Big Campaign Monies in Canadian Politics-By Minkyo Kim

Controversies have dogged the funding of Canadian political campaigns for decades now. Monies for political campaigns keep increasing with each election as corporations and wealthy individuals “donate” handsomely to their preferred candidates and political parties. A remark made by Mark Hanna in 1895, “There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money and I can't remember what the second one is,” seem to reflect the real situation in the Canadian political landscape today .^:237 Despite constitutional amendments aimed at controlling the funding of political parties, little has been achieved to cut down funding from corporations and wealthy individuals. The big campaign monies have affected governance, the Canadian economy, equality of citizens, and democracy adversely.

There have been numerous concerns across Canada on how much influence campaign donations have on politics and voters. In the 2004 Canadian general elections, for instance, “total party and candidate campaign spending exceeding one hundred million Canadian dollars”. Interestingly, incumbents spent the larger chunk of the money and most of them successfully defended their seats. Over the years, the amount of money used in campaigns and campaign outcomes have been studied and found to have a positive relationship. The findings show that money is used to influence election outcomes, which is contrary to democratic expectations where policies, personality, and level of integrity are the main determinants of election outcomes. In a move to regulate party funding and enable fairness in elections, the federal government introduced financial legislation. Despite the presence of these reforms, parties continue to receive secret funding used to influence elections. The loopholes in the electoral funding policies have seen the problem spiral out of control as interest groups receive vast amounts of money on behalf of candidates and their political parties. Interestingly, while the reform concentrates on the money parties spend during elections, the same law allows the candidates to receive unlimited donations to boost campaigns and other electoral activities. Although many argue that modern politics require a lot of money and resources than before, many politicians have resorted to corrupt ways to win members of the public and consequently elections. But what are the consequences of the big monies in Canadian politics?

Corporations and wealthy individuals who give large sums of money to politicians and their political parties can be compared to persons who give bribes to referees to influence the outcome of games. Interestingly, many people will see this unacceptable and immoral in sports. Unfortunately, it is acceptable and legal in Canadian politics. Politicians should represent public interest and be the voice of the people (Urbinati & Warren, 2008). However, when wealthy people with private interests are allowed to buy them with big campaign “donations,” they cannot represent the people fairly. The big monies make politicians tools and slaves of their funders. They represent their interest at the expense of public interest. In sports, bribed referees will often make decisions that favor the team that bribed them. They may award undeserved penalties to the team or deny their opponents a deserved penalty. The same case has been going on in the Canadian congress for years. Even though a majority of the public may be pushing for a specific policy, their success may be impossible if their interest is in conflict with that of financers. There have been many cases where politicians are elected because of championing populist ideologies. However, upon assuming office, they seem to change their stance on the very issues that they were very passionate about. According to Urbinati & Warren, the change of heart is often attributed to the influence of power brokers who protect the interest of big corporations and wealthy individuals financing Canadian politics. When such cases happen, it is the public who lose while the financers win. Democracy demands, “One person should have one vote”. In reality however, sponsors seem to have more votes in the country. Even when their interest goes against public interest, politicians will usually do as they demand.

The big monies in Canadian politics have also had a negative influence on the country’s economy. One may wonder how the big monies affect the economy yet they are spent in the country. As already noted, interest groups get unfair advantage and favoritism from elected officials. According to Grossmann, “a privileged group of well-connected and savvy businesses milk $125 billion a year out of the treasury in grants, subsidies, low-interest loans, tax credits, regulatory exemptions, deductions and deferrals.”^:82 When the financers secure tax credits and subsidies for their businesses, it is the Canadian public that loses. Worst still, when the businesses belonging to financers are in the verge of collapse, they are bailed out as a favor to financial backers. This has seen a lot of carelessness and huge risk taking on the part of businesses, which is against business ethics. It is unacceptable that when the businesses amass huge profits, they only give a small percentage of their profits to candidates and their political parties. However, when their greed directs them to risky businesses and they fail, the government bails them out in billions unconditionally. The money used for bailout is not for the politicians but the public!

Big monies influence public opinion making corrupt and undemocratic leaders assume public office simply because they represent the interest of sponsors. Politicians who enjoy the backing of financers can afford to have huge billboards, TV adverts, radio time, and other forms of advertisement that those with few or no financers cannot have. In this respect, huge funding moves them closer to the people thereby crowding voters’ minds even when the leaders have nothing worthwhile to offer. Freudenberg claims that the current situation makes it hard for leaders with integrity to be heard because corrupt leaders use their strong financial backing to make deafening noise on the campaign trail.

It is clear that big campaign monies deny people the freedom of choice. Even when voters think they are choosing their preferred candidates, they are simply falling for sponsor’s tricks. Sponsors select their candidates and oil their campaigns thereby crowding voters’ minds and limiting their choices. In most cases, good leaders are those who have no funding but their chances are narrow because they have no fair news coverage and publicity. According to Miller, The overwhelming majority of electoral contests are not won on their merits, but by those who raised the most money, by those whose privately funded speech drowns out the speech of others. Highly qualified and public-spirited individuals who would make superb public officials choose not to run because of the extraordinary price of admission to the electoral arena; this limits the people's choices to the few who can finance their own campaigns or appeal to organized special interest financiers.

Big campaign monies make governments and leaders act unethically and should be limited. Theodore Roosevelt saw the problem years ago and stated, “The supreme political task of our day… is to drive the special interests out of our public life”.^:217 Franklin Roosevelt also added to the debate by claiming, “We now know that government by organized money is as dangerous as government by organized mob”.^:76 But what can be done to solve the problem of big campaign monies in Canadian politics? The election laws should be tightened, increase public funding to political parties, and limit campaign expenditure regardless of how much money is collected by candidates and political parties.

With Canada having enjoyed the fruits of democracy and peace for far too long, the government and the people should not sit back and witness big campaign monies eroding its hard earned democracy and freedom of choice. As witnessed by both political and financial analysts, Canada should not abolish the per-head subsidy because it creates equality for both the contesting parties and the different classes of citizens. Therefore, for a better future of Canada, the federal government should ban private and corporate contributions in politics.