PREMIER HINTS AT PLAN TO ‘FIX’ PARTY FINANCING
Liberals will push real-time disclosure legislation, but that may be just a start
When Premier Christy Clark briefly visited the capital for an event marking International Women’s Day this week, she also faced a few questions about the lingering controversy over big money contributions to the B.C. Liberals.
She said the government will finally be tabling legislation Monday to enact something her B.C. Liberal party is already doing: disclosing donations on an expedited timeline.
Then she went a little further, hinting something else might be in the works in the coming week.
“You’re going to see legislation on Monday about transparency in donating,” Clark began. The Liberals call it, real-time disclosure, meaning every two weeks or so as opposed to quarterly.
“What you’ll see in the bill is essentially the things that we’ve talked about already,” the premier continued. “Things that we are already doing in the B.C. Liberal Party. We had hoped that the NDP would agree to also be transparent in their donations before the election came along. They won’t, so through legislation I suppose we’ll have to force transparency on the rest of them.”
In the course of those comments to reporters, Clark paused to acknowledge other campaign finance bills before the house, put there by members not on the government side.
“We’ve got, I think, three pieces of legislation that have been introduced into this on the floor of the legislature. We have yet to see the legislation from the Greens. So you’ll see more on Monday.”
Two of the bills mentioned by the premier are from Vicki Huntington, the independent MLA from Delta South. Green leader Andrew Weaver has already signalled support for those reforms proposed by sometime ally Huntington. Then there is the no-mistaking-the-intent of the “Get Big Money Out of Politics Act,” tabled by Opposition leader John Horgan.
Not often does the premier take note of legislative proposals from the Opposition side. So you had to wonder where she might be headed, particularly after telling reporters “you’ll see more on Monday.”
Were Clark and the Liberals getting ready to put some limits on campaign contributions in B.C.?
“You won’t see that in the legislation on Monday,” replied Clark, not ruling out the possibility that such limitations might be forthcoming at another time and place.
Shortly after that exchange, government house leader Mike de Jong was asked about the real-time disclosure bill mentioned by the premier.
Was it the government’s intention to pass the bill into law before the house adjourns at the end of next week for the spring election campaign?
“We’ll try,” de Jong replied. “We’re certainly intending to call it for debate. I think the house will complete sitting next Thursday, and as much of the work as we can get done, we’ll try to get done.”
That caught me by surprise. I’d assumed the government plan was to table the disclosure bill as a placeholder, as often happens in the brief pre-election session of the legislature.
By calling it for debate, the Liberals would provide a golden opportunity for the Opposition to blast the government for its big money ways and introduce amendments to toughen the bill.
Not likely would the Liberals provide such an opening unless they were ready to push back. De Jong supplied one possibility earlier in the week, when he brandished a letter of solicitation from the New Democrats seeking a $10,000 donation from the corporate sector.
If such donations were inherently compromising to government, would they not also be compromising to a party that is hoping to form government? Were the New Democrats claiming immunity from the appearances that damn their opponents? Or proposing a statute of limitations (donations collected before the election don’t count) on the influence of big money?
Hence the pox-on-both-your-houses argument put forward by Weaver, who has already disavowed Big Ticket donations.
Alternatively, one of the bills referenced by the premier suggests a way through the controversy for all parties.
Horgan’s “big money” crackdown does not provide a full-blown alternative for party fundraising. The most likely option would be direct public funding for political parties, on the basis of say, $2 per year for every vote cast for the party in the last election.
Rather than propose taxpayers be compelled to directly bankroll political parties, Horgan would instead establish an independent commission under the chief electoral officer to review options on “financing of the political process in B.C.” on an open-ended basis.
Clark, in her remarks to reporters Wednesday, reiterated her opposition to public funding.
“One of the most important principles for us to remember as this debate unfolds, and we talk about campaign finance reform, is that while the system we have is not perfect — and there are lots of things that we can and should do to fix it — a worse system would be one where the money is not given freely and people are forced to support political parties through their taxes.
“I fundamentally believe that that is the wrong way to go.”
That objection aside, Clark sounded more open than she has been in the past to reforming political party financing in B.C.
“The system is not perfect. There are lots of things we can and should do to fix it.”
The premier thus concedes what others have been saying for some time. Perhaps there is indeed more to come on the fundraising file when the house resumes next week.
While the system we have is not perfect ... a worse system would be one where the money is not given freely CHRIST Y CLARK, Premier of British Columbia