TAXPAYER FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES NORM IN DEMOCRACY
British Columbia took a step this week to join the club of advanced democracies.
But you might not realize it, in light of the feverish reaction to the B.C. NDP’s proposed bill to ban corporate, union, foreign and out-of-province political donations.
The Opposition B.C. Liberals stirred up a surge of media attention by hammering one section of the proposed bill, which asks taxpayers to directly finance part of the budgets of political parties.
Many British Columbians may not realize most democracies consider it fair, if not essential, to fight potential corruption by having the public bear some of the cost of political campaigns.
Otherwise, backroom oligarchs — the companies, unions and individuals with deep pockets to fund political parties — can and do infiltrate the legislative process to shift it to their own ends.
Many argue that powerful people and organizations have been shaping B.C. politics in much of the past 16 years, with the governing Liberals accepting more than $80 million in corporate donations in just over a decade (and the NDP taking in $12 million from unions).
The real-estate industry alone has handed more than $14 million to the B.C. Liberals.
B.C. politicians exposure to being corrupted has made this province an international laughing stock, earning us a reputation as the “Wild West” of political financing.
Will we ever learn, for instance, to what degree donations by realestate developers contributed to the way the B.C. Liberals and municipal politicians fuelled, then largely ignored, Metro Vancouver’s housing crisis?
It’s fair to criticize the B.C. NDP, and the supporting B.C. Greens, for not being clear earlier that they would seek direct public funding of political parties, to the extent of up about $5 million a year.
But, in the rough-and-tumble world of politics, that’s a relatively minor infraction compared to the moral chaos and mistrust generated by B.C.’s ultra-lax approach to political financing.
It would be helpful for Canadians, especially British Columbians, to start comparing themselves to the 34 advanced nations in the Organization for Economic Development, which tend to have a better handle on protecting democratic principles than most countries.
It turns out 33 of those OECD nations have opted for direct public funding of parties (except Switzerland, which has a unique system for safeguarding democracy).
Britain, South Korea, Australia, France, Germany, the U.S., Chile and Japan are among those who directly fund political parties. They abide by the OECD’s recommendation to “strike a balance” between public and private financing.
They do so to reduce the risk that vested interests will indulge in “policy capture,” which refers to how powerful donors skew politicians’ legislation to suit their monetary interests.
This week, former B.C. Liberal cabinet minister Moira Stilwell, a radiologist who stepped down this year in her riding of Vancouver Langara, joined the ranks of those arguing B.C.’s political parties had become too open to corruption.
“The idea that politicians are not influenced by money is not true, and everybody knows it,” she said. “Democracy costs money. (But) pay to play is out of hand.”
The warning of Stilwell is amplified by Bill Below of the OECD, who says: “When the rich and powerful are given priority, citizens lose faith.”
If political funding is not controlled, Below says, “the gap between rich and poor will worsen beyond current ‘historical levels.’ ”
In contrast to the way B.C. politicians have relied heavily on corporate, union, foreign and out-of-province donations, most OECD countries have either banned or severely restricted such money, while hiking individual donations and direct public funding.
The B.C. government’s new legislation proposes that taxpayers initially provide $2.50 to a political party for every election vote it received. By contrast, the people of Ontario provide $2.75 a vote and Australians put up roughly $3.75 a vote.
To level the playing field, and sometimes to promote gender equality, the public provides the majority of the money received by political parties in OECD countries such as Belgium (87.5 per cent), Spain (87.5 per cent), Portugal (80 per cent), Denmark (75 per cent), Iceland (75 per cent) and Norway (67 per cent).
The proportion of public funding is lower in other countries, according to a 211-page OECD report, Financing Democracy, but it’s still significant, with taxpayers of both Britain and the Netherlands paying 35 per cent of their political parties’ budgets.
These totals include the indirect public funding that also occurs in OECD countries, almost all of which will continue, like B.C., to provide tax writeoffs to those who make individual donations.
Have the B.C. NDP struck the right balance on campaign funding; between direct and direct taxpayer support and individual donations? It’s not easy to get the right mix; complex factors are at play.
But at least the B.C. government took steps this week to make the province a little less Wild West, and more of a candidate to join the politically civilized world.