Also if this was the case why not bring in a law like Austrialia has and fine people that don't vote 100 dollars. Those that don't vote (the 100) would go in a kitty and be split amoungst all partys equally.

Mike, thank you for your response.

“1. Remove the restriction on individual amounts. What business is it of the government how much I wish to donate to any party?”
I am assuming by your posts that you hold “progressive” views (with a dash of libertarian attitude). I am thus surprised that you would not object to millionaires (yes, despite the economic situation, they still walk, or should I say ride, among us) being able to contribute a great deal of money to fund a political party or a candidate. Can you say “possibility of influence peddling”?

“2. Remove the ban on corporate, union and third party donations.”
Your entire argument re: people now being “disbarred from voting” falls on this point.
I used to belong to a union here in Quebec that usually chose to support the Parti Quebecois.
• I was not given the option whether to belong to that union or not
• I was not given the option whether to pay the union dues or not
• I was not given the option whether to allow the union to speak on my behalf by supporting, via my union dues, a political party I did not personally support.
How is that system more democratic than the present system, in which union and corporate donations are banned?

“If I don't like what these organizations do, it’s between myself and the organizations, not the business of the government.”
Sure, let a simple union member who never took out an active membership card (my way of not complying with the union), dare fight the union by myself. Does the word “blacklist” mean anything to you?

“3. Drop the tax credit for political donations.”
I would have agreed with you on that until I read this part:
“Why isn't Jim Flaherty proposing all of these?
Because #1 and #2 would benefit the Liberals and the NDP and #3 would hurt the Conservatives.”

What you seem to imply is that the only reason conservatives donate to the Conservative party is because they get a tax credit (not a tax REFUND as my local talk show guy was arguing today).
Maybe some do, and others don't.
I don't claim to know the motivation of my fellow conservatives.
But do you have any proof that Liberals and NDPers don't do the same thing, i.e. contribute only because they know they'll be getting a tax credit?
Or are all Liberal and NDP supporters so pure of heart, not subject to human temptations?

“If Chretien had done this back in 2003 when eh introduced these reforms, you guys would be apoplectic about how terribly unfair it was.”
Actually, Chretien introduced new funding laws – no more union and no more corporate donations, and a ceiling of $5400 (initially proposed $10000 for individual donations, if memory serves).

It would be instructive, though, to review what happened when the legislation was first introduced by Chretien in February 2003:
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03march/...
“… The bill comes as Chretien is in his last year of power, forced to step down after 10 years as prime minister by his party's own caucus, which by and large supports leadership contender and former finance minister Paul Martin. In the leadership race that is underway, Martin has been criticized for refusing to disclose many of his donors. Many view the legislative initiative as a way for the prime minister to focus attention on this aspect of his long-time rival's campaign.

“The appearance of this legislation at this time is too driven by internal Liberal politics and needs: the need of the Prime Minister to whitewash various scandals from his record before he retires; the need to deal with his leadership rival within the Liberal Party; and the need to deal with the bank debts of the Liberal Party itself,” says Stephen Harper, leader of the opposition Canadian Alliance Party.

While the three other opposition parties agree with the principles of the proposed law, and plan to support it, [then-Opposition Leader] *Harper argues that taxpayers should not be forced to further subsidize political parties.* “When the Liberal public relations rhetoric is set aside, the true nature of the bill is simply the replacement by the government of its addiction to large business and union donations with an addiction to taxpayer funding.”

The prime minister will also have to contend with opposition within his own party. Liberal Party President Stephen LeDrew refers to the idea of banning corporate donors as “dumb as a bag of hammers,” and some Liberal members of Parliament agree with this sentiment. But polls show strong public support for the corporate and union donation ban, and Chretien has announced that the vote on the bill will be a confidence vote, meaning that if it fails to pass, the government may fall. As a result, most Liberals are expected to vote in favor of it. …”

So, is PM Harper now out to annihilate other parties? Or stifle democracy?
Nah hah! He was always opposed to taxpayer funding of political parties, even when he was in opposition.

Love the Liberals crying about mean-spirited PMSH and his desire to kick the Liberals when they're down.
I don't remember such comments coming from these people when that do-nothing Chretien didn't have another thought in his head aside from kicking the 'right' in the galloolies at every opportunity.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
I saw a report that the rudderless Libs are looking to Chretien for advice. You can say a lot of negative things about the bugger, but he's not a wimp. He played hardball, and he was good at it. The best advice he could give to the Libs now is to shut up, grow up, stop whining, put a knife in Dion, and don't pick a wuss the next time.

As for the prospect of the Liberals getting into a coalition bed with the SEPARATISTS, that would be THE END of the party. Poof. Gone. Dead.

The LIBERALS IN BED WITH THE SEPARATISTS would drive a stake through their chests in Quebec and fortress Toronto. I wish they would do it, but there's no way in hell they will do anything but head for the lobby when the bells start to ring.

The great opportunity is that it forces the parties to stand for something that significant number of people feel strong enough to support with financial donations. The cult of personality takes a back seat to policy. The Liberals will have to change their focus to platform rather than who looks good facing off with Harper.