鈥淭his is something I鈥檇 like to see.鈥� It was an innocent-sounding quote by former 麻豆传媒映画Mayor Sam Sullivan, now a B.C. government minister responsible for matters relating to local government.
After speaking with Sullivan on Monday, 麻豆传媒映画Courier reporter Mike Howell broke the news that the B.C. Liberals鈥� proposed ban corporate and union donations , in addition to provincial election campaigns.
鈥淚 can鈥檛 say that will be in the throne speech, but it鈥檚 certainly something that I personally would like to see. We have to go step by step, but I think that would be a very positive direction.鈥�
It is clear Sullivan has been given the OK by the Premier鈥檚 office to float this trial balloon before Thursday鈥檚 sitting of the B.C. Legislature. So what does it mean for B.C. voters?
On the same day B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver sent a strong signal he was preparing to delay the B.C. Liberals鈥� expected death sentence as government 鈥� if only for a short time 鈥� to allow the ban of corporate and union donations to be passed into law.
鈥淎bsolutely we would [vote for the bill],鈥� Weaver told Postmedia News. 鈥淭hat would be very exciting.鈥�
The explanation for the Greens鈥� zeal for banning big donors is simple 鈥� it creates a fairer playing field when campaigning alongside the other guys. By squeezing the money sources for the NDP or B.C. Libs, B.C. Greens feel they have a better shot at electing more MLAs.
Parties with close ties to labour groups such as Vision 麻豆传媒映画or the New Democrats have long called for banning union and corporate donations. However, it is well known in political circles that these parties have an advantage in that they can count on unions to supply paid campaign staff, or have them coordinate voter databases and advertising strategies that are difficult to quantify.
This is important because each party is obligated to limit campaign spending within a cap set by Elections BC.
Parties on the centre-right do not have a similar ace up their sleeve as their union-friendly opponents. This goes a long way to explain the reticence of the B.C. Liberals to reform election finance rules.
B.C. Liberal organizers thought, perhaps naively, that releasing weekly donor disclosures leading up to Election Day would assuage the anger over 鈥渂ig money鈥� politics. Ultimately, it had little or no effect at all on public opinion.
Now that the B.C. Liberals are on-side in wanting to ban corporate and union donations, they have no choice but to include local government elections too. In 2014, Vision and the NPA spent a staggering $6 million combined to fund their campaigns.
Undoubtedly, Vancouver-based developers, business operators, and even union leaders, weary of being shaken down for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars during each election cycle, are quietly cheering. The new rules could impact who takes power at city hall in 2018.
Ending corporate and union donations has unintended consequences the public should be wary of, however. It may lead to a growth in third party advertising and campaigning, not unlike the corrupting influence of 鈥淪uper PACs鈥� we see in the United States.
It is infinitely more difficult to track donations made to third parties, which will surely blossom as a consequence of the proposed election finance reforms.
There is already a preponderance of third party groups wishing to influence the outcomes of elections in B.C. and across Canada. The most egregious among them are organizations promoting 鈥渟trategic鈥� voting, and whose financial backers could be described as murky at best.
The funding behind many of these groups is from U.S. sources, funneled through Canadian charities and scrubbed of any evidence of the original source.
Though their grip on power in B.C. seems quite tenuous at the moment, the B.C. Liberals have an opportunity to set new rules that can limit the influence of third parties, and level the playing field for all parties.
Now let鈥檚 see if Vancouver鈥檚 former mayor can help our municipal elections move in a 鈥減ositive direction.鈥�
@MikeKlassen
