Mason has a point (or at least the start of one)
NDP leader Brian Mason is proposing an end to corporate and union donations to political parties in Alberta. Mason is pitching this as something that would eliminate (or at least reduce) corruption in Alberta. I'm not entirely convinced that this will make much of a difference on that front, but Mason is correct in pointing to the deficiencies in Alberta's party finance laws. Compared to other provinces in Canada (and to the federal government), Alberta has very little in either regulation of spending or in public reimbursements that would help to make political parties more competitive and able to communicate with the public. A ban on corporate and union donations might be part of the solution, but it needs to be part of a more comprehensive review of how we regulate party and election finance in this province.
Incidentally, this also points to the relative lack of discussion about the democratic deficit in Alberta so far in the election. Alberta's democractic institutions are in sorry shape, but Mason's foray into this field has been the only discussion of this thus far. I'm thinking this doesn't resonate particularly well with voters, who seem more preoccupied with what government does, not how it does it or why how government does things affects what it does (if you follow me).