Every winter, during our time down in Myrtle Beach, there are Can-Am Appreciation Days held to thank the northern snowbirds for helping to keep the place going until warmer weather starts bringing the crowds to this area. Some 10 years back this annual event featured a panel of politicians from the U.S. and Canada. This caught my attention partly because the panel members from Canada included Peter Milliken (from my home area) and Senator Frank Mahovlich, a star player with the Maple Leafs back when Toronto had a professional hockey team. [Sorry about that]
When the panel discussion turned to the cost of elections and campaigning, the American representatives indicated they were involved in fund-raising activities about every second day. The Canadians reps responded that they might be involved in such events a few times a year. They went on to explain that federal legislation limited how much they could spend during an election campaign, depending on the number of electors in their particular riding. At that time, both Peter Milliken and another member of the House of Commons from B.C, indicated that their limits were under $70,000. The Americans were astounded, given that they routinely spent a million or more.
The issue of money and politics has been very much in the news in Canada of late. Much of the attention has centred on the governing party in Ontario after it was disclosed that those wishing access to Cabinet ministers were expected to make contributions to the Liberal Party to gain admittance to events where this access would take place. In addition, members of the Cabinet apparently had quotas for the amount of money they were expected to raise on behalf of the party. As the story dragged on, the response of Premier Wynne changed from characterizing the fund raising as a healthy part of democracy, to speaking of possible limitations being introduced in the fall, to promising legislation this spring, to outlawing the criticized practices immediately. In addition, the Globe and Mail has been running a series of editorials that examine the rules on election financing in each province. Now that Ontario is tightening things up, B.C. is the main outlier and its Premier remains unrepentant at the moment.
Money and Politics Gone Mad
If Canadians need any reason to impose greater limits on financial contributions to political parties, they need only look to our American neighbours. A most unfortunate decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 overturned long standing restrictions on corporations (and unions and other interest groups) and they are now free to spend as much as they wish in an effort to elect (or defeat) candidates for office. Political action committees (PACs) now channel vast sums of money. Most of this is money from corporations or wealthy individuals (notably the Koch brothers) and has been primarily to support the election of pro-business politicians. The notion that the wealthy and privileged have hijacked the democratic process in the U.S. is a large part of the reason for the surprising popularity of Trump and Sanders – both of whom are seen as not part of the establishment. Yes, Sanders has been part of the political establishment for decades and Trump has made and lost vast sums of money, but public attitudes don’t have to be logical to be real, and a great many Americans are so disillusioned with their political system that they have embraced these two very unlikely choices for President.
The Money Has to Come from Somewhere
As we tighten rules governing how much corporations and unions can contribute however, we must bear in mind that running a party and campaigning for an election will still cost money and it will have to come from somewhere. Unless we are going to subsidize election costs from our taxes, parties will have to extend their fund raising activities much more widely and aggressively. All of us will be asked to do our part by contributing to the party or parties of our choice. To the extent that we do so, one positive consequence may be that contributors will pay a little more attention to politics, so that they can keep an eye on “their investment.” Constant appeals for funds from political parties can be annoying, but we need to understand that this is one of the inevitable results if we restrict the amount that can be donated by organized interests. It is, I would argue, a price worth paying in support of a more egalitarian approach to the issue of money and politics.