Close the soft-money loophole

Last week, the U.S. Senate passed a bill that will tighten political donations disclosure and ban the so-called "soft money" loophole that allows special interests to give huge undisclosed sums to political parties. Soft money is unregulated, and grew to nearly US$500 million in the last presidential election.

The ban must still make it through a number of obstacles, including court challenge by a blue-chip team of lawyers headed by former independent counsel Kenneth Starr. Nonetheless, it is the closest thing to U.S. campaign finance reform in decades.

If only we could have the same reform in Canada. Here, because of deficiencies in Canada's Elections Act, soft money takes many forms. Donations to riding associations are only sometimes disclosed, and donations to leadership candidates and MPs before and after the election period can remain totally hidden. Former House Leader Don Boudria once justified this exclusion by saying, "It's called the Elections Act, not the Between Elections Act."

Even before they closed the soft money loophole, the U.S. system was more transparent than Canada's, because while the individual names of soft-money donors were not disclosed, the overall amounts of soft money were reported. In Canada, we know the figure is in the millions of dollars. It is reported that Canadian Alliance leadership candidates each spent at least $1 to $3 million on their campaigns. Before he left politics, Brian Tobin's supporters claimed he had raised pledges of $10 million for his bid in the un-official Liberal leadership race. But this is all rumour. We have no real idea how much soft money flows to political coffers, or from whom.

Last November, the Alliance said they would route all donations to leadership candidates through the party, so there would at least be disclosure of donors with the general party filings in July of next year. They have since said that they wonít even do this, preferring to give contributors the choice of whether they want their donations reported.

Officials claim parties are private entities, and should therefore be allowed to set their own rules for leadership races, including fundraising rules. So even party members who voted for the new leader of the opposition, Stephen Harper, will likely never know who gave him the money to run his campaign, or even how much he spent. And when he runs for a seat in Parliament, we'll have some knowledge of who he raised money from during the five-week campaign, but nothing about who gives him money before or after the campaign -- to clear any campaign debts, for example. Consider reports that Ezra Levant, who wants to run in Preston Manning's old riding of Calgary Southwest, has already spent $100,000 on his campaign, and the by-election date has not even been set.

Given the amounts involved, and the power wielded by a prime minister or a leader of the opposition, Canadians have a right to know who is bankrolling these candidates. BC and Ontario have recognized this, and both require provincial leadership candidates to disclose their donors, albeit several months after the leadership vote takes place.

When you look at the list of top federal party donors that is disclosed, it is made up primarily of those with an enormous stake in government decision-making -- regulated industries, government contractors, recipients of public subsidies, and those trying to influence policy decisions. It is reasonable to assume that those giving hidden donations are similarly vested.

As the central actors in the political process, a party's right to privacy should not be a barrier to the democratic imperative of transparency. Canada should raise our standard on political fundraising to that of the United States, and close the soft-money loophole.