Bill C-24: Where Is Electoral Reform Taking Us?
Uncategorized Comments (0)
A closer look at Bill C-24
By Tristan Downe-Dewdney
April 25, 2004
There has been a movement in Canada for some time to make elections financing more representative. It seems that, in many ways, this call has been answered with Bill C-24, which came into effect on January 1st of this year.
How can elections financing be made more representative and democratic? It is a numbers game – and some interesting methods have been devised.
First off, the bill aims to put more power in the hands of the voters, while stripping interest groups of their financial influence. Although limits have been imposed for both, individuals are granted the greatest priority. Private citizens have a donation cap of $5,000. This money can be divided among parties, district associations, candidates, and nomination contestants in any way deemed fit by the donator. Corporations, trade unions, and associations are limited to a smaller amount – $1,000. The same rules apply.
Provided that one deems the interest of the citizenry to be more important than associations, this portion of the bill certainly makes financing more representative.
Due to the possible desire to get around the rules, it has been made illegal for individuals or corporations to make indirect donation. Although it may be hard to tell if under the table deals are seeing associations give money through employees, the restrictions still seeks to curb devious donating.
Another progressive aspect of the bill will see that all donations from associations over $200 will have the donator’s name declared. This means that, to a degree, the public can make their decisions based upon who supports who. Voters can better judge the morals of candidates based upon the morals of their supporters.
It was the practice before C-24, that riding candidates had to acquire 15% of their riding’s vote to be eligible for campaign reimbursements. This requirement has been reduced to its new level of 10%. The amount candidates are reimbursed has also been increased. This has risen to 60% from the old standard of 50%.
Perhaps the most “pro-democratic†part of this bill is the annual allowances portion. Parties are now to receive $1.75 every year for each vote received in the previous election. To be eligible for the allowance, a party must obtain 2% or more of the national vote, of %5 of the vote in the ridings members have been run in.
One of the assumed benefits of this bill was that it would free up party resources from money making – allowing them to dedicate more time to productive work.
One perceived conflict is the fact this money will be paid from public funds. Essentially, these costs will be covered by taxes. Political extremists have been quick to argue that they should not be forced to support an opponent by way of legislative reform. Others argue that fundraising should be left to parties, as their intrinsic qualities should be enough to attract donors.
One of the major benefits of this bill will be for small parties, and those that do not gravitate the larger donors. The elimination of large donations by interest groups will take some of the steam out of larger parties, while the annual allowance will provide poor and marginal parties with much needed cash. one can imagine that the Green Party could benefit from this – as environmental advocates are traditionally strapped for cash. The NDP could also benefit. While the broad-based support across Canada may yield few seats, it could not provide much needed publicity money.
Just imagine if the CAP or another under-received party could muster 2% of the vote.
The larger parties will, of course, earn quite a bit from this. Although it may not substitute the amounts earned under previous corporate sponsorship trends, it should offset some of the costs.
Undeniably this bill has the potential to free up party and candidate resources. But, should it? What is the ideal vehicle for party financing?
These questions may re-emerge once the next election is called. Canadians will certainly want to know where party and personal support is coming from. Likely, the issue of transparency will be pushed as far as possible – likely proving to be a timely and effective test for the young bill.
CNP
@ April 25, 2004