The buzz about the election finance "poison pill" that will bar three cabinet ministers from running again is all very exciting, but, being realistic, it's a tempest in a teapot. There is no way they will be banned from running again.
The real scandal -- if there is one at all -- is the "in-and-out" scheme. Here the Conservative campaign transferred money to individual candidates, which was then transferred immediately back to headquarters ostensibly to pay for regional radio, TV and newspaper advertisements. Some of the ads did little to directly promote the candidacies of the individuals who paid for them. The scheme was a clever way to circumvent campaign finance limits.
What's really the issue here is that the Conservatives can't manage to run an election on the rules we now have for campaign finance.
If they can't -- and their base is as good as it gets -- then no one can.
And that means the law is too tough and is counterproductive.
Hmmn, a law that's too tough and is counterproductive... . Does that remind anyone of any other crime legislation???
http://tgam.ca/OL3
4 comments:
In all honesty, the law concerning the spending allowed during elections seems silly.
As a businessman, if the government told me that I could spend no more than a specified amount to promote my product, I would tell them to get stuffed.
At this point it would be prudent to point out that any spending on advertising during an election is party money not taxpayer funds.
The Liberals have as much as admitted being guilty of the same monetary manipulation, but claim their amounts are lower, so that makes it OK.
Being limited to spending no more than $18 million in an election is directly tied to the per vote taxpayer subsidy they receive.
I say we end the "per vote" subsidy and let the parties stand on their own and spend what they will, dependant on their coffers.
But that is not new, is it?
So James, does the last sentence of your post mean that you've switched sides and now support dismantling the gun registry? ;-) (Sorry I couldn't resist!)
Jim:
All types of countries have public financing for elections, including the US. It's designed to prevent "big money" from dominating politics and levelling the playing field.
And James: you're being a bit presumptuous claiming these cabinet ministers wont get banned from running. A federal court ruling has already said as much.. it's just on appeal.
Scott, maybe you're right -- it would be nice to think such a ruling would stick...
Post a Comment