Opinion

A Tyee Series

How to Fix Campaign Finance

Banning corporate and union participation is not the answer. Here are five ways to improve B.C.'s municipal elections.

By Denisa Gavan-Koop, 21 Nov 2007, TheTyee.ca

Fat Cat

Municipal politics: In whose pocket?

Vancouver City Councillors Heather Deal and George Chow recently proposed changes to Vancouver's archaic campaign finance system. Their proposal includes banning corporate and union donations, and requiring all donations be made public every year.

Though the Vision Vancouver councillors must be credited with resuscitating debate about municipal campaign finance -- Vancouver City Council is now scheduled to hear the Vision motion on November 29 -- their proposed remedies may not be the best cure for what ails local elections in B.C.

Below are five suggestions that many poilitical scientists agree would lead to more fair and equitable funding of local campaigns. But first, a look at how other places address campaign finance.

No limits in B.C. or Alberta

There simply are no limits for candidates, donors and third-party campaigners in B.C. and Alberta. The campaign finance systems in the two provinces are the least rigorous in Canada.

Corporations, unions and individuals can donate as much as they choose, and candidates can spend as much as they like. Donors don't even have to live in Canada; there is nothing to prevent multinational corporations -- or even a foreign nation -- from buying influence within B.C. city halls.

Vancouver's 2005 municipal election was the most expensive on record. Three rival political parties reported spending more than $4 million to elect a mayor, city council, and two part-time boards.That's six times the amount spent per vote in the 2005 provincial election.

Calgary also provides interesting examples of money flowing out of -- and back into -- candidates' pockets. Mayoral candidate Alnoor Kassam put nearly a million dollars of his own money toward his unsucessful campaign. While in 2004, former Calgary alderman John Schmal was allowed to do as he pleased with the $48,000 surplus in his campaign war chest.

Rules abound elsewhere

There is much to be learned from other provinces and nations.

In Ontario, contributions to candidates from corporations, unions and individuals are limited to $750. Each candidate for local councillor may not exceed $5,000, plus 75 cents per eligible elector; mayoral candidates are allowed $7,500 plus 70 cents per elector.

In Quebec, donatations can only be made by Quebec electors. Corporate and unions are prohibited. The total amount of contributions that an individul elector can make during a 12-month period must not exceed $1,000.

In the United States, there is a "pre-reporting period" whereby all committees acting on behalf or against a candidate must report to the government which candidate they are supporting and how much money they will be spending on the candidate's behalf 60 days before a general election and 30 days before a primary election.

All advertisements in New Zealand, including third party advertisements, supporting a candidate must have the candidate's written authorization. Such advertisements count towards the candidates' contributions.

Five ideas to improve B.C.'s local elections

Banning corporate and union donations will not likely make B.C.'s system more virtuous. Instead, banning these donations might simply hide donations through activities such as in-kind contributions or individual employee donations. Preventing such orcharested efforts by corporations and unions is difficult, even with strict provisions in place. Prohibiting such donations will make it even more difficult to trace where the money is coming from.

But reform remains a worthwhile objective. Here are some suggestions for a more fair and equitable system:

  1. Only registered voters within the province of B.C. should be allowed to donate to local elections. All such contributions should be limited -- whether given in money, goods or services from any individual, corporation or union.
  2. Candidates' spending should be limited for each local election. Limits should be based on the number of elegible voters within an electoral jurisdiction. For example, the spending limit for councillor candidates might be $5,000 plus 75 cents per eligible voter; mayoral candidates might be allowed a limit of $10,000 plus 75 cents per voter. (Spending and donation limits would be gradually adjusted for inflation and population change.)
  3. Campaign financial statements should be more accessible to the public. All campaign finance disclosure forms should be collected, scanned and uploaded to the Elections BC website after each municipal election. Elections BC should be funded to create and maintain a permanent, fully searchable, and multi-jurisdictional database, through which any user could search for any donor or any candidate -- local, provincial or federal -- at any time.
  4. All money that is spent by third-party campaigners should be limited and disclosed to the public on the Elections BC website as part of its fully searchable database. Such support would count towards the candidates total contributions and spending.
  5. The roles and mandates of both the B.C. chief electoral officer and the local city clerk should change. The chief electoral officer must be responsible for the impartial administration of, and full disclosure of activities within, both provincial and municipal elections in B.C. Local city clerks should be responsible for checking campaign finance statements, and reporting all possible abuses to Elections B.C.

Voters losing confidence as province delays

There have been numerous roundtables and reports on how to reform the current system over the past decade, but nothing has been done. Provincial cutbacks to Elections BC and failed attempts by muncipial councils have stalled previous reform efforts.

Back in 1998, Paddy Smith and Kennedy Stewart wrote a report for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs entitled "Making Local Accountabilty Work in British Columbia." The two Simon Fraser University professors advocated sweeping changes to the campaign finance system as a way of improving the quality of democracy in B.C. Smith informally called the report "the Cassandra project" after the Greek goddess who was able to see into the future and predict devastating consequences, but who was later cursed so that no one would believe her predictions. Likewise, Paddy explains, "the report resulted in lots of discussion, some with a little heat, but NO action was taken by the Ministry."

Voters are losing confidence in British Columbia's municipal governments, as evidenced by declining voter turnout in local elections. Although we may not agree on the specific way that campaign finance should be reformed, we can agree that reform is necessary. There is no reason why something that is so important to the health of our democracy has been neglected for so long.

The principles of transparency, accountability and fairness must be the primary characteristics of a reformed campaign finance system in order to help restore voter confidence and improve the health of democracy. With the upcoming 2008 civic elections less than a year away, there is no better time for change then now.

Related Tyee stories:

 [Tyee]

14  Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • James Burns

    4 years ago

    All donations should be

    All donations should be banned, including candidates spending their own money. All elections should be publicly financed. There should be mandatory allotments of time for all candidates to be able to speak in the media. There should be potentially serious fines for media that provide inordinate amounts of positive or negative or even excessive coverage of particular candidates and not others. That would prevent media barons from supporting their favorite candidates through the coverage of their media outlets. Sure the latter would be initially difficult to administer, but if the rules are clear it wouldn't be hard for journalists to follow them. I mean come on, just look at how closely they follow the dictates of a corporatist media agenda, with its rah rah attitude toward cronyism and disaster capitalism, and that's without clear rules, just the fear of losing their jobs if they don't toe the ideological line.

  • Tulip

    4 years ago

    Public Financing

    Public financing really is the only logical way to go with this. It ensures you cut out these seedy and absurd donations amounts, and it might actually give third and fourth party candidates an actual chance, to say nothing of just regular folks.

  • frank2

    4 years ago

    avoid overkill

    The recommendations clearly apply mainly to large municipalities: I would hate to see "strict accountability" of time spent by friends talking up their candidtate in smaller municipalities (which are the vast majority). Policing of such rules would be impossible -- yet potentially give rise to all sorts of strife and accusations in small municipalities.

    Also, if there is serious hanky panky, the recommendation of making the council clerk (who is, after all, in council employ) in charge of auditing is peculiar. This function should be the resspondibility of the returning officer (also appointed by Council, but on contract for the election) -- with the police to step in if something serious is indicated.

  • Skywalker

    4 years ago

    One more way.

    Any individual running for election must reside in the municipality he/she hopes to represent. It is outrageous that a person votes on how to spend property taxes when they don't even pay property taxes.

  • sdgreen

    4 years ago

    Freedom to Attract

    Public funding of elections should be banned as this does not provide for candidates to work for their job.

    Persons who put their name in for election must attract support and therefore attract funds to do their campaign. If we publically fund this then candidates get a 'free ride'.

  • G West

    4 years ago

    please clarify

    .

    Quote:
    ..this does not provide for candidates to work for their job.

    Candidates don't exactly 'work' and are certainly unpaid until after they are elected, sdgreen.

    What exactly are you implying? I don't see how providing public funding - which gets the corporate, union and other hangers on off the gravy train by severing their connection with EVERY candidate - would be a bad thing.

    As a matter of fact, it would tend to level the playing field and stop the nonsensical kind of thing we've seen lately from Pee Wee's party - those execrable attack ads against Dion.

    Put all the candidates on a strict diet and cut them off from their enablers. I'll bet it would be cheaper - and certainly more equitable - in the end.

    What might be difficult at the municipal level would be more than sensible at the provincial and federal level.

    It could also be used to clean the damn lobbyists off the table once and for all too.

  • DJT

    4 years ago

    It disgusts me that some

    It disgusts me that some folks, or groups of folks, are more "equal" than others based on the size of a cheque. Maybe donations should be anonymous and no longer tax deductible. We'd see just how altruistic everyone is then, wouldn't we?

  • BLONDE PITBULL

    4 years ago

    Maybe all donations should

    Maybe all donations should go in one pot and equally handed out to all participants?

  • G West

    4 years ago

    Good idea blonde pitbull!

    I think, in the course of time, that most donations under that regime would dry up within one election cycle.

    Most donations are made under the prospect that some 'benefit' will flow from the donation...

    Remove the 'possibility' of benefit the only donors left would be those who actually believe in democracy. Which is why, in the end, publically funded election campaigns are in EVERYONE'S best interests

  • BLONDE PITBULL

    4 years ago

    Ya,G, you're right. I did

    Ya,G, you're right. I did think of that. But my twisted sense of humour kicked in. Had to say it.LOL.

  • G West

    4 years ago

    No probs

    I'll vote for you.

    You might even get a donation for your campaign - long as you promise not to change once elected.

    Seen a lot of that lately!

  • reality_check

    4 years ago

    sdgreen ... as a person who ran ...

    I agree with James Burn and Gwest, but there are valid concerns with public funding too, IMO.

    I ran in an election as an independent candidate, considering that I should not be beholden/indebted to anyone. It was not so easy and I definitely was at a disadvantage. It would have been very easy to phone or set up a quick meeting with the local union, demonstrating my union activities and connections to get funding. Is that what you consider "working"? Of course, one can volunteer one's time to causes and garner recognition that way. If one is really smart, they would ensure that they would have their photo taken to get maximum exposure. I doubt however that it proves conclusively my values to the electorate? Of course, there are no magic bullet. However, consider this! If I am an average single man or woman with no support and virtually no time to do those extra activities to prove to the electorate my worth. And, then, suppose I am a rich person who has lots of time to attend meetings, marches, activities,... volunteering my time to do this or that. The second will work more, but s/he has the time and resources to do so. So, it is not fair. However, I understand your point. If we give unlimited access to this public funding pot, then we might water the fundning down (if we were to limit the total amount) or we might be taxing the public purse with too many candidates. Maybe there should be some kind of mandatory "work" involved, explaining in detail one's platform (and adhering to those once elected) or a petition-like process whereby people would be endorsing a candidate (and one should have an number), although this opens the door to under-the-table dealings.

    Back to you.

  • BLONDE PITBULL

    4 years ago

    Vote for me?

    I wouldn't even begin to know how to start. And I'm not likely to change. But thanks for the vote of confidence if nothing else.

  • Romeogolf

    4 years ago

    Level Playing Field

    This article did not offer a compelling argument as to why banning corporate and union election funding wouldn't work. I don't see how underground financing would be any easier to discover under the five reforms proposed.

    Democracy is compromised when those with greater financial resources can garner greater exposure, thereby improving their chances of election.

    If the people are to elect the candidate that best represents the majority interest of the populace, they should be able to equally evaluate all qualified candidates. To present a level playing field, elections should be publicly financed with each candidate given equal funding and equal media exposure.

    This doesn't mean candidates won't have to work to persuade voters of their suitability. There's also plain, old-fashioned campaigning -- getting out into the street. Nevertheless, the amount of work is not the primary measure of a candidate's suitability. What is more important is their platform and track record.

    The public elections body must also be properly funded to provide sufficient oversight, as the imperative to secure advantage, especially where financial resources are far greater, is insatiable.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.