Time to adjust to loss of campaign funding

On June 9, 2017, the Ontario government put in place the most extensive changes to the rules governing municipal elections that we have seen in decades. The Municipal Elections Modernization Act will have a direct impact on every candidate running for city councillor or mayor in the October 22, 2018 election.

One of the most significant of these rules is the decision to prohibit unions and corporations from making direct campaign contributions to candidates – a policy already in effect nationally, in four provinces and in Ontario, where the legislation passed unanimously in the Ontario Legislature last November. It means that only individuals and candidates can contribute financially to an election campaign.

The reasons for this prohibition have been well argued. They focus on the disproportionate influence of powerful and wealthy organizations on electoral and policy outcomes. While union and corporate contributors publically minimize the influence of their donations, choosing instead to wrap them in a cloak of democratic good, the expectation of access to or favour from those they support is always quietly at play. The moneyed have been known to seek out those willing to do their bidding and some politicians seek out contributions from the moneyed. Unfortunately, there have been too many occasions when politicians who openly scoff at the prospect of being influenced by union or corporate money have become quiet conduits for their donor’s cause.

In Peterborough, most of the eleven sitting city councillors accepted financial contributions from unions and corporations during the 2014 municipal campaign. There were three who did not: Mayor Daryl Bennett and councillors Dean Pappas and Henry Clarke. Whether by deliberate design or donor judgement, these three have risen above any implication that union or corporate campaign contributions had an influence on either their election or their decision making.

The big winner in attracting union and corporate campaign contributions is Coun. Lesley Parnell. Last election, she accepted $4,425 from three unions and six corporations, including three real estate interests, four corporations located out of town and a car dealership that had relocated to her ward.

Coun. Diane Therrien is in second spot, having accepted $3,000 from six unions and one law firm.

Coun. Keith Riel rounds out the top three, with $2,775 from seven unions.

Following are Coun. Dan McWilliams with $2,650 from four local real estate interests and a food service company that had won a bid to operate on city property. Coun. Dave Haacke received $2,350 from six corporations including four real estate interests. Coun. Andrew Beamer received $1,000 from two real estate interests. Coun. Gary Baldwin received $975 from two unions and a law firm. Coun. Don Vassiliadis received $950 from a law firm and an insurance firm.

In total, $18,125 in union and corporate campaign contributions was given to councillors elected in 2014. Unions contributed $6,675 or 37 per cent of that amount.

In next year’s election, all of these contributions will disappear, to be replaced either by funds provided by individual voters or the candidate – a change that will have a number of impacts. On the negative side, most campaigns are likely to raise fewer funds which may mean reduced voter outreach. The change continues to favour the wealthy who, in spite of a new self-funding formula, will still be able to fund most or even all of the cost of their own campaigns.

On the positive side, candidates will be rewarded for their creativity in finding new ways to attract individual donations through methods such as crowd funding campaigns. Those who are successful at it will have a definite electoral advantage in 2018.