Vision Pushes Ban on Big Campaign Cash Sources
Council to debate ban on corporate and union donations.
Vision's Heather Deal: 'This is getting ridiculous.'
If collecting fistfuls of big cheques is a measure of electoral success in Vancouver -- and the record suggests it is -- then Mayor Sam Sullivan is running far ahead of his yet-to-be-nominated competitors in next year's municipal election.
Sullivan raised $250,000 in the last two weeks alone, boosting the size of the Non-Partisan Association's war chest to an estimated half-million dollars. Sullivan raked in most of that money over the course of two recent fundraising dinners at which -- without a hint of irony -- he decried the way labour unions were spending money to defeat him.
The NPA is poised to blow past the $2 million it spent on the 2005 contest. Vision Vancouver and the Coalition of Progressive Electors (COPE) have little choice but to follow suit.
"If you're going to play in this poker game, you've got to bring at least $2 million to the table," said Vision co-chair Mike Magee. "We'll have to raise at least that much -- probably more -- just to stay competitive with the NPA."
If the NPA raises $3 million, Vision raises $2 million, COPE collects the same half-million it spent in 2005, and the parties collectively spend another undisclosed half-million on pre-election activities, then total spending on Vancouver's November 2008 civic election could top $6 million.
That would represent a 50 per cent increase over 2005 spending, would rival what the BC Liberal and New Democrat parties, combined, officially spent on the 2005 provincial election, and could add up to $45 per vote -- a stratospheric figure previously unseen in Canadian politics.
"This is getting ridiculous," City Coun. Heather Deal said. "Spending on Vancouver elections has spiralled out of control."
Deal and fellow Vision councillor George Chow have introduced a motion to reform the way Vancouver campaigns are funded. The Vision motion, crafted in part as a response to Sullivan's union-bashing, would seek to ban both union and corporate donations, while at the same time improving disclosure and limiting campaign spending.
The motion is expected to be debated in November. But while councillors from all three electoral organizations are expected to make passionate speeches in favour of reform, interviews with operatives within each party suggest change will be an uphill battle. And a review of Mayor Sullivan's voting record on this issue reveals his longstanding opposition to electoral reform.
NPA: 'Spend what it takes'
George Higgins is caucus coordinator for the Non-Partisan Association, which raised $250,000 in the last two weeks at a $185-a-plate NPA banquet and a $5,000-a-seat dinner party.*
The NPA is not legally required to disclose who gave any of that money. B.C.'s anaemic municipal campaign finance laws simply don't require disclosure of funds raised this far in advance of an election. But Higgins -- whose salary is among the many line items funded by NPA's annual fundraising efforts -- said "it's fairly likely" the NPA will disclose anyway.
"We've told all of our donors that it is very likely we will be disclosing who they are, even though there is no mechanism for it right now," Higgins said.
Unlike Vancouver's other municipal parties, the NPA pushes its candidates to raise their own funds, and requires they contribute to the party. In 2005, each city council candidate was required to ante up $15,000, while parks and school board candidates ponied up $5,000 and $3,000, respectively. Higgins said that the inherently competitive nature of simultaneous at-large campaigns encourages most candidates to raise more.
Sam Sullivan raised $490,000 in 2005, and appears on track to raise more than a million dollars for his re-election bid.
"The Mayor's campaign has been run separately from the party," Higgins said. "I don't know if it's a control issue or what."
Unlike his counterparts at Vision and COPE, Higgins is not disturbed by Vancouver's skyrocketing campaign spending.
"I wouldn't say that it concerns me. I personally am willing to spend what it takes to get the job done," Higgins told The Tyee.
"It sounds like a big number, but in order to do the typical political things you would be doing, you have to spend the money," Higgins said, noting that polls cost $20,000 each, flyer drops cost $100,000 each, and voter identification programs cost a few hundred thousand per election.
Nor does Higgins believe a ban on corporate donations would hamper NPA fundraising.
"There is a really huge appetite to support the mayor and caucus right now. We've had two sold-out events in the last week. I'm confident those donors would write the same sized cheques from their personal accounts," Higgins said.
"We'll still get donations, and we'll still out-compete Vision," Higgins added. "The party that has the most to lose from Vision's suggestion is COPE, because so much of their money comes from unions."
Vision: 'Boink moments'
Sullivan Has Opposed Reform
Vancouver City Council will debate the Vision proposal to reform campaign finance on Thursday afternoon. The motion calls on the city to hire an independent expert to suggest methods by which Vancouver could ban union and corporate donations, enact continuous disclosure of all electoral donations, and set limits on campaign spending.
All of these reforms are already in place throughout Canada. And most have been previously debated in Vancouver City Hall. Among recent reform efforts:
In 2003, council created the Vancouver Electoral Reform Commission, led by former Supreme Court judge Thomas Berger. After extensive public consultation, Berger recommended a ward voting system along with a handful of campaign finance reforms. That attempt at finance reform died along with the ward system, which was defeated in a 2004 referendum. Ironically, the well-funded campaign against the ward system has never disclosed the source of its funds. That campaign was led by then-councillor Sam Sullivan.
In 2005, the COPE-led city council revived Berger's campaign finance reforms in the form of several "recommendations to improve civic democracy," but that council was swept from power before the province acted on its reform request. Minutes from the March 15 council meeting show that only one councillor voted against a measure that would require full disclosure of donations, "regardless of whether the contributions relate to an election expense and regardless of when the contributions are received." That councillor was Sam Sullivan.
And in April 2006, Vision Coun. Raymond Louie and COPE Coun. David Cadman jointly moved yet another attempt to reform Vancouver's campaign finance laws. That motion was not even debated. Mayor Sullivan ruled it out of order.
Mike Magee is co-chair of Vision Vancouver, and a point man for party fundraising. Like Higgins, he is among the very small circle of operatives who know from whence Vancouver's political capital flows.
"I know who gives to the NPA," Magee said. "The same donors are playing both sides."
But while Higgins regards donor largesse as an expression of support, Magee sees the NPA's black-tie strategy as a shakedown.
"A lot of them hold their nose and say, 'I'm sorry, I'm going to go to Sam's thing because I've got a project that's coming before council and I don't want to be seen as not showing up.'" Magee said.
Vision started this campaign cycle with a six-figure debt left over from the 2005 race. So while the NPA has already put a half-million in the bank, Vision is only now able to bank money for 2008.
"Frankly, we're in danger," Magee said. "Even though we're capable of raising a lot of money, we may not be capable of raising as much money as an incumbent mayor of the NPA."
Magee supports limits on both giving to and spending by municipal campaigns, and thinks its time to take corporate and union donations out of politics. He acknowledged that Vision -- which took 12 per cent of its 2005 funds from trade unions, including $72,700 from CUPE B.C. -- would have to make sacrifices in order to comply with the rules proposed earlier this week by Couns. Chow and Deal. But Magee believes Vision would emerge a better party as a result of the transition.
"I would be way more interested in organizing teams of people to go door to door and ask their neighbours for money by talking about issues that are important to them," Magee said.
As it is, he lamented, the figures he requests are rising even faster than Vancouver real estate.
"The high-end ask used to be like $5,000 or $10,000. Maybe a big donor would give a couple of checks a year like that," Magee said. "Now I sit down with people and say, 'I need you to think about $100,000 or $150,000.'
"There are a few kind of 'boink' moments." Magee widened his eyes and reared back his head to illustrate the reaction. "They look like they're thinking, 'Whoa, that was a lot more than I thought you were going to ask me for.'
"Our donors are going to be thrilled with the idea of campaign finance reform," Magee laughed. "Thrilled."
COPE: 'A voice at the table'
"It's insane that municipal elections are bought and sold in this way," said COPE communications director Ivan Bulic. "It boggles my mind the way the NPA spends money."
COPE, which took 69 per cent of the $526,157 it disclosed during the 2005 election cycle from labour unions, opposes the part of the Vision motion that would ban union donations.
"I'd be loathe to tell mom-and-pop small business where to spend their money, and I'd be loathe to tell organized workers that they can't support the party of their choice," he told The Tyee.
"COPE was founded, in part, by organized labour," Bulic said. "Working people have fought long and hard to be able to have a voice at the table, both elected and otherwise."
Bulic said COPE supports spending limits and other reforms.
"I have reservations about whether Vision's motion will get at the issue. I think it's a knee-jerk reaction to Sam Sullivan's attack on working people."
When asked whether COPE will be able to raise $2 million for the next election, Bulic changed the subject. He said what's needed is a coalition of organizations campaigning against Sullivan.
"If this becomes a group of opposition parties fighting for a limited pool of money, that will simply guarantee the NPA will buy another election."
Tomorrow: A study finds that cities throughout the Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley make it hard for citizens to know whose money backs their local politicians.
*On Friday, Nov. 2, we corrected the cost of the NPA banquet dinner.
Related Tyee stories:
- Vancouver Election Spending Out of Control
Mayor Sullivan: Biggest war chest. Prone to fraud, few limits, and a whopping $30 spent per vote. A Tyee special report. - Democracy for Sale
Part Two: The Solution. BC shares with Alberta the dubious distinction of employing the fewest safeguards against big money in politics. - Top Donors Thrive under BC Liberals
Mining, timber and construction corporations enriched by policy changes.




7
Login or register to post comments
IAMC
4 years ago
It stinks
I believe in following the money.
CUPE and other public sector unions, are in a unique position.
They depend on their ability to enjoy their monopoly to provide labour for a large amount of public services.
Any threat to this arrangement is a threat to their very prosperity.
It's life ( New Jersey )
Private developers, who are gamblers, do not enjoy the assurance that CUPE can arrange, through threats to withhold services, and demanding increased profits with regularity throughout the years.
It's different. You cannot juxtaposition these two entities, public and private, in any kind of context that makes sense.
My point is that when a public sector union, somehow manages to create a situation where they have us backed into a corner, and if we don't give into them, they can make a lot of trouble for us, cannot be compared to a group of entrepreneurs who do not have any power to disrupt our lives, by merely being inactive.
So when it comes to political donations to municipal candidates, I say bring it on.
Let the best man win.
Isn't that fair?
Grumpy
4 years ago
Bought and sold like cattle.....
......is the story of on how civic politics are played. Corruption is the name of the game and who pays the most, gets rewarded.
We do not live in a democracy, how can anyone say that we do when politicians are so easily bought and sold.
Look at Delta, where massive donations to 'certain' candidates ensures that 'certain' people get 'certain' projects approved.
There is a massive scandal brewing in Delta, where after a private sports organization invested about $1 million in procuring a improving playing fields, they are getting kicked out because a 'prestigious' soccer club wants to train there.
I wonder how much the 'prestigious' soccer club is paying 'certain' incumbent politicians who need money for reelection in '08, to ensure that the fields deal will happen.
Tulip
4 years ago
Woe Unto Us?
Yes, damn those dastardly unions for having the audacity to "disrupt" our lives mildly in their battle to raise our collective standard of living.
It's not as if private entrepreneurs ever harm us by cutting off service, right? No, history is unmarked by a single incident of private firms cutting off services or hiking prices up to an un-payable level.
And while unions may mildly inconvenience certain bitter segments of the population, at least they do not actively harm us. The same of course cannot be said of the private entrepreneurs.
Woe unto to the people that have an active business community.
Glen Murtz
4 years ago
SALE EVENT ON FLYER DROPS!!
ummm..
$100,000 for a freaking flyer drop?
You have to be kidding.
Either someones getting ripped off or there's some serious "greasing" going on.
Ain't *no* way a flyer drop costs $100,000 in the "real world".
Are these guys using like, union "flyer dropper" people or something?
Tell Mr. Higgins *I'll* design, print and drop his flyers for $60,000 - and I might even (ahem) find room for a contribution afterwards. Call me Higgins and I'll kick back some uhhhh.... "quotes".
sdgreen
4 years ago
May the strong Win
I do not agree with the notion of election financing restraints. Political parties that attract supporters and thus financial support obviously have the will to be successful.
It is the policies of a political party that is the point of attraction. If the policies are logical, then the political entity will be supported.
The notion of abolishing corporate/union or any financial support to political entities only demands that the taxpayer pay the piper, and that is the wrong way.
The only reason the left want to put caps on election funding support is that they cannot attract funding sponsors, other than unions) as a result of their policies.
G West
4 years ago
Are you SURE about this:
I think the right wind would be more than happy to ban union contributions but they'd be loathe not to keep the fiddle in for their own supporters.
For substantiation I'd suggest you look at pee wee's policy and how it’s currently being manipulated to the conservatives' advantage and to get around election financing rules.
Personal, no corporate or organizational (including unions and foundations)donations on penalty of a $10,000 fine and one year in jail for violators - served by the CEO or head of the Union in the case of an illegal corporate donation. No more than one contribution per year at an amount capped at not more than $200 of which only half can be claimed against personal income tax in the year of the donation only.
Any Union or corporation found guilty of encouraging, threatening, rewarding or otherwise trying to convince an employee or union member to contribute to a political party would be subject to immediate dismissal and a fine of not more than $10,000.
What's wrong with a level playing field, sdgreen?
Or do you really think you should be able to continue to buy your particular ‘brand’ of government?
All political parties should also be compelled to adopt and enforce the same similarly stringent set of rules about organizational tactics and practices – including how one qualifies as a member of said party in order to participate in nominating meetings and policy councils.
Alan D
4 years ago
People first
Democracy is about people, not corporations or unions. No company, union or any organization for that matter should have influence (or perceived influence) over the political process. The money should come from taxpayers in the same way that federal elections financing works, but the cap should be low.