because nobody else appeals to them.

Rewarding parties based on votes cast is good grooming for democracy. They often drop out because they put all their resources into a single election effort. With enough votes earned, a party can afford to return the next time. This is better for voters who not only see more choices on the ballot but a better quality of candidates from third parties. And voters know their vote actually means something to the candidate they support. As capitalists often say "Competition is good for the market".

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

There you Canadians go again, reforming your government while we protest, mace, and get maced.

You know that your punishment for this sensible government thing you have going on is national health care and schools that work. We will soon add a lack of political commercials to the list. This is the price you will pay for taking such shortcuts.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

sensible government

Contradiction in terms. You can either have sensible or you can have government. Not both.

A note on motives

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

... because he felt it was great for Canadian democracy
It is worth noting that Chretien lost a bitter 15 year power struggle with hated political rival Paul Martin and was forced out as party leader and prime minister. On the way out the door, he poisoned the well from which he had drunk so deeply, fatally sabotaging the financial position of the Liberal Party just as his successor was taking the reins of power. Did he do it for democracy or out of spite? I'm leaning toward the latter.

In fairness, the measure did loosen the grip of the big corporate donors who were so cozy with Canadian federal governments in the eighties and nineties, though I'm sure they will find new ways to exert their influence. I'm glad to see it being phased out, but it had some beneficial effects.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Good post.

How do you feel about the per-vote subsidy? It was sort of a way to make smaller parties get adequate funding for exposure, so how will they fare without it? Isn't this just going to eventually create a two-party system? One of the things I liked about Canada was its diverse political climate in terms of elections (even though its post-election governance is hilariously lopsided).

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

I don't think it was intended as means to primarily fund small parties. But parties are only worth the support they recieve. And it certainly has created a fairer level playing field. Indeed it has had the effect of grooming new blood while tempering the old blood.

To be fair, the Green Party was already on it's way up when election reforms came into effect. And the Liberal Party, rife with debt and scandal, was no doubt on their way down. Election reforms may have had little or nothing to do with the directions each party took.

Without subsidies, parties will be more forceful about donating. It will turn many casual observers off politics.

Personally I believe the public coffers should support democracy. As they do abroad in Afghanistan or Libya, we should also support democracy domesticly.

With private donations funding political parties we run into the same problem we just got out of, where only those who can afford to donate will donate. You marginalize the poor when candidates won't bother trying to get your vote because an occasional $5 donation ain't worth their time.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

[Recommended], obviously.