The Public Dole
Funny how politicians are, they become concerned with the public weal to an extent they hadn't been while in public office, but seeing the way things should be, seek to make alterations that might better reflect democratic values to take place once they leave public office. Their legacy as upright and concerned legislators.
A politician as morally challenged as the Honourable Jean Chretien who pulled all kinds of tricks misusing public funds to favour himself and his cronies suddenly gets 'religion' on leaving politics.
"More public contribution to meet the requirements of every party is a very small price to pay in order to have a very substantial reform of political financing", he is reputed to have explained, although it taxes the imagination to conceive of his being able to articulate that mouthful.
So, unilaterally, without exchanging opinions within his caucus, let alone polling the opposition parties, he took unto himself the public duty of pushing through his political funding reforms. They sounded good and honourable. While promising some complications on the way to sainthood.
Donations to political parties would be restricted to make the process more seemly, more open, more democratic, more - far more - unlike the American system. Corporate and union donations would be verboten. Individual donations would be tightly capped. The taxpayer would be pleased to contribute to this new system whereby each party would be allocated a $1.95 per vote allowance.
Did anyone really realize what a princely sum that would turn out to be? For political parties, that is. For taxpayers to fork out, as well. The new policy would be revenue neutral, it was said. What? Forfeiting uncertainty for certainty. As it happens, the reality is that all political parties collect from Elections Canada cheques far more than they ever realized through traditional fund-raising.
Roughly 50% greater revenues are accruing to all registered political parties through public funding, commensurate with the number of votes they garner.
And here's a painful fact; in the four years prior to the new funding formula the Bloc Quebecois raised under $1-million in corporate donations. Now they can sit back and rest on their laurels, lifting not one pinky to raise funds, and they receive $12-million in public handouts.
This is a special kind of insanity; the Canadian public in a salute to democratic values is paying handsomely to have a separatist party do its utmost to continue wreaking havoc in Canada. How utterly satisfying.
"The Bloc has all this dough; they never have to fundraise again", commented the former president of the Liberal Party who had resisted Mr. Chretien's funding reforms.
Little wonder the virtuous, and well funded Conservatives attempted to slip a retraction of that bill into their November 2008 budget, eliciting howls of outrage from the opposition parties who rushed into non-confidence and an attempted defeat of the government, hoping to divvie up the governing spoils between them.
It's interesting, as University of Calgary prof. Tom Flanagan, an erstwhile colleague and collaborator of Prime Minister Harper's, that as a result of these public subsidies to the country's political parties which has them comfortably funded, they have been able to engage in what some might describe as permanent campaigning.
Bah, humbug, who needs it? A change is due and overdue. Either put a more reasonable cap on corporate and union donations, along with individual largess, or lower the current publicly-endowed allowance.
Funnily enough American President Barack Obama is steaming over the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to ease restraints placed on corporate spending on election campaigns. The ruling, 5-4, held that corporations could dispense cash as they would to finance campaign ads both pro- and -con political candidates.
"It is a major victory for big oil, Wall street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of every day Americans", he fumed. Just can't seem to win for losing.
A politician as morally challenged as the Honourable Jean Chretien who pulled all kinds of tricks misusing public funds to favour himself and his cronies suddenly gets 'religion' on leaving politics.
"More public contribution to meet the requirements of every party is a very small price to pay in order to have a very substantial reform of political financing", he is reputed to have explained, although it taxes the imagination to conceive of his being able to articulate that mouthful.
So, unilaterally, without exchanging opinions within his caucus, let alone polling the opposition parties, he took unto himself the public duty of pushing through his political funding reforms. They sounded good and honourable. While promising some complications on the way to sainthood.
Donations to political parties would be restricted to make the process more seemly, more open, more democratic, more - far more - unlike the American system. Corporate and union donations would be verboten. Individual donations would be tightly capped. The taxpayer would be pleased to contribute to this new system whereby each party would be allocated a $1.95 per vote allowance.
Did anyone really realize what a princely sum that would turn out to be? For political parties, that is. For taxpayers to fork out, as well. The new policy would be revenue neutral, it was said. What? Forfeiting uncertainty for certainty. As it happens, the reality is that all political parties collect from Elections Canada cheques far more than they ever realized through traditional fund-raising.
Roughly 50% greater revenues are accruing to all registered political parties through public funding, commensurate with the number of votes they garner.
And here's a painful fact; in the four years prior to the new funding formula the Bloc Quebecois raised under $1-million in corporate donations. Now they can sit back and rest on their laurels, lifting not one pinky to raise funds, and they receive $12-million in public handouts.
This is a special kind of insanity; the Canadian public in a salute to democratic values is paying handsomely to have a separatist party do its utmost to continue wreaking havoc in Canada. How utterly satisfying.
"The Bloc has all this dough; they never have to fundraise again", commented the former president of the Liberal Party who had resisted Mr. Chretien's funding reforms.
Little wonder the virtuous, and well funded Conservatives attempted to slip a retraction of that bill into their November 2008 budget, eliciting howls of outrage from the opposition parties who rushed into non-confidence and an attempted defeat of the government, hoping to divvie up the governing spoils between them.
It's interesting, as University of Calgary prof. Tom Flanagan, an erstwhile colleague and collaborator of Prime Minister Harper's, that as a result of these public subsidies to the country's political parties which has them comfortably funded, they have been able to engage in what some might describe as permanent campaigning.
Bah, humbug, who needs it? A change is due and overdue. Either put a more reasonable cap on corporate and union donations, along with individual largess, or lower the current publicly-endowed allowance.
Funnily enough American President Barack Obama is steaming over the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to ease restraints placed on corporate spending on election campaigns. The ruling, 5-4, held that corporations could dispense cash as they would to finance campaign ads both pro- and -con political candidates.
"It is a major victory for big oil, Wall street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of every day Americans", he fumed. Just can't seem to win for losing.
posted by Pieface | 6:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home