The Progressive Conservatives are proposing to increase contribution limits to political parties and eliminate fixed election dates.Fred Lum/The Globe and Mail
Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government is proposing reforms that would “strengthen and increase public trust” in the province’s electoral system. But one of the main effects of these reforms would be to unleash a flood of money into politics that would cement electoral advantages for the governing party.
Attorney-General Doug Downey wants to increase the amount a person can contribute to a political party to $5,000 from $3,400. If this reform goes through, Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservative Party will have tripled Ontario’s political donation limit since 2018.
Assuming the rules would be the same for the current $3,400 limit, that same individual could then give another $5,000 in total to the riding association and nomination contestants of each party, plus an additional $5,000 in total to the candidates of each party. More can be given to third-party groups and during leadership contests.
With this boost in income, one might think the parties would no longer need the per-vote subsidy to parties, brought in by Kathleen Wynne’s government as a five-year transitional measure back in 2016 after she banned corporate and union donations. But no, Mr. Downey wants to make the per-vote subsidy permanent. The measure will net the Progressive Conservatives $5.5-million this year, more than any other party.
Andrew Coyne: What we need in this country is less money in politics, not more
Mr. Downey also plans to get rid of what he calls “American-style fixed election dates,” and return to Ontario’s “traditional electoral process” that he says served the province well for nearly a century and a half. But voters should remember why reforms were introduced in federal and provincial jurisdictions in recent decades.
Campaign financing scandals have always been a part of Canada’s political culture – Sir John A. Macdonald was forced to resign as prime minister in 1873 after being accused of accepting election funds in exchange for a contract to build a railway to the Pacific. Rules, such as the ones Ms. Wynne brought in after a cash-for-access scandal, were attempts to limit the corruptive influence that money can have on public officials.
Having the ruling party control the timing of an election is a massive advantage. Uncertain election dates aren’t fair to other parties, as well as candidates who may need to leave their jobs to run. It’s also a disadvantage to some third-party groups, such as union-backed coalitions that have battled the PC party, as they won’t know when to ramp up spending before an election. The fact that many politicians such as Mr. Ford have made excuses to call early elections doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be fixed dates – it means that unless a government falls in a confidence vote, politicians should stick with them.
In Ontario’s case, the proposed abolition of fixed election dates gives them a reason to get rid of prewrit spending limits for third-party interest groups and political parties, given previous limits were based on the six-month or one-year period prior to a fixed election date. (A previous law that limited third-party spending was struck down by the Supreme Court because it favoured political parties over third parties.) This means these groups will be able to spend whatever they want leading up to the 30-day election period.
Without a law restricting pre-election spending, Ontario could see a situation where huge amounts of money are funnelled into third-party groups to sway voters. Contributors are supposed to be Ontario residents or businesses, but the federal chief electoral officer has voiced concerns that third-party groups could be used by foreign governments wanting to influence elections.
Parties need to have enough money to get their message out, but there is no good reason they need more money than they have now. Loosening financing rules tilts democracy in favour of wealthy donors, who aim to influence policymaking to benefit themselves. Research shows that gifting generally does lead the recipient to feel an obligation to return the favour.
Much of the money goes into polling and data mining – building elaborate databases about individual voters’ interests and preferences. Parties can then target political advertising and come up with platforms that might not be in the public interest, but could shift votes.
The Ford government should reverse course, rather than continue with these proposals that will damage Ontario’s electoral system.