The election of Barack Obama is historic in many ways, most significantly in the progression along the troubled history of race in the United States. On Tuesday, Americans turned out in record numbers to give Obama a decisive win and vault the first African-American into the highest office in that country. The Obama team also set new records along the fundraising front and may indeed set a precedent for the financing of elections in the future.
According to opensecrets.org, a website on money in politics run by the Centre for Responsive Politics, Senator Obama raised $639 million during the 2008 Presidential election cycle with 91% of that sum coming from individual donations. Comparatively, Senator McCain raised $360 million, 54% coming from the same type; the majority of the dollars from each candidate’s campaign came from people making personal donations to their favourite candidate. A striking difference between campaigns was Obama’s refusal of public funding. The Illinois senator took $0 of public financing while his Republican counterpart from Arizona took over $84 million to make up 23% of his campaign’s spending power.
We didn’t start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington – it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston.
It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give five dollars and ten dollars and twenty dollars to this cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation’s apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth. This is your victory. — President-elect Barack Obama, Chicago November 4th, 2008
In Canada, the Reform Party under Preston Manning started a tradition of passing the hat in church basements and legion halls during rallies, speeches or simple administrative meetings. A donation of $5, $20 or $100 was passed on to bring change to Ottawa. The tradition continues today under Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party, though in a much more sophisticated way and one that is buoyed by databases and telemarketing. Conservatives have historically raised an average individual donation of about $100 while Liberals used to depend on fewer but larger sums. Jean Chretien –perhaps to kneecap his long-coveting Prime Ministerial successor — changed the way election financing was done in Canada by banning corporate and union donations. Chretien replaced the private financing of political parties by special interests with public financing by government. For each vote that a party earns during an election, that party receives $1.75 per year from the federal treasury.
On the surface, this reconfiguration of campaign financing seems to rebalance the funding equation from powerful institutions to those that ought to have the first and last word in any democracy. Indeed, voters are empowered not only when they give campaigns their vote but also when they do so with the knowledge that instead of corporate or union backing, there is a small financial sum that comes with each ballot cast that sustains parties instead. However, while Chretien’s system solves one problem, it creates another.
In Quebec where a province defaults to the inert rather than the principled, a problem exists with Chretien’s model of campaign financing. The Bloc Quebecois, doing all it could to supress its core principle of sovereignty for that province, rather stood against — indeed, as a block to — Conservative ideas in the 2008 general election and against Liberal corruption in 2006. In the first half of this year, the Bloc raised just over $70,000 but received $1.5 million in public financing. Donations are a result of direct support whereas that larger windfall comes from standing against something rather than offering something better. The Bloc Quebecois would not exist if it had to rely upon direct non-governmental financing from supporters.
This summer, I met a member of the Obama campaign’s senior staff in New York City. Discussing the presidential campaign and some Canadian politics, I was told that the Liberal Party had approached the Obama campaign to attain some insight into their fundraising capacity and to create a similar system in Canada so that a large number of small donors could fill their campaign war chest. The staffer told me that after initial discussions, the Liberal Party never followed up in any significant way.
A tried-and-true election strategy for the Liberal Party has been to strike fear into the electorate about what a Conservative administration might mean for Canada. In the last election we were warned that a Conservative majority would allow Harper to finally implement his hidden agenda. Yet the Conservatives in power have not been innocent of taking this lower path either. Defining Stephane Dion as a weak leader and scaring the electorate as to what his “tax on everything” would mean to the economy took a negative track and suggested people vote against, rather than for the Conservatives. People are goaded out of fear to vote against and they often hold their nose for the not-as-offensive choice they end up “supporting”. Since money comes from support, we should break the model that rewards false support and strengthen one that challenges parties to offer ideas rather than fear. Government subsidization of political parties hurts Canadian politics.
The motto of Barack Obama’s campaign for President was “Yes We Can”. Under the current Canadian system, we give welfare to parties for being best able to convince Canadians of the other parties, “No They Can’t”. If we made politics about the positive (Yes), responsibility of self (We) and enablement (Can) rather than the negative (No), what one’s opponent would do (They) and a need to stop them (Can’t), perhaps we could reduce voter apathy both at the ballot box and when parties pass the hat. If we gave voters more power to finance those they support rather than sustain those they least detest we could shift Canadian politics for the better.
On Tuesday, American politics changed. It is time to end campaign welfare so that we can replace politics that scares with that which inspires.
Yes we can.
Stephen Taylor is a scientist, political analyst and a blogger. Taylor writes here regularly and is the founder of bloggingtories.ca. Taylor has contributed to Macleans, CTV, talk radio and has been a featured speaker on new media at numerous events including the Western Standard Cruise and the Forum for Public Policy. In December 2008, Taylor organized Rally for Canada, a series of rallies held coast-to-coast to protest the proposed coalition government.
November 7th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Does Hollywood or union money count as personal or corporate ?
November 7th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Union money, as a third party donation would go via a PAC. It should be noted that Obama took only $1,280 in PAC money during the Presidential campaign. “Hollywood” is limited to individual donations of a maximum of $2300 per person. This is the same rule that applies to all Americans.
November 7th, 2008 at 9:38 am
I'm amazed at how people are so enthralled with Obama. All he's done so far is make some eloquent speeches. He hasn't done ANYTHING other than talk. He doesn't even barely have a history at all that we can look back to to use as a example of what is to come! Therefore, all of this talk about American politics 'changing for the better' and a 'revolution in the presidency' is nothing more than counting chickens before the eggs hatch.
I'll believe it when I see it, until then Mr. Obama is just another democratic president. I wish people would get their heads out of the clouds and look at it realistically as well.
November 7th, 2008 at 9:45 am
This wasn't an endorsement of Obama's tax plan. It was to say that the method of raising money has changed in the United States. I argue for the better since Obama won without government subsidy. Canada would be better if it changed campaign financing to make parties earn supporter dollars solely through donations rather than donations and government subsidy.
November 7th, 2008 at 9:59 am
As a professional fundraiser in the business for 19 years and an expert in grassroots direct response giving, I have much I would like to respond to this but have little time at the moment. what I will comment on is that you've hit a number of points on the head (except to describe Obama's fundraising as simplistic compared to the CPC's databases ect, is not quite true. O's fundraising, albeit at the grassroots level was VERY sophisticated).
Canadians have a 'culture' of believing the government will look after us. You look at ANY fundraising in any sector in the US and you will see that they give massive amounts more in philanthropic dollars. Americans support their Universities, hospitals, charitable and political arenas in a way that is mind-blowing. It's a completely different culture of giving. As an aside, its why I will never employ an American vendor in my fundraising, because they do not 'get' Canadian's attitudes to giving and philanthropy.
In a nutshell the problem is with the basic mind set of a conservative vs. a liberal/socialist. A conservative believes in himself and the community supporting those things he believes in. A liberal/socialist believes that the government should take care of it all. Tis why you saw Reform do so well in their fundraising. Tis why the CPC does. It's a basic difference in attitude. Liberals will NEVER do well with grassroots fundraising because their supporters don't fundamentally see 'why' they should support their party. We've long known this in the charitable sector. Those charities and non-profits that appeal to more conservative base (churches and religious institutes get 54% of the charitable dollar in Canada, United Way, health and disease) do very well with their fundraising.
I worked in the hospital sector for years and we always TARGETED donors with conservative ideals. See.. lefties believe that health care is owed to us and the government should pay it all, where are righties know that government doesn’t pay for hospital equipment (in ON) and if they want an MRI for their local hospital, they’d better cough up the cash. Compare that with those industries that more appeal to the typical left – environment gets 1% of the charitable dollar, social services 4% etc. Lefties don't tend to give, nor when they do, do they give as generously. Right leaning people aren't waiting for government to bail them out of whatever cause is closest to their hearts, they are taking steps personally. It's not rocket science.
The LPC will never be as successful in their fundraising as the CPC because those making the development decisions know they can't move their base. Unlike in the US where a larger % (even of low income) give back to their society, Canadians don't even think to. After all, won’t government take care of us cradle to grave??
November 7th, 2008 at 10:07 am
“except to describe Obama's fundraising as simplistic compared to the CPC's databases ect, is not quite true. O's fundraising, albeit at the grassroots level was VERY sophisticated”
Didn't say that. The comparison was between Manning's legion hall fundraising to the CPC's database efforts.
Thanks for the thoughts. I agree very much on the consevative/socialist divide on attitudes towards giving.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:43 am
My apologies, I read that into your comment and admit having not read your post as throughly as I normally do due to today's time constraints, I obviously projected. .
November 7th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
That whole hidden agenda mantra is silly. If the agenda were hidden, how is its existence known? And if the Libs have proof of the hidden agenda's existence then they must have the hidden agenda. Why, then, were the contents of the hidden agenda never tossed out to the electorate? The whole hidden agenda mantra is just a load of hooey. If I were a Lib and I had proof of a hidden agenda, I'd make it public. I think that our fellow Canadians are starting to wake up to the big lie concerning this hidden agenda which does not exist. I challenge any Lib to prove to me that this hidden agenda exists. If this is not possible then the Libs should try another tactic. This mantra has had its 15 minutes of fame and should retire for good.
November 7th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Agreed. Albeit I almost take it as a compliment. If all the Liberals can find bad about the Conservatives is a made up 'hidden agenda', it must mean that there isn't really anything substansial that they can point to as the Conservatives doing a bad job. In the absense of real goofs, they resort to making up this crap about a hidden agenda. Hopefully it works, albeit less and less as time goes on. I think people are starting to realize that if they Conservatives really had a hidden agenda, it would have either reared its head by now or the Liberals would have dug up what it actually is.
November 7th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Consider that I mean that framing your opponent is less ideal that advocating purely on your own issues. My argument is that the system makes it necessary to take the low road and this can be changed by shifting the way parties are funded.
November 7th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Devin, we should take a look at the median donation of an Obama donor, the median donation of NDP and CPC supporters. You'll find that it's south of $100. This is accessible for most stakeholders of a democracy.
November 7th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
1. Therefore, a record number turned out for Obama.
2. Perhaps, and I wouldn't presume any politician innocent of even slight hypocrisy. Was fantastic that it ended up in a way where the victor in an election for POTUS didn't take a cent of public money.
November 7th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Funny you should mention Obama's fund raising. There are some serious allegations that the Democrat's turned off all the security features on their online websites allowing such people as “Adolf Hitler” and “Saddam Hussein” to contribute money. It will be interesting to see if anything comes of these allegations.
November 8th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Interesting comment by Tamara, which bears out what I think a lot of people have believed intuitively. However, the NDP raised more than the Liberals from a much smaller power base, so I'm not sure how that fits in.
I think most Canadians would like to see the vote-based subsidy cut, and the current economic climate would seem a perfect time to do it – politicians showing they care about how taxpayers money is used in these troubled economic times. I think the basic argument for keeping the subsidies is that they help new parties get started, although Reform managed quite well on its own. If we are to keep subsidies, even in a reduced form, I would like to see them calculated on some kind of matching basis to the funds that a party can raise itself, which would be a way of either cutting the Bloc off at the knees, or forcing them to actually spend time raising funds. We could possibly have some combination of reduced subsidy of say $1 per vote, matching dollar for dollar funds raised by each party.
November 8th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Not to mention, that in Canada, a $100 donation isn't really $100. You get 3/4ths of it back next tax cheque.
November 9th, 2008 at 9:33 am
In Canada, the Reform Party under Preston Manning started a tradition of passing the hat in church basements and legion halls during rallies, speeches or simple administrative meetings. A donation of $5, $20 or $100 was passed on to bring change to Ottawa.
I agree. But part of both Obama's and Manning's fundraising efforts and strategies were buoyed by the fact that they represented something ideologically different then their opponents. In the Reform party's case, it was the elitism and mismanagement of both the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals in Ottawa. In Obama's case, the corruption and mismanagement of the Republicans in Washington.
Once that “anything but” aura wares off, it will be much more difficult to tap into such an ethos via small donations.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Just a thought.. as per my own blog today, studies suggest that Conservative bloggers and in particular, “Blogging Tories” significantly outnumbers the Libs and NDP in number of blogs and postings.. one might imagine a “point and click” donation machine that could be used to facilitate individual donations to the Conservative Party, that individual bloggers could append to each of the websites, as they do with the “Blogging Tories” feed for example. Just a thought.
November 11th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Stephen Taylor, you are an evil genius.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:25 am
One quick thought: I'm not sure about your conclusion that private support of political parties might make Cdn politics more positive. I seem to remember several fundraising emails from the CPC during the election, exhorting us to dig deeper for more $$…the given reason was usually to stop Dion and his tax, not to re-elect PMSH.
Is perhaps fear a more effective fund-raising technique than inspiration?
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Losing campaign funding won't make a bit of difference. The only thing that will get the parties to take the high road will be single transferable vote.
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Losing campaign funding won't make a bit of difference. The only thing that will get the parties to take the high road will be single transferable vote.