86% want to ban “big money” from political fundraising: Poll

[mentalfloss]

86% want to ban “big money” from political fundraising: Poll

An overwhelming majority of British Columbians want to ban union and corporate donations from party politics, says a new poll.

The province-wide survey by Insights West found 86 per cent of B.C. residents support a ban on corporate and union donations before the next election, including 81 per cent of B.C. Liberal voters and 91 per cent who voted for the B.C. New Democratic Party in the last election.

Also, 77 per cent of B.C. residents said it’s time to ban out-of-province donations and 76 per cent said they would support a cap on personal contributions.

Vancouver city council will vote on May 3 on a motion to hold a referendum on political financing, as part of the next election ballot in 2017.

So far, Premier Christy Clark has refused calls to ban large corporate and union donations to political parties, unlike Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, who vowed to ban corporate and union donations to political parties by Jan. 1, 2017.

The online poll commissioned by the Dogwood Initiative was conducted April 18-21 involving 803 adult B.C. residents.
Kai Nagata, communications director of the Dogwood Initiative, said he was surprised by the cross-party support in B.C. to ban corporate and union donations.

“I think it's a sign of the times,” he said. “By refusing to wean their parties off big money, Christy Clark and [NDP leader] John Horgan are making the situation worse.”

Dogwood says millions of dollars of donations to B.C. political parties come from real estate companies, paving companies, construction unions, trophy hunters, and oil & gas companies based in Alberta, Texas and Malaysia.

The poll by Insights West has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

http://m.metronews.ca/#/article/new...e-want-to-ban-big-money-from-bc-politics.html

 

[Ron in Regina]

So they want to do what Harper did with Federal Elections then.
Good on them. Maybe an $1,100 total cap per entity.

 

[mentalfloss]

Socialism?

 

[mentalfloss]

Christy Clark asking for political donation disclosure | News Talk 980 CKNW | Vancouver's News. Vancouver's Talk

 

[tay]

Corporate and union political donations should be unlimited: Kevin O’Leary

Corporate and union political donations should be unlimited: Kevin O’Leary | National Newswatch

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

I would also like to see an elimination of third party election advertising. And full disclosure of all individual contributions. I also support the personal limit as well.

 

[Nick Danger]

Whether or not a politician supports corporate/union donations may just be a pretty good measure of character. Of course it's easier to win an election when you have deeper pockets than your opponents, one's image in the media is everything these days as it is generally the largely uninformed votes that carries the day. But you haver to consider the philosophical break between corporations/unions and the individual voter. It's unlikely that the best interests of either group are anywhere near similar, promises made and kept, whether public or not, are usually in conflict. So when I cast my ballot a question I have to ask is who is supporting this candidate and to what kind of promises did they make to gain that support? That question would be a lot easier to answer if corporations and unions were left out of the equation.

 

[EagleSmack]

In Massachusetts the Democrats love corporate and union big money. Reason is they have a lock on this state and bury the GOP in fund raising.

 

[Nick Danger]

In Massachusetts the Democrats love corporate and union big money. Reason is they have a lock on this state and bury the GOP in fund raising.

The first thing the cynic in me wants to ask is what are the "sponsors" getting in return?

 

[EagleSmack]

The first thing the cynic in me wants to ask is what are the "sponsors" getting in return?

Well the public unions and state workers have incredible pensions. State workers (non-union) also have amazing pensions and their nests are feathered nicely so they campaign and donate hardily. State and Local governments are huge and filled with nepotism. As for the corporate side, well the Democrats have a lock so if you want tax breaks, a new building, etc.... you have to grease the skids either with money or hire someone's kid.

 

[Locutus]

86% want to __________

Lol

that many probably want to burn the roof of their mouth too.

anyway kids...

Did you know:

• 78 percent of Canadians think extraterrestrials are out there.
• 55 percent of Canadians think otherworldly beings have been to our planet.
• 10 percent of Canadians say they've already seen a UFO.
• 21 percent of Canadians think bigfoot is real

Aliens In Canada: Top 5 Cities To Spot UFOs



we already know that 38 percent of Canadians are half-baked, craft beer sipping meatheads. then there's the unicorn gaia hippies in the dipper section.

 

[EagleSmack]

Face it Loc.... Extraterrestrials in Canada is proven science and stuff. They're there and there is nothing you can do about it but accept they are.... filthy curmudgeon.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Face it Loc.... Extraterrestrials in Canada is proven science and stuff. They're there and there is nothing you can do about it but accept they are.... filthy curmudgeon.

78% consensus in fact.

 

[EagleSmack]

78% consensus in fact.

Fact. Accept it and be salty... UFOs exist cuz 78% think it. I think it is more like 97% though.

It's settled.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Fact. Accept it and be salty... UFOs exist cuz 78% think it. I think it is more like 97% though.

It's settled.

Close enough for horse shoes, hand grenades and climate science.

 

[Locutus]

filthy curmudgeon.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Fact. Accept it and be salty... UFOs exist cuz 78% think it. I think it is more like 97% though.

It's settled.

Maybe 97% of 80.5% making both of you right.

 

[darkbeaver]

In my county political favour is cheap, I,ve bought a chunk already.

Starving C atholic Masons for the most par, little momkey buggerers for the mmost part, completely unaware of stuff calkled future

you/re only here once? wrong, your'e here till you get it right, it might take ten thousand times, I'm at eleven hundred, the horizon is still distant

 

[petros]

Close enough for horse shoes, hand grenades and climate science.

And sh-t fights.

Maybe 97% of 80.5% making both of you right.

I'm an alien. I got on the Area 51 bus thinking it was the Area 51 B-Line.

 

[Nick Danger]

To quote a tired old phrase, "Money is the root of all evil", and in the case of politics it couldn't be more appropriate. There is a basic disconnect between our elected officials and those who elected them in the first place that gets more and more pronounced the further you move above municipal government. The voter quickly loses relevance to party policy and corporate interests. Removing corporate/union sponsorship of candidates would cure half the equation, party politics not so much but it would be a step in the right direction to place limits on how much "the party" could spend in support of their candidates as well. The aim should be to level the playing field so that financial advantage didn't play such a large roll in who gets elected.

This issue has come home locally in the last couple of civic elections. I live in a town of about 30,000, a popular retirement destination with an agricultural/tourism economy. There used to be a bylaw on the books that said candidates could only place campaign signs on private property. This makes perfect sense in that a candidate would have to have the support of the property owner in order to display a sign. Voters could safely assume that the number of signs they could see for any one candidate was a good indication of their popularity among voters. A couple of elections back the bylaw was changed to allow signs to be placed on city property, with some safety restrictions for traffic. All of a sudden every street corner, boulevard and public lawn became a garden of campaign signs, more often with each candidate trying to outnumber their opponents to gain visual advantage. Basically the candidate who afford to print the biggest, brightest and most signs would carry the weight of uninformed voters who were seduced by the advertising basic of name retention through repetition, even though candidate might not have the actual support of any voters who would support them enough to make that support public by displaying their signs on private property. It's my thought that this practice in civic politics promotes the same idea of "money can buy votes" that allowing corporate/union/party donations in provincial and federal politics does.

Leveling the financial playing field would offer a wider opportunity to independent candidates, another part of the equation. With enough independent members in our legislative bodies, members who by their very nature are more closely connected to their voters, the instances of party policy overriding what's best for the electorate would be diminished because there would be enough unaffiliated votes around to keep the big parties honest. This too, would be a step toward revitalizing the link between voter and representative. How often do we see good candidates fall by the wayside because voters vote the party first ? And good candidates who are elected under a party banner are quickly neutered in favour of party policy.