If you’re taking requests, how about Rona Ambrose next?

Nice to see / hear articulate Conservative women in cabinet.

However … I find myself in the position of partially agreeing with — horrors! — Democracy Watch. I disagree with the “repeal political party funding” argument. When I first learned about the measure back in 2003. I was totally opposed to it, thinking — as its opponents now argue — that taxpayers’ money goes to parties they don’t support. But that is NOT the case. My vote for the Conservative Party = $2.04/year goes to the Conservative Party, not to any other party, whereas my tax credit for contributing to the Conservative Party comes out of the general revenue from all Canadian taxpayers, who may not all support my party. Therefore, if anything should be abolished, it should be the tax credits for those contributions.

Welcome changes, IMO, would be:
• Stipulate only parties fielding candidates in every riding across Canada are eligible for the per/vote subsidy 
• Lower, if not completely eliminate, tax credits for contributions to political parties. 
• Only those parties receiving more than 5% of votes cast — both nationally and in each riding — are eligible to receive the per/vote subsidy.

Love Shelly Glover .  She is great, hope she gets a full cabinet post in the future.

Love and support the cops.

A silver star for you, Gabby.

The “repeal party funding” policy is simply a vindictive move by the CPC to deliberately cripple the other parties. The unmentioned effect will be to make ALL parties, even the CPC, beholden to those with the money, particularly campaign support via unregulated  back-channels in the guise of  “political action committees” and other partisan forces like the (ahem) NCC.

Here’s why I couldn’t award a gold star:

Welcome changes, IMO, would be:
• Stipulate only parties fielding candidates in every riding across Canada are eligible for the per/vote subsidy 
• Lower, if not completely eliminate, tax credits for contributions to political parties. 
•
Only those parties receiving more than 5% of votes cast — both
nationally and in each riding — are eligible to receive the per/vote
subsidy.

… We cannot ignore that there are regional disparities that deserve voice. The Reform Party couldn’t have run a candidate in every riding. Or is it OK to shut that door now that your party’s ‘inside’? Basically the ‘every riding’ stipulation would kill the funding for the next Reform party.

Likewise, I’m Ok with a personal tax deduction for political donations to a reasonable limit… this plays a part in the CPC’s current funding, and encourages involvement.

Look south to see the future effect of removing the party subsidy. In the US it costs a
fortune to run for the higher offices (Governor, Senator from larger
districts, President). US candidates need a combination of huge personal
wealth, well-funded backers, and a movie starlet’s fame to get to the
finals. Once in, the governing parties use tricks like gerrymandering
and partisan funding attack to try to further weaken the ability of the
opposition to fundraise and collect votes (eg the Democrats attack
GOP-friendly lobbying, the Republicans attack enfranchisement groups
like ACORN that register impoverished voters). The winter’s preemptive CPC 
attack ads, which didn’t fall under any campaign finance rules, show
that the CPC is more than willing to go down this path.

The current party subsidy and electoral rules are a very low-cost way to maintain a reasonable level of fairness and democracy for all voters. Eliminate these, and you will get the best government that money can buy… for themselves.

A silver star for you, Gabby.

The “repeal party funding” policy is simply a vindictive move by the CPC to deliberately cripple the other parties. The unmentioned effect will be to make ALL parties, even the CPC, beholden to those with the money, particularly campaign support via unregulated  back-channels in the guise of  “political action committees” and other partisan forces like the (ahem) NCC.

Here’s why I couldn’t award a gold star:

Welcome changes, IMO, would be:
• Stipulate only parties fielding candidates in every riding across Canada are eligible for the per/vote subsidy 
• Lower, if not completely eliminate, tax credits for contributions to political parties. 
•
Only those parties receiving more than 5% of votes cast — both
nationally and in each riding — are eligible to receive the per/vote
subsidy.

… We cannot ignore that there are regional disparities that deserve voice. The Reform Party couldn’t have run a candidate in every riding. Or is it OK to shut that door now that your party’s ‘inside’? Basically the ‘every riding’ stipulation would kill the funding for the next Reform party.

Likewise, I’m Ok with a personal tax deduction for political donations to a reasonable limit… this plays a part in the CPC’s current funding, and encourages involvement.

Look south to see the future effect of removing the party subsidy. In the US it costs a
fortune to run for the higher offices (Governor, Senator from larger
districts, President). US candidates need a combination of huge personal
wealth, well-funded backers, and a movie starlet’s fame to get to the
finals. Once in, the governing parties use tricks like gerrymandering
and partisan funding attack to try to further weaken the ability of the
opposition to fundraise and collect votes (eg the Democrats attack
GOP-friendly lobbying, the Republicans attack enfranchisement groups
like ACORN that register impoverished voters). The winter’s preemptive CPC 
attack ads, which didn’t fall under any campaign finance rules, show
that the CPC is more than willing to go down this path.

The current party subsidy and electoral rules are a very low-cost way to maintain a reasonable level of fairness and democracy for all voters. Eliminate these, and you will get the best government that money can buy… for themselves.

That isn’t “your” $2.04 going to fund your party of choice. It was extorted from Canadian people. If you want to make that donation, do it with your own money.

Kenn2, your portrayal of American money politics is mostly wrong. Running a candidate costs of fortune because of the mountains of bureaucracy wrt campaign finance reform. Arizona has/had a subsidization regime for politics and it made nothing cheaper. Further, money does not influence electoral outcomes.  

I always love it when the word “extortion” is applied  to something like $2.04/year to keep election campaigns fair. Ooooh the pain!

The extortion I’d really like to end is the $1B /yr to the oil sector so that they can make even more profit. That’s like $30/yr per Canadian. Where are you on that?

Further, money does not influence electoral outcomes.

You actually believe that?

Wanna buy some magic beans?

It’s been studied and there was no statistical correlation. Come, on back up your argument. Tell us why more money will somehow convince the electorate to elect some person who they otherwise wouldn’t.

Is it really so bad that I would like my vote to signify who I want to represent me in parliament, and not which private organization (ie political party) gets free money from the taxpayer?

If I want to donate to any group I will do so myself, I do not need the various political parties of Canada to arrange for a system to automatically take my money.  How does giving money to incumbent parties make elections more fair?  That sounds like the biggest POS I’ve ever heard on a political blog, so congrats (I give credit where credit is due).

Incidentally Kenn, since conservatives make on average more money, it actually means that conservative voters are funding parties they didn’t vote for, because as you know we have a progressive tax system. 

Just please explain how connecting party financing with voting is good for democracy?  How does automatic funding of incumbents make the system more fair?

Come, on back up your argument.If the CPC didn’t have a full war-chest and support of all kinds from a very well-oiled right-wing machine, they wouldn’t be cutting off this source of funding, which the other parties currently need more than the CPC. That’s my proof.Back atcha. Where’s your proof?
 

Is it really so bad that I object to the cutting of a small but important support for Canadian democracy, while you have nothing to say here on oil industry subsidies that are an order of magnitude greater?

I think you missed the question I posed… it was quite logical:

How does funding incumbent candidates and parties help democracy?  To me it seems like the exact opposite… Why not donate 2.04$ from everyone’s vote to Rotary, or Knights of Columbus… they’re as deserving of my money as the Conservative Party of Canada, the Bloc or whoever else.

Oh right, because it’s our money not theirs.  Political party welfare makes Canada a worse place.

Corporate welfare is the same, compete on a level field or die.  What subsidies are you speaking of specifically, because I get really tired of hearing of generalizations.  We’re being direct: Political welfare is wrong, that’s why we’ve addressed the specific law dealing with it…. what specific law do you have a problem with?

Harper’s funding cancellation is nothing more than a crotch-kick aimed at the other parties. You do know why the party subsidy was introduced in the first place, right? Or, if you’re ok with cancelling it, you’re now ok with union sponsorship of political parties?

How does funding incumbent candidates and parties help democracy?

- this funding, together with effective election expense laws, help
reduce the demands of  fundraising required to organize, run
candidates and buy advertising, thereby reducing the relative influence of well-heeled
special interests. It’s democracy in action, a concrete enabler of democratic process. Other leading industrial democracies also use these tools.

(older comment)
Incidentally Kenn, since conservatives make on average more money,
it actually means that conservative voters are funding parties they
didn’t vote for, because as you know we have a progressive tax system.

It also means that your well heeled Conservative making a personal political contribution (ostensibly to the CPC) got to write as much as 75% of it off… which amounts to a hell of alot more than $2.04/yr as a subsidy.  It’s like the government is matching your donation at up to 3:1. This is a funding mechanism that only the middle and upper-class earners can indulge in. Well at least you don’t have the gall to pretend that money doesn’t matter in politics, as another poster has.

My point about oil subsidies is merely to show how empty any fiscal arguments for cancelling party subsidies really are. There are many areas where the CPC could demonstrate real fiscal conservatism,  instead of subsidies to big oil, or irresponsible cost-overruns like G8/G20, or buying the overpriced and underwhelming F-35.

It’s simply a petty F-U to to the other parties, and a pander to the partisans for staying loyal, and ultimately harmful to Canada, but that doesn’t seem to matter to this PM.

“if you’re ok with cancelling it, you’re now ok with union sponsorship of political parties?”

No, in our crazy nuanced world we do not have to do one of 2 ridiculous polarized options.  I think individuals should be able to donate up to $1500 +-… but my number is pretty arbitrary and I feel rather unwell telling someone how to use the money they earned themselves. 

I’m sorry but I think you’re very wrong about this.  Enabling individuals to donate and contribute at will is directly democratic.  Allowing people to vote their conscience for a candidate in their riding is enabling democracy.  Taking money from individuals and giving it to political parties based on how well they did in the last election is madness.  It’s an entitled form of kleptocracy which is particularly disturbing because people like yourself seem to think that political parties (private organizations) deserve public funding, and think that the best way to do it is to award previous successes.  Can you not see how this would artificially create dynasties in a strong united politically centrist party?  I have enough of an issue with unions and corporations spending their members/shareholders’ money on political parties, let alone the government spending the taxpayers’ money on political parties.  It might seem a bit libertarian, but I think that individuals should be directing the country, through elections and political contribution (whether time or money).

You can point out as many other wrongheaded laws as you want (75% rebate), but you haven’t given given a cogent reason for the subsidy.  Special interests in Canada are limited to $0 a year in political contributions under Canadian laws.  INDIVIDUALS are the only ones who can contribute, and if a special interest of individuals feel like contributing what they want, that’s fine by me.  I don’t think we should give the political parties any public money.. that money is ours and we pay it to fix roads, pay for healthcare and sovereignty, and stop climate change (however it is that we’re doing that). 

If the electoral majority of MPs representing Canadians (via election!) don’t want subsidies for oil companies, then there will be no oil subsidies.  Here’s how to do it:

1) Join/start political party which contends that the oil companies don’t deserve subsidies.
2) Donate time and money to that party.
3) Contribute intellectually to debate that show downsides of oil subsidies.
4) Have candidate stand in election based on your party’s general principle of no oil subsidies.
5) Win election
6) Cancel oil subsidy

That’s what we did with the per vote subsidy and I fail to see how that’s not exactly the definition of democracy in action.

I’m not looking to get into a long-winded tussle with anyone in particular here, so I’m just going to complete my thoughts on political party funding and donations to political parties.

In addition to changing the rules regarding which parties should qualify for the per/vote subsidy, I would like to see a thorough review of donations to charitable organizations. Some argue that it’s unfair for contributions to political parties to provide a bigger tax credit than donations to charitable organizations. However, some of those so-called charitable organizations should be stricken off that list, since they are not really charitable organizations in the traditional sense, but rather advocacy groups posing as charities. Registered charitable organizations are tax-exempt, which may explain why those donations are accorded a lower tax credit than donations to political parties.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/dnrs/rgltn/rgstrd3-eng.html 
“Registered charities
Registered charities are charitable organizations, public foundations, or private foundations that are established in Canada and are resident in Canada. …
They are exempt from paying tax on their revenue, and can issue official donation receipts. …”

What about non-profit organizations? This excerpt from the same CRA link explains:
“Non-profit organizations are associations, clubs, or societies that are not charities and that are organized and operated exclusively for social welfare, civic improvement, pleasure, recreation, or any other purpose except profit. They are exempt from paying tax on their revenue, and cannot issue official donation receipts.”

Political parties seemingly do have to pay taxes. Although I was unable to find the CRA reference, this court ruling from last year suggests they do:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/745766–tories-win-right-to-repay-election-gst-rebates 
“Tories win right to repay election GST rebates” suggests political parties are not tax exempt, whereas charitable organizations are, which may explain the different treatment.”

An unrelated personal beef … when I provide a link here at this blog, the end part does not show, so when I copy and paste it into my personal document, the link becomes inactive and ends up being a “404 error” if I try clicking on it.
Also, some government departments keep constructing ever more elaborate mazes for their web sites. In common parlance, many of those sites suck! A comment I wrote on the topic of charitable donations some months ago, with appropriate links, should have provided those useful links, but they are no longer active — another “404 error.”

“Harper’s funding cancellation is nothing more than a crotch-kick aimed at the other parties.”

Hold on a minute. The funding cancellation will “punish” the CPC more than any of the other parties, so what’s your point?

Seeing as the CPC is able to fund its own campaigns by smallish donations from hundreds of thousands of Canadians across Canada — and seeing a none of the other parties is able to do this (the NDP being the most successful at fund raising) — why should Canadian tax dollars prop up political parties that put very little of their energy into encouraging participation by those who would vote for them.

If you ask me — thanks very much! — the LPC has been extremely lazy and entitled in expecting tax dollars and their buddies in the MSM to keep them going. It’s been a major fail: One of the LPC’s biggest problems in the most recent election campaign was their lack of funds to support their candidates (many of their major candidates having not paid back their loans from the last election. BTW, why is Elections Canada giving this a pass?)

And then there’s the Bloc: Entitled to the nth degree, always expecting the ROC to bail them out and prop them up. Non, merci.

I’ll be glad to see these taxpayer-funded subsidies stopped.

Hold on a minute. The funding cancellation will “punish” the CPC more than any of the other parties, so what’s your point?

Don’t be naive. As you go on to state, the CPC doesn’t need the smallish subsidy, in the way that the other parties do.

Seeing as the CPC is able to fund its own campaigns by smallish donations from hundreds of thousands of Canadians across Canada…

…and with the no-cost support of the NCC, AND the Fraser Institute, AND Quebecor…

The CPC and friends really have their campaign act together, no one can say they don’t. But this makes it all the clearer that yanking the vote subsidy out from under the opposition parties, right when they need to rebuild, is simply petty.

I’ll be glad to see these taxpayer-funded subsidies stopped.

Oh good. Does that include the subsidy to the oil industry?

” … NCC, AND the Fraser Institute, AND Quebecor…”

Are they not bound by the limitations on corporate donors?

” … yanking the vote subsidy out from
under the opposition parties, right when they need to rebuild, is
simply petty.” No, it’s not. This is taxpayers’ money. It’s not petty at all. It’s going to save Canadian taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars, which can be put to good use somewhere else.

It seems to me, that if corporations want to help the LPC rebuild, they’ll be able to donate as much money as they wish to, within the limits imposed on all parties. Why should the taxpayer have to help the LPC rebuild — at least, why should the taxpayer who chooses not to have to help the LPC rebuild?

The LPC, NDP, and Bloc are not special cases in need of special funding programs except in this, our Deranged, Dominion where the underdog — even if responsible for its shortcomings and deficits — always has to get a leg-up from the poor, beleaguered taxpayer. My family and I have to pay our own way, why can’t they?

It’s not incidental that the CPC have such “a well-oiled” machine. They’ve been extremely well-disciplined and hard working and they have a vision for Canada and Canadians. OTOH, the Liberal$ have been profligate and promiscuous in their spending, both as a party, and “on behalf” of Canadians. Without a vision, the political party perishes. Undisciplined, entitled, profligate, promiscuous, and visionless, the poor LPC is now in the hole, and it’s not the Canadian taxpayers’ responsibility to have to cough up the buck$ to rebuild a party that’s incapable of supporting itself.

(I’d still like to know why Elections Canada has continued to extend the deadline for the repayment of loans incurred by so many Liberal candidates in the last election.)

Oil industry?

I guess the Liberal$ never had interests in the oil industry. I seem to recall Trudeau, Chretien, Power Corporation “interests” in Petro-Canada, Total, Fina, Elf …