Political donation rules at city hall are indefensible

System gives the wealthy too much influence

Better late than never, the Ontario government is finally delivering on its plan to ban corporate and union political donations. The changes Ontario is now rushing through at top speed follow a similar move by the federal government a decade ago. Municipally, Toronto banned corporate and union donations back in 2009.

One might say there is a trend away from reliance on corporate and union money, but strangely, it has not yet reached the progressive city of Ottawa.

If accepting money from businesses or unions is wrong federally, wrong provincially and wrong in Toronto, why is it right here?

Councillors used to be able to shrug and say they didn’t have the power to change the rules, but now the province is making changes that will allow the ban. What, if anything, will our city councillors do?

The track record so far is not impressive. Just over a year ago, five city councillors who want donation rules changed proposed that the city should at least discuss it with the province. Other councillors, led by Mayor Jim Watson, refused even that modest step, rejecting the motion by a 19-5 vote. It was a red-letter day for self-interest.

Watson’s rationale for doing nothing was this: “(Corporate donations) help challengers mount strong election campaigns. Very few of us are independently wealthy. Do we want only those people who are able to completely finance their elections with donations from their personal fortunes to run for office?”

And yet, the system we have now is set up to give wealthy people undue influence. Candidates don’t need to be wealthy as long as they have friends who are. Businesspeople can donate both corporately and personally, up to the limit of $5,000. That’s well beyond the means of the average person.

Some of the most enthusiastic supporters of local democracy are in the development industry. One would think that, as a fundamental principle, it would be wrong for councillors to accept money from any business when their decisions can affect that business’s financial prospects.

That’s not stopping some members of the city’s planning committee. Councillors who got half or more of their 2014 campaign funds from corporate or union donations include chair Jan Harder, vice-chair Tim Tierney and members Rick Chiarelli, Stephen Blais and Allan Hubley.

There has never been any evidence that councillors in Ottawa are bought by developers, but the optics aren’t good when developers make big contributions to your campaign and you then approve their plans.

Councillors who support the status quo basically argue that it’s too hard to raise the money without their corporate friends. And yet, some of their colleagues have proven that not to be true. Look at councillors Tobi Nussbaum, Jeff Leiper and Catherine McKenney. They are all rookies who were elected without corporate or union money, and they had well-funded campaigns.

It costs only about $20,000 to run a good city council campaign. A few successful candidates spend more; some spend far less. If a candidate, especially an incumbent, can’t raise that kind of money without help from rich corporate friends, he doesn’t have much support in his community.

It is no surprise that Watson is against changing the rules. In 2014, running against a challenger who hadn’t a hope of beating him, Watson still spent more than $300,000, nearly one-third of that from corporate or union donors. A single fundraiser hosted by developers brought in $52,000.

A lot has happened since the majority of Ottawa city councillors deep-sixed campaign-donation reform a year ago. The shameful practices of provincial parties have put a spotlight on the donations issue. After running fundraising events that enabled the wealthy to get exclusive access to her and to senior ministers, Premier Kathleen Wynne finally saw the light and has become a belated champion of eliminating the big-dollar financial influence of businesses and unions.

Do our city councillors really want to have ethical standards that are lower than those of the provincial government?