The criticisms from these commentators are marked by misleading or exaggerated claims and illogical arguments that ignore fundamental democratic and legal principles, and even if the problems they claim exist are real, there are far more democratic solutions to these problems than they propose.

The current federal Elections Act (as a result of changes that came into effect in January 2004) limits individuals to $5,200 annually, and corporations, unions and other organizations to $1,000 annually, as the maximum combined total donation allowed to each party (including all the parties' candidates).  It should be noted that the limits increase annually at the rate of inflation; that all donors can donate the same amounts again during an election campaign, and; that individuals are allowed to donate additionally up to $5,400 to each candidate in a party's leadership race.

Bill C-2 proposes to lower the individual donation limit to $1,000 (a more affordable, and therefore more democratic, amount for most Canadians) and to ban donations from all organizations.

All the commentators ignore the fact that federal parties receive $1.75 in public funding annually for each vote they receive in the most recent election, as well as 50% of their election expenses if the party receives 2% or more of the vote in the election (or 5% or more of the vote in any riding), and that election candidates (not party leadership candidates) receive 60% of their expenses if they receive 10% or more of the vote in their riding, and that donors to parties and candidates receive a 33% to 75% tax rebate depending on their size of their donation.

The $1.75 per vote subsidy gives federal parties each a portion of $26 million each year and, using the 2004 election as an example, election expense subsidies gave parties back $30.5 million of the $50.4 million they spent, and candidates $24.8 million of the $43.2 million they spent.

All the commentators also fail to note that the Conservative Party raised as much in 2005 (under the new donations limits) as the Liberals raised each year from 2001 to 2003.

Using the example of the difficulties candidates for leadership of the federal Liberal Party are having raising money, the Globe and Mail editorial board ("Those fundraising blues" - August 4) makes the very dubious claim that the current and proposed limits are unreasonable because they make the candidates "beg" for donations "often at the expense of policy development."

First of all, using candidates in one partially completed leadership race as the basis for criticizing overall donation limits is not only illogical, it is also completely unconvincing.  Most of the Liberal candidates have limited political experience and profile, shouldn't be running if they haven't already developed detailed policy platforms, and have been campaigning mainly so far during the summer (which is usually a difficult fundraising time period).

Secondly, the many problems caused by and within the Liberal Party in the past decade, and its many, many broken promises, not only led to their defeat in the last election but also to well-founded skepticism by the Party's supporters.

Thirdly, the Liberal candidates don't have to beg, all they do is have to ask like everyone else involved in fundraising in Canada.  The more individuals support them, the more money they will raise.  What could be more democratic?

All the commentators argue that corporations, unions and other organizations should be allowed to donate more, with Moisan proposing that the Quebec government set an annual limit of $15,000 annually that would be put into a general fund and distributed to each party in the province according to the percentage of votes received in the most recent election.

While Moisan's proposal at least involves distributing donations from organizations, it still ignores the fundamental democratic principle of "one person, one vote."  In a democracy, this principle must be upheld not just on election day, but also in between elections.  No one person should be able to use any means of influence over government that is greater than any other person.

Corporations and other organizations are prevented from voting for many democratic reasons (for example, corporations have inherent economic (and therefore political) power so allowing them to vote would essentially double their political power; corporations and other organizations cannot accurately represent the diversity of their members'/shareholders' positions on any issue and so giving them the vote would give their executives unrepresentative and illegitimate political power, and; they are not located anywhere specific as they often have multiple locations).  For the same reasons they should also not be allowed to make donations to have influence over government.  Usually in the past, the owners of organizations (whether shareholders or members) were not even consulted about the donations made by executives, making the donations even more undemocratic.

Compared to Moisan's recommendations, the current $1.75 per vote federal public funding system is a far more democratic way of ensuring political parties have enough funding, as the parties only "owe" voters who support them.

However, as Moisan recommends, changes need to be made to prevent corporations and other organizations from attempting to get around donation limits (as the advertising company Groupaction did as part of the federal Adscam sponsorship scandal).

Bill C-2 proposes to close the huge loophole (that never should have existed) that allowed secret, unlimited donations to election candidates, but further measures are needed.  Donors must be required to certify in writing that they made their donation and that they are not being reimbursed by anyone or any organization; the identity of the donor's employer or major affiliations (e.g. union) must be disclosed, and; as required under an international agreement signed on to by the federal government, the bank accounts of everyone with decision-making power in government (including judges and the heads of agencies, boards, commissions and tribunals) must be monitored for suspicious transactions.

In addition, loans and volunteer work must be tracked, limited and disclosed in the same way, to ensure that wealthy individuals, corporations and other organizations do not exceed donation limits through loans (as they have with many Liberal leadership candidates) or by paying employees to "volunteer" for parties and candidates.

Another key needed reform is that the $1.75 per vote public funding should not all go to party headquarters -- instead a portion should be divided among riding associations to ensure a balance of power within the party between the executive leaders and the grassroots members.

These commentators on Canada's political donations systems also undermine their claims by failing to specify minimum amounts that they believe are needed to run a party leadership campaign, a general election campaign, or a campaign in one riding.  Without clear evidence that certain minimum amounts are needed, how can they even begin to argue against donation limits?

If, at the end of the Liberal leadership race, none of the candidates have raised anywhere near whatever minimal amount is proven to be needed for such races, only then should federal policy-makers consider democratic solutions to this problem.  For example, as in the U.S., public funding could be provided that matches the amounts raised by candidates from individuals (thereby doubling the amount each candidate would have available).

It is understandable, given the old best-federal-government-money-can-buy system existed for 137 years, that many people are having difficulty adjusting to the recent and proposed changes to Canada's political donations system.  However, dubious, illogical and unprincipled criticisms of these changes should be ignored.

While limits on all types of donations and more detailed disclosure measures are clearly needed to make Canada's new system effective, other changes should only be made if real problems are identified, and must not undermine the new system's very important democratizing effects.
 

NOTE: To see a summary of the 21 promised measures that the Conservatives failed to include in Bill C-2, go to Democracy Watch's May 25, 2006 news release

To see a summary of the 25 additional measures that need to be enacted to ensure an effective federal government accountability and system, go to  Democracy Watch's April 11, 2006 news release

To see the details about all the changes needed to the federal government's accountability system (including details about the 21 promised measures, and details about many of the 25 additional measures, go to Democracy Watch's May 30, 2006 news release