A horse’s head has yet to be found in anyone’s bed, but in some ways theLiberal party has been doing a surprisingly good impersonation of the mob.So the desire for an immediate election is understandable.

The arrogant Liberals would taste the public’s wrath. A satisfying feelingof having roughed up the bums would prevail in the land — much like itprevailed after we routed Brian Mulroney’s former gang in the 1993 election.

But a snap election almost surely won’t get to the root of the corruptionunveiled through the Gomery inquiry. Worse, a snap election may actuallycreate the illusion — as in 1993 — that the problem is being addressed anddealt with, when it’s not.

The problem runs much deeper than a particular set of characters. It has todo with a political system that places inadequate controls over politicianswhen it comes to money.

Democracy, while good on paper and better than any alternative, can berendered effectively meaningless if those with money are able to buyinfluence or special treatment from those in power.

Governments manage billions of dollars and make decisions affecting billionsmore. Getting control of that apparatus, getting a piece of that action,will always be a lure.

We can bemoan the lack of integrity of those in office.

Another solution would be to not leave it up to them to determine whetherthey’ll behave honestly, but to put much tougher checks on their handling ofthe money flowing through the system.

Canada has made a few toe-in-the-water gestures in this direction, includinga tightening of political financing laws by the departing Chrétiengovernment in 2003.

But some glaring loopholes remain, notes Duff Conacher, whose group, Democracy Watch, has been pretty much a lone voice pressing for tougheraccountability laws.

For instance, while our election finance laws require candidates to reportdonations used to fund campaigns, nothing prevents candidates from receiving secret donations in private bank accounts for personal use, says Conacher.(In 2003, MP Tony Ianno admitted to receiving $260,000 for a personal “trustfund, ” and said other politicians had as well.)

“Money trying to corrupt the process will always flow into secret holes, ”says Conacher. “And some secret holes are still legal. ”

Cabinet ministers are technically not allowed to receive secret donationsbut, in practice, there seems to be nothing to stop them, since ethicscommissioner Bernard Shapiro declines to audit their financial statements.

Last October, Shapiro told the Ottawa Citizen that auditing politicians’financial statements would create a police state.

The Conservatives are hoping to sweep to power without having to change asystem that would allow them to avoid proper scrutiny as well.

And the Liberals have shown no inclination for meaningful change.

Paul Martin actually resisted Chrétien’s limited political financingreforms.

The system won’t change unless a furious public demands serious reform.

Simply holding a snap election won’t bring that reform.

It’s time we really held their feet to the fire.

Linda McQuaig

Journalist and best-selling author Linda McQuaig has developed a reputation for challenging the establishment. As a reporter for The Globe and Mail, she won a National Newspaper Award in 1989...