Every vote the five major political parties attracts is worth about $1.75 to them each year in federal subsidies under the rules that govern election financing.
I cannot remember when this law was brought into effect. No doubt I was busy having children or working to support them and missed it. I really am such an idiot. I just don’t get why any political party is entitled to a $1.75 of taxpayers funds for every vote they receive. Who came up with this “alleged” brainstorm of an idea anyway? Who were the smucks who voted to pass it into law? I don’t care if they were CPC, Liberal, NDP or Rhino; the whole lot of them ought to be run out of the country, cursed and have their name erased from the Book of Life for eternity.
And we need to subsidize political parties because....... I just don’t get it. The rationale cannot possibly be that Canadian taxpayers need to subsidize Canadian political parties in order to keep them honest or to help Canadian politicians keep their hands out of the public till. I don’t buy it, just look at the Skimrals. It cannot be needed in order to make an even political playing field; otherwise all political parties would have access to the same amount of funds, and they just don’t.
Somebody needs to explain to me very patiently and probably very, very slowly, why any political party is entitled to any amount of money from the public purse.
5 comments:
Seems no one has commented with an explanation. I would like to hear one too.
I believe this is the first election in Canada where votes are worth money to the party that a candidate being voted for represents.
I was speaking with my brother about this earlier today. He indicated he had read somewhere that there is a cap on this - so, you know, it's really a pittance - it's only 40 million dollars.
Heh.
For me, another reason not to vote as I don't support public funds going to support any party (you probably knew that about me already though).
But here's the thing: Our democracy is supposed to be based on representation by population, where a riding votes for their "REPRESENTATIVE," not a party.
This money for votes reeks like an outhouse that hasn't been cleaned in 12 years.
Ian, I got a private email concerning this from a reader who is way more on the ball than I was. Consider it an integral part of Chrétien’s legacy. Let me know if you want me to email the links.
As far as representative democracy goes – how’s this; I live on a major street in Toronto-Centre. Not even a full block away from Liberal Bill Graham’s campaign headquarters, and yet, not one Liberal, NDP, Green, or even Marijuana Party supporter has ventured to knock on my door or left any campaign material for their respective parties during the current election.
Sure, send the links you have.
Interestingly, I've not had one campaigner from ANY part in my riding knock on my door, or leave literature.
I have had though, a recorded phone call from my conservative MP seeking re-election, David Tilson (CPC). I hung up right away though - not into spam telephone calls.
In the last provincial bi-election, I had all of the major parties drop by my house. Had a very interesting conversation with one of the John Tory campaigners who claimed he was a "libertarian."
That was fun. The dude seemed to think that "right wing" was the same as "libertarian."
Oh, and now that I think about it, back in the first week or so, when the election was first called, I did get a phone call from a CPC representative .. not from the MP's office - but someone from the National Party, asking me to donate.
When I told them I wouldn't be supporting the CPC, he asked me, "Oh, are you a Liberal?"
I said, "No, I'm a libertarian."
Him: "Ok, good-bye."
I had a sense he had no idea what libertarianism was about.
Anyhow.. have a good day.. I'm off to bed :)
As best I can recall, it is a Chretien thing. Supposedly, it was brought in to replace money that parties would miss out on because of other changes to the campaign donation regulations, I forget exactly what, but perhaps limits on the amount individuals could donate. BUT, in reality, and it is quite obvious I think, the idea was to provide one more electoral advantage to the Libs. The amount of money that a party would receive would be a function of their vote. At the time, the Libs had more votes and had been getting more votes for about 14 years or so, those were the Chretien majority years, so they would get more money and that would give them an advantage in a future election by keeping party debt down. When this thing was first set up, I thought I had died and gone to Zimbabwe. On Monday, I will find out if I really am in Zimbabwe or not.
Post a Comment