tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post4274274099825750091..comments2024-02-07T16:22:39.625-05:00Comments on Jeff Jedras: Why the Liberals should support ending the per-vote subsidyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-80018010297829003622010-06-13T10:14:45.870-04:002010-06-13T10:14:45.870-04:00Not at all DL. Don't be silly. Anyone can se...Not at all DL. Don't be silly. Anyone can see that there's a qualitative difference between a pay cheque and a political "donation".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-12477514842244154032010-06-12T14:05:29.458-04:002010-06-12T14:05:29.458-04:00WE also all "involuntarily" donate becau...WE also all "involuntarily" donate because all the salaries for MPs and the funds that go to each parties caucus services etc... come out of tax revenues. With the logic some people are using maybe we should stop paying salaries to MPs and make them panhandle on street corners in their ridings!DLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11587165866597795302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-244033838313439952010-06-12T13:41:51.686-04:002010-06-12T13:41:51.686-04:00On the issue of money being speech, Michael Kinsle...On the issue of money being speech, <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/05/who-owns-the-first-amendment/8029/2/" rel="nofollow">Michael Kinsley made a solid argument that money is speech in May's Atlantic Monthly</a>.<br /><br /><i>"A Republican Congress, for example, could decide that The Washington Post is too influential compared with The Washington Times, and require The Post to cut its budget (a superfluous requirement these days, perhaps). Most journalists would have no trouble correctly finding that in this case, money is speech after all."</i><br /><br />Of course he's also talking about corporate speech, but whether or not corporations have rights as persons is an entirely different question as to whether actual human beings have the right to spend money to make their speech heard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-92050924439891440782010-06-12T13:21:30.458-04:002010-06-12T13:21:30.458-04:00Briguyhfx,
There's two main reasons why peopl...Briguyhfx,<br /><br />There's two main reasons why people call vote subsidy's involuntary donations.<br /><br />1) It is involuntary. You cannot vote without "giving" money. If you don't want to funnel money to a party you have to stop voting.<br /><br />2) Vote subsidy's are divided on a "head" basis, while taxes are raised progressively. Effectively, those who pay less tax direct the involuntary "donations" of those who pay more taxes. To be "donating" your own money, we'd have to have head taxes instead as even a flat tax would have some paying more than others. Most people like progressive taxation for schools, hospitals, policing, roads, justice, social programmes and the like. We don't like progressive taxation to directly fund political advertising.<br /><br />Voting and donating are two entirely different things. Most of us vote. Few of us want to donate to political parties.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-44788611939970508122010-06-12T11:21:30.643-04:002010-06-12T11:21:30.643-04:00I don't see how people are donating "agai...I don't see how people are donating "against their will" with the per-vote subsidy. Each vote comes from a person, you see. If no people vote for a party, they get no subsidy. Even the people who decide that all the choices suck get a say in where the money goes when they don't vote. The "rest of Canada" is not subsidizing the Bloc...they get all of their votes from Quebec.<br /><br />Voting with your wallet is profoundly undemocratic. Not surprising to see it espoused amongst so many insiders. If a party gains widespread appeal, they should be able to build a war-chest with many small donations, not a few large ones.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-74914124459878453272010-06-12T11:19:58.099-04:002010-06-12T11:19:58.099-04:00I don't see how people are donating "agai...I don't see how people are donating "against their will" with the per-vote subsidy. Each vote comes from a person, you see. If no people vote for a party, they get no subsidy. Even the people who decide that all the choices suck get a say in where the money goes when they don't vote. The "rest of Canada" is not subsidizing the Bloc...they get all of their votes from Quebec.<br /><br />Voting with your wallet is profoundly undemocratic. Not surprising to see it espoused amongst so many insiders.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-66038698023923471612010-06-12T01:45:20.782-04:002010-06-12T01:45:20.782-04:00You've hit the nail on the head Jeff. Ending t...You've hit the nail on the head Jeff. Ending the voter subsidy is a no-brainer as the system is based entirely on involuntary donations. (aka, tax payers "donate" whether they want to or not). Additionally, since our taxes aren't collected on a head tax basis, the people at the upper end of the income scale have their involuntary donation designated by others.<br /><br />But Jason Cherniak's idea of having corporate donations back contradicts the principle of voluntary donations. As he said, it's easier to convince business people to give business money than personal money because a lot of the time it's NOT their money. It's the shareholders money. The problem is even worse with union donations. Union membership is mandatory much of the time, so the union is forcibly donating on behalf of members.<br /><br />Donations should be voluntary. A party's ease in securing a donation is an entirely secondary concern.<br /><br />Merboy also hits another oft-neglected nail. Additionally, isn't it rather sick that our tax system gives a greater financial system to donate to a politician than Doctors without Borders?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-40740610891801736592010-06-11T23:31:25.847-04:002010-06-11T23:31:25.847-04:00What the Liberals should propose is a decrease in ...What the Liberals should propose is a decrease in the tax credit by 50%. It would hurt the Harpocrits more because all the ones I know are tight bastards and they would whine about not getting the tax break.ol lib curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10567101343488768935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-57996320987974681322010-06-11T16:26:39.153-04:002010-06-11T16:26:39.153-04:00In this so-called world of freedom and democracy, ...In this so-called world of freedom and democracy, I really hate being told how much of MY money I can spend to support a party.<br /><br />But, if a limit is required, up it a little.<br /><br />If Quebecers want to support the BLOC, let them. I don't see why the rest of Canada has to support them via subsidies.<br />Ridenrain - as they say, those that don't trust, can't be trusted themselves.RuralSandihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09552973218865121867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-10895123750470861312010-06-11T15:58:36.754-04:002010-06-11T15:58:36.754-04:00Everyone who thinks the Bloc would be terribly ham...Everyone who thinks the Bloc would be terribly hampered by cutting the subsidy know nothing about QC. Yes, it helps. But separatism, nationalism and the ability to have a safe protest vote are so entrenched in QC, that it would make little difference. Cutting the subsidy would equal cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Stupid. This is what comes of Coyne's omnipresence - some people start to take him too seriously. He's smart, he's fun, he writes pretty well. But the reason he is these things is because he tries to amuse Canadians by usually taking all premises to their logical and often hilariously ridiculous conclusions. His best stuff is when he isn't coherent, because his principles lead him one way, and his preferred outcome is different, so he uses sleight of hand to appear to square unsquarable circles. More power to him. Fun stuff. But don't take it too seriously. I do enjoy his work. But I don't fool myself into thinking he is right, at all times, on all things. And on this, he is completely wrong, as it relates to the Bloc.<br /><br />If this is proposed on principle, it's wrongheaded but fine. But the idea this will deal some terrible blow to the Bloc is laughable. They managed fine before (uh, 1993-1997-2000?) They'd be fine again. <br /><br />It's a bad idea for all Opposition parties, unless we go completely back to old ways, which would let Liberals become big-money party again. Which I oppose. Even Flanagan gets this. Really. Think things through, gentlemen and gentlewomen.Eugene Forsey Liberalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05538109652483033119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-84272826826334354692010-06-11T15:37:50.405-04:002010-06-11T15:37:50.405-04:00FYI: Ending the public funding of parties would al...FYI: Ending the public funding of parties would also annihilate the Green party which gets about 90% of its operating budget from the $2/vote deal.DLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11587165866597795302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-32230018897159792012010-06-11T14:47:04.923-04:002010-06-11T14:47:04.923-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.DLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11587165866597795302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-50842392471282839532010-06-11T13:39:03.594-04:002010-06-11T13:39:03.594-04:00To Jeff Jedras:
"PC, I don't agree wi...To Jeff Jedras:<br /><br /> "PC, I don't agree with you on no donation limit at all, but I do at least applaud you for taking a more ideologically consistent position than your leader."<br /><br /> Sorry for talking so long to respond this,but I had other things to do. I resent the fact that you say that he is my leader. He's everyones leader. He's the head of our government. If you meant that I'm a member of the Conservative party you're wrong! I'm not a member of any political parties never have been and probably never will be.<br /><br /> Now that said why would you be against a no donation limit? I don't understand! What I mean its our money,right? Thank you!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-74300090812422801462010-06-11T13:30:11.164-04:002010-06-11T13:30:11.164-04:00I too miss the days of royal courtiers! Why stop ...I too miss the days of royal courtiers! Why stop at $5000/person? Raise the cap to $5,000,000, and allow only those who donate a cool million to have the ear of MPs.<br /><br />I and my fellow Barons heartily support this idea of yours, Jeff, even if it doesn't quite go as far as we (and Harper) would like.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-59683312383312076462010-06-11T13:25:08.809-04:002010-06-11T13:25:08.809-04:00The individual donation limit and the per-vote sub...The individual donation limit and the per-vote subsidy should both be cut in half, but at least both should be maintained because they are the most democratic aspects of the federal political financing system because they are most closely based on the fundamental democratic principle of one-person, one-vote (and so all the provinces and territories should implement them also).<br /><br />The individual donation limit is actually $2,200 annually and $3,300 in election years -- it should be decreased because it is already much higher than an average voter can afford (given that the average annual salary in Canada is about $35,000) even with the approx. 50% tax deduction you receive for political donations (because you still have to have the money to make the donation in order to receive the deduction).<br /><br />Like the tax deduction for donations, the per-vote subsidy does not require anyone to subsidize with their tax dollars any party or candidate they do not support -- as is completely obvious if you actually think about it, the deduction and subsidy come only from the taxes paid by a voter who votes for a party or makes a donation.<br /><br />The per-vote subsidy gives parties support based on their popular support (the number of voters who vote for each party) -- what could be more democratic? However, it is too high because it was set originally by Jean Chretien and his Cabinet at a level ($1.75 then in 2003, $1.95 now (inflation-adjusted)) to replace exactly the amount in corporate donations the Liberals were receiving annually). <br /><br />It therefore gives the parties much more than a base of financial support, it gives them a large portion of their overall support. This support continues every year in between elections even if they party acts in ways that causes it to lose voter support. For these reasons, the per-vote subsidy should be cut in half so that it only provides a base of support and the parties are forced to continue to appeal to voters in order to prosper financially.<br /><br />See details in Democracy Watch's letters-to-the-editor and op-eds on the federal political finance system at:<br />http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/OpEdAug1709.html<br />AND<br />http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/OpEdNov3008.html<br /><br />Hope this helps,<br />Duff Conacher, Coordinator<br />Democracy Watch<br />http://www.dwatch.caDuff Conacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18364098079513859777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-46620147825002772822010-06-11T13:25:08.810-04:002010-06-11T13:25:08.810-04:00"Why are some low-income persons unable to cl..."Why are some low-income persons unable to claim a tax credit when they donate money to a Party?"<br /><br /><br />Ummm... probably because you have to pay taxes in order to apply a credit against those taxes?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16287295355147760571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-40109134911302002432010-06-11T13:22:27.323-04:002010-06-11T13:22:27.323-04:00Bloc voters give their money to the PQ because the...Bloc voters give their money to the PQ because the Bloc doesn't need it. In fact, the Bloc would probably rather its donors give to the PQ instead, as that's where their stated priority lies.<br /><br />If the Bloc suddenly needed money, the rabid separartists would be happy to start forking over small donations.<br /><br />Here's a better idea - repeal the ban on corporate and union donations. There's no reason why collective entities shouldn't be allowed to participate (with some limitations) in the political process. It violates the Charter, and in a few more years you'll have enough data to show that Section 1 doesn't save it anymore.<br /><br /><br />By restricting political donations to the extreme, the only thing we have accomplished is made money MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER in terms of its influence over election outcomes.<br /><br />Let corporations and union give $10k a year to whatever party they want. Anyone who honestly thinks that a government make spolicy decisions based on a few hundred bucks in donations is crazy.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16287295355147760571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-35093409630109052332010-06-11T13:05:15.745-04:002010-06-11T13:05:15.745-04:00I agree with ending the per vote subsidy, and wrot...I agree with ending the per vote subsidy, and wrote a post about that as well. I also agree with Jason C's idea of allowing corporations (and unions I might add) to donate again but with the limit in place. I don't agree with raising the limit (though I think the whole convention fee issue needs to be resolved in a better way). I think we need to become experts at raising smaller donations.Liberal Justicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05346811184984444449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-10906424080053034722010-06-11T12:16:02.685-04:002010-06-11T12:16:02.685-04:00I'm sorry but I don't think I'm the on...I'm sorry but I don't think I'm the one who's deluded here. Anyone who thinks that political parties can be counted on to resist the temptation to tailor their policies towards those who can give them thousands of dollars more than the next guy hasn't been paying attention.poggehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15230532270911414866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-6428012858132541932010-06-11T11:51:47.379-04:002010-06-11T11:51:47.379-04:00Anyone who thinks that $5000 donation will buy you...Anyone who thinks that $5000 donation will buy you anything from government is deluding themselves. Even with that limit your donation is too small in the grand scheme of things to make a difference.KChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932623568330893522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-33542319444686162132010-06-11T11:36:19.000-04:002010-06-11T11:36:19.000-04:00pogge, while the Liberals have traditionally had m...pogge, while the Liberals have traditionally had more donations over the $1000 mark, there's no reason other parties couldn't as well. The ground would be open for all.<br /><br />As for the influence question, let me put it another way. Under our tax system, the more you make, the more you pay, because you can afford to. That doesn't mean the more tax you pay, the more influence you have over government policy. So if someone has more capacity to give more, and wants to, as long as their motives are just, why shouldn't they?<br /><br />There are lots of measures in place to guard against influence peddling. All donations are public record. There's a lobbyist registry that records meetings, and other public disclosures. And there are laws against influence peddling. If anyone has ideas for more transparency to guard against it, I'm open to hearing them.<br /><br />I don't, however, think assuming everyone's motives are suspect is sufficient justification for a low cap. I prefer a higher personal limit, but with transparency to guard against improper behaviour and strong punishment for those that violate the public trust.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14971310821484459106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-77531142779410639062010-06-11T11:28:19.329-04:002010-06-11T11:28:19.329-04:00This kind of class warfare -- anyone willing to do...<i>This kind of class warfare -- anyone willing to donate more than $1100 is evil </i><br /><br />Using Republican talking points now Jeff? You have been hanging around the National Post too much.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06509182679650412982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-20471615816505683372010-06-11T11:14:56.857-04:002010-06-11T11:14:56.857-04:00It's not that anyone wishing to donate more th...It's not that anyone wishing to donate more than $1,100.00 is evil. It's that a higher limit means that people with deep pockets have a louder voice than everyone else. That might be good for the Liberal party (which says something in itself) but it would suck for democracy. Is that an accurate reflection of your priorities?poggehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15230532270911414866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-86680627283224431402010-06-11T11:09:56.098-04:002010-06-11T11:09:56.098-04:00And phase it in over a number of years to give the...And phase it in over a number of years to give the parties time to adjust. And give the Tories a chance to prove its not just some tactic designed to upend their opponents in the next election.<br /><br />And I totally agree that all spending between elections be capped at election levels. Run attack ads during the summer; deduct it from the next campaign.archivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636882677964429736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-39193521030704280842010-06-11T11:08:54.371-04:002010-06-11T11:08:54.371-04:00Jurist, the NDP has continually put attacking othe...Jurist, the NDP has continually put attacking other parties first. I don't say that to complain, I say that to point out all parties do that and false claims to moral piety by the NDP are also easily debunked.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14971310821484459106noreply@blogger.com