RE: FORSETH – As Big Three parties feed at the trough, others are left in the cold (Posted on January 29, 2018).
Contrary to Forseth’s assertion, per-vote subsidies are the most democratic way to finance elections campaigns for parties. Getting rid of corporate donations was a good step toward improving our democratic processes, but we need to go further. If we continue to allow parties to rely on fundraising from private donors, the end result is that the rich will determine who wins, and which policies are implemented. Per vote subsidies tie the money that parties get to the number of people who support them, and the cost to us all is very modest.
Forseth states that “Government should not be subsidizing parties.” But he’s missing a larger point: WE, the taxpayers, are paying either way, because we fund the generous 75% tax credits that individual donors get for political donations.
But Forseth apparently thinks those subsidies are just fine. Why complain about per-vote subsidies and ignore the fact that we are paying for tax credits to political donors? It makes no sense, and it harms the more economically-challenged among us the most.
If we don’t use publicly funded per-vote subsidies, the less well-off among us are doubly disadvantaged: poorer people can’t afford to make direct donations to political candidates, and therefore have less influence; at the same time, poorer people are subsidizing the priorities of rich people because, like it or not, we all pay our share of the tax credits that political donors get for their donation. This is madness, from an equality and a representation perspective.
A side point: Forseth makes it sound like the feds have never used per vote subsidies, but in fact they were the norm federally until the Harper Conservatives ditched them (again, because their party had better access to the deep pockets of corporations and lobbyists than the others).
When the party which has held power for most of the past several decades crows about how “unfair” per-vote subsidies are for taxpayers, I think we need to look at bit deeper at the motives behind their position. Sadly, more often than not, we realize that their “outrage” is blatantly self-serving. Now that corporations can no longer donate to election campaigns, party hacks are even more intent on preserving the ability of their wealthy private donors to skew elections through individual donations.
If the BC Libs are so strongly opposed to per-vote subsidies, I would second Forseth’s suggestion that they refuse the money and donate it to something useful: hospitals, schools, or maybe drug treatment centres. Instead, they have floated the idea of using it to fund the fight against proportional representation — how very convenient for them.
Getting rid of per-vote subsidies would force the BC Libs to play on a level playing field based on their level of popular support — you can see why they don’t like that idea. It’s exactly why they are opposed to updating our electoral system (despite not even using it for their own party leader elections anymore): it would mean that the unfair systems which for decades have worked to their advantage would be made fairer for all.
Per vote subsidies and electoral reform are not attention-grabbers. However, I sincerely hope that enough people will think past the superficial spin which is flying about in the media to look at how these issues actually affect VOTERS, not political PARTIES. Because in the end, voters’ best interest should come first.