| A national debate has emerged over Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s plan to limit donations to politicians and replace them with public financing.
Chrétien’s proposal has drawn support and disdain from both ends of the political spectrum. Under the plan, the federal government would put strict limits on the amount of money corporations, unions and individuals can donate to politicians, but would provide cash to each party based on their results in previous elections.
Gerry Nicholls, vice-president of the conservative National Citizens’ Coalition, says he doesn’t mind the bill’s proposed spending limits, but it’s wrong to force taxpayers to support political parties they may not agree with.
"(The government) essentially says the taxpayer should subsidize or support a political party they don’t believe in," Nicholls says. "You should have the right to not associate with political parties."
Nicholls says the way money is doled out under the bill also puts new and nascent political parties at a disadvantage because public money would go to election winners. He says he understands the desire to limit donations from corporations and unions because they carry a perception of corruption, but says taxpayers should not be forced to pay for that change.
"If (the government) wants to ban corporate donors and union donors, fine, then they should make up the shortfall from individual (donors), not taxpayers."
Aaron Freeman, a member of Ottawa-based Democracy Watch, praised many parts of Chrétien’s proposed campaign finance reform bill – his group has been pushing for such measures for years.
Freeman supports the idea of taxpayer-funded political campaigns because he thinks it will lead to a cleaner political system. However, he adds that Chrétien’s proposal gives out too much money.
"We think it’s good for citizens to pay a minimal amount to make elections cleaner," he says. "We’re not against public financing, but what this would do is remove corporate financing and more than replace it with public financing."
Freeman also says that if donations are limited, the legislation must be air-tight so donors can’t find loopholes.
Overall, he calls the bill a step towards a political system that is more independent from the influence of money.
"Corporations don’t vote. Unions don’t vote," he says. "They shouldn’t be able to influence governments with their dollars. It’s a philosophical thing." |
