Time to restrict political donors
After the B.C. government has finished imposing campaign spending limits for municipal elections, it should turn its attention to tightening campaign financing in the provincial arena, most notably in restricting political donations. Community Minister Peter Fassbender introduced legislation last week proposing new spending limits for candidates and limits for third-party advertising sponsors during municipal election campaigns. In municipalities with fewer than 10,000 residents, a flat rate of $10,000 would be set for mayoral candidates and $5,000 for candidates seeking other local offices, such as councillor or school trustee.
In larger municipalities, mayoral candidates would be allowed to spend $1 per person for the first 15,000 people and 55 cents per person for every person beyond that. Council and school board candidates would be limited to half that amount.
Under the proposed formula, Victoria mayoral candidates in 2014 would have had an expense limit of about $52,000, less than half of what Dean Fortin and Ida Chong, the second- and third-place candidates, each spent, and substantially less than the $88,500 spent by Mayor Lisa Helps.
The amount that can be spent in Victoria seems a bit on the low side — we want candidates to be able to explain their aims and platforms as fully as possible, which requires spending on advertising — but the principle is sound. Spending limits help ensure that political office is not restricted to rich candidates or candidates with wealthy supporters. The limits help level the playing field.
Spending limits have levelled the field in provincial elections, too, but that level field is somewhere in the upper Himalayas. The limits set the overall cap at $18.2 million in the 2013 election. Neither of the two major parties came close to that — the B.C. Liberals spent $11.7 million and the NDP spent $9.4 million.
A bigger concern is that no limits are placed on political contributions at either the municipal or provincial level.
This Wild West approach to campaign donations fuels public cynicism and invites special-interest groups with deep pockets to buy political influence. Voters decide elections, but a party without a fat bank account usually has little chance against free-spending rivals. Which means big donors can decide the outcome of elections.
Not everyone agrees with that. In 2010, as the Local Elections Task Force was hearing recommendations on campaign finance reform, Bill Bennett, minister of community and rural development at the time, took issue with the implication that money buys influence.
“You don’t buy influence because you give a large donation,” he said. “You give a large donation because you believe in the person for the job, and probably that candidate encapsulates your world view more so than the other candidate. The assumption or belief that somehow or other you are buying influence is actually quite insulting to anyone who is in public office.”
Insulting or not, polls have found almost 90 per cent of Canadians believe people with money have special influence over government. And who is so naïve to think that a major donor’s phone calls will go unanswered? Regardless of the reality, the perception is relevant. When people feel sidelined, they become apathetic and the democratic process is eroded.
A 2010 poll found three-quarters of British Columbians favoured contribution limits and two-thirds wanted a ban on union and corporate donations. If parties had to rely more on smaller, individual donations, they would have to work harder to win the support of ordinary people. That would not be a bad thing.
And if they were left with a little less money to buy attack ads, that would be even better.