Party Funding and Corporate Tax Cuts: Coincidence? Not Likely

In 2008 it was cited by some as the main reason for the losers of the general election to form a coalition and prevent another vote of confidence for two years.

The CPC recognize this is a populist move that has a high value during the campaign.

Can the divided opposition steer the narrative on more spending for new social programs during a 36 day campaign?

Are Canadians losing faith in "big government" and higher taxes to fund new social programs? Are we taxed out?

[updated Mon Feb 07 00:42:50 -0500 2011]

It is imparative that the CPC be re-elected again to complete the program as set forth a number of years ago.Canada will be the better off. Tax cuts and Party Financing are both viable and neccesary goals to achieve,

[updated Mon Feb 07 00:54:09 -0500 2011]

I am sorry Nik but I have no trust or desire to comment on Harper's wedge politics. He is doing nothing for the betterment of Canada. Everything he does is just to pit some part of our great country against the other so as to get a majority. His appalling use of authority, disregard of parllament and nasty , mean spirited cold attitude should have no place in governing Canada. He has no policies -- he makes them up on the fly to suit his aim of a majority. His morals and sence of dignity are lacking -- just a thug ruiining so many top government people and political opponents. His deep hatred for the Liberals has driven me from a life long Conservative to supporting the Liberals. Here in Alberta that is a pretty feeble attempt to oust Harper's thugs but at over 70 years old, I will never again vote conservative. Harper is a one man wrecking crew.

[updated Mon Feb 07 00:59:04 -0500 2011]

The only thing I want of Harper is for him to get out of Ottawa... He has dumbed down the population long enough... The G20 fiasco that he approved and allowed to happen, detaining and arresting innocent people... How insane was that...!!... the prorogue, the Afghan detainee issue... $$Billions for G20 security and that fake lake... His total lack of honesty in all things.. no transparency or accountability... So we have a dictator, a muzzled press, a muzzled party of Cons ruining Canada... F-35 jets that Canada does not need... lies lies and more lies, that is what we get from Harper and ideologically driven Cons...Harper insults me on a dailty basis..... Canadians as a whole are too smart to let this man continue his dictatorship...

[updated Mon Feb 07 01:10:59 -0500 2011]

The Conservatives aren't the only ones cutting corporate tax rates the Liberal Govt.in Ont. is following suit . Although this is appealing to the base of the Conservative party , the main reason for this is to try and increase foriegn investment as well as increase the productivity rates of companies already here . If you look at the OECD numbers there is a clear correlation between countries with high tax rates and decreasing levels of productivity .

Canada no longer has a weak currency that can attract $12 an hour box factory jobs . We need to get companies to invest in technology that will help them be more productive.

As far as Conservative fund raising goes much is made about the costs of fundraising .
Let me give you people an example of something which goes into the books as fundraising which is more like Riding building . A few days before a by-election was called in Vaughan a dinner and announcement was held in a banquet hall there .

There must have been 2-3 thousand people there . (I know , I was there ) some of us were from outside the riding and we were there to meet Julian Fantino and to give him our best wishes . The event was free , it included two drink tickets and a buffet . As some one who can remember the days when we had to pass the KFC bucket I was impressed .

Now that event must have been at least $50-70 thousand . It occured before the start of the by-election so I don't think it was counted as an election expense . My guess is that event went into the books as a national/Ontario fundraiser (please don't quote me).Now they did take donations that night and they signed up a lot of people from the riding and from outside the riding to do volunteer work for the election . But my guess is they didn't raise half of what was spent that night .

So from an accounting point of view Julian's big kickoff was a failure . But new members were signed up and as a result we won the election and picked off a Liberal strong hold .Money doesn't get raised to be hoarded , it gets raised to be spent keeping in touch with the membership and building strong riding associations .

I give $100 a yr to the national and to my local association and when I get treated to something like that I'll kick in another $50 . I also gave Julian 12 hours of my time before the election and I helped out on election day making calls to get the vote out . I'm probably average in terms of the 70 000 people who donate $100 or more . I don't do it because of corporate tax cuts . I do it cause I love my country and I want more programs that empower the middle class and protect my family from crime .

So the point is the money the CPC raises is far and above what we would need for a general election . Instead of stopping we raise more and spend a lot on fundraiser/riding building events in areas where we havn't won before .The Liberals have nothing like this so in the next election don't expect to see iggy in any areas where the Liberals don't have seats .The Liberals will be drawing an even tighter circle around their strong holds in an attempt to stop the CPC from getting a majority .

This is called playing not to lose as apposed to playing to win . This approach has succeeded in keeping the CPC from getting a majority but at what cost ? The Liberals lost their $2000 deposit in over 100 ridings last time and have no organizational presence in any rural areas of the country .

[updated Mon Feb 07 01:27:41 -0500 2011]

both initiatives make sense. on corp tax rates, the lower the better as it will stimulate investment (as opposed to liberals who cut personal taxes only which only promotes spending on items which are manufactured abroad). party financing should be scrapped as it does not force political parties to reach out to the electorate. it makes them lazy. if no one likes the pre-writ advertising the tories are doing, there is a simple solution. stop tax payer funded financing. they would save their money for the purpose of fighting elections. as for the question of whether they are linked or not, who knows, i guess its possible.

[updated Mon Feb 07 01:27:50 -0500 2011]

My recollection is that the public subsidy was to compensate for the elimination of any donations from businesses and unions, which were ended to reduce the possible influence such donations might have on elected decision-makers.

The annual allowable donation from individuals used to have no cap, but is now set at $1,100.00 for any riding and $1,100 to a national party. A candidate cannot even "donate" his or her own money above this $1,100.00 cap to finance their own campaign. Municipal or provincial candidates do not have this restriction. Election campaigns, including the costs of sending out brochures to residents and even modest advertising (not including tv or radio) can be very expensive.

I don't have a problem with the idea of eliminating business and union donations, but I think the "public" subsidy is in the public interest and the caps on individual donations should be raised or eliminated.

[updated Mon Feb 07 03:33:19 -0500 2011]

"Cutting the current subsidies to parties will likely have surface appeal to many voters. With Canadians cool on subsidizing businesses, it shouldn’t be surprising that they are also cool to subsiding political parties."

What does not get much talked about publicly by the CPC is that when one makes a donation to their party or CPC riding candidate, these donations are subsized by the Canadian Taxpayer-up to 75% in some cases. If the Conservatives want to cut subsidies why not cut this one? Want to support the Con party or the Libs or the NDP...do so out of your own pocket-not mine. I don't want my tax money going to a party I don't support.

This wanting to cut out the per vote subsidy is about as 2-faced as the Conservatives can get. One subsidy is just plain wrong in Conservative eyes but the other subsidy is just Jim Dandy thank you very much.

I don't know that many Canadians are aware just how much of our tax dollars go to subsidizing political contributions. If the Cons get a lot of small donations then the taxpayer is paying for 75% of the donation-likely unwillingly.

To me, the per vote subsidy is at least honest and transparent. Get a vote-get $1.75 or whatever.

[updated Mon Feb 07 04:55:25 -0500 2011]

Important linking. What amazes me is how the Conservatives were allowed to get away with the in-and out funding scheme in the 2006 election. What they did was fraudulent and definitely in violation of the Election Act. There were 65 members of the Conservative party who were willing to engage in this fraudulent practice. The practice of having the Federal Conservative party, which had raised more money than they could spend federally, transferred funds to local ridings which then sent the money back but recorded the money as having been spent locally. When the 65 Conservatives were asked to appear before the Parliamentary Committee on Access to Information and Ethics. Only two of them appeared and the others showed contempt for the Parliamentary Committee by ignoring Subpoenas. Perhaps you should do a poll asking Canadians what they think of this scheme, and do they think that the 65 members should have been prosecuted

[updated Mon Feb 07 06:12:56 -0500 2011]

No political party will ever be nominated for sainthood even if some dyed in the wool adherents believe that to be justified. In our part of the world, hopefully the route to government is that Party X has the better programmes / leadership than Party Y or Party Z. All political parties have their warts and oddities that grow over time and they drag along a bag of "cummulative errors" that eventually may cause their downfall. There is really no "national party of appeal" representative across the land but rather Canadian parties tend to be regionally based. Our federal system is unfair, unequal and almost defies logic at times but we seem to muddle forward rather well.

From a Liberal perspective, I have no objection to reduced corporate taxes as long as social services are not reduced / diluted. Should the current government try to download more social service costs to the provinces to balance the corporate tax cuts, then hell will not have any greater fury than the taxpayer so impaled on the federal spear.

Yes, political parties should be funded through their own resources / efforts and not be funded from the public purse. I STRONGLY add that the corporate and corporate personell "donations" (including unions and other interest groups) should remain capped as they are today and, further, should be known by mandatory public disclosure.

Harper has not made a bad job of government although I do not agree with his every move. One has to concede that he has been kept in the job by Ignatieff, Layton and Duceppe. Had the "alternatives" shone brighter in the perceptions of the Canadian electorate, I would suggest Harper would not be anticipating another few years in office.

[updated Mon Feb 07 10:35:34 -0500 2011]

Nik may be right but I am less inclined to think the idea of corporate tax cuts is connected with corporate fundraising. Remember the corporate tax cuts were approved in the 07 budget with the help of the Libs. I believe the party believes that corporate tax cuts will lead to increased job opportunities over time. Nothing happens over night but it will draw investment into Canada and allow our business sector to increase jobs. It may well be that corporate tax cuts will help in fundraising but that is a by product. The party believes in lower taxes and a competitive corporate tax rate to allow Canada to have one of the most competitive tax rates in the world.

The elimination of the subsidy per vote is interesting. I do not believe it is intended for the Liberal party. I think the Conservatives are after the Bloc. The Bloc relies on the subsidy for their funding while allowing the PQ full advantage of raising funds from the Quebec population to fund their provincial activities. Eliminating the subsidy would cause the Bloc and the PQ to challenge each other in raising the dollars to finance their campaigns. I suspect the Bloc has no local campaign software etc. so they would need to start from the bottom and build a system.

The Liberals would be collateral damage and no doubt would be hurt given their current situation. However, remember the Conservatives would lose about $10 million annually. That's a huge chunk of change so the elimination of the subsidy would hurt the Conservatives as well as the opposition parties. However, as Nik says this has wide appeal for voters.

In my view we need to look at the whole funding of political parties again. If the subsidy is removed the ceiling of $1,000.00 is too low and should be raised to the $5,000. level but keeping union and corporate donations out of the mix. As well the tax credits etc for political donations is too generous. Donations to political parties are treated more generously than a donation to a charity under the tax system.

[updated Mon Feb 07 15:52:57 -0500 2011]

"Many times, what may seem like an odd political decision in the short term actually makes sense from a long-term perspective."
Maybe sometimes this is true, but I don't see the evidence to support it. With this government I only see a strong and unethical machinations to achieve greater and longer lasting personal and partisan power.

Re; these two initiatives, one I agree with, the other I don't.
Federal funding is the best way that we can insure more equatable, fair, and democratic electeering. All candidates should receive the same amount, paid by the taxpayer. Not only is that fair, it behooves the candidate to be interested in the donor. If the funding comes from elsewhere, that is where the candidates primarily interests will lie.
Why do you think that it is fair and democratic for one candidate with $1000 to compete with one who has $1 million? The latter, if s/he is not stupid, should more easily be able to sell his/her platform.

Re corporate taxes. I don't think we should tax them. The government is the people, only people should contribute to government (their own) revenue. People owning or working in corporations can pay consumer and income tax. That should be the only revenue of government.
Because we are stuck with an archaic system we would have to change gradually. That is, gradually increase consumer and income tax while simultaneously reducing corporate tax.
Space precludes my elaborating on how these things could be achieved

[updated Mon Feb 07 17:06:46 -0500 2011]

I think this is giving too much credit to Harper's "strategic genius" qualifications. I think he showed again and again that he primarily thinks short-term political goals, along some generic ideological lines (like - destroying his opponents; Liberal party in particular). I don't think he is good at long-term planning at all.

[updated Mon Feb 07 17:58:07 -0500 2011]

There are several components to this response:-
1) First, I agree with your premise that the Conservatives don't want to fight this election on the Corporate Tax cuts platform. While it obviously appeals to their core support, they have to widen the base to win more seats - or even in some areas like Quebec City - retain the seats they have and anything that smells like giving corporate Canada a gift will receive visceral negative emotions from a broad swath of centre-left voters. What may play to their benefit is the feeling amongst many centre-left small L liberals like me - is that the Ignatieff wing of the Liberal party is too close to Corporate Canada - through the CCCE and John Manley. You may note that there has been a clear messaging in the last two weeks by Mr. Ignatieff to bash the Corporate tax cuts - and to begin to distance himself from Mr. Manley's statements. The more convincing he is - the less he will have to fight on two fronts - and struggle to make gains.

2) Even though the old style Liberals had strong links to some Canadian Corporations - with the split between Mr. Chretien and Mr. Martin - Mr. Chretien's move to democratize Canadian politics by limiting large donations was both a crude piece of gotcha politics for Mr. Martin to handle - but really a sincere attempt to improve the political landscape in Canada. The Liberals under Mr. Martin were slow to static in trying to change - and under Mr. Ignatieff were both reluctant to democratize the Party (one member one vote) and move on changing the fundraising / dialogue model [Some of us tried to get an Obama style model moving - but once Mr. Ignatieff was installed - it seemed to die on the vine.] Signs are that the reasons for this neglect have been replaced by a more enlightened audience - which would mean - at least for the Liberals - a fundraising model that could match of even exceed that of the Conservatives.
3) The success of the model and the accompanying tools would depend upon a) dialogue with members and / or voters and b) policy positions and matching messaging that would ring the bell with an ever widening audience. [There was even an attempt by grass roots volunteers to build a website and supporting data base to reach out beyond committed membership - to the broader Canadian public - as a long term effort to c) both broaden the base and d) identify issues arising outside of the chattering classes that would enable policy makers to get ahead of the curve].
4) In summary - the Conservatives' success has been due to the ability and opportunity to demonize a policy position adopted by the Opposition especially the Official Opposition to the point that the OLO were loath to put out anything. Stifled by this - they found themselves being criticized for expressing no position - within the party as well as in the MSM. They now appear to have shaken off this paralysis - and are taking the initiative - with both criticism of Harper policies - but then responding with clear alternatives. Since Mr. Harper's team has given the OLO two prize footballs to kick around for the next few weeks - Day Care and Diane Finley's misspoken statement and Tony Clement's ill thought out override of the CRTC ruling on bandwidth management(and the possibility that Afghani detainees will emerge again as a hot topic because of the revelations that mercenaries were used and paid for by the Defence Dept in Afghanistan during that period where decisions made by the Harper government may have been tainted by rendition - the weeks leading up to an election in the spring (assuming it occurs) - will find Mr. Harper's plate full as he tries to struggle out from a load of self generated negative issues - including but not necessarily dominated by the election funding issue and corporate tax cuts.

[updated Tue Feb 08 04:22:58 -0500 2011]

Mr. Nanos

"Many times, what may seem like an odd political decision in the short term actually make sense from a long-term perspective."

There are many good reasons that the LPC over the past seven years has been reduced to an urban regional rump party confined to mainly to Montreal (Anglo), the old city of Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa and has been eliminated in the rural areas of BC, AB, SK, MB and PQ and has been decimated in rural ON - holding only a degree of support in the Atlantic region.

Some of the main reasons as for the Liberal decline is that the Liberals have lurched through three leaders, nine chief of staff and have stumbled from one issue to the other, constantly changing policy based on short term political requirements that were required to slow their declining poll numbers and needed to contain the Conservatives numbers and not making the correct political choice to bring new public policy to the Canadian voter.

But mostly in my view, the principle reason is the current LPC leadership has not the ability to think terms that are longer than the next great scandal that they "believe" will propel them to Government and that they have spent all their political capital on the scandal and Canadians have tuned them out as shown by Ignatieff personal numbers.

[updated Tue Feb 08 20:45:29 -0500 2011]

I am waiting for someone to make the comparison between the cost of subsidizing the political parties vs. the cost of the corporate tax cuts. My off-the-top-of-head guess is 5- or 10-1

[updated Wed Feb 09 03:38:35 -0500 2011]

The conservatives have taken a Liberal $15 billion surplus and crafted a $55 billion deficit; just like the Mulroney Conservative government crafted a $55 billion deficit. Why?

This Conservative government spends money, grows government and they are devoid of any ideas worth debating. They cannot present a vision for the country because eirther a) they have none or more likley b) the one they have cannot get them elected. Therefore they resort to personal attacks unworthy of even a school yard bully.

Canadians do not want and do not need American orchestrated “Tea Party” style political antics in Canada. This will be richly borne out in the next election when the Liberals win a surprise victory.

[updated Wed Feb 09 05:18:39 -0500 2011]

Mea Culpa, Uncle Jean!

If one of my best friends didn't say it once, he must have said it A Thousand Times: never, ever, underestimate Jean Charest. And so it was, and to my astonishment, and so it is! If this keeps up, Charest may outdo your average cat and get beyond the often speculated nine lives.

However, it does bring a smile to my face when I consider that my instincts were at least right on one point: I thought to myself, this guy practically saved Canada all by his lonesome and what kind of an ungrateful would I be if I penned my name to the infamous petition.

And now, we get to behold the Charest magic at work -- others may pay a serious political price for their uncertainty -- if not outright bungling -- as it relates to the Quebec City cultural and sports centre, but P'tit Jean is bound to come off smelling like a rose, at least in our region.

Keep a serious eye on the next batch of polls. My message for Pauline Marois (who I happen to like and admire) is, in political speak, start sweating N-O-W, that is, if you haven't already.

Jean Charest is back, running on all cylinders.

[updated Sun Feb 13 06:13:49 -0500 2011]

Mr. Harper seems to have a pathological problem with an Opposition in the House of Commons. Particularly his anti-Liberal obsession which seems to define his malicious motive for taking another run at eliminating the $27M per-vote subsidy, the termination of which could destroy the Party financially. Does he not care that the Opposition is an essential function in our democracy? His way of thinking doesn’t pass the logical consequence test.

These subsidies exist in many Western nations and are regarded as the price of democracy. They were established in Canada to help finance political operations after the elimination of corporate/union donations, groups that were thought to exercise undue influence on parties. Ironically, Harper had no problem spending $300M+ on an unnecessary election in 2008 that was just a thin disguise to hide his persistent pursuit of personal power. How can he imply that spending $27M to engage in a necessary democratic process is excessive?

If Mr. Harper were serious about political parties paying their way, he should cut all subsidies. Voluntary or not, a subsidy is a subsidy. For example, a donation to a registered federal political party or to a candidate running for election as a Member of Parliament, qualifies for a tax credit of: On first $400@75% subsidy; on <$400-$750@50% subsidy; on <$750-$1275@ 3.33% subsidy; Maximum Tax Credit $650 and deductible from your federal tax payable. With the per-vote subsidy, taxpayer dollars are equitably distributed to the Parties voters supported thus showing some semblance of impartiality. In the 2008 election, the Conservative Party got 38% of the vote but received over 50% of the tax credits on donations. Maybe that’s why the Conservatives don’t want to look closely at other subsidies.

The major money-maker for political parties and the most egregious exploitation of taxpayer dollars is the Election Expenses Reimbursement for national and candidate campaigns. These are substantial handouts doled out without taxpayer sanction.

• National Campaign Expenses - To qualify, Parties have to receive either 2% of the national vote or 5% of the votes in each of the ridings they ran candidates. For this, they receive 50% of their election expenses.

• Candidate Campaign Expenses (308 Ridings) – In addition to refunds for national campaign expenses, Parties receive reimbursement for 60% of a candidate’s total election expenses, provided the candidate is elected or receives at least 10% of the number of valid votes cast.

These subsidies add up to approximately: $29M in National Campaign Expenses plus $26M Candidate Campaign Expenses = $55M; Per-vote Refund $27M; Tax Credit for Donations $20M, for a total of $102 Million.

As one can see, it becomes somewhat pricey especially with elections being held every two years.

This appears to be another of Harper’s partisan cheap shots meant to hobble the Opposition and has no just foundation. This kind of contribution cherry-picking is just plain duplicitous. The money comes from taxpayers’ pockets whether via generous tax credits, the per-vote subsidy or the excessive election expenses reimbursement. Political parties need money to operate and the vote-based subsidy is an equitable way of ensuring financing. Some people can’t afford to donate to political parties, even with generous tax credits, so this gives voting Canadians the opportunity to donate to the party that they democratically support.

Mr. Harper continues to damage his already sullied reputation through his callous character and, unjustly, the Conservative Party in the process. The result of Mr. Harper’s twisted thinking could result in a one-party state, an unhealthy consequence for a democracy indeed.

[updated Fri Feb 18 02:30:08 -0500 2011]

Nice to be back. albeit under a forth or fifth name. I made fun of religious people a year or so back and was banished, never to recover.

I don't give the Cons nearly the strategic skills afforded them by Nik. Last time they messed with election "reform," they went down for the count until rescued by a compliant GG.

Corporate tax cuts? A Globe web poll informs us that Mr. Harper's ways of "control and secrecy" are his soft spot. I'm guessing but ~50% of Canadians would NEVER vote for this man or his party. He is that reviled.

[updated Fri Feb 18 04:19:17 -0500 2011]

up up up the Tories go thank god come on we need a Majority government finally to stop the gong show circus in Ottawa lets go Harper Jack and Jill need to resign from politics period Liberals increased are taxes so much this week I'm not even thinking liberal actually not even considering Liberal for Jack and the NDP just give it up bud your increasing taxes also no thanks sticking with the Conservatives they got my vote always did always will thanks :)

[updated Fri Apr 01 21:46:22 -0400 2011]

up up up the Tories go thank god come on we need a Majority government finally to stop the gong show circus in Ottawa lets go Harper Jack and Jill need to resign from politics period Liberals increased are taxes so much this week I'm not even thinking liberal say hello to 9% GST again actually not even considering Liberal for Jack and the NDP just give it up bud your increasing taxes also no thanks sticking with the Conservatives they got my vote always did always will thanks :)

[updated Fri Apr 01 21:47:29 -0400 2011]

Day 5 what gong show happened today with the elections no one wanted Jack and Jill still think it was worth it all points are pointing to a Conservative Majority thank God. Jack and Jill will not be able to have the 5th election in 4 years whatever happened to 4 year terms for crying out loud Harper you get Majority please make it mandatory have to serve 4 years before they can refuse a perfectly good budget instead of having an election thats gonna stall the economy and keep us from being on track you clowns oh they make me mad :(. Not only that possibly make Jack or Jill be in power to increase the GST to 9 % that no one seems to be talking about thats exactly what will happen people if either of the Jack and Jill Coalition get power please have that not happen heaven help us

[updated Sat Apr 02 09:22:19 -0400 2011]

News flash there is no such thing as global warming never was never will be and if anyone wants to see the proof message me I'll be glad to show you the informations it's another form of Tax are government brainwashs us into believing and what else they take more money from us so all and all with the 18 to 20 billion Jill just mentioned the last 7 days and he says he's going green know well tack on another 3 billion in tax there you go Canada you vote Liberals guaranteed we'll all feel it in the pocket VOTE CONSERVATIVE get a majority and end this circus in Ottawa once and for all :) thank you
why else you think NDP and Liberals wanna go Green it's a TAX always was always will be Conservatives don't want the extra tax thats why they are not doing it or so gong hoe about it trust me it's a fricken tax people HELLO
They think your all stupid trust me I don't fall for any of that garbage it's all taxes money you can't tell me you trust Jack or Jill to handle Canada's economy or money heaven help us people please let Harper manage it the coalitions gonna cancel aircrafts which gonna cost double when they want to actually do the right thing and cost us even more like wake up it's Government there all in it for are hard earned money

[updated Mon Apr 04 03:09:53 -0400 2011]