 |
|
Feature: |
|
|
| You are here: Home > Features > Financing Political Parties and Election Campaigns in
Canada |
Campaign Financing in Other Jurisdictions
International and provincial election
laws.
Canada’s campaign and party financing regulations can be contrasted
with the attempts of other countries to limit and restrict political spending,
as well as the efforts of Canadian provinces.
The United States
Many analysts consider Canada’s election laws (especially those relating
to limits on campaign spending and financial transparency) to be effective,
particularly when compared to American legislation.
After the 1996 US election, and controversies surrounding the Democratic
Party’s reliance on foreign financing, reformers made concerted
attempts to improve American campaign-financing rules.
To date, US legislation has focused primarily on stemming the massive flow
of money into political campaigns. However, despite being highly regulated,
the federal US legislation contains loopholes, and the term “soft
money” has come to refer to large amounts of political party donations
not covered by election laws.
The United Kingdom
In 2001, the United Kingdom introduced new
campaign financing laws. Accordingly, the reformed British electoral
system is highly regulated, with campaigns that are short in duration.
The 2005
British general election lasted just thirty days and spending
per party was capped at £19.77 million. This is quite a change
from pre-2001 limits; in 1997 the Conservatives spent £28
million, while the Labour Party spent £26
million.
Critics of such short, frugal elections complain that spending limits restrict
debate and make it difficult for challengers to present an alternative
to the governing party, making it more difficult to unseat incumbent candidates.
They argue that the new laws do not allow the parties to present a complete
picture of their respective policies and points-of-view. Under the new
laws, the two major British parties are only permitted to air five, five-minute "party
election broadcasts" on television and radio during the course of
the campaign.
Provincial Legislation
When the federal government decided to amend its party
finance legislation to ban corporate and trade union donations, it followed
precedents set by Quebec and Manitoba. Both provinces have enacted legislation
to reduce the financial dependence of political parties and candidates
on business interests.
Manitoba
The vote-rigging scandal in Manitoba (where top Progressive
Conservative officials were caught plotting to split the vote
in the 1995 provincial election) prompted a number of reforms to Manitoba’s
electoral system. In 2001, Manitoba’s Elections
Finances Act was amended to make the following changes:
- Only individuals (Manitoba residents) may contribute to a candidate
in a provincial election, a political party registered in Manitoba,
a contestant in a nomination battle, or a constituency association
registered in Manitoba.
- Annual individual contributions are limited to a combined total of
$3,000.
- The donation an individual is able to receive a 75 percent tax credit
for is raised from $100 to $200. However, the maximum credit an individual
can receive remains $500.
In contrast with the federal legislation (Bill
C-24), Manitoba’s legislation does not provide parties
with an annual allowance to compensate them for the ban on contributions
from corporations and trade unions and associations.
Quebec
René Lévesque's separatist Parti
Québecois (PQ) government introduced Quebec’s party
finance legislation. It was passed in the National
Assembly in 1977, and came into effect in 1978. The legislation
came about after widespread allegations of “turnkey” municipal
elections, where organizations offer services to candidates or parties
free of charge, in return for “political favours” in
the form of contracts after the election. In the 1970s, problems
of political ethics and lobbyism, as well as assertions of transgression
of political-financing rules regularly made the headlines.
It is interesting to note that between the 1973 election and the passage of
the party finance legislation, the PQ set
new ethical standards, making a practice of returning corporate donations.
Quebec’s legislation includes the following stipulations:
- Only individuals (Quebec electors) may contribute to political parties,
independent members of the National
Assembly, and independent candidates.
- Individual contributions are eligible for a maximum tax credit of
$300, or 75 percent on the first $400.
- Individual contributions are limited to a combined total of $3,000
annually.
In Quebec, parties receive an annual allowance based on the percentage of
votes obtained during the last election.
Ontario
While Manitoba and Quebec are examples of highly regulated electoral jurisdictions,
and precursors to Canada’s Bill
C-24, Alberta and Ontario are good illustrations of relatively unregulated
electoral systems.
Ontario’s current electoral system places only rudimentary restrictions
on political donations and election spending. However, Ontario’s Attorney-General
Michael Bryant has been placed in charge of the government's democratic
renewal agenda, which will likely include reforms to the way campaigns
are financed.
After some controversy surrounding the use of riding association money to
pay for a candidate’s expenses during the 2003 provincial election
campaign, a number of proposals have been made.
In particular, proposed changes would require:
- That donations of $100 or more to a political party or leadership
contestant be filed within five days with Ontario's Chief
Elections Officer and be posted on the Internet in another five
days.
The Government of Ontario intends to appoint
a "citizens assembly" to conduct a broader study the way Members
of the Provincial Parliament (MPPs) are elected and to recommend changes.
Alberta
Alberta’s campaign finance laws are among the least
restrictive in the country.
While candidates are required to submit financial statements to the province’s Chief
Electoral Officer, the total amount spent by an individual candidate
on his or her campaign is limited only by the
total amount of revenue that he or she is able to legally raise.
There are also no restrictions on the types of expenditures,
or how much may be spent on a particular item.
With regard to political contributions, any person that is
a resident of Alberta, any corporation that conducts business
in Alberta, or a trade union or employee organization
that holds bargaining rights for employees in Alberta may make financial
contributions to a candidate’s campaign. Anonymous contributions
of less than $50 are also permitted.
|
