The sanctity and popularity of the NDP campaign finance reform promises depended for years on maintaining that if big money were banished from politics, it wouldn’t just be replaced by taxpayer money.
That kept the crusade simple. They could stand for driving the big money from unions and corporations out of politics, without having to defend the less-appealing idea of making up the difference by funneling tax money to parties. So they did just that, insisting for years that banning big donations did not mean taxpayers would be leaned on to plug the parties’ revenue gaps. When opponents such as Christy Clark, when she was premier, suggested otherwise, the NDP reacted with indignation.
But when the reform bill was unveiled this week, it included not one but two separate gravy trains through which taxpayers will make up a big chunk of the shortfall.
Premier John Horgan’s comeback was that it’s “only temporary” and the public financing will come to an end after a four-year transition. The legislation outlines a declining per-vote subsidy that lasts four years.
But the idea that it will come to an inevitable end is a debatable proposition. The bill says the “transitional funding” will come up before a committee of MLAs for review after four years. There are no guarantees on what it might recommend. It’s very easy to imagine parties getting very comfortable with the guaranteed income and deciding to keep it coming.
Regardless of what happens to the transitional funding, the other revenue stream is locked in and permanent. The bill commits taxpayers to cover 50 per cent of parties’ election expenses. That amounts to about $11 million, which is slightly less than half of the parties’ cumulative total spend.
That component arrived with zero notice, but it would be a permanent new fixture in the political funding world, and would take some financial pressure off the parties.
Horgan was enormously proud of the bill, saying it’s the “most significant legislation we’ve seen in B.C. since 1871.”
But it’s simply not what was promised. He made countless public announcements that there would be no taxpayer financing of parties under NDP reforms, when in fact, there is.
There is also a big hole in the bill where some kind of independent assessment was supposed to be. Asked in January if taxpayer financing wasn’t inevitable once big donations were banned, he said no, because it would be up to an independent body to make the rules.
He said financing reform had to be taken away from government members and suggested Elections B.C., with some prominent persons, could review the landscape.
The system that develops after big money was eliminated would flow from the work of such a committee, he said.
Instead, the NDP has dropped the finished product, consulting only with the Greens, who already agree with the basic thrust.
Also missing are requirements for the parties to show what they’re doing with the money. They currently have to meet rudimentary spending disclosure requirements. But if taxpayers have to contribute millions to parties, they should be required to open their books completely, just like all other public agencies, and disclose where the money is going.
B.C. Green Leader Andrew Weaver applauded the bill, although he seems to be sensing trouble, because he noted the taxpayer-financing part wasn’t his idea. Greens and the NDP have been on the same page regarding political financing reform.
B.C. Liberals landed hard on the NDP Tuesday, highlighting some of the many instances where Horgan denied public money would make up the difference. Liberal House Leader Mike de Jong said the government has removed choice and is “using the tax system to dip into their pockets and force them to support political parties that they don’t want to support.”
Just So You Know: Another part of the bill targets those expensive receptions where people pay thousands to mingle privately with the premier or cabinet ministers. If they are held in private homes, the new maximum ticket price would be $100. Parties can’t accept other contributions at the receptions and there are enough new requirements for disclosure and advance notice to make them more trouble than they are worth.
