Campaign Financing Abuses

Grog made a very good point on his recent comment about Alnoor's spending habits in regards to the mayoral race. He wrote

"What's he after - rumour has it he's shelling out nearly 7 digits in campaign spending to get a job that pays $160,000 - doesn't quite add up, does it? (especially when he is ostensibly spending his own money, not donations he's accumulated)"

That's so very true! The position, while well paid, certainly does not warrant paying double your three year salary to win the election.And I think we know Alnoor well enough to undertstand that he is all in it for himself. After all, this IS the same man who decided to hike rents on a Mount Royal property to line his own pockets in a cash grab response to local market values.

More recently, he found himself on the wrong end of media reports when he radically raised the rents in a Mount Royal lowrise -- for one tenant, from $650 to $2,500 a month. (Calgary Herald)

Not exactly the move of an altruistic caring individual. And the old saying that actions speak louder than words rings true here, as we note that Alnoor proclaims that affordable housing is one of his electoral concerns. It requires substantial suspension of disbelief to reconcile those two statements - and I'm afraid that I'm just not up to the task of believing the words of a man whose recent actions are so diametrically opposed.

So why would he do it? Spend $2 for every $1 that he has a potential to earn? Not a very good return on investment, especially since the election is nowhere near guaranteed. There has to be something else in it for him. Perhaps a few perks and benefits? Such as the ability to influence council decisions and make policy that benefits Alnoor himself. It's clear that the man is involved in real estate - could he possibly benefit from changing zoning or sliding permits through? (The cynic inside wants to make the claim that perhaps this is the only way to grease the wheels in Calgary since the suitcase of cash that worked so well in Kenya doesn't have the same pull here - but Alnoor claims that he has done that in the past, but now is above and beyond all of that).

So what's the solution? Perhaps we need to take a fresh look at election spending. Perhaps it is time to set a few limits on the amount of money that can be invested in the race to even out the playing field? Of course, any suggestion like this does have quite a few drawbacks - there is so much coverage that money just can't purchase (newspaper editorials from the Conservitites, volunteer labour, donations in 'kind' - all sorts of ways to slip through the loopholes like a greased eel).

The other thing that we so desprately need to address is the question of campaign dontations - when the Union or the Police Commission can fork over tens of thousands in support of a single candidate in a single donation; and when the large developers refer to contributions as "investments" - well, it's clear (at least to me) that the system is not without flaws. I prefer to see my elected representatives to stand alone without the need to pay back certain 'favours'.

And how do you go about doing it so that it is reasonable and fair across the levels?

First, let's set some limits on how much can be donated to an individual. If we follow the contribution guidelines federally we see that (when not sliding around loopholes like the Conservatives did on their recent leadership race by selling thousands of memberships to a Union): According to Elections Alberta Election FInance and Contributions Disclosure Act:

Limitatio

n on contributions

17(1) For the purposes of an election under the Election Act, contributions by any person, corporation, trade union or employee organization to registered parties, registered constituency associations or registered candidates shall not exceed

<> (a) in any year,
(i) $15 000 to each registered party, and
(ii) $1000 to any registered constituency association, and $5000 in the aggregate to
the registered constituency associations of each registered party,

and

(b) in any campaign period,
(i) $30 000 to each registered party less any amount contributed to the party in
that calendar year under clause (a)(i), and
(ii) $2000 to any registered candidate, and $10 000 in the aggregate to the
registered candidates of each registered party.

One thing that is also notible is that Candidates donating to their own election are limited by the same donation caps - and must report to Elections Alberta as well.

Now, given that Civic Politics are not partisan base d (At least not yet - until the McIverites get their way and start up the PGIB party), and taking into account that candidates cover significantly smaller territory and represent fewer people, equating civic political donations to provincial ones seems execessive. First, let's rid ourselves of clause a) and b) (i) since we do not have constituency associations or parties, and let's just look at clause b (ii). A limit of $2000 campaign contribution. It's still a sizable amount, but certainly doesn't come anywhere close to the tens of thousands that are benefiting not just the candidates running for council, but also the contributors albiet indirectly.

Now, the other thing that we need to consider is that on a provincial election each individual MLA runs in a single territory - including the party leader. It's a level playing field for the territory that each individual needs to reach. On a municipal level there is the inequity of size of territory for Mayor, Alderman and School Board - each covers a very different territory and each has a very different return on their investment in terms of salary and responsibility.

So it would make sense to set the limit per individual donor much lower.

Rather than setting a single limit of $X per donor with no donor limit, perhaps it might be more reasonable to set something that is a percentage of salary for the position. Perhaps it might make sense to limit Aldermanic spending per election to no more than 50% of yearly salary; and similarly for School board. Perhaps for Mayor, since their is so much more territory to cover, it might make sense to limit to no more than one year's salary. And, of course to eliminate any question of "favours owing" we need to limit how much any given group can donate to one candidate. This would take the election OUT of the realm of "Daddy Warbucks" and back to the question of individual candidate merit. Although, like everything else, this too could be open to great abuse.

There are drawbacks to each and every system that might be proposed - and this is not like any other. We still have to deal with columnists like Bishop Henry, Link Byfield, Paul Jackson and Rick Bell who have their own agenda to forward, and seem to take great glee in ensuring that their columns are single sided and ignore all inconvenient facts... but that's an entry for another blog.

Do you have any ideas on electoral financing reform for Civic Politics? Do you agree that it is needed?