Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

party financing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by nobleea View Post
    I don't mind the concept. Democracy has a cost. It's more fair when it is borne equally by everyone, as the benefits of democracy are enjoyed equally (presumably) by everyone. Pushing the cost directly on to supporters (private fundraise) is a bit disengenious since it is more prone to allow lobbying and favours those that support the more extreme views of their party. I realize the current public subsidy has only been around for 4 years.

    I'm thinking something like that.

    While there is certainly a couple parties I could never see myself voting for, their financial well being is critical for the democratic process to represent a place on the political spectrum. If they can't afford to get their message and ideas out it means the parties I vote for do not have to try as hard which is an aweful scenario.

    I do prefer to see a mix of donations and the federal funding based on votes. The donations allow those who strongly capture a large segment of the population to excel.

    Comment


    • #32
      wow! Jimbo, did you read what I have proposed?

      Let me start again.

      Currently, party finances are a mix of public and private donations. This results in a social inequality and exposes parties to criticism of bias. Parties end up being more accountable to the greater contributors then to the public at large. It also creates an uneven playing field. If one party alines itself with people/ businesses who are able to contribute on average $2 versus another party who is able to contribute on average $1, the first party is capable to use more resources to spread their message. This, however, does not guarantee the quality of the message.

      Raising of funds should never have become synonymous with political competence. However and sadly it has. What I propose is a system in works where party platform rather then the financial means of the supporters make the real difference. Think of it as a flat democracy tax where every citizen is charged (maybe a specific line on the income tax or not) a nominal political contribution amount. Corporation and business taxes would also include a small percentage of their tax.

      The funds are put in a federal political support fund from which parties draw their revenues based on the recent political support. Individuals and businesses are able to make additional tax-deductible financial contributions to this fund. Each party earns an amount per voter. The voter funds that have not been claimed are either split evenly (an incentive to cast your vote) or used to offer the following programs.

      Emerging party grant. A group of people or an independent candidate who can demonstrate significant (what significant means is to be determined) support can apply for a one-time grant in support of candidates in the nearest federal election. This grant may be renewed if the group gathers enough (level to be decided later) support.

      EDIT: Sorry forgot the second program. An additional grant may be provided to cover a percentage (earlier I suggested 60%) of a person's salary while the person is engaged in political process such as running for a seat in parliament. Further legislation will also guarantee the person's employment upon their return.

      Benefits. Funding of political parties become a matter of public record. Campaign spending rules are easier to enforce. Parties become accountable to the electorate equally with no hint of bias. Emerging parties can access reliable source of funding, but are held to an account. Audit of political party spending can be carried out with full transparency and public record.

      Now, the specific concerns of Jimbo. It costs everyone when we have bad government. Yes, this is a tax. But just like you would not be opposed (i think you wouldn't be anyways) to fund our army and police, our legal system, and other public institutions, you should not be opposed funding of this fundamental public institution that forms our government to run this country and to be accountable to the people of the country. This to me is more fundamental then a government collecting taxes to build roads. Roads can use a user toll system. Political movements should not.

      And re: "Basic democratic premise is equality." Democracy means we all get to vote for the person/party who's view most closely align with our own - one person, one vote. What you are aiming for is closer to Socialism.
      look up socialism. it is not so bad. under my proposed system, not only do you continue to vote for the person you support, your vote continues to bring financial support to the party. One person, one vote. Nothing more and nothing less.
      Last edited by grish; 05-12-2008, 09:24 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        That's a nightmare of complexity, and you haven't even gotten started. I appreciate that you are sincere and have put a lot of thought into this. How about something really simple, like spending your own money to support your political party. It's direct. It forces supporters of each to do something besides talk about it, and forces the parties to appeal to their base for real support. I guess I'd prefer to sit on my butt and have the government put money into my account too, but it doesn't work that way for me, and it shouldn't for them.

        If the problem is that some can afford to donate more than others (and I don't believe that is the problem here), then lower the total amount people are allowed to contribute individually. When the Conservatives try do do this, it's the Liberals who are against it. Lower it to $52 a year, or $1 a week. If you can't afford that, then you are one sad so-and-so. If anyone is unwilling to contribute that small amount, then they can't really care that much.

        Then if some people don't want to contribute anything, for whatever reasons they may have, they can be assured nobody is going to forcibly take their money and give it to Stephen Harper or Jack Layton.

        I'm ok with the current system, though I'd prefer all contributions come from individuals rather than taxpayers. I'd like to see the taxpayer contribution to be phased out to give parties some time to adjust.

        And as for socialism, the problem isn't with the definition. I don't need to look it up.
        aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

        Comment


        • #34
          now, this makes for a better conversation.

          To me "real support" is in the form of volunteering, making phone calls, talking to others, knocking on doors and listening to problems, etc..

          as for amounts and a choice between donating out of free will and donating as a some sort of "democracy tax" I really see having a parliament and independent political parties as fundamental along the lines of having the police force and an independent courts system. we don't ask the police supporters to contribute what they like (although our military had been neglected recently by the most recent liberal governments). so we shouldn't ask the people to contribute to this institution of democracy what they like. I would sooner ask for all roads to have toll booths--pay per use. with political parties and governments we shouldn't play a funding game. I would rather they worry about talking to their support base about issues than about the money.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Jimbo View Post
            How about something really simple, like spending your own money to support your political party. It's direct. It forces supporters of each to do something besides talk about it, and forces the parties to appeal to their base for real support.
            This would work well in a perfect world, but not everyone is as passionate about politics or party. I am not inspired by any of our current crop of politicians, platforms (yawn) or election issues (except for the current circus, of course). And I'm not alone.

            In fact, there was a record low voter turnout this year. If this trend continues, there would be no one left to support the parties but family, friends and fanatics under purely self-supporting rules. It still leaves some possibility for abuse by large single-issue groups.

            I don't see giving parties $'s for each vote as socialist. I see it as the system that fosters democracy. It seems more fair than some parties getting more support simply because they are better at marketing and sales.
            Where there's a will, there are a hundred ways!

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Jimbo View Post
              Originally posted by grish View Post
              Usually when people have nothing to contribute the resort to grandiose statement like "get your hand out of my pocket"
              Nothing to contribute? I guess anyone who doesn't share your views has nothing to contribute.

              Ironic, someone who doesn't want to contribute, who is too cheap to contribute their own $1.95, and is instead proposing we take "their" $1.95 contribution from other people (which really makes it not "their" contribution, doesn't it?), is accusing those who do contribute their own money of having "nothing to contribute". I'm not the one proposing forcing other people to contribute on my behalf.

              Just to be clear, it was "get your hand out of my wallet." I wouldn't call it a grandiose statement, but it does speak to the heart of the matter. Even more to the point, for me, would be something like, "Get your hand out of that elderly lady's purse, or that single mother's purse, or my mom's purse." See where I'm going with this? Spend your own money - not theirs.

              "In last months election, the Liberals got 3.6 million votes - the NDP had 2.5 million votes." If every Liberal supporter put aside $1 a week, it would be, what, $187 million dollars! $1 a week! I truly feel sorry for any Canadian who couldn't afford $1 a week to support a cause they believe was this important.

              How about this? I do what I want with my money. You do what you want with your money. And neither of us gets to "donate" anyone else's money but our own. We each speak for ourselves. We don't force other people to spend their money on what we want and they might not. Neither of us takes other people's money without asking to support our causes.

              I spend my money, not yours, or anyone else's.

              And re: "Basic democratic premise is equality." Democracy means we all get to vote for the person/party who's view most closely align with our own - one person, one vote. What you are aiming for is closer to Socialism.

              I'm not trying to browbeat you to death here. I am suggesting that instead of wasting your time and energy going after taxpayer dollars (believe me, there's a big line ahead of you), you might have more luck going the direct route, which s ultimately more fair in all respects anyway.
              If it helps you feel like it is more capitalist, think of it as a voting user fee, or a democratic rate rider or something.

              You can save your country's budget exactly the amount you complain about by not voting.

              Do you know what else they do with their hand in your pocket? They take money and they spend it on soldiers. Soldiers who aren't even in Canada!!!!!! Oh, the insanity!!!!
              City Centre Airport is to the sky as False Creek is to the ocean.

              Comment


              • #37
                <bump>

                The idea:

                Every individual pays a "democracy tax" into a common federal/ provincial pot to be used:

                1. Funding activities of the political parties
                2. Funding elections including setting up polling stations and hiring of people to run them
                3. Funding individuals and emerging parties that gather a threshold of support

                The democracy tax is divided in the following way:

                a. part of the tax goes to the parties proportional to the popular vote;
                b. part goes to parties proportional to MP representation
                c. part goes to common pot for elections canada and emerging party support

                Comment


                • #38
                  why should I donate any money to any Political Party ? I have refused to give them any as long they keep playing games with the public , and they usually broke the promises for years.
                  Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Like it or not, Canada has a government that we elect. If you choose to not vote, you choose to accept whoever becomes your government, whoever becomes the opposition, and whoever else makes into the parliament and forms parliamentary committees and otherwise acts on your behalf. If you want to make sure they do not lie to you, research your representative as well as you can. Go to meet him or her. And if the individual representative lies on any particular promise, find a candidate who would not.

                    read the whole proposal. The funding goes to the parties, as well as the elections, and the independents and the emerging parties. If you do not like the rulling parties, support your independents or the new political parties.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Our Federal parties are already subsidized by the taxpayer based on votes. It's a god system, and it has eliminated undue influence of business and unions in our federal politics. One of the best things that Chretien ever did.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by JasonR View Post
                        Our Federal parties are already subsidized by the taxpayer based on votes. It's a god system, and it has eliminated undue influence of business and unions in our federal politics. One of the best things that Chretien ever did.
                        he went half way. I want to go all the way and outlaw any financial contributions, but have a specific line in everyone's taxes called "federal elections tax" (and a similar one called "provincial elections tax") so that every individual and business no matter how big or how small have the same level of influence over the federal (and provincial) politics–votes only.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by grish View Post
                          Originally posted by JasonR View Post
                          Our Federal parties are already subsidized by the taxpayer based on votes. It's a god system, and it has eliminated undue influence of business and unions in our federal politics. One of the best things that Chretien ever did.
                          he went half way. I want to go all the way and outlaw any financial contributions, but have a specific line in everyone's taxes called "federal elections tax" (and a similar one called "provincial elections tax") so that every individual and business no matter how big or how small have the same level of influence over the federal (and provincial) politics–votes only.
                          That would make it impossible for new parties to startup.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Why?
                            Originally posted by grish View Post
                            3. Funding individuals and emerging parties that gather a threshold of support

                            The democracy tax is divided in the following way:

                            a. part of the tax goes to the parties proportional to the popular vote;
                            ...
                            c. part goes to common pot for elections canada and emerging party support

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              How do you divide up the tax revenue? It would make it very difficult for emerging political parties. In our current system, movements can still grow by the grassroots. Besides, based on prior court decisions, banning personal donations entirely would likely be unconstitutional.

                              The current system works fine. Why fix what's not broken?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I propose a system that ensures that a party platform rather then the financial means of the supporters make the real difference. Think of it as a flat democracy tax where every citizen is charged (maybe a specific line on the income tax or not) a nominal political contribution amount. Corporation and business taxes would also include a small percentage of their tax.

                                So all legal-voting age person and all business entities contribute to this fund as a matter of tax collection.

                                The funds are put in a federal political support fund and provincial support fund. The fund is used to finance:
                                1. general elections and by-elections.
                                2. salaries of elected members (federal and provincial parliament, senate)
                                3. the individual parties (see party financing)
                                4. emerging political movements and democratic renewal (see emerging political party grant)

                                Party financing:
                                Parties draw their revenues based on a combination of recent political support (per voter) and additional designation line at filing where individuals could designate the recepient (similar to support for Public or Separate school system).

                                The voter funds that have not been claimed (more tax payers than voters) are either split evenly (an incentive to cast your vote) or become available under an "emerging political party grant"

                                Emerging political party grant. A group of people or an independent candidate who can demonstrate significant (what significant means is to be determined) support can apply for a one-time grant in support of candidates in the nearest federal election. This grant may be renewed if the group gathers enough (level to be decided later) support.

                                An additional grant may be provided to cover a percentage of a person's salary while the person is engaged in political process such as running for a seat in parliament. Further legislation will also guarantee the person's employment upon their return.


                                The Benefits of this system. Funding of political parties becomes a matter of public record. Campaign spending rules are easier to enforce. Parties become accountable to the electorate equally with no hint of bias. Emerging parties can access reliable source of funding, but are held to an account. Audit of political party spending can be carried out with full transparency and public record.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X