Or so says conventional wisdom. Money, we are told again and again, is a toxin that must be expunged from the democratic process.
The theory goes something like this: Too much money in politics means the “rich” can unfairly influence public policy decision-making.
This is why politicians of all ideological stripes like to pass laws which are designed to regulate, control and otherwise restrict the role money plays during election campaigns. The idea is to set a “level playing field.”
Yet, what if I were to say that restricting the flow of political cash can actually undermine democracy in Canada and that our democratic system would be better served if we allowed money to flow more freely?
Yes, I know such a view is tantamount to sacrilege, but hear me out.
Consider the case of the ongoing NDP leadership campaign. This campaign is operating under strict finance rules which make it illegal for donors to contribute more than $1,200 to a leadership nominee.
Needless to say, this makes it exceedingly difficult for the NDP leadership hopefuls to acquire the necessary financial resources it takes to mount an effective campaign. It means they must get a lot of small donations from a lot of donors.
And make no mistake, running for office is costly. Candidates have to pay for office space and signs, for brochures and websites, for bumper stickers and t-shirts.
Plus spending money is even more crucial for candidates who lack name recognition. To get their names before voters they absolutely must pay for multi-media ad campaigns, and that isn’t cheap.
And this is likely why the crash-strapped NDP leadership candidates have so far done precious little in terms of advertising.. They just can’t afford it. As a result, not many Canadians know who they are or what they stand for.
This was brought home in a recent poll put out by Abacus Data. According to this survey few Canadians could name more than one of the NDP candidates and “40 per cent were unaware of any of the names presented to them.”
Nationally, the highest-ranking candidate when it came to name recognition was Thomas Mulcair, whose was known to 38 per cent of Canadians. (Outside of his home province of Quebec, his name recognition never topped 25 per cent.) Next came Brian Topp whose national name recognition score hit the 31 per cent mark.
These are not great numbers.
What this essentially means is that most Canadians will regard whoever ends up winning the NDP nomination as a giant question mark. Or, to put it another way, the new NDP leader will be undefined in the public mind.
And we all know what happens to opposition leaders who are undefined: the Conservative Party attack machine tears them to shreds.
This is what they did to former Liberal leaders Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff; this is what they will certainly do to the next NDP leader.
And this illustrates one major problem with limiting the role of money in politics—it gives a massive advantage to incumbent parties.
Think about it.
As Prime Minister, Stephen Harper has no name recognition problem. He is well-defined in the public mind. He can even use government resources to promote his agenda.
If opposition parties are to compete they need lots of money to advance their own agendas, to define themselves with Canadians and to guard against negative attacks.
This is why laws designed to keep money out of politics also help keep opposition parties out of the game.
That’s certainly not good for democracy.
Original Article
Source: Hill Times
Author:
No comments:
Post a Comment