British Columbia has many facets worthy of international acclaim — a fantastic natural environment, a rich aboriginal history, a lively arts culture and an economy that has fared well when others have faltered.
But there’s an aspect to B.C. that has caught the attention of the New York Times that is a cause for collective shame — political financing.
“British Columbia: The ‘Wild West’ of Canadian Political Cash,” said the headline Friday. The article recounts Premier Christy Clark’s annual $50,000 stipend from the B.C. Liberal Party, hinting that the payment could be construed as “personal enrichment from the handouts of wealthy donors, some of whom have paid tens of thousands of dollars to meet with her at private party fundraisers.”
The article delves into last year’s ruling by B.C. conflict-of-interest commissioner that there is no conflict in the party stipend, then notes that the commissioner’s son is a deputy minister in Clark’s government.
Unlike most of the rest of Canada, says the article, B.C. has no restrictions on who can make political donations and how much they can donate.
While that might be news to New York Times readers, there’s nothing in the article that hasn’t already been reported by B.C. media. And it’s something we have frequently criticized in editorials — three times in 2016 alone. And we used the term “wild west” twice.
Old news, right? Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
Not quite. Sometimes it takes the perspective of an outsider to help us see things more clearly. If all we’re seeing is B.C. politics, we might think the situation is normal, but someone looking at the broader picture, at other jurisdictions, will see it for the bizarre situation that it is. It isn’t acceptable, it isn’t ethical and it should be changed.
The B.C. Liberals insist there’s no need to restrict contributions, because money doesn’t buy political favours.
In 2010, as the Local Elections Task Force was hearing recommendations on campaign finance reform, Bill Bennett, minister of community and rural development at the time, rejected the idea that money buys influence.
“You don’t buy influence because you give a large donation,” he said. “You give a large donation because you believe in the person for the job, and probably that candidate encapsulates your world view more so than the other candidate. The assumption or belief that somehow or other you are buying influence is actually quite insulting to anyone who is in public office.”
It’s insulting all right — to anyone who can see the connection between money and influence, and to British Columbians who, according to a 2010 poll, overwhelmingly favour contribution limits and a ban on corporate and union donations.
Political insiders, too, know that money makes a difference in politics. In a 2016 TV interview, Martyn Brown, who served as chief of staff to former premier Gordon Campbell, gave a blunt assessment of political financing in B.C. “For the Liberals, the housing industry, construction industry, real estate, the liquor industry, energy industry, certainly the mining industry, big forest industry — all gave exceptional amounts of money, and they got exceptional attention,” Brown said.
“No corporation, no industry, no union gives the level of money that they give to politicians without expecting special consideration in return, and they do get it.”
Even if all politicians were so thoroughly ethical that they could disregard the source and size of contributions, there will always be the perception that money talks — and politicians listen.
The only sure way to remove the whiff of corruption is to bring in limits that ensure special interests cannot buy government favours. We don’t need a New York Times article to tell us that.
