Further donation controls mulled
Electoral sway of ‘Big money’ upsets ministry
The province says it’s looking into whether more changes are needed to give British Columbians elections that are free of what the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing called “the influence of donors with deep pockets.”
The ministry released a statement Tuesday, just months after the government passed legislation to ban corporate and union donations in local politics. It followed a charge by Vision Vancouver that the Non-Partisan Association raised corporate donations contrary to the spirit of the act, and a call by Vision for an investigation into the matter by Elections B.C.
NPA president Greg Baker said his party has read the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act and understands it, and has been meticulous in its approach to the rules. He also disagreed with Vision’s interpretation of the act.
“The devil can cite scripture for its own purposes, right? I find it quite comical that they’re accusing us in the way that they have,” Baker said. “In my view, the act is very, very clear that the intent is to remove union and corporate donations, which it does. It accomplishes that. It will make it very challenging … to raise money in the election and campaign, period.”
Baker declined to say how much corporate or union money the NPA had received, but insisted elector organizations are free to raise operational funds from any source they want.
Andrew Watson, a spokesman for Elections B.C., said the act does prohibit campaign contributions to municipal parties from organizations, corporations and unions. But there are no limits or source restrictions on money raised for “operational purposes,” he said. The money can’t be used for campaigning, and it must go into a separate account.
“In general, operational expenses are property or services used exclusively for the day-to-day administration of an elector organization that operates on a continuing basis outside of campaign and election periods,” he said.
Office supplies and wages for permanent staff not engaged in campaign activities are some examples he gave.
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing ’s statement says the legislation brought in last fall was designed to create a level playing field.
“It’s disappointing that some parties are looking for ways to bring big money back into local politics,” the statement says. “This government believes that people should be at the heart of politics, not big money.”
Michael Haack, a co-head of Vision Vancouver, wrote Selina Robinson, the municipal affairs minister, on Tuesday, urging her to “take additional steps to retroactively rectify this matter.”
He said the party believed “all expenditures incurred by political parties, whether during an election cycle or outside of it, are done with an intention of winning elections.”
Baker said he wouldn’t support a change that would remove entirely the ability for political parties to accept money from corporations or unions, and he considered the new act quite reasonable: “It recognizes that we need to operate as well.”
Paddy Smith, a political-science professor at Simon Fraser University, said it seemed to him that Vision Vancouver had taken a more restrictive view of the act that seemed to better reflect its intent and language.
“The intent was very clear. The intent was to take big money out of the 2018 local government elections,” Smith said.
But he added that legislation “doesn’t always capture what it intends” and if that’s the case, the act may need to be fixed.
In addition to bringing in rules on big money, the government placed a $1,200 annual cap on individual donations and limits on third-party advertisers. In larger cities, those limits on ads are determined in part by new-candidate expense limits.
It’s disappointing … some parties are looking for ways to bring big money back into local politics.