Here are some new numbers posted by Pundits Guide after the 4th Quarter Elections Canada filings of party contributions.
http://punditsguide.ca/2009/02/conservatives-raise-record-212-million.php
The headline is the whopping amount raised by the Conservatives. But the comments pick over the news about the Liberals.
I am one of the Anonymous posters- mostly because I have yet to figure out any other way to get on blogs that use the Google Blogger Account function.
Since the Liberals have now blinked and decided to support the Harper agenda, I think it's time for the NDP strike our own deal with the Conservatives.
We should agree to support a modified version of their proposal to eliminate annual public funding for political parties with the following parameters:
- The annual per vote funding is retained for one final year and eliminated after the final payment of 2009
- phase out is accompanied by a reduction in the maximum donation per individual.
Malcolm, I agree 100%. Only party supporters should fund political party's. Why do the conservatives raise so much? They are able to represent a large target market that has the same views and opinions. It is obvious that the Liberals and NDP have to adjust to market conditions to attract funds.
You're being foolish. Under your proposals the NDP would lose over 50% of it's funding aka over 50% of its campaigning ability. The NDP has lower fundraising numbers than the Liberals, has poor/volatile support, and any deal that takes away public funds would probably guarantee the NDP doesn't spend the campaign maximum, and thus gets grossly outspent, for a long, long time. Then again, if the Tories get their majority, and I think it's more a question of when, all these public subsidies will be gone. So get 'em while the gettin' good, because Canadian political parties will need to be ready to go cold turkey perhaps after the next election- or with the nutless Liberals- maybe sooner.
The link to Pundits Guide above tabulates the 4th Quarter 2008 Elections Canada filings for contributions and cross tabs across parties and time. While it already does not look good for the Liberals ability to mount election campaigns, I took out the distorting effects of the leadership campaigns and made the following observation.
The 4th quarter included election contributions, which are a different animal. In the first 3 quarters of 2008 with the leadership contributions taken out, the Liberal Party raised the same $2.4 million it did in the first 3 quarters of 2007 [already a poor year]. By comparison the NDP raised $3.7 million in the same time period.
Even during an election, one third of the 4th quarter contributions received were for leadership campaigns! Net those out and the Liberal Party only raised, $1.5 million during an election [vs. $1.9M for the NDP, let alone $6.3 M for the Conservatives].
Counter to what I would have expected, even the Liberals election fundraising dropped precipitously. Taking two quarters around the election looks not quite as bad- and the situation was comparable to the 2 quarters around the 2006 election.
But even with the help of that more flattering lens, the Liberal Party raised under $3M in and around the 2008 election [leadership contributions netted out of totals reported], versus $5.1M raised in the 2 quarters around the 2006 election.
We already knew that the 2008 Liberal campaign spending was over $18 million, that the rebates coming back to the party would be about $9million. And we now know that the contributions for the party for the 2 quarters around the campaign were $3 million.
With some of that $3M going to the ongoing operations of the party [which the quarterly subsidies only partially cover]... that leaves another $6-7M of the campaign cost to be covered by what means?
Those numbers are not conjecture. They come from public filings.
And that is the same $6-7M shortfall which reporter Greg Weston got from inside sources right after the campaign.
Such sources would know then what we only know now: that the fundraising during and around the election was a VERY low $3M.
Added to the already accumulated Liberal deficit, that is a truly unprecedented ball and chain for a party to be dragging around.
I really have little pitty for the liberal party. they changed the rules then got screwed by the changes. It is because of the libs that harper can raise so much money.
as that English poet wrote -- hoisted by their own petard
VJara, foolish is not the word I would use. And as KenS has indicated, the NDP actually got MORE election campaign contributions than the Liberals.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
Oh yes by all means get rid of public financing. That way the fringes can control all political discussion in this country. Think of all that money the conservatives are going to go after in the fundamentalist churches.
End abortion: check
Prayer in schools: check
Support for Israel: check
Intelligent design: check
Public funding gives the option to parties to say "no" to single issue policy nuts. If they choose of course but at least there still is the option.
Is it 4:20 yet?
Malcolm, I agree 100%. Only party supporters should fund political party's. Why do the conservatives raise so much? They are able to represent a large target market that has the same views and opinions. It is obvious that the Liberals and NDP have to adjust to market conditions to attract funds.
The problem with private donations to political parties is that, of course, it isn't just the party supporters funding the party -- these donations are tax deductible and, as such, subsidised by all taxpayers. I don't know the numbers, but I would estimate that this amounts to far more than the per-vote public financing. How come Stevie hasn't suggested doing away with this form of "welfare"?
Oh yes by all means get rid of public financing. That way the fringes can control all political discussion in this country. Think of all that money the conservatives are going to go after in the fundamentalist churches.
End abortion: check
Prayer in schools: check
Support for Israel: check
Intelligent design: check
Public funding gives the option to parties to say "no" to single issue policy nuts. If they choose of course but at least there still is the option.
I agree with you. I'd rather see public funding increased and private donations banned completely. The opposite would give more influence to the corrupt corporate bigwigs and give even less influence to the poor. I'd also like to see a ban on political ads outside of election campaigns so we don't have more of the sleazy ads such as the Cons ran for months against Dion. It's not that I like Dion but that I cannot stand that type of slimy politics. I also think that TV stations should be forced to give equal and free TV ad time to all parties during an election campaign to prevent the situation we face now, with the Cons having all the money to buy the bulk of the ad time to spread their propaganda and brainwash the public.
Hey folks, the desire among progressives to eliminate the public subsidies is pretty fringey. Obviously a number of folks are going to like the idea for partisan or non-partisan reasons.
The arguments have merits, but so far most of this thread has been occupied by people either dissing or supporting the idea of public subsidies.
Maybe start another thread if you want to do that rather than talk about the financial health of the Liberals?
Interesting to see how much money Iggy donated to the Liberal Party in 2008.
Since the maximum donation for anyone is $1100, no doubt Iggy made sure his ass was covered by giving that to the LPC. Not only giving that to his own campaign. [You can do both.]
Now that is an interesting point Kens, when configuring Liberal party donations for the last election. For the 39th parliament, the 2006 election cycle, the Libs had 103 seats, which means that their MP's would have donated close to 1/10th of the money they raised for the 2008 election. As it appears they made 1.6 million in donations. If one considers a spousal maximum donation too, then their draw from the general public moves even further down.
They are not apt to get of the red anytime soon, at this rate. And it probably has much to do with why again they are supporting a Harper governmewnt instead of being actual opposition. Iggy is probably trying to book as many speaking engagements as he can.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
Who knows how much this financial situation- which even very optimistically cannot be turned around quickly- had an effect on the Liberal decision to support the Budget.
Maybe Ignatieff would have wanted to do that regardless of the financial situation. But it puts a different light on the experts saying the Governor General was UNLIKELY to grant Harper an election should the Liberals vote the Budget down.
When the Liberals would at the least be risking a lot by piling on yet more debt for another election [IF banks will even still extend them enough for a full spending limit campaign]... the GG unlikely to grant an election is going to be seen in a different light from within the Liberal HQ.
Its worth noting that the Liberals financial situation will not have changed one bit when the first of those confidence votes they asked for comes up.
Even if Team Iggy moves really fast it will at best have things in place to gradually bring into place an improvement in funraising capabilities. With a lag after that of impact on the financial situation.
Time for Iggy to bring back Alfonso 'Don' Gagliano in the fold. He sure knew how to keep the party's coffers filled to the brim.
I really have little pitty for the liberal party. they changed the rules then got screwed by the changes. It is because of the libs that harper can raise so much money.
as that English poet wrote -- hoisted by their own petard
very true
Time for Iggy to bring back Alfonso 'Don' Gagliano in the fold. He sure knew how to keep the party's coffers filled to the brim.
There are still plenty of Liberal bagmen and bagwomen around- just nothing for them to do with the donation limit at $1100.
Sounds good to me. There should be not one government dollar given to political parties, per vote or tax deduction. If a party through it's constitution and policies appeals to the electorate then said party should find their funding from their supporters. If only 10% of their members donate, then that party's said message is not resonating with the other 90%. Changes to the policies have to be made to attract their support. I donate to my party not for the tax receipt, but because their policies are more in line with my beliefs.
The NDP have been around for 45 plus years, yet can not manage to garnish enough votes across all constituancies to form government. The message may need changing as it is only appealing to a small segment of the population.
On a final note, if an individual who aspires to power does not even contribute to his own party, does he have the moral authority to lead it? Apparently he does not believe in the policies of his own party to support it financially. A donation if necessary, but not necessarily a donation
This is for KENS
Could the NDP survive without Public Funding?
I believe that the LPC would be hurt if public funding was cut off, but would manage to rally people to LPC be it to support the public funding or if they lose this battle, to rally the public to donate to them to fight against those who cut off their purse strings (and therefore attacked democracy).
The CPC tried to remove public funding and it backfired.
I do not support public funding of parties, however, just like the parties weened themselves on it, they will have to ween themselves off of it.
That said, based on the current situation what parties could fund campaigns coast to coast without public funding?
What other changes might have to be made to connect with the public to committ their own time and money to a party?
I think the main point on that question is that public funding should not be cut. And that cutting it is no longer on the radar- the Cons just aren't going there again unless they have a majority... which is no time that is within our visible horizon.
I put in my two cents when the leg was being drafted during Chretien's reign that the NDP push for no public funding. I'm a practical guy, so I wouldn't say that only because its the right thing to do. I thought we would do fine.
But I'm not in favour of drastically changing the rules midstream- even though the NDP could weather it fine and the Liberals who I have no love for would be severely hit. For me its a minimum fairness question. I don't care that the Liberals would not reciprocate in an area of the NDPs weakness.
The Greens also would be dealt a very critical blow without the public funding.
I think it is a good thing that parties have to go to supporters for money. But I see no evidence that they only go there would make them better in any way... and overwhelming evidence that making them do it out of a dedication to principles would backfire on the effectiveness of said principles.
And we should suspect the motives of any Conservative or NDP partisan who claims principles in wanting to see the funding go or be substantially cut.
There is so much financial pressure on the Liberals already that I doubt they could survive without the public subsidies. It would just add too much.
But I think thats a pointless hypothetical. The fact it is true is why it was so unbeleivably stupid of the Conservatives to have pushed the Liberals into that corner.
The only way I can see that it might have made strategic sense is that they thought the NDP would vote for it because of what it would obviously do to the LPC. But that's only because nothing else makes ANY strategic sense. Even there, if that is what they had in mind, it was a very stupid notion. Now how they might have thought that the NDP could vote for the whole "update"... even if they would like to have seen the Liberals get hit... thats beyond me.
Not to mention that even if the ending of public funding was a stand alone- to think the NDP would go for it betrays an inside the Conservative bubble view that seriously misjudges everyone else as motivated by nothing except partsan interest. A little projection maybe?
Remember: as much as the Fall "fiscal update" is now universally panned- at the time there was a damn good chance that without the public funding poison pill they could have pushed Dion into abstaining again. That unbeleivable miscalculation cost them dearly. They won't be going there again.
I'd still like to hear some other's thoughts on the financial health of the LPC, and the implications that has for politics ahead.
Maybe some contradiction of my suggestions even?
This is for KENS
Could the NDP survive without Public Funding?
Can democracy survive without public funding in the light of the power of private funding?
Are we saying the only people able to influence the process ought to be those who have money to spend? And they they should be subsidized by those who cannot afford to make their own contribution?
I would be okay with no influence at all-- if you got over $1 million votes last time you get $2 million to run a campaign no matter how many you got- every message is equal. What was the best political option last time should also not overly influence the options you get to see this time. I would like to see an election campaign where all the political parties had exactly the same amount to spend (with a floor limit to make sure that people do not create new parties just to get the money). No other private or public campaigns- run it on $2 million and yup- you will need to be creative. I am referring to national campaigns.
If you live in a riding you shoudl be able to donate up to $10 per person for the local campaign and no more. This means again that those with more influence won't be able to buy more influence.
We would see less political advertising but I am sure with those numbers we would see enough to make up our minds. This is not coke and pepsi wars we don't need to see the message 50 times an evening at public expense in order to understand what they mean.
Without reference to any of the other tactical and strategic arguments, I believe that the principle benefit of the levy was the removal of big money from the equation.
From a public financing pespective, there is really no difference between direct payments per vote and a percentage tax deduction. Parties are being subisidized from the public purse in either case. In the one instance their subsidy is premised on the amount of electoral support they enjoy. In the other it is more heavily premised on the wealth of their supporters. I think the levy is a more egalitarian approach.
I do not support removing tax credits for contributions to parties. Incentives for particpation in the democratic life of the country are a legitimate public policy tool. If limits are reasonable, its principle incentive effect is at the low end of the income scale. It may make sense to reduce the maximum limit for full deductability, but abolition would just return us to a situation where big money would have a disproportianate infuence on political life.
Yes but surely all poor people have is their vote? So tieing a vote to party financing gives poor people power. A tax deduction just gives richer people power at a cost to poorer people. The socalist ideal would suggest more tieing of financing to votes garnered not less.
From a public financing pespective, there is really no difference between direct payments per vote and a percentage tax deduction. Parties are being subisidized from the public purse in either case. In the one instance their subsidy is premised on the amount of electoral support they enjoy. In the other it is more heavily premised on the wealth of their supporters. I think the levy is a more egalitarian approach.
I do not support removing tax credits for contributions to parties. Incentives for particpation in the democratic life of the country are a legitimate public policy tool. If limits are reasonable, its principle incentive effect is at the low end of the income scale. It may make sense to reduce the maximum limit for full deductability, but abolition would just return us to a situation where big money would have a disproportianate infuence on political life.
Yes but surely all poor people have is their vote? So tieing a vote to party financing gives poor people power. A tax deduction just gives richer people power at a cost to poorer people.
Yes.
Yes but surely all poor people have is their vote? So tieing a vote to party financing gives poor people power. A tax deduction just gives richer people power at a cost to poorer people. The socalist ideal would suggest more tieing of financing to votes garnered not less.
That's exactly why I think political contributions should be canned. The wealthy should not have more political influence than the homeless or the poor. Everyone complains about corporate influence in politics, yet so many want to cut off public financing - makes no sense. The fact that the Cons would lose the most by banning private donations is just a bonus.
Not sure I totally agree with you Kara. I like the combination of public funding and private fundraising, because I think the latter keeps the party in touch with its constituencies, while the former means they need not become so totally beholden to those folks that they can't take the occasional unpopular position in the short-term (e.g., opposition to the War Measures Act).
I think the balance between the two is about right now.
Hot off the press from Pundit's Guide:
http://www.punditsguide.ca/2009/02/exploring-iggy-effect.php
Both the NDP and the Green Party after the election volunteered info to supplement what is in the public filings and give a quick thumbnail of their basic financial position. In the case of the Greens, they did so even though the picture was not that great.
The Liberal party instead keeps coughing up obfuscating spin to give the impression things are hunky dory.
This blogpost followed one of those efforts that ran in le devoir.
Edited to Add: It isn't hot off the press now. I edited the post to fix the link that did not work. The original post was 6 Feb.
Ignatieff sets donor, member targets for MPs
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090304.wliberals5/BNStory/politics/home
What a joke !! If they really think this is going to accomplish anything they really are without hope.
they seems to be no end to Iggys conceit in how far he thinks his bluster is going to get him. And with Bozo sycophants like Kinsella, hes racing blind for thin air.
Mr. Ignatieff has overhauled the party's central office since becoming leader, bringing in new fundraising specialists. Party members are also becoming increasingly bullish about the Liberals' fundraising prospects under Mr. Ignatieff. Last Friday, the party raked in $80,000 from a leader's dinner in Edmonton.
That they have "brought in new fundraising specialists" is an also an exaggerated bit of puffery. They have a good addition in the person of the new CEO. But he has NO organizational turnaround fundraising experience whatsoever. Let alone that the Byzantine LPC with all its little fiefdoms would be a challenge for anyone.
And the Liberals love to crow about how much money Iggy can talk out of a room. More irrelevant puffery. They know their problem is that they are clueless and still far from a start on how to get donantions from the masses. Talking money out of rooms and one on one was what they already excelled at. But with $1100 limits on donations that capability is all glitter and no substance.
They know that. But they have always been firm believers in "posture and they will come." That has not worked for years. The fact Dion was inept in his posturing... getting rid of him doesn't mean going back to it is going to work... with the public, or with the Liberal faithful.
The Liberals are doing a bad job fundraising and have been in a shambles for years but over the longer term that party tends to be better off than the NDP - it is only recently that the NDP can outraise the Liberals.
Election financing is critical to electoral viability. To say no public contribution based on voter support means only those with means can influence our electoral system. This is wrong on principle and I don't care if the NDP could gain from such a proposal assuming the Liberals struggle more-- it is still wrong.
In the long run only parties that support policies for the wealthy would be viable and even the NDP could find itself thinking about donations in the future and aiming policies at the middle income range rather than addressing social justice. The political opinion of a person in poverty unable to make a political donation is not worth less than that of a person with a chequebook.
I see no reason why a certain amount of political messaging is not in the national interest- that people get to see their options without having to pay for them or have those ideas filtered by those who can pay.
For those looking at short term gain possibilities or smug satisfaction at the damage to the Liberals -- shame on you. This is about a democratic political process and should be discussed based on those principles not partisan short term interest that can turn on a dime.
Geez, are sure hope we don't start the "is public financing or parties aggod idea or not" discussion again.
I mean I agree with Sean and said as much, but I'd like to see at least the occassion comment besides my own that address something like the thread title.
Ignatieff won't bend on 'slush fund'
oops. sorry, that was yesterday.
Today it is....
Liberals tone down election talk
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090306.wliberals0306/BNStory/politics/home
Liberals are dialling down the volume on spring election speculation.
Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale says his party is not seeking a confrontation with the Tory government over a $3-billion fund aimed at quickly stimulating the sputtering economy.
The Liberals plan to table a motion Monday calling on the government to detail how the money is to be spent.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said the fund is a matter of confidence in his minority government and has warned that opposition parties will find themselves in an election if they don't approve it.
sounds just a tad familiar, eh.
The Liberals earned 3,627,890 votes in the last election. Yet they can barely earn $2 a voter in private donations each of the last 4 years. The Liberals have to change their message or they will become irrelivant in the next election again. The Cons have been averaging $4 per voter(5,208,793), why? The NDP have been around the $3 per voter (2,512,886in the last election), why?
The message of the Cons and NDP resonate with more people that open their wallets. Hell, Iggy doesn't even contribute so why should the commoner!
