In 2010, the per-vote subsidy paid out of the federal Treasury to political parties will cost about $24 million. Meanwhile, the generous tax credit for political contributions made to political parties will result in about $21 million in revenue that Ottawa will forego this year. And when the bills are finally added up from the 2011 federal election, the taxpayer, through Elections Canada, will send out more than $60 million in rebates to parties and candidates for TV ads, brochures, and lawn signs.
In its budget Monday, the federal government announced the gradual phaseout — 51 cents a year — of the $2.04 per vote per year subsidy parties can earn.
I argue today that the per-vote subsidy is the most defensible of the public subsidy.
Hi David,
You're aware that the election rebates to parties and candidates are for all paid election expenses, and not simply the ones for advertising, I'm sure.
In the case of candidates, it is also for their allowable paid “candidate expenses” that are not election expenses (such as the cost of travel, which can be very high in the largest ridings).
I don't agree with your prescription to eliminate those rebates, as it would make local candidates even more dependent on their parties; and be harder still on independent candidates. If you want any hope of giving local MPs any autonomy from their party hierarchies, it has to be within their capacity to afford a campaign on their own. 37 days is not such a long time to raise $100K except in the most well-heeled ridings.
It would also make the barriers to entry of new parties nationally almost impossible.
These democratic subsidies are a very small price to pay to preserve democratic choice for us the voters, to be honest.
I don't agree with the per-vote subsidy. If the reasoning is that it's a small donation to the party you side with via vote, then it's a “forced” donation. It also rewards the popular party more than those which might most need it.
I am split on the rebates for election expenses. I think that rebates should be permitted, as it allows candidates to afford to run and make their voices an option. This betters democracy. But I don't get rebates for things I do or need unless I can justify financial need, and I think that parties/candidates should have to demonstrate need as opposed to just getting the rebates.
This would support independent or smaller candidates, but would keep the juggernaut parties from collecting rebates on expenses that the party could afford on the behalf of it's candidates. The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for the expenses of parties who rack in donations and can handle the costs when the parties could simply run fewer offensive attack ads and pay their own bills.
And I did agree with the higher exemption rate for donations to political parties. When you donate to charities, none of that goes into the government. They give you a tax rebate to acknowledge the virtue of helping (what is assumed to be) a cause that will benefit all Canadians in the long run.
I reasoned in my own head that by donating to a political party, you were contributing to the process of government, and therefore should get more return from the government… But that didn't sit right. The money is going to the party, but coming back from the government. The taxpayers as a whole are paying to cover the tax break on a person's donation to their party of choice. That means that if someone donates to the party I think is ruining things, I'm paying to cover part of that…
Now, I don't think I agree with that… Maybe making the tax break equal to that for charities… Contributing to the party you feel is most beneficial to all of Canada still has some merit…
Regardless, the problem with it all is that stacking each of these on top of the others makes them excessive. Allowing the rebates to a party that is raking in the donations takes unnecessary money from the taxpayers' pockets. And returning more on the donations, especially when the parties are already collecting rebates, means all taxpayers are paying for a congratulations to those who are donating to their own party. And the per-vote subsidy is frosting the cake at the cost of, and without the express consent of, the taxpayers.
In any case, I feel scrapping the per-vote subsidy is a step in the right direction.