Class Notes (837,316)
Canada (510,221)
POL101Y1 (1,148)

Feb 7 2011

6 Pages
Unlock Document

Political Science
Nelson Wiseman

[email protected] or [email protected] Money and parties • History of party finance • Recent data • Courts and third party advertising • The 2003 law • Loopholes PC Fund of Canada – fundraising firm for the PCs The new Cons might be using the same PR firm Consider the Hill Times The articles that we were to have read for class today – since they have been written, the laws have changed again. It’s a very dynamic environment. History of part financing in Canada The reason the MacDonald govt fell was because of the Pacific Finance Scandal (CPR in the west). It became public, and the Liberals came in without an election. There have been money scandals throughout history. They tarnish parties and the images of leaders. Over time, whereas MacDonald was directly involved, party leaders and parties have created an arms’ length group that raises money on their behalf. Generally, the leaders get to pick the people who run this. The Cons, in this case, also put them into the Senate. They are never an MP, though. They are Bag Men. It’s a racketeer assigned to collect and distribute pay off money. After WWII and until 2004, the Liberals and the Cons parties were heavily dependent on corporate contributions, esp. in Toronto and Montreal and esp. on oil and fuel companies in places like Alberta. There were also more direct mail campaigns. All this money was raised by relatively autonomous fundraising committees that were separated from the parties themselves. Often the leaders of these things are appointed to the senate (but they are selected by the leaders in the first place). Since 1874, you have to have an agent if you’re running, but there were always still improprities. You didn’t have to disclose where you got your money from. And you didn’t have to disclose wherehter it was in exchange for a favour. It didn’t refer to political parites – they didn’t exist legally – they were voluntary organisations. By law, there were only candidates. There were also no verifications of reports by agents. There were no sanctions imposed and the law was not enforced if there was an issue. Between 1965 and 1974 there were 4 elections. 26% did not report their finances. This was illegal. Some were elected, but no one was prosecuted. In the 19 century, 1891, the dominion elections act was modified because of another scandal. It was now illegal to promise favours and appointments in exchange for funds, but it was a useless law because nothing changed. The Beauharn Weau Scandal – Mackenzie King nearly lost PMship and leaving disgraced. Afterwards, he wanted to protect himself by raising money but purposely not knowing anything abou tit. They are now autonomous. It’s THEIR job to comply with the law. The dominion elections act is now the Canada elections act – it has been amended several times. In 1908, American influence, therefore now says corporations can’t contribute to the elections. By 1920: in 1919 there were labour strikes. Now the law changed to prevent unions also from giving money. No one was prosecuted, but there were under the table things. In 1930 – legislation changed so that unions could now contribute, as well as corporations. Therefore the Beauhorn Wow scandal broke out. There are many bills that die in parliament. Money is the mother’s milk of politics – Chretien. It’s like grease – lubricating oil – it will give after putting it on a rusty screw. You may not notice it at first, but eventually it gets through. We keep changing the law, but the money gets through always, no matter what you change the law to. There are too many loopholes. There were failed attempts in the 30s and 40s. Then in the 40s 50s and 60s, __________. In the 60s the sentiment for reform grew a lot – form the party organisers themselves. We had 5 elections, and we also were in a TV period – they wanted changes that would allow them to raise enough money. There was also a corrupt Duplessis regime – it wanted kick backs. Quebec was the first govt in Canada, via the Quiet Revolution, to completely overhaul the system. It limited financing and also gave reimbursement to candidates; also gave legal status to parties (the Quiet Reform). Barbeau Commission (Lib 1964-66); they had the most elaborate study of election finance ever done until the Lortie Commission. 1966 recommendations, but nothing happened until 1974. legally recognised, registered, responsible for financial activity, financial equality for candidates and parties, permitted free mailing privileges as partial reimbursement, and also free tv and radio time, limited in how much they could spend per voter, restrictions on when to run ads (only in last 4 weeks of campaign), must disclose income and expenditures – parties and candidates, tax credits to voters who contribute, etc. Led to the 1972 bill, which died. Then in 1973, a Trudeau minority, C203 (Election Expenses Act, 1974). This act is the most significant one. It was dramatically modified in 2003. The reasons for its adopted were: (a) media and public opinions, (b) provinces into election finance regulation, (c) water gate and other issues, (d) the NDP held the balance of power and it was their issue for a while. The NDP wanted to give credits to people, but it should be: the lower amount you give, the bigger percentage you get back. The income tax act, the broadcast act and other acts were also modified. Now parties were liable to the law if they broke the law. Now parties and candidates can get reimbursed, depending on the amount of percentage of votes you get. The rationale is to increase public confidence in the electoral process. The 1974 act was revolutionary: (a) it controlled the spending of the parties, (b) provided public funding, (c) the tax system now incorporated political contributions, and (d) it required financial statements of the central parties but not of constituency associations or candidates (this was the black hole of election finance – because MPs didn’t want their finances revealed). They argued that this would equalise things for smaller parties. Party transfers – were permitted until 2003 (in and out scandal of the Cons). Basically, you write a cheque to the Con Fin of Canada, and then they send it to our riding. So there are 90% of the funds from this one donor – this prevents people from being shown as contributors. Does money buy elections? The NDP spent $20,000 more than the other parties. But they are still not rewarded in the same way. The Bloc spent the least amount of money, and look at how many seats they’ve got. But of course money counts, yet there are other factors that are more
More Less

Related notes for POL101Y1

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.