Fundraising reforms become politicized
Revelations about Ontario’s political fundraising blight have finally forced our politicians to call for sweeping reforms. But the quick remedies promised by Premier Kathleen Wynne may already be bogged down by political bickering.
Oddly, it’s the opposition parties whose grandstanding may be standing in the way of a rapid cleanup of the province’s outdated campaign finance laws.
For people who believe our fundraising free-for-all has festered long enough, and that the time for excuses is past, the sudden impasse in the legislature is bizarre. Shamelessly enriched by corporate and union donations, the major parties are getting so down in the weeds that they can’t seem to see the (reform) forest for the trees.
If that happens — which is to say, if nothing happens — we will all be the poorer for it.
One might expect the politicians to be collectively hanging their heads in shame and rolling up their sleeves to work together on reforms. Instead, the three major parties have descended into public heckling, private hectoring and tiresome sulking. While the opposition demands outside investigations and extra-parliamentary consultations — ostensibly to remove partisanship from the equation — they have politicized the reform process in the most picayune way. Never mind the routine insults hurled in the legislature, name-calling also erupted when the two opposition leaders were invited to meet Wynne in the premier’s office earlier this month.
For the record, no party — with the possible exception of the Greens, who never manage to raise much money — has a monopoly on virtue here. Whence the vitriol? Wynne has been lambasted in recent columns, and deservedly so, for dragging her heels on campaign finance reforms since taking power three years ago. Her Liberals greedily exploited election loopholes and limitless limits — inherited, it must be pointed out, from the previous Progressive Conservative government.
But Wynne also deserves credit for finally pledging action — eating her own words and swallowing her pride by belatedly promising sweeping reforms.
Wynne could have gone further by proposing a special “select committee,” with more equal representation among the parties, to conduct public hearings for any reform legislation. With well-chosen MPPs, such a committee could work miracles.
Early reaction from PC Leader Patrick Brown seemed promising. He expressed support, in an interview, for transitional public funding. And made the eminently sensible proposal for a select committee of MPPs.
But the NDP’s Andrea Horwath has remained stonily silent on any substantive suggestions for reform. At her meeting with Wynne, she refused to even look at the premier’s proposals, leaving the proffered document behind on the table.
Instead, the NDP is focusing obsessively on process — and an extraparliamentary one at that. Horwath is demanding a specially constituted panel that brings in outside experts including — wait for it — representatives of big business.
While the rest of us are trying to end disproportionate corporate influence, the NDP wants to save a seat at the table for big business? Corporations can’t vote, so why should special interests have a special say?
What happened to that quaint Queen’s Park where legislators used to debate, hold public hearings, compare notes, and get the job done? That’s how Alberta’s New Democrats banned corporate and union donations last year — using the normal legislative process — but Ontario’s NDP has its own view.
Now, Brown has signed on to that NDP extra-parliamentary crusade, suddenly jettisoning his own proposal for a select committee. The PCs also want a public inquiry to search for criminal activity, on the grounds that fishing expeditions sometimes catch fish — but at what cost in time, money and baiting?
The opposition clings to a 1970sera example of an outside panel that once proposed reforms to our campaign finance laws — albeit leaving enough holes to drive a Big Blue Machine through. Today Ontario is too far behind the times to start from scratch. A better starting point is the path laid out by the federal Parliament a full decade ago when it banned corporate money, dramatically lowered spending limits and regulated third-party advertising.
It’s not as if campaign finance reform is a matter of life and death. Speaking of which, the assistedsuicide bill now being debated emanated from the regular parliamentary committee process, so why is it so hard to fix fundraising?
Recent coverage has revealed the pervasive rot in the fundraising system, and the urgent need for change. That has generated an undeniable public consensus — and momentum — to move forward on the substance of reform.
Inventing a new extra-parliamentary process — and poisoning the existing democratic one — risks blocking progress. Unless the point of the protests is merely to score political points. Martin Regg Cohn’s Ontario politics column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. mcohn@thestar.ca, Twitter: @reggcohn