The article you just read was brought to you by a few thousand dedicated readers. Will you join them?

Thanks for coming by The Tyee and reading one of many original articles we’ll post today. Our team works hard to publish in-depth stories on topics that matter on a daily basis. Our motto is: No junk. Just good journalism.

Just as we care about the quality of our reporting, we care about making our stories accessible to all who want to read them and provide a pleasant reading experience. No intrusive ads to distract you. No paywall locking you out of an article you want to read. No clickbait to trick you into reading a sensational article.

There’s a reason why our site is unique and why we don’t have to rely on those tactics — our Tyee Builders program. Tyee Builders are readers who chip in a bit of money each month (or one-time) to our editorial budget. This amazing program allows us to pay our writers fairly, keep our focus on quality over quantity of articles, and provide a pleasant reading experience for those who visit our site.

In the past year, we’ve been able to double our staff team and boost our reporting. We invest all of the revenue we receive into producing more and better journalism. We want to keep growing, but we need your support to do it.

Fewer than 1 in 100 of our average monthly readers are signed up to Tyee Builders. If we reach 1% of our readers signing up to be Tyee Builders, we could continue to grow and do even more.

If you appreciate what The Tyee publishes and want to help us do more, please sign up to be a Tyee Builder today. You pick the amount, and you can cancel any time.

Support our growing independent newsroom and join Tyee Builders today.
Before you click away, we have something to ask you…

Do you value independent journalism that focuses on the issues that matter? Do you think Canada needs more in-depth, fact-based reporting? So do we. If you’d like to be part of the solution, we’d love it if you joined us in working on it.

The Tyee is an independent, paywall-free, reader-funded publication. While many other newsrooms are getting smaller or shutting down altogether, we’re bucking the trend and growing, while still keeping our articles free and open for everyone to read.

The reason why we’re able to grow and do more, and focus on quality reporting, is because our readers support us in doing that. Over 5,000 Tyee readers chip in to fund our newsroom on a monthly basis, and that supports our rockstar team of dedicated journalists.

Join a community of people who are helping to build a better journalism ecosystem. You pick the amount you’d like to contribute on a monthly basis, and you can cancel any time.

Help us make Canadian media better by joining Tyee Builders today.
We value: Our readers.
Our independence. Our region.
The power of real journalism.
We're reader supported.
Get our newsletter free.
Help pay for our reporting.

Pay for Play Politics in BC Must Stop

Ban on corporate, union donations only way to remove taint of big money.

By Bill Tieleman 5 Apr 2016 |

Bill Tieleman is a former NDP strategist whose clients include unions and businesses in the resource and public sector. Tieleman is a regular Tyee contributor who writes a column on B.C. politics every Tuesday in 24 Hours newspaper. Email him at or visit his blog.

"There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money and I can't remember what the second one is." -- U.S. Republican Senator Mark Hanna, 1896

Secret dinners where corporate executives and lobbyists can pay $10,000 each for a private meal with Premier Christy Clark are simply wrong.

But that's happening -- and BC Liberal fundraising chair Bob Rennie is planning at least 20 similar events before the May 2017 election, according to a Globe and Mail report.

The clear perception is that big money buys access to the province's most powerful politician that is unavailable to British Columbians who don't have $10,000 -- about 20 per cent of the average annual wage.

That's why pay-for-play politics in British Columbia must stop with an immediate ban on corporate and union donations.

It doesn't matter if Clark or cabinet ministers say the big donations and special dinners don't affect their decisions. The perception that people with money can buy political influence is impossible to erase without meaningful legislative changes.

The fundraising tactic has cast a shadow over B.C. politics for years.

On a single March day in 2010, the BC Liberal Party received more than $300,000 from liquor businesses, 24 Hours Vancouver reported.

Liquor business representatives were invited to discuss their concerns over lunch at a Vancouver steak house with Rich Coleman, then the minister responsible, and then-premier Gordon Campbell. The price of admission was a $15,000 donation to the Liberals.

The industry umbrella group, the Alliance of Beverage Licensees of BC, contributed $25,000 on the same day. Its executive director at the time was Kim Haakstad, who later became Premier Christy Clark's deputy chief of staff, before resigning over the ethnic outreach memo scandal.

A few weeks later, the provincial government made major changes to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act that benefited the business owners.

There is no evidence the liquor industry bought special treatment -- but the perception is that money brings access.

Fortunately, it's not hard to fix the system.

Jean Chrétien's federal Liberal government sharply limited corporate and union donations in 2003, and Stephen Harper's Conservatives banned them in 2006. The new rules only allowed donations from individuals, and set strict limits on annual giving.

Federal political parties can still run their operations and vigorous campaigns, as we saw in the October 2015 election. But there are no huge gifts given in backrooms by special interests.

Clark is still in desperate denial, talking about introducing "real time disclosure" of donations on a quarterly basis -- a change that will do nothing to end the secret suppers.

That's not surprising. In 2014, the BC Liberals raised $10.1 million -- more than $5 million from corporations -- while donations to the BC NDP were only $3.2 million, including just $132,000 from business and $384,000 from unions.

When the Liberals can take in $2 million more from corporations than the NDP raises from all sources, they're not likely to be interested in reforming political financing laws.

Fellow Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne of Ontario is also under fire for the same fundraising practices.

Wynne admits the Ontario Liberal Party sets annual fundraising targets for cabinet ministers of up to $500,000. She is now considering bans on corporate and union donations, as well as third party advertising.

Another threat to democracy

In B.C., third party ad campaigns before the election campaign period are unregulated, with no limit on spending or disclosure of funders.

Those campaigns can be highly partisan and vicious. In 2013, The Tyee and 24 Hours Vancouver broke the news that former corporate CEO and Christy Clark advisor Jim Shepard raised more than $1 million to launch a "blanket coverage... full multimedia campaign" against then-NDP leader Adrian Dix. The attack was sponsored by "Concerned Citizens for B.C." Donors were never identified.

That campaign against Dix, Vancouver Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer noted, contained "a remarkable amount of venom." The campaign was prepared by Wazuku Advisory Group, a government relations firm whose partners include lobbyist Brad Zubyk, a former NDP government communications staffer who worked on Clark's leadership campaign and for the federal Liberal party.

While the NDP went into the 2013 election campaign with a sizeable lead despite Shepard's attacks, there is little question that the $1-million ad campaign had some effect.

Some critics charge that the New Democrats are being "hypocritical" in condemning Clark's fundraising tactics while charging significant amounts for meetings with NDP leader John Horgan.

But what political party would unilaterally disarm itself? Why would any party all but guarantee its own defeat at the hands of an opponent with far more money to spend on advertising, polling, staff, phone banks, signs and everything else that wins elections?

Clark could easily halt criticism of her party's fundraising tactics by passing legislation banning corporate and union donations and limiting individual donations.

The opposition New Democrats have proposed such actions several times, and introduced a private members bill to limit donations Wednesday. The NDP has also asked Conflict of Interest Commissioner Paul Fraser to investigate whether Clark's dinners violate the Conflict of Interest Act.

And Democracy Watch, a national public advocacy group, is calling on provincial conflict commissioners to crack down on the practice of providing access in return for donations, arguing they violate conflict laws.

But Clark and the BC Liberals are unwilling to act, given their big funding advantage gained from corporate contributions.

That should be offensive to every voter.

If British Columbians want an end to corporate and union donations, they have to make it clear that politicians who refuse to make changes will pay -- in the 2017 election.  [Tyee]

Read more: BC Politics,

Share this article

The Tyee is supported by readers like you

Join us and grow independent media in Canada

Facts matter. Get The Tyee's in-depth journalism delivered to your inbox for free


The Barometer

Tyee Poll: Are You Preparing for the Next Climate Disaster?

Take this week's poll