Dont hold your breath waiting for the provincial government to make substantial changes to municipal election financing regulations. Ida Chong, the minister responsible for such things, has promised change in time for the 2014 municipal election. But she has been stalling on a joint municipal-provincial task force report demanding significant changes for the past two years now. And between now and then, of course, there is the small matter of a provincial election in 2013.
So she is probably pondering whether electoral reform is good for families.
But the matter of reform only becomes more critical in light of the information gathered from last weeks 2011 civic election finance filings in Vancouver.
At just under $6 million all in (NPA plus their candidates close to $3 million; Vision and candidates about $2.3 million; COPE $361,000; and various independents), this is arguably the most expensive democratic process of its kind in the country. With about 143,000 voters, candidates and their parties shelled out almost $42 for every vote cast.
We have also now seen what must be the single biggest corporate donation in a municipal election in Canadian history. That was the $960,000 that came from the NPAs chief bag man Rob Macdonald.
All of this is perfectly legal. (So is, for all their kvetching about foreign donations, the $250 from Florida-based Artus Investments Ltd. listed on the NPA return.)
And thats the problem.
To be disturbingly fair, both the NPA and Vision have been calling for reforms. Last term, Mayor Gregor Robertson kicked things off with a letter to the province asking for an end to corporate and union donations as well as money from out of the country.
There are a number of reasons for limiting the source and amount of donations to political parties. While politicians tend to sing the song that they are totally oblivious to where the money to elect them is coming from, the public is a bit more skeptical. They (we) hold the view that people and organizations give money to politicians to get something back. That includes the $960,000 that Macdonald gave to the NPA and the half million dollars plus that various trade unions gave to Vision and COPE. Never mind the money Vision got from developers.
Unions undeniably get better treatment and more access to the current administration and Macdonald was an obvious architect of the main messaging the NPA delivered (unsuccessfully) in the last election.
Federally, unions and corporations are prohibited from donating money and there is a limit on individual donations.
We would do well to adopt that here. We also need, as the task force proposal gathering dust on Chongs book shelf recommends, controls on third party spending during campaigns. Failing that, as the report says, parties will be able to work around limits on their spending by getting help from their friends.
Money isnt everything. The NPAs results prove that. And the Green Partys Adriane Carr won her council seat with a campaign that cost $13,000. An anomaly to be sure, thanks to a brand she helped develop over more than a decade and an electorate more attracted to a green candidate than COPEs offerings, particularly with Tim Louis.
That said, money can trump the free speech we value particularly in electoral competitions. Some of the best go unheard, smothered by big money campaigns.
And it seems futile to raise the issue about how a ward system might relieve many of the electoral problems we now face in the at-large system around funding.
Meanwhile, in an act that can only be described as willful ignorance, Chong has suggested if the parties want spending limits and electoral reform they are free to voluntarily agree among themselves. And the lion will lie down with the lamb, etc. etc.
Like I said, dont hold your breath.
