Harper Colleague says Vote Subsidy Axe is ploy to kill Liberals??
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
I would say that this move is definitely in self-interest by the cons. Their base are predominately wealthy and therefore more likely to be able to contribute much more than those with lower incomes who would usually support a more socially responsible party.
Increasing or removing a cap on donations would then allow for greater funding of the conservatives than say the NDP, I think this is pretty self-evident. Plus as MF points out the attached tax credit is foisted upon people who do not support the party at all.
I would rather see the personal donation limit lowered or removed and all the tax benefits done away with. Let the parties exist on membership dues alone and give a set amount to each legitimate party for each election, say $5 million. I don't like the whole system of running a national campaign anyway as our MPs are supposed to represent their constituents locally and it doesn't cost much to campaign in your own riding.
Democracy should not come down to those with the biggest wallets, otherwise it is just an Oligarchy!
Increasing or removing a cap on donations would then allow for greater funding of the conservatives than say the NDP, I think this is pretty self-evident. Plus as MF points out the attached tax credit is foisted upon people who do not support the party at all.
I would rather see the personal donation limit lowered or removed and all the tax benefits done away with. Let the parties exist on membership dues alone and give a set amount to each legitimate party for each election, say $5 million. I don't like the whole system of running a national campaign anyway as our MPs are supposed to represent their constituents locally and it doesn't cost much to campaign in your own riding.
Democracy should not come down to those with the biggest wallets, otherwise it is just an Oligarchy!
Actually, I read another post that might be a better solution.
We could keep these private subsidies - but then cap government election expenditures to be the same amongst all parties. Any excess, over and above that limit received should go back to ALL voters in the form of a tax credit.
This would force the parties to work within their means and donators would be giving money back to all of Canada - the nation that they love and wish to prosper *cough* *cough*..
Of course, this game of fairness probably wouldn't be a welcome idea to conservatives who are banking on getting the highest funding.
Switched sides?
He was in High School for gosh sake. (Young Liberals of Canada.)
Talk about grasping at a straw.:lol:
What I find odd is that Unforgiven doesn't embrace Harper's ideology. After all, he was born in Toronto Unf.
“If he scrapped the contribution limit along with the subsidy, the Liberals and other opposition parties would at least have a fighting chance. They could make up for the lost subsidy through aggressive fundraising,” he said.
-----------------------------
I agree..... if you get rid of one, then get rid of the other. I don't need self interest groups and big corps dishing out all kinds of money for any party that will work for them over the regular citizen. All one needs to do is have a big company with lots of money, and toss all kinds of donations to their specific political party using multiple names, such as the names of their employees, which really means one person is giving more then their restricted donation by using multiple names.
I didn't say the Conservatives are doing this, or any particular political party is doing this, but generally speaking, it's a risk that it or something similar can happen and in my opinion, it should be scrapped just like the subsidy.
This type of corruption might not even possible, but there is always room for some type of corruption or run around on a current system to make it unfair.... so scrap the entire thing.
I seen some people in here comment that if a party can't support themselves without the Subsidy, then they shouldn't exist..... well the same applies with the self-interest donations.
Get rid of both and make the system fair, or don't touch the damn thing period.
All this will do is either force competition and choice out of our democracy, or force the other political parties to start acting like the Conservatives and have self-interest groups & corporations lining their pockets to stay afloat.
Either way, you no longer have a Democracy.
-----------------------------
I agree..... if you get rid of one, then get rid of the other. I don't need self interest groups and big corps dishing out all kinds of money for any party that will work for them over the regular citizen. All one needs to do is have a big company with lots of money, and toss all kinds of donations to their specific political party using multiple names, such as the names of their employees, which really means one person is giving more then their restricted donation by using multiple names.
I didn't say the Conservatives are doing this, or any particular political party is doing this, but generally speaking, it's a risk that it or something similar can happen and in my opinion, it should be scrapped just like the subsidy.
This type of corruption might not even possible, but there is always room for some type of corruption or run around on a current system to make it unfair.... so scrap the entire thing.
I seen some people in here comment that if a party can't support themselves without the Subsidy, then they shouldn't exist..... well the same applies with the self-interest donations.
Get rid of both and make the system fair, or don't touch the damn thing period.
All this will do is either force competition and choice out of our democracy, or force the other political parties to start acting like the Conservatives and have self-interest groups & corporations lining their pockets to stay afloat.
Either way, you no longer have a Democracy.
This line of reasoning needs to be more widespread. The media has to hammer this point home and get the government to make the correct amendment to this decision.
Man I am tired of the BS.
The personal limit is $1100.......
Corporate and union donations are illegal.
To contribute in another's name is a serious offence under the law.
The per-vote subsidy is only one of several......and it needs to go.
If you have a problem with that, join a party and put your money where your mouth is.....literally.
We already live in a corporate dictatorship, so the subsidy is pointless anyway. How many of our politicians have numbered accounts in the Cayman Islands waiting for them to retire from politics? Corporate donations can be made, just not out in the open. Why do you think lobby groups are so successful; why they are so richly rewarding and why so much money flows through lobbyists? Majority governments are ripe for corruption.
Majority governments do, over time, attract the power-hungry and the corrupt in droves, that is exactly what happened to the Liberal Party.
If you have specific knowledge of wrong-doing, please contact the closest office of the RCMP.
Otherwise, you are simply talking out of your arse.
If they were easy to track they wouldn't be secret. Do you think the bankers in the Caymans will spill the beans? It would put them out of business.
Many of us do not wish too contribute to any political party, privately or forced through taxation. Furthermore I do not support tax deductions for contributions since that is still a taxpayer funded donation. Donate your own money.
The last time I said someone was "talking out of their arse" I got an infraction in the forums as it was deemed an insult.
So if you can't donate my money to your party you would donate less. Interesting, how about that put your money where your mouth is statement??
Fair enough, however, with this in mind, it's a pretty egregious statement to state that many of the politicos have these accounts in place.