Harper Colleague says Vote Subsidy Axe is ploy to kill Liberals??

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
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??

Did you not read where I said I would support an end to the tax rebate on political contributions???

I am far from a rich guy.....I probably donated $500 to the CPC last year..........from which I got about $375 back in a tax credit..........

Yes, I would give less without the tax credit.

Without the credit, I would probably only donate a couple of hundred.....in fact, now the CPC is a majority, I may not donate at all.......:)

Mission accomplished.

we'll see how that works out.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
When we become transparent enough to ensure we always know how much is in each party's piggy bank, then we can control how much they should be getting in as much of a democratic fashion as possible.

Control control control. That's the key. Your world view seems to be that everything needs to be controlled so that it is 'democratic', to the point where nobody gets a choice because that would be undemocratic..

I believe that people should have a choice. Government should not be controlling donations to political parties, other than what is already done - personal contributions only, and a reasonable upper limit.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Control control control. That's the key. Your world view seems to be that everything needs to be controlled so that it is 'democratic', to the point where nobody gets a choice because that would be undemocratic..

I believe that people should have a choice. Government should not be controlling donations to political parties, other than what is already done - personal contributions only, and a reasonable upper limit.

Personal contributions are the only legal contributions right now.

The limit right now is $1100 per person per year.

You are advocating for something that Harper put in place years ago........
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Control control control. That's the key. Your world view seems to be that everything needs to be controlled so that it is 'democratic', to the point where nobody gets a choice because that would be undemocratic..

Slippery slope.

I would only control the aspects of democracy that ensure it is more democratic. After that, it's up to what the party platforms are promoting. A libertarian platform still needs to earn their vote through a controlled democracy.

When they win that majority they can provide the civil liberties their people voted them in for.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Where I still have a problem is the talk of removing or increasing limits for donations. At present it is $1100 yet if you look at a family with an annual income of $50K or less the odds of them being able to afford $500 let alone $1100 or more is negligible. Conversely Those with high incomes, $100k or more, could most likely afford $2000 or more. This winds up giving greater voice to the wealthy and moves away from true democracy.

I personally find the 'big money' component of our system to be repugnant already. Democracy is not about who can buy an election and we don't vote nationally for anyone so why is there a need for national campaigns? I think we need to figure out a way to make our federal elections more about the individual candidates in each riding. As an example, in my riding there was 1 town hall candidates meeting that was 2 hours long and the incumbent sent out 1 mailer. Other than that all we had was the national media which was all about the leaders none of whom I could actually vote for.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Where I still have a problem is the talk of removing or increasing limits for donations. At present it is $1100 yet if you look at a family with an annual income of $50K or less the odds of them being able to afford $500 let alone $1100 or more is negligible. Conversely Those with high incomes, $100k or more, could most likely afford $2000 or more. This winds up giving greater voice to the wealthy and moves away from true democracy.

Well this is precisely the problem with the new system.

Putting more power into the hands of the rich is silly. I don't know why anyone would support that.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Well this is precisely the problem with the new system.

Putting more power into the hands of the rich is silly. I don't know why anyone would support that.
I think back to the somewhat famous quote from GW Bush when addressing a gathering of fortune 500.

"Some will call you the rich and elite...I call you my base"

This is exactly where Harper is trying to go with this in hopes that he will have so much more funding that any other party he can stay in power for a long, long time. I don't even think it is disguised at all and is open for anyone to see. He has his 'majority' and will now do everything he can to keep it that way.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
I think back to the somewhat famous quote from GW Bush when addressing a gathering of fortune 500.

"Some will call you the rich and elite...I call you my base"

This is exactly where Harper is trying to go with this in hopes that he will have so much more funding that any other party he can stay in power for a long, long time. I don't even think it is disguised at all and is open for anyone to see. He has his 'majority' and will now do everything he can to keep it that way.


At $1100 per person, no corporate donations???

Let me explain something to you.....most of the CPC's cash comes from the grassroots, middle-class families that took up the Reform culture of joining in and contributing...........

Sour grapes just makes your face look funny.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Let me explain something to you.....most of the CPC's cash comes from the grassroots, middle-class families that took up the Reform culture of joining in and contributing........

Maybe. But whoever it is, $1,100.00 is still a lot of money for someone to blow all at once.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
At $1100 per person, no corporate donations???

Let me explain something to you.....most of the CPC's cash comes from the grassroots, middle-class families that took up the Reform culture of joining in and contributing...........

Sour grapes just makes your face look funny.

Colpy, I make a pretty good wage, not really high but well over the median. I also have a wife, 2 kids (one on his way to university), 2 mortgages, a substantial payment on my truck, multiple insurances etc, etc and of course I try to save for retirement. At the end of the day I would find it a big hit to toss $1100 at a political party. I suppose I could cut of my kids allowances or not visit the family in Alberta every summer but that's not likely to happen.

Now could I give $1100 if I really wanted to? Probably, but I know many people who can't. The point is that democracy is supposed to be fair and represent everyone, not just those who can afford it.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
First he routed Liberals – and now Harper hopes to bankrupt them


Stephen Harper is expected to move quickly to kill the per-vote taxpayer subsidies to political parties in an effort to kill the Liberal Party of Canada, according to a former colleague of the Prime Minister.

“Ever since his days at the [National Citizens Coalition], Stephen talked about eliminating the Liberals as a political force in Canada,” former NCC executive Gerry Nicholls said. “This was both for personal and tactical reasons. He didn’t like Liberals – he always viewed them as biased against Alberta.”

Mr. Flaherty said the extra savings to erase deficit in 2014-15 won't be booked until 2012 budget. This year’s plan, he said, will include a provision for Quebec HST compensation and phasing out of per-vote subsidies “as set out in the platform” Prime Minister Stephen Harper campaigned on killing the taxpayer stipend for political parties, but said he would only attempt the move if he won a majority government.

The Conservative platform noted that the $2-per-vote annual subsidy for political parties is currently a $27.4-million expense for the federal government. The platform promised to phase this out gradually over four years.

In addition, Mr. Nicholls told The Globe the Prime Minister,who had worked at the NCC between his stints in the House of Commons, also believed a two-party system “where it was the socialist NDP vs. free market Conservative, would be an advantage for the Tories.”

It appears as if his dreams are about to come true. The Liberals are down to just 34 seats and the infighting has begun; the Bloc Québécois is pretty much gone; and the NDP is the Official Opposition.


The Prime Minister has made no secret of his plans to get rid of the $2 per vote subsidy. During the campaign, he blamed frequency of elections on the taxpayer subsidy, which allows political parties to get “enormous cheques” whether “they raise any money or not.”

“The war chests are always full for another campaign,” he said on the hustings. “You lose one; immediately in come the cheques and you are ready for another one even if you didn’t raise a dime.”
Indeed, the separatist Bloc, although it never ran a national campaign, received more than $2.8-million every year after the 2008 election. Even though it won only four seats in the May 2 campaign, it garnered nearly 900,000 votes –and so will receive $1.8-million in subsidies.

Mr. Nicholls, who has written multiple articles on the subject, agrees with the Prime Minister about eliminating the subsidy as long as it for the right reasons. The taxpayer-funded top up, he said, “is a waste of tax dollars and wrong on principle – Canadians should not be forced to subsidize political parties.”

However Mr. Nicholls would prefer if the government also scrapped the contribution limit. Since the subsidy was introduced in 2004, there have been limits on how much individual Canadians can donate. The cap currently sits at $1,200 per person, per year.

“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.

More than that, Mr. Nicholls believes that keeping the contribution limit will make it “nearly impossible” for new parties to form.

That’s bad for democracy,” he said. “It could also open the door for some future government to impose contribution limits on advocacy organizations, like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.”

Still, his concern “centres on the PM’s motivation”, he said. “I fear he isn’t approaching the question based on what’s right or what’s fair or in the name of conservative principle.”

Per-vote subsidy on chopping block in Flaherty’s June 6 budget - The Globe and Mail


This is getting really scary. If the only choice Canadians have is between Conservatives or NDP, I'm worried our democracy will become almost as irrelevant as U.S. politics.

We should not be supporting a two party system.
If the concern is with some parties getting more funding than others, the best solution is not to keep the per-vote subsidy, but rather eliminate tax exemptions for donations to political parties.

I'm all for tax exemptions for charitable donations, but a political party is not a charity, but a political party. There is a distinction.

So, cutting the per-vote subsidy would hurt fringe parties the most, but eliminating tax exemptions for contributions to political parties would hurt major parties the most. There you go, even Steven.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
If the concern is with some parties getting more funding than others, the best solution is not to keep the per-vote subsidy, but rather eliminate tax exemptions for donations to political parties.

I'm all for tax exemptions for charitable donations, but a political party is not a charity, but a political party. There is a distinction.

So, cutting the per-vote subsidy would hurt fringe parties the most, but eliminating tax exemptions for contributions to political parties would hurt major parties the most. There you go, even Steven.

If you put a relatively low cap on the amount of funding each party can get and the excess must go toward healthcare, education, etc.. then I might shake your hand.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
If you put a relatively low cap on the amount of funding each party can get, then I might shake your hand.

Or how about this: the only ones who can contribute financially to the party are the candidates running, at x dollars per running candidate?

Now of course some might give to the candidate so that he in turn can give to the party, but that would still amount so so much the candidate can give to his party. And then the party woudl have to manage its funds for four years until the next election.

How's that?

Oh yes, and remove party names from ballots, and that would help too.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
Colpy, I make a pretty good wage, not really high but well over the median. I also have a wife, 2 kids (one on his way to university), 2 mortgages, a substantial payment on my truck, multiple insurances etc, etc and of course I try to save for retirement. At the end of the day I would find it a big hit to toss $1100 at a political party. I suppose I could cut of my kids allowances or not visit the family in Alberta every summer but that's not likely to happen.

Now could I give $1100 if I really wanted to? Probably, but I know many people who can't. The point is that democracy is supposed to be fair and represent everyone, not just those who can afford it.

There seems to be some belief that donating to a party has something to do with being able to vote.

That is incorrect.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
There seems to be some belief that donating to a party has something to do with being able to vote.

That is incorrect.
I don't think I said anything about being entitled to vote is dependent on donating to or joining a party.

I am talking about influence on the government. We all know that those that can donate the most get more influence, it is just human nature to pay more attention to someone who gives you $1100 and buys a $20,000 table at your fundraising luncheon. I am not just picking on Harper with this either, the libs and NDP do it too. My goal would be to remove this influence and make government accountable to the population not the donation.
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
I don't think I said anything about being entitled to vote is dependent on donating to or joining a party.

I am talking about influence on the government. We all know that those that can donate the most get more influence, it is just human nature to pay more attention to someone who gives you $1100 and buys a $20,000 table at your fundraising luncheon. I am not just picking on Harper with this either, the libs and NDP do it too. My goal would be to remove this influence and make government accountable to the population not the donation.

That's the thing and I submit how corporate rights come about in the first place and then carry more weight than a person's inherent rights and rights granted under the Charter.

I know when someone dumps an obscene amount of cash into my bank account they gain my ear when they want it. This just seems to put the open for business sign out on political parties.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
I don't think I said anything about being entitled to vote is dependent on donating to or joining a party.

I am talking about influence on the government. We all know that those that can donate the most get more influence, it is just human nature to pay more attention to someone who gives you $1100 and buys a $20,000 table at your fundraising luncheon. I am not just picking on Harper with this either, the libs and NDP do it too. My goal would be to remove this influence and make government accountable to the population not the donation.

Same.

If it takes a small percentage of one party's zealots to make the same contribution as a large percentage of another party's contributors, there will be no end to the lopsided influx of money.

I don't mind the switch, but cap the amount of campaign spending so that even if all parties max out, they all have an even amount of money to work with.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
That's the thing and I submit how corporate rights come about in the first place and then carry more weight than a person's inherent rights and rights granted under the Charter.

I know when someone dumps an obscene amount of cash into my bank account they gain my ear when they want it. This just seems to put the open for business sign out on political parties.

Let's not get started on corporate influence over government and corporate vs personal rights. I could rant for hours over that topic.

My views start from the standpoint of a corporation is a 'fictional' entity and therefore deserves no place in govt and very, very limited rights.