We need fewer political finance rules, not more

For democracy to truly be transparent, political donations need to be unlimited and open to every man, woman, corporation and union.

The presumed truth that money corrupts politics neglects to recognize that corruption comes from the politicians themselves and not their deep-pocketed supporters. This is why politics actually needs fewer rules on money, rather than more.

Earlier this week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau deflected questions about a fundraiser hosted by a Bay Street law firm partner—though not the firm itself—where donors paid $500 each for face time with the attorney general.

Ontario’s Liberal premier, Kathleen Wynne, was also on the defensive this week after a Toronto Star report revealed “secret” fundraising targets as high as $500,000 for her cabinet ministers.

In response, Wynne said she would bring in new rules to ban union and corporate donations, a move also proposed by PC opposition leader Patrick Brown. This follows a change made federally by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in 2006.

Donations to federal parties are capped at $1,525 per year. In Ontario, individuals, corporations and unions can give up to $9,975. Non-individual donations are banned in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta. British Columbia, however has no cap on contributions for individuals or corporations.

Instead of bringing the federal approach to provinces, every level of government should follow the BC model.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedom of expression for “everyone” without distinguishing between individuals and organizations. There are many ways to express oneself; money is one of them.

This was affirmed in the US in 2010, when the Supreme Court essentially ruled in the Citizens United case that money is speech.

It’s easy to understand the emotional argument to keep corporate money out of the political process, but we’re fooling ourselves if we think that any cap or restriction will stop that flow.

A blanket ban on corporate and union donations merely gives the illusion of political purity.

The federal Liberals received $76,000 from around 100 Ernst & Young employees in 2008, despite the firm not being able to donate from its own bank account.

In last year’s federal election, unions and other groups poured millions of dollars into anti-Conservative advertising, funding the political process without cutting a single cheque to a specific party.

Those who donate to candidates do so for the same reasons as one votes for them—to get something out of it.

As an individual, I vote for candidates who allow me to keep more of my money in my pocket. Corporations are no different: an oil company invariably stands to benefit from politicians of a certain persuasion just as a green energy vendor would from others.

Donors aren’t buying a change in opinion when they cut a check—they are investing in an outlook or platform that aligns with their own ideological or financial interests.

If these donors receive grants and contracts, they aren’t culpable—the government that sold its integrity is.

We have a right to see who donated how much to whom, and we also have an unqualified right to put our money where our mouths are.

-Lawton is the host of the Andrew Lawton Show on AM980 in London, Ont.



This Week's Flyers

