Political skulduggery is a hot topic in Montreal these days. This incredible imbroglio shows us that mixing business with politics is fraught with danger. All the more reason why the City of Ottawa should take every step it can to separate the pecuniary interests of corporations and unions from our elected officials who make decisions for the public good. What I am talking about is banning corporate and union donations from municipal politics.
This is not merely an academic question. Six unions, nine associations and 174 corporations donated $134,335 to help Jim Watson become mayor. Larry O’Brien’s campaign took in $52,512 from one association and 89 corporate supporters in a losing effort.
Why would, for example, the Ottawa Professional Firefighters Association, the Labourers International Union of North America Local 527, PCL Contractors, and Richcraft Homes donate to a political candidate? It has been argued that corporations and unions are essentially self-serving so it’s not unreasonable to think they expected something in return for their investment. Perhaps it’s just that they think one candidate would do a better job advancing the general welfare of the city. Perhaps it’s about keeping property taxes low. Perhaps they want their phone call returned by city officials. Or could they have a more self-serving interest in mind?
If donations were not self-serving, the entire corporate sector would contribute uniformly. But the reality is that businesses and unions who regularly interact with City Hall show up on fundraising lists far more frequently than those that don’t. Contributors include suppliers to the city; such as engineers, architects, and contractors. There are those that need city approvals to do their work; like developers and their consultants, landlords, and lawyers. And unions are increasingly flexing their financial muscle in municipal elections. Could it be that they would rather negotiate wages and working conditions with someone who is more friend than a foe?
Just because a corporation or union donates money to a politician does not mean they will receive undue access or special favours. But why raise even the risk of the perception of undue influence? Citizens should not have to wonder if a donation from the Amalgamated Transit Union might have an influence at the bargaining table, or that donations from bidders on the light rail project might colour decision-making. So why allow them?
Whether it was good politics or high virtue, the federal government banned union and corporate donation in 2006. Such donations are also prohibited in provincial elections in Manitoba and Nova Scotia. Toronto had them banned in 2009 through a special provision in the Ontario Municipal Elections Act. Even without legislation, individuals running for office can voluntarily refuse contributions from corporations and unions on ethical and morale grounds.
With a $750 contribution limit there is not much risk of a corporation or union bankrolling a candidate for high office. But some loosely collected corporations and an assortment of owners can draw together sufficient resources to make a serious election contribution. Taking away the corporate side of this equation makes it more difficult to get around the spirit of the donation cap. And individuals who make donations in the name of their company should take note that the law already prohibits a contribution of money that does not belong to the contributor.
Of course a simple ban on union and corporate donations does not purify the system.
An individual donor or organization can still have a significant impact in an election by organizing an event for a candidate. For example a well-heeled developer can invite 25 friends to his or her house with each coughing up the $750 maximum, helping to forge a solid relationship between candidate and event organizer. And a ban on corporate donations might mean that a business owner and family members take a more prominent role. But that’s no reason not to improve the system where possible.
Many professionals tell me they would prefer a system where corporate donations were banned altogether. They would rather avoid the expense and the controversy. Many would prefer not to be in the donation business but find it difficult to say no when a candidate comes calling.
Fundraising should be a grassroots and citizen-centred exercise. Indeed, the city already has a donation rebate program to encourage individuals to contribute financially to the electoral process. But an elected official with knowledge of the supplier list at city hall has a clear fundraising advantage over an outsider. Narrowing the donor base to individuals would make it easier for a newcomer with a community cause to take on an incumbent. But incumbents are loath to give up a political advantage and it is incumbents who make up the rules.
It’s only a matter of time before the province bans all but individual donations to municipal candidates. But why wait? Council can pass a motion now to ask the province to amend its legislation to give Ottawa the same treatment as Toronto in time for the 2014 election.
The Ottawa election office told me that council would have to demonstrate to the province the precise need for an amendment to ban corporate and union donations. But it seems Toronto has already made the case. And so has Montreal.
Original Article
Source: canada.com
Author: Bob Plamondon
This is not merely an academic question. Six unions, nine associations and 174 corporations donated $134,335 to help Jim Watson become mayor. Larry O’Brien’s campaign took in $52,512 from one association and 89 corporate supporters in a losing effort.
Why would, for example, the Ottawa Professional Firefighters Association, the Labourers International Union of North America Local 527, PCL Contractors, and Richcraft Homes donate to a political candidate? It has been argued that corporations and unions are essentially self-serving so it’s not unreasonable to think they expected something in return for their investment. Perhaps it’s just that they think one candidate would do a better job advancing the general welfare of the city. Perhaps it’s about keeping property taxes low. Perhaps they want their phone call returned by city officials. Or could they have a more self-serving interest in mind?
If donations were not self-serving, the entire corporate sector would contribute uniformly. But the reality is that businesses and unions who regularly interact with City Hall show up on fundraising lists far more frequently than those that don’t. Contributors include suppliers to the city; such as engineers, architects, and contractors. There are those that need city approvals to do their work; like developers and their consultants, landlords, and lawyers. And unions are increasingly flexing their financial muscle in municipal elections. Could it be that they would rather negotiate wages and working conditions with someone who is more friend than a foe?
Just because a corporation or union donates money to a politician does not mean they will receive undue access or special favours. But why raise even the risk of the perception of undue influence? Citizens should not have to wonder if a donation from the Amalgamated Transit Union might have an influence at the bargaining table, or that donations from bidders on the light rail project might colour decision-making. So why allow them?
Whether it was good politics or high virtue, the federal government banned union and corporate donation in 2006. Such donations are also prohibited in provincial elections in Manitoba and Nova Scotia. Toronto had them banned in 2009 through a special provision in the Ontario Municipal Elections Act. Even without legislation, individuals running for office can voluntarily refuse contributions from corporations and unions on ethical and morale grounds.
With a $750 contribution limit there is not much risk of a corporation or union bankrolling a candidate for high office. But some loosely collected corporations and an assortment of owners can draw together sufficient resources to make a serious election contribution. Taking away the corporate side of this equation makes it more difficult to get around the spirit of the donation cap. And individuals who make donations in the name of their company should take note that the law already prohibits a contribution of money that does not belong to the contributor.
Of course a simple ban on union and corporate donations does not purify the system.
An individual donor or organization can still have a significant impact in an election by organizing an event for a candidate. For example a well-heeled developer can invite 25 friends to his or her house with each coughing up the $750 maximum, helping to forge a solid relationship between candidate and event organizer. And a ban on corporate donations might mean that a business owner and family members take a more prominent role. But that’s no reason not to improve the system where possible.
Many professionals tell me they would prefer a system where corporate donations were banned altogether. They would rather avoid the expense and the controversy. Many would prefer not to be in the donation business but find it difficult to say no when a candidate comes calling.
Fundraising should be a grassroots and citizen-centred exercise. Indeed, the city already has a donation rebate program to encourage individuals to contribute financially to the electoral process. But an elected official with knowledge of the supplier list at city hall has a clear fundraising advantage over an outsider. Narrowing the donor base to individuals would make it easier for a newcomer with a community cause to take on an incumbent. But incumbents are loath to give up a political advantage and it is incumbents who make up the rules.
It’s only a matter of time before the province bans all but individual donations to municipal candidates. But why wait? Council can pass a motion now to ask the province to amend its legislation to give Ottawa the same treatment as Toronto in time for the 2014 election.
The Ottawa election office told me that council would have to demonstrate to the province the precise need for an amendment to ban corporate and union donations. But it seems Toronto has already made the case. And so has Montreal.
Original Article
Source: canada.com
Author: Bob Plamondon
No comments:
Post a Comment