 |
|
Feature: |
|
|
| You are here: Home > Features > Financing Political Parties and Election Campaigns in
Canada |
Regulating Political Donations
Limiting political contributions and instituting
transparency.
The reforms contained in Bill
C-24 are part of a commitment outlined by former Prime Minister
Jean Chrétien (in June 2002) that the government would strengthen
legislation covering the way political parties are financed in order
to enhance the fairness and transparency of the electoral system.
Limits
By instituting donation limits, Parliament hopes
to constrain the negative consequences typically associated with party
fundraising.
Political fundraising can create problems of corruption and
influence peddling whereby donors ‘buy’ influence and access
to policymakers and government contractors.
The new campaign finance laws embrace the principle of equal opportunity for
all Canadians who wish to participate in public life.
Disclosure
By forcing parties and candidates to report the source and amount of their
contributions, the financing laws are designed to make Canada’s democratic
system more transparent.
Today, voters can see for themselves where a given candidate’s financial
support comes from.
Third Party Advertising
Elections Canada monitors third party
political advertising. According to their interpretation of the Canada
Elections Act, the following rules apply to third party advertising.
If the third party spends less than $500 on election advertising, it
is not required to register with the Chief
Electoral Officer, but it must identify itself on the ad and state
during the ad that the third party authorized it.
No election advertising can be transmitted to the public in an electoral district
on Election Day, before all of the polling stations close in the electoral
district.
An advertisement that is transmitted to the public before Election Day, including
a banner ad on a website, does not contravene the advertising blackout
provision if it is not changed on Election Day.
If the third party spends $500 or more on election advertising, it
must immediately register with Elections
Canada.
If the third party is a trade union, corporation, or another entity with a
governing body, it must include a copy of the resolution passed by its
governing body authorizing it to spend money on election advertising.
If the application for registration is properly completed and submitted, it
will be accepted so long as the name of the third party is not, in the
opinion of the Chief
Electoral Officer, likely to be confused with the name of a candidate,
a registered party, an eligible political party or a registered third party.
Public Versus Private Party Financing
Bill
C-24 replaces the reliance of political parties on corporate
and union donations with stable, or at least predictable, amounts
of public financing.
But not everyone agrees that public funds should be used for political party
and election campaign activities.
Arguments For Public Funding for Political Parties
Proponents of the new system that replaces private, corporate, and union donations
with public funding for political parties and election campaigns argue
that public funding will reduce the potential for conflicts of
interest.
Moreover, it is argued that public funding will wrest control of the electoral
system from an elite social echelon who can afford to support campaigns.
As former Progressive Conservative Leader Joe Clark has
suggested:
“It is not healthy to democracy for the party system to be so subject
to the powerful and the rich. The appearance of improper influence is a
significant source of cynicism about public life…”
In addition, a system of public financing for political parties ensures a
degree of stability and equity for Canada’s
political parties.
Proponents of public funding for political parties assert that since political
parties are an essential part of the political system, they need stable,
predictable financing to formulate policy and engage the public.
Arguments Against Public Funding for Political Parties
However, Conservative
Party Leader Stephen Harper counters:
“the central idea proposed is that we replace corporate and union
contributions as the basis for financing political parties with forced
funding from taxpayers. Our view is that this solution is worse than
the problem... If shareholders and union workers do not want their
funds to be used to fund particular political parties, why should
they be forced to do so as taxpayers?”
Another argument against the public financing of political parties is that
it can make parties less responsive to social change. If parties are no
longer beholden to certain social organizations and groups, it may be that
the party loses touch with grass roots and/or community issues.
In addition, a possible drawback of the public financing system is that in
a scenario of minority governments and more frequent elections, the public
financing provisions might be inadequate.
|
