Public Financing For Political Parties?
Jun 02, 2008
Much has been made in the media of late of the Provincial Government’s introduction of Bill 37, which is essentially a series of changes to electoral-financing and party-advertising laws. Aside from the fact that it caught the opposition and others by surprise, it has stirred debate at a time of year when things are starting to quiet down.
Perhaps the most interesting piece of the Bill regards the plan to partially finance political parties with an annual subsidy. As the Bill currently stands, parties will receive $1.25 in public money for each vote received in a provincial election. This means there is the potential for mainstream parties to receive up to $1 million over a four-year period between elections. This can’t be seen as an unreasonable measure, especially since political fundraising has been curtailed significantly in recent years with caps put on the amount business and labour can donate.
Since union and corporate donations are now a thing of the past in most Canadian jurisdictions, using some taxpayer money to assist with fundraising seems to be a decent trade off. Most legislators have come to the realization that publicly financing political parties reduces the influence of more affluent donors and special interest groups on the political process. Countries that have placed limits on these types of donations have offset their effect somewhat by introducing public funding of political parties.
Indeed, the Liberal government of Jean Chretien passed election finance legislation that gave federal parties a per-vote subsidy in exchange for limits on special interest donations. And democracies in Europe have been strengthened where subsidization has taken place. This includes the countries of Britain, Australia, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, France, Mexico and Japan, amongst others.
Even the United States - where lobbyists and special interests have access to the political process on an unprecedented scale – there has been a shift towards publicly financed elections. At present, some 23 of 50 US states offer some type of subsidy to candidates in elections campaigns or allow citizens to offer a small amount to the political party of their choosing when paying their taxes.
It could also be argued that the smaller parties will benefit even more than the larger, more mainstream ones. The more public financing there is, the more political parties that will be able to participate in the electoral process. Rather than just benefit the governing party – which is what many claim Bill 37 will do – the federal public subsidy system has actually boosted smaller parties.
It is in this area that Bill 37 can add some much needed transparency to the election funding process and also to encourage its democratization by allowing citizens to control the level of funding to the various political parties. As other countries have learned, this strengthens our democracy by leveling the playing field and reducing the likelihood of those with excessive amount s of money from having a disparate influence on the political process.
Comments
Comments are now closed
I think the proposition of public funding sounds reasonable and I really like the idea of tying it to the amount of votes received. I believe that one of the perceived problems with democracy is that individual votes don't matter. In this scenario, even if you know the party you support isn't going to win, your vote will still contribute financially.
Dave - 2008-06-03 10:31