Show us the names behind the money
Alliance Party candidates should practice what they preach about political accountability

The recent squabble among Canadian Alliance leadership contenders over whether they should disclose the names of their financial backers highlights a remarkable loophole in how Canada regulates party fundraising activities.

Every year, each political party discloses the names of its donors and the amounts they give. Candidates do the same after each election. This reporting is overseen by Elections Canada, an independent, arms-length agency.

There are several "black holes" that allow donors to hide their donations, and Bill C-2, the Elections Act bill that is currently making its way through the Senate, does little to close these loopholes.

But leadership races is one of the most obvious. And without any legal requirements to disclose donations to leadership candidates, the Alliance has said it won't bother requiring candidates to reveal their contributors.

Preston Manning said he would eventually reveal the names of his donors, but refuses to say how much each one gave. This miniscule level of disclosure gave him enough room to criticize his opponents -- only because they refuse to provide any information whatsoever on their donors -- and eventually Stockwell Day was brow-beaten into disclosing the names of his donors.

That Manning, and now Day, can claim the high ground, without telling the public how much money they get from their supporters, is a testament to how low the Alliance high ground really is.

Take, for example, the reaction to the news of Frank Klees when he pulled out of the leadership race early on. Klees alleged that a rival leadership camp offered him a huge sum of money if he would back their candidate on a second ballot. Rather than expressing shock at the allegation, a senior advisor to Stockwell Day merely dismissed it as a commonplace occurrence. He was even indignant that Klees would air the party's dirty laundry in such a way, stating that the appropriate thing to do when this happens is simply to say no thanks.

Especially for a party that professes to be a more democratic and accountable alternative, this reaction is the height of hypocrisy and cynicism.

Canadians may think that "dirty politics" is more typical of the system south of the border. But the most significant difference between Canadian and U.S. political fundraising rules is that in Canada, we don't have the disclosure that allows us to see what is really going on.

In the United States -- where presidential candidates from all parties must disclose their donors on a monthly basis, from the primaries through to election day -- the Klees bribery scheme would be very unlikely to occur, as it would involve illegally hiding huge sums of money. In Canada, such schemes are perfectly legal, and apparently encouraged.

In politics, he who pays the piper calls the tune. Year after year, top party donors are invariably those with the greatest stake in government decisionmaking. Leadership races are no different, and there is no valid reason to exempt party leadership candidates from disclosure requirements. Whoever wins the Alliance leadership race will become one of the most powerful politicians in the country. Shouldn't the transparency standard that applies to a backbench opposition MP apply to those who wish to be the Leader of the Opposition?

Some suggest that parties are private entities, and donors should have the right to privacy when they wish to hide their donations. This ignores the very public role that parties play as the primary actors in a parliamentary democracy. Parties make law, and those who are governed by the law have a right to know to what extent private special interests are bankrolling the political process.

Alliance leadership candidates freely admit it costs at least $1 million just to throw one's hat into the ring. With this hurdle, it is no surprise that high-end donors wield tremendous power over who gets to even enter the race.

The privacy argument is especially repugnant when one considers the amount of public subsidies that parties enjoy during elections, in the form of access to free broadcast time on the public's airwaves, tax credits for donors, and expense reimbursements for candidates and parties. These subsidies account for between one third and two thirds of total party revenues. If taxpayers are footing the bill for party budgets, we have all the more right to require a basic level of disclosure.

Each candidate should be required to disclose the names of all donors and the amounts they gave. This obligation should be overseen by an arms-length agency, since voluntary party rules during leadership races are routinely ignored, and parties have little incentive to investigate irregularities and bring violations to light.

Finally, Bill C-2 should be amended to require parties to disclose this information during all leadership races.

Alliance candidates talk a good line on government accountability. Too bad they don't practice what they preach.