The Woolwich Observer

FORD WEAKENING ELECTION FINANCE CONTROLS

-

HAVING CAMPAIGNED ON LITTLE beyond not being Kathleen Wynne and the Liberals, Doug Ford and the Conservati­ves have little in the way of a mandate. The party’s electoral victory was the public’s less-of-two-evils choice to replace a tired, much-despised government.

Much of what Ford has sprung on Ontarians was not mentioned during last summer’s election campaign. Included on that undisclose­d list was loosening election financing rules put in place a couple of years ago to stem the tide of influence peddling that had become a Wynne art form.

The changes, approved by all parties in December 2016, followed revelation­s Wynne’s Liberals had set fundraisin­g quotas and were selling access to the premier and cabinet ministers. Campaign contributi­ons were capped at $1,200 for an individual, with companies and unions no longer permitted to donate to political parties, a large decrease from limits of almost $10,000, plus another $6,700 to constituen­cy offices.

In addition to the direct donations, the Liberal move also restricted third-party donations and spending.

This week, however, the Ford government quietly adopted changes that raised the donation limit to $1,600 and provide a loophole for corporate and union spending. There was apparently no sense of irony sneaking the changes into Bill 57, The Restoring Trust, Transparen­cy and Accountabi­lity Act.

Ford’s rationale for this seems clear: the Tories are taking in more donations than the Liberals and NDP combined, and loosening corporate donations would be a boon to the party. The move also makes it easier for Ford to cut the pervote subsidy each party gets since 2017 as part of Wynne’s financing reform legislatio­n, an issue he did raise when seeking the PC leadership.

Though the Tories are eligible to receive the largest amount due to election results – $5.5 million, compared to $4.6 million for the NDP, $2.6 million for the Liberals and the Green’s $630,000 – their fundraisin­g advantage would grow while the opposition parties would suffer. That’s a win in Ford’s book.

Ford will likely champion the $12 million in annual savings that would come with cutting the subsidies, which would be well and good if the plan wasn’t to return to a freefor-all as far as political vote-buying and lobbying go.

Although Canada isn’t as egregiousl­y unfair as the U.S. in terms of election financing, we can’t get too smug here – the bar hasn’t been set very high in that comparison.

Wynne’s changes didn’t go far enough, which is reason to strengthen election-financing rules, not loosen them. What we really need is an outright ban on donations and thirdparty advertisin­g. Real democratic reform would also end lobbying, as well as the revolving door between government and corporatio­ns/lobbyists.

Surveys show that a large majority of Canadians believe government­s are driven by wealthy interest groups, especially corporate donors, and that government­s regularly act unethicall­y to help their business friends and are not doing enough to stop corruption. Surveys also show that a large majority of Canadians support placing strict limits on the influence of wealthy interests in politics.

When these interests are bankrollin­g the political process in secret, it is that much harder for other voices to be heard. Many of citizen groups who lobby for progressiv­e reforms in Canada understand all too well the influence that powerful corporate lobbies can use to halt these reforms.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada