Canada’s political finance laws even more stringent
Green policy on political finance is reasonably stringent but Canada’s new laws are even better. You can only give $1100 in a calendar year and only natural persons entitled to vote can give donations.
Amendments to the Canada Elections Act that came into effect on January 1, 2007
- New, lower limits on the annual contributions individuals may make to registered parties, their candidates, nomination contestants and registered associations, and to leadership contestants and independent candidates
As of January 1, 2007, the new limits are:
- No more than $1,100 in any calendar year to each registered political party
- No more than $1,100 in any calendar year to the various entities of each registered political party (registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates)
- No more than $1,100 to the leadership contestant or the leadership contestants of their choice in a particular leadership contest
- No more than $1,100 to each independent candidate for a particular election
These limits are indexed on April 1 of each year.
- Only individuals who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents can give a contribution to registered parties, candidates, nomination contestants, registered associations and leadership contestants
- A ban on contributions by corporations, trade unions and unincorporated associations to registered parties, candidates, nomination contestants, registered associations and leadership contestants
- Prohibition on cash donations of more than $20
Amendments to the Canada Elections Act that came into effect on royal assent
- Extension of the period for instituting prosecutions under the Canada Elections Act to 10 years after the day on which the offence was committed (but not later than 5 years after the Commissioner of Canada Elections becomes aware of the facts giving rise to the prosecution)
Amendments to the Canada Elections Act that will come into effect six months after royal assent
- Candidates required to report to the Chief Electoral Officer any gifts they receive that total more than $500 from one person or entity
Bookmark to:
June 19th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
“only natural persons entitled to vote can give donations.”
I’m not sure this is true, and if it is, wouldn’t want to emulate it in New Zealand. 17 year-olds should be able to donate!
June 19th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
I would go along with “only persons entitled to vote can give donations” as long as they bring in a rule that says “only those not receiving the DPB or unemployment benefit are eligible to vote”
I cannot see why anybody who takes money from the tax payer for doing nothing should have say, if they want to have a say then they should get a job.
June 19th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Big bro - Your argument is pretty problematic especially if you extend it logically. What you seem to be saying is that people who do not contribute to the government in taxation. Two problems:
1) Someone on the DPB may not necessarily contribute taxation, but they may contribute in other ways. A solo parent will typically, for example, provide childcare for their family. If they instead neglected their child, the state would need to provide for the child (lest you see the child out on the street). It is essentially the opportunity cost of not providing social welfare.
“I cannot see why anybody who takes money from the tax payer for doing nothing should have say, if they want to have a say then they should get a job.” What if getting a job ends up costing the taxpayer more than the DPB?
You can apply the same analysis and find that an individual not on social welfare is more likely to require expenditure from the state in other ways - on policing and punishing the crime they may be driven to in desperation, or the health care services they may need when they can’t put a roof over their heads. You have to consider all these possibilties, because you have to consider that some people can’t find jobs, or have other commitments which preclude them from working…
The opportunity cost point goes more directly to a justification of social welfare than disputing that those recieving it should get to vote, but the fact remains that your characterisation of tax as the only way to contribute to society is shallow, and problematic.
2) Why stop with persons recieving the DPB or social welfare? There are plenty of people out there that pay tax, bt recieve more in government services than they gain - what about someone recieving some welfare, but working two hours a week? Your argument is not logical if you think they should get the vote… In the alternative what you are logically arguing would extend to every individual who is recieving more from the government that they are contributing. That means everyone on welfare, some fanilies recieving working for families, everyone in prison…
You might well like to exclude all these groups but let me ask you this: ever been enrolled in a tertiary institution? If you have, chances are you were getting much more from the government in terms of subsidies for your education and/or student allowances/interst free student loans…
Ever been in hospital for an extended period of time? Maybe you broke your leg, and needed care for a few days…those bills mount up darn fast, and in no time your annual tax contribution would have been consumed by nursing and medical supplies…
In sum, your argument does not logically follow beyond a predjudice against those on the DPB - or if it does, it would include a hellua lot more New Zealanders than those for whom social welfare is a better way to manage their needs than the opportunity cost alternative.
June 19th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Edge… 17 year olds should probably be able to vote too!
June 19th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Russel - I am still really interested to know what you think of the blind trust model. (as used in the Republic of Korea)
I agree that an unchecked ability for donations to political parties can skew political outcomes. I would also note that parties knowing who contributes to them encourages a direct quid pro quo in terms of policy (”Yes thank you British American Tobacco, no we won’t be lifting excise taxes on cigarettes”).
One solution is to limit the amount that an individual/entity can give.
Another is for the party to be unaware from whence their donations came. Is this not a useful additional safeguard?
June 19th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Certainly, people who are not allowed to vote should not be allowed to donate. If children are allowed to donate, then they will be used as proxies, i.e. a Brethren patriarch lines up his 12 children who donate $1000 each…
What needs to be emphasised is that the world is changing, and the model of naive trust and laissez-faire is no longer appropriate. We have seen, in the last election, Labour misusing government money to get around spending limits, and National using allies for stealth attacks — this is only tangentially related to donation and spending limits, and is much harder to regulate, but it must be done.
If we do nothing, then the two main parties, who have rich friends, will dominate the debate and squeeze out the others. This might be logical enough (though not very democratic) in a bi-polar FPP system, but is completely out of order in our MMP set-up.
June 19th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Another is for the party to be unaware from whence their donations came. Is this not a useful additional safeguard?
You’d have to be extremely naive to believe that parties will not be aware of who their major donors are in such a system. After all, what would be the point of a company donating money to a political party if nobody knows about it? Individuals may act out of pure political conviction or philanthropy. A company, by definition, acts out of pure economic interest. So there is no justification whatever for allowing contributions from them.
June 19th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Thank you for that report from Canada.
I find it very worthwhile to read/learn about election funding in other countries.
When the subject was raised here in NZ there was, I think, an ill informed outcry.
So more comparisons like this Canadian one please. Joy.
June 19th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
And any celebrities that speak on behalf of political parties need to have their market value assessed and added to the campaign.
Sam Neil would cost about $5,000 per 5 minute speech or featured in a TV commercial, and we’ll be generous and put Al Gore at a conservative $50,000 per plug. $500K if he turns up live.
June 19th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Joe - are you proposing a ban on people telling political parties that they’ve donated to the party through the blind trust (or letting them know obliquely, as people did with the Waitemata Trust)?
June 20th, 2007 at 12:55 am
Joe Connell, There is a possibility that bb was proposing the converse of the rallying cry from America’s war of independence “no taxation without representation” ie, no representation without taxation. Although I suspect he wasn’t.
June 20th, 2007 at 1:32 am
Russell, Were you aware that these limits apply to donations of commercial services as well as to “cash” contributions.
The Handbook for Nomination Contestants says:
A non-monetary contribution is the commercial value of a service, or of property, or the use of property or money to the extent that they are provided without charge or at less than their commercial value.
Here are the rules for taxpayer funding, tax credits for political donations and compulsory advertising on all broadcast media:
Parties are entitled to reimbursement of 50% of their electoral expenses provided that candidates endorsed by the party received at least 2% of valid votes cast in an election or 5% of valid votes cast in constituencies in which the party endorsed a candidate (section 435).
Individual candidates are also entitled to reimbursement of electoral expenses if they receive 10% or more of the valid votes cast. The maximum amount that may be reimbursed is the lesser of 60% of the candidate’s paid election and personal expenses, or 60% of the maximum the candidate is allowed to spend in an election under section 441(3) of the Canada Elections Act (section 464).
Political parties are entitled to an annual allowance of $1.75 per vote received by the party in the previous election, provided that candidates endorsed by the party received at least 2% of the valid votes cast in that election or 5% of valid votes cast in the constituencies in which the party endorsed a candidate. The $1.75 allowance per vote is paid in quarterly instalments of $0.4375 per vote and is adjusted annually for inflation (section 435.01).
Amendments to the Income Tax Act now provide increased incentives for individuals to contribute to political parties and candidates. These amendments double the amount of an individual’s contribution that is eligible for the 75% tax credit from $200 to $400. The other tax brackets of the tax credit were increased accordingly, resulting in a maximum tax credit of $650 for donations of $1,275 or more.
Third parties may not incur more than $150,000 in total election advertising expenses. Of that amount, no more than $3,000 may be spent on supporting or opposing the election of one or more candidates in an individual constituency. With respect to a party leader, the $3,000 spending limit applies only to his or her candidacy in a particular constituency. These amounts are adjusted for inflation.
These limits were challenged as an infringement of the right to free speech in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court of Canada in Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), however, in a majority judgment, upheld the challenged provisions on the basis that they promoted electoral fairness.(3)
Allegations were made at the Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities that a registered party benefited from the work of full-time volunteers who were on the payroll of an outside organization while the volunteer work was being provided to the party. This work constitutes a contribution to the party made by the organization employing the individual. The Chief Electoral Officer recommends amending the Act to require registered political parties who receive an annual allowance under section 435.01 of the Act to submit a statement of volunteer labour provided to the party as part of its annual financial report to Elections Canada. Parties receiving an annual allowance are those parties who received at least 2% of the national vote or 5% of the vote in the constituencies in which they endorsed a candidate in the most recent general election.
Sections 335, 339 and 343 of the Canada Elections Act taken in
combination require that each broadcaster must make available, for purchase by registered and new political parties, 408
minutes of broadcasting time, during prime time, in the period beginning with the issuance of the writ and ending at midnight on the day before election day.
June 20th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Zen,
There are no limits on donations of time and effort by individuals. Just money.
The aim of such laws is to prevent those with large sums of dosh from having more influence in the campaign merely because they are rich.
You seem to be proposing a radical change, to limit the amount of time people are allowed to volunteer to help a political party. More, your proposal is impose different limits on the value of time spend by different people merely because they are celebrities or other influential people.
Basically you’re saying that we should limit people from having more influence in the campaign merely because they are influential. Rather than our current approach of limiting people from having too much influence merely because they’re rich.
If there’s logic behind that suggestion of yours it’s not obvious to me.
June 20th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
big bro,
If you want to be consistent, exclude from voting superannuatants and those on the sickness benefit as well. They also meet your criteria of “takes money from the tax payer for doing nothing”.
Of course, it’s not their fault they don’t have jobs: life’s just like that when you’re elderly or long-term sick.
But then it wasn’t my bloody fault when I was on the dole either: at the time lots of recent graduates were unemployed. Sometimes the economy either as a whole, or in some area, or in some profession, just goes belly-up. Likewise someone whose deadbeat partner walks out leaving them as a solo mum with the kids: stuff happens to people.
In case it’s not obvious, I think your proposal is utterly absurd. You want to exclude people from voting because they’re at a stage of life where they need a bit of help or down on their luck. I can’t imagine why anyone would find that fair or democratic.
June 20th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Edge, it would be difficult to enforce such a ban, and logically you might think that defacto parties would know who gave them what anyways - “Hello, I am British American Tobacco, left a little something in your blind trust there Jonathan *winks*”. But here’s the thing - say I have donated no money whatsoever to any political party, and I go up to the National Party and say “hey…ah…*glances sideways* put a few thousand in your trust, was hoping you could er, require all SOEs to be carbon neutral…”
The point is that parties would not know from whence their funding came and there policies would therefore be ideologically charged, rather than financially charged. Or in the alternative the National party might do some nice things…
I don’t know what I think about the blind trust policy, but I think it is worth exploring. I think the quid pro quo argument is less important in New Zealand than it is in the US where you end up with congresspeople who are directly beholden to special interests.
June 20th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to stop companies from donating. If their owners wish to donate they can do so personally, up to the limit.
The only possible exception I’d make is to allow a company that wants to be public spirited to donate across all parties - as I believe Pearson does (or has done) in the UK.
June 20th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
The aim of such laws is to prevent those with large sums of dosh from having more influence in the campaign merely because they are rich.
You are making the point about weighting the influence. You choose money. I’m just pointing out a fair amount of influence can be gained by using celebrities.
Will we also see more government grants for “art” that attacks the opposition parties?
What about the employer that gives their workers a paid day off to protest some new regulation that may affect their jobs?