How much cash? How much access?

The concept of cash for political access is the favourite whipping boy these days. The political left has successfully linked the issue of cash for access to the Sask. Party, highlighting the recent Premier’s Dinner fundraisers and constituency golf tournaments.

I might understand a non-partisan discourse arguing against people paying money in exchange for accessing, and influencing, politicians. However, there seems to be an urban myth that the Sask. Party started the whole cash-for-access system. Very few conversations associate cash-foraccess with any other political party in Saskatchewan, other than the Sask. Party.

The question is, how far do you realistically take the argument against cash for access? It would be a stretch to ban hospital foundations because attendance at a gala fundraiser with physicians may move you up a surgical waiting list. But then again, so seems the argument that attending a premier’s dinner with 1,500 other people will somehow cause an individual to gain political advantage.

The political left also fails to acknowledge they run the same kinds of cash for access fundraisers and golf tournaments as the Sask. Party. Cash is the lifeblood of politics. Frankly, cash is the elan vital of any organization. Without cash, you don’t exist.

With all the criticism about cash-for-access that surrounded the recent premier’s dinners held in Saskatoon and Regina, it seems like these dinners are a new occurrence. However, when Lorne Calvert was premier, the NDP also hosted the Premier’s Dinner. Sponsorships, dinners, golf tournaments and the like — all exist in the backyard of the political left the same way the Sask. Party likes to swing a club with a few of their friends. The time has come to stop calling cash-for-access an issue that only exists with the political right.

You may say — who cares about the NDP — cash for access is all about the government in power. The NDP have 11 MLAs and little political influence. This may be true. Or is it? If you had an egregious health issue you felt was being ignored by the current health system, one strategy might be to contact the NDP health critic (Danielle Chartier). You could have your issue brought right to the Saskatchewan legislature.

If you don’t know Chartier, or any of the NDP MLAs, all one has to do is attend to a golf tournament advertised right on the NDP party website. Or pay $75 to go to an event called the Best Shucking Fundraiser (worst name ever ...) to meet various NDP MLAs. It’s a full-on cash-for-access event.

So how is the NDP golf tournament or fundraiser, different than the Sask. Party golf tournament or fundraiser? There is no difference.

If you hate the system, fine. But you can’t focus your dislike towards one party, as they are all sinners in this regard.

In addition to the NDP website listing numerous cash-for-access events, there is also a petition seeking to restrict corporate and union political donations. Limiting corporate and union donations is an interesting idea already incorporated at a federal political level. However meritorious the idea may be, limiting corporate and union donations ignores the issue of third-party advertising and support.

That occurs when a group that is not a political party provides independent assistance to a political party, typically during an election period. The advantage with third-party support is candidates do not have to claim these expenses on their personal election returns, meaning campaigns can overspend strict spending limits. This assistance usually takes the form of volunteer labour (i.e. door knockers) or paid advertising. For example, in most provincial election cycles, we are treated to incessant advertising by major unions regarding selling off Crown corporations and other alleged atrocities by the Sask. Party.

I don’t mind the union ads. I like living in a free country where everyone has a right to an opinion. I view the advertising as part of an interesting political dialogue that happens every four-year election cycle. However, the NDP cannot hide behind the claim that they are trying to prevent excessive union and corporate cash for access political influence by limiting monetary donations, without addressing the issue of third-party advertising and support as well.