It may be easier, as the Bible suggests, for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven. But the idea behind the proposed elections-financing reform bill now creeping through the legislative process is to apply similar strictures on a rich man trying to get into Parliament.
In short, party politics as we know it is about to change fundamentally, and not everybody is happy about it.
Whether the thrust for change can be attributed to the excesses of the current Liberal leadership campaign, or a recognition that traditional party organization and financing is untenable in the 21st century, (or merely Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's determination to check off another promise), Bill C-24 would rejig the rules for political parties.
The bill not only tightens existing election-spending rules but also extends legislative oversight to a broad range of currently murky political activity, such as how party leaders or candidates are chosen. The philosophical issue underlying the bill is whether political parties are the core of our democratic system and therefore entitled to more public funds or whether they are merely private, voluntary organizations that should be financed only by individuals or corporations in after-tax dollars.
Ed Broadbent, the former NDP leader, argued before a Commons committee recently that political financing should be reformed in such a way that a welfare recipient has the same influence on the system as a millionaire. A cynical observer might say good luck.
At the other pole, the Canadian Alliance and organizations such as the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation say parties are private political organizations and should have no tax-dollar subsidies.
Even without C-24, taxpayers finance about 50 per cent of election costs through rebates and tax credits. The bill goes much further, banning all corporate and union donations to political parties and severely limiting the amount they can contribute to individual candidates. No more big fundraising dinners where corporations pick up the tab, no more mystery cheques going into leadership-campaign trust funds. Which should reduce some of the cynicism about the process.
To compensate for the lost corporate and union support, the bill would increase the tax credits and refunds and create a new annual allowance for parties set at $1.50 per vote received in the previous election, with additional help in election years. The CTF's federal director, Walter Robinson, said the $24-million cost of the new annual allowance amounts to "fleecing" the taxpayers.
Therein lies the irony. The purpose of the legislation is to reduce or at least even out the impact of money on election campaigns and in so doing make the playing field closer to level. But the proposed annual allowance is greater than the total amount the parties have collected from corporations and unions, i.e., an incentive to spend more rather than less.
The other problem is that the proposed allowance militates hugely in favour of the party in office because it is based on votes. Indeed, that is how the Prime Minister's senior policy adviser, Eddie Goldenberg, sold the corporations ban to his caucus.
The challenge, then, is to find a way to compensate for the loss of corporate donations that would reflect the changing level of party support between elections. It should also reward effort to create new parties or rebuild old ones.
One way would be to revise the allowance annually based on paid-up party membership. But as we have seen in countless nomination and leadership races, party membership often means little more than filling out a card.
Mr. Broadbent suggested taxpayers be given the option of "voting" every year on their income-tax form, letting them choose which party should receive their $1.50 contribution to the allowance.
Clearly, fundamental principles are at stake, and for better or worse, they are likely to become a fait accompli before anyone notices.