Let’s make sure it’s broken before we try to fix it

We need to ask if municipal election reform is justified

It can be said with a fair amount of certainty that this was likely the last civic election to be held under the current campaign finance rules.

Such matters are the jurisdiction of the Alberta government, and it has signalled a desire to make amendments here, having already introduced changes to provincial rules.

Some changes may be in order, but we must also be careful not to further enshrine the inherent incumbent advantage that exists in municipal elections. There may be times when, in the face of an angry and volatile electorate, incumbent status becomes an albatross for candidates. Such a liability is the exception to the norm, however.

In 2010, for example, only one incumbent councillor was defeated. Three years later, only two were. This week, all the city council incumbents who sought re-election won their seats.

In a system devoid of parties, name recognition goes a long way. Limiting how much candidates can spend might seem like it levels the playing field, but it merely hamstrings the ability of challengers to make sure the voting public knows who they are.

As it stands now, $5,000 can be donated each year to any candidate, and that can come from individuals, corporations, unions or other organizations. When it comes to what to do with that money, there are no limits on how much can be spent.

We should make it clear exactly what it is we’re trying to achieve. Is it some vague notion of increased fairness?

A logical place to start, as has been done provincially and federally, is to limit donations to individuals — no more corporate or union donations. The new provincial donation limit is $4,000 per calendar year, so it probably wouldn’t hurt to bring the municipal limit at least in line with that. Some clearer rules about what can be done with unspent campaign money would make sense, too.

However, once we’ve made those changes, a spending limit would be redundant. Limiting how much candidates can raise would, by extension, limit how much they can spend. Alberta obviously has communities of all different sizes, and within big cities like Calgary, different wards have all sorts of different dynamics. A per-voter-based limit doesn’t take into consideration these nuances.

As political scientists Jack Lucas and Zack Taylor noted in a recent piece for the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, the evidence is “quite mixed” on whether campaign finance rules make a difference when it comes to election outcomes.

Before we proceed, perhaps we should make it clear exactly what it is we’re trying to achieve. Is it some vague notion of increased fairness? Are we simply trying to reduce the overall amount of money being spent? Or is this less about candidates and more about so-called third-party groups? The hand-wringing at the outset of this latest campaign seemed to have less to do with candidates’ war chests and more to do with questions around the conservative group Save Calgary. Who were they? Who was funding them? How much were they going to spend?

It doesn’t seem as though the group was a big factor in the campaign, but it does seem like a loophole if someone can give to a candidate and then give additional money to a group targeting that candidate’s opponent.

This is another area where we should fear an over-correction. These groups are not a threat to democracy, but rather can enhance it. Requirements for third party registering and disclosure wouldn’t be unreasonable, but it’s not clear we need to go much further.

In fact, it’s not clear the system is even broken. The case for a massive overhaul just isn’t there.