Political Party Allowances

[styky]

Harper government moving to end party subsidies


By Althia Raj, Postmedia News May 20, 2011 1:01 PM
OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government will move quickly to cut the financial legs of its political opponents by moving to end the per-vote party subsidy in its June budget, Postmedia News has learned.

"We want political parties to raise funds directly from their supporters and not the taxpayers. So as soon as we can get that passed, that process will begin," Democratic Minister Tim Uppal told Postmedia news.

Uppal said he couldn't discuss whether the government planned a weaning off process for political parties. He said ministers were "still finalizing all these things."

A government source, however, said there would be a phasing out process ending the subsidy over time.

Political parties currently receive $2 annually for every vote they received in the last federal election. Payments for the next quarter, which include the May 2 election, are due on July 1st.

Harper told voters during the election that if his government was returned with a majority he would end the per-vote subsidy.

Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/decision-can ... z1MujjUjdM

[styky]

story cross link http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/v ... p?t=144133

[styky]

Kill the subsidy, but kill them all

Andrew Coyne on how political parties should be funded
by Andrew Coyne on Friday, June 3, 2011
With the impending heat death of the Liberal party—er, rather, with the approaching end of the $2-per-vote party subsidy—the commentariat is consumed with what this will mean for the various political parties, and what Stephen Harper’s motives might be for introducing it.

Well, that last bit’s obvious, isn’t it? He wants to destroy the Liberal party. Everybody knows that. But wait: maybe by obliging the opposition parties to rely more heavily on their own supporters for funds, rather than the taxpayer, he will only create a more motivated cadre of foes, while his own troops grow fat and complacent in office. Or maybe by starving the opposition of funds, he will force them to realize there is only room for one left-wing party, hastening the very unite-the-left movement that could one day be his undoing. But how could such a master strategist not see that? Maybe he wants a united left, the better to…

People. Isn’t it possible, just possible, that he’s doing this because…it’s the right thing to do?

Nah. I was just messing with you. Still, even if it’s supremely self-interested—the Conservatives raise more each year than all the other parties combined—that doesn’t mean it isn’t sound in principle. The Tories’ success isn’t a matter of a few monocled millionaires passing the top hat: their average donor gives less than $200. A system based on thousands of small contributors, inspired by a belief in a party’s principles rather than the expectation of some reward: that’s supposed to be what we all want, isn’t it? So how does it become wrong, just because the Tories are good at it and the other parties aren’t?

more - http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/06/03/kill ... -them-all/

[styky]

Corbella: How scrapping the per-vote subsidy will end up saving the Liberals


By Licia Corbella, Calgary Herald June 7, 2011

Prime Minister Stephen Harper gave the federal Liberals and other opposition parties a present Monday. Only, they don’t realize it. Not yet.

While opposition parties are grumbling about the phasing out of the per-vote subsidy, they really should be grateful. It will force political parties that grew lazy and stopped reaching out to their supporters to really start listening.

Per-vote subsidies were brought in by former prime minister Jean Chretien and came into effect on Jan. 1, 2004, at $1.75 per vote annually for that party.

Chretien established the per-vote subsidy after eliminating all corporate and union donations. The official reason for bringing in the subsidy was that after AdScam (where $100 million of taxpayer money was stolen to funnel some into federal Liberal party coffers) the perception of big business and big union influence on political parties needed to be snuffed out.

<a href=http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Corbella+scrapping+vote+subsidy+will+saving+Liberals/4902564/story.html#ixzz1OaoqYIUB>Read more:</a>

[Smaug]

Chretien established the per-vote subsidy after eliminating all corporate and union donations. The official reason for bringing in the subsidy was that after AdScam (where $100 million of taxpayer money was stolen to funnel some into federal Liberal party coffers) .....

A grand scheme in the Liberal tradition. Replace stealing with 'subsidy'. Either way, the Liberals dissapear the Taxpayer's cash, but instead of being ashamed they can be proud because they let other parties do it to.

[WestViking]

Chretien established the per-vote subsidy after eliminating all corporate and union donations. The official reason for bringing in the subsidy was that after AdScam (where $100 million of taxpayer money was stolen to funnel some into federal Liberal party coffers) .....

A grand scheme in the Liberal tradition. Replace stealing with 'subsidy'. Either way, the Liberals dissapear the Taxpayer's cash, but instead of being ashamed they can be proud because they let other parties do it to.

The subsidy could stay . . . . at $0.20 per vote rather than at $2.00 per vote. The difficuulty with a direct subsidy is that the political parties have no need to talk to electors. They have enough money to make presentations through advirtisments and televised 'attack ads' to try to sway the electorate, but have no need to actually converse with electors or to establish what the people they represent need or desire.

Subsidies for elector donations, on the other hand, require some direct contact between the candidate/party and the elector. The low ($1,200) limit on personal donations prevents undue influence by any donor supporter. The subsidy reduces as donations grow, making large donations less attractive:
75% tax reeipt for the first $400;
50% tax receipt for the next $350; and
33.33% tax receipt for any excess to a limit of a $650. tax credit on a $1,200 (maximum) donation.
Although under the Elections Act, a donor may give up to $1,200 to the local electoral district and up to $1,200 to the party national office, the tax receipts would be the same as above - that is a maximum of $650. for donations of up to $2,400.

Subsidies for election campaign spending serves the dual purpose of monitoring donations received and campaign spending limits. This is very much a level-the-playing-field exercise. Parties who accumulate a large 'war chest' still have to prove that donations are withing limits, tax receipts have been properly issued and that spending limits have been adhered to.

[styky]

Why the per-vote payday is worth saving

david-akin
By David Akin ,QMI Agency

First posted: Wednesday, June 8, 2011
By cutting the per-vote payday political parties get, the Conservatives are cutting the wrong giveaway.

There is, most Conservatives will even concede, a limited role for public financing of political parties. But the giveaways right now are too rich and should be trimmed.

In Monday’s budget, the federal government promised to eliminate the per-vote subsidy, particularly now, as Finance Minister Jim Flaherty told the House of Commons Monday, “at a time of fiscal restraint.”

But this handout, which will cost taxpayers about $24 million this year, is the most defensible of the three different ways taxpayers underwrite political parties.

In addition to the per-vote subsidy, taxpayers underwrite political parties through a tremendously generous tax credit for political contributions and also cover the costs of a hefty portion of all the advertising expenses incurred by candidates and parties during a general election.

Let’s look first at the political contribution tax credit. Canadians who donate to a political party can earn a tax credit worth 75% of their donation. A $100 donation, then, actually costs the donor just $25 because of this tax credit.

By contrast, a $100 donation to a charity like the Red Cross costs you $75.

The normal charitable donation tax credit is just 25%.

According to the Department of Finance, the political contribution tax credit cost all taxpayers an estimated $21 million in foregone revenue in 2010 alone.

Eliminating the political contribution tax credit, then, could save the government more than $80 million over the next four years “at a time of fiscal restraint.” Just putting the tax write-off for political contributions on the same basis as charitable donations could save as much as $50 million.

On top of that, most parties and candidates are able to qualify for a rebate of the costs of their general election signs, TV ads and brochures. For the 2008 election, the tab for this was $52.9 million.

The bills have not yet been totalled for the last election but we can assume it will be about the same or a little more.

So over the next four years, the federal treasury will subsidize political activity to the tune of about $130 million just in tax credits and rebates alone.

The per-vote subsidy over that time will cost about $100 million.

The per-vote subsidy, though, is split in a way that is directly proportional to each party’s popular vote at a rate of $2.04 per year per vote.

So for the Conservatives, that adds up to an annual subsidy of $11.6 million per year.

For the Greens, this subsidy is worth about $1 million a year.

By contrast, the tax credit and the rebates go disproportionately to larger parties which means taxes from a Green Party vote, for example, might help support the Liberals or the Conservatives.

The per-vote subsidy ensures a Green voter is only subsidizing the Green Party and no others.

There is merit to limited public support of party financing and Flaherty and the Conservatives are right to conclude public support right now is too rich.

But the per-vote subsidy is the fairest and most equitable way of helping to finance legitimate political activity in this country.

The tax credit should be reduced and rebates for advertising costs eliminated.
http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/06/07/why ... rth-saving

[WestViking]

In Monday’s budget, the federal government promised to eliminate the per-vote subsidy, particularly now, as Finance Minister Jim Flaherty told the House of Commons Monday, “at a time of fiscal restraint.” But this handout, which will cost taxpayers about $24 million this year, is the most defensible of the three different ways taxpayers underwrite political parties.

The 'per vote' subsidy is always historical - that is as of the last election. For the next four years, the CPC will benefit from its majority win while the Liberals suffer for their election loss. The NDP benefits greatly from the BQ - NDP shift while the BQ is wiped out for practical purposes. Core Conservative, NDP and Liberal support has not changed as drastically as the election results show, and it is likely that in 2015 the balances will be closer to historical norms. Per vote subsidies reduce the need for political parties to connect with their supporters. They have the funds and can run their organizations and campaign without supporter contact.

Improving voter rebate subsidies requires political parties to sell their platforms to electors. No sale, no donation. This subsidy requires that political parties at least communicate with electors and supporters.

I wrote about the electoral campaign subsidies above.

[styky]

Parties get last allowance based on 2008 vote
By Laura Payton, CBC News
Posted: Jul 4, 2011 4:56 PM ET
Last Updated: Jul 4, 2011 4:56
Elections Canada has paid out its last party allowances based on the results of the 2008 election, the agency said Monday.

It means a big change is coming for some of the parties, with the Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois and Green Party about to see a plunge in the amount of money they get. The Conservatives and NDP will see an increase, at least until the government starts phasing out the subsidy.

Registered political parties in Canada get a $2.04 per-vote subsidy, which the Conservatives plan to cut gradually over the next four years. It's paid out in four equal amounts every three months.

Even without phasing out the subsidy, three of the opposition parties would have seen a lot less money, based on much lower vote shares in the May 2 election.

The Liberals, who got $1,851,789 in this round of quarterly allowances, dropped from about 3.6 million votes in 2008 to about 2.8 million in 2011. That means a difference of as much as $1.7 million a year until the current allowance drops as part of the planned phase-out.

The Bloc, which got $703,364 for the past quarter, went from almost 1.4 million votes in 2008 to just under 890,000 in 2011. That means up to about $1 million less in funding.

And while the Green Party elected Leader Elizabeth May as its first-ever MP in Canada, the national vote dropped from about 938,000 to just over 576,000. That means a difference of about $737,000 a year in funding.

The Conservative vote increase from 5,209,069 to 5,832,401 means about $1.3 million more over the coming year for the party's coffers.

The NDP surge from about 2.5 million to over 4.5 million is worth about $4 million to them.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... ances.html

[WestViking]

THE RESULTS OF THE SEOND QUARTERLY ALLOWANCE WAS:

PARTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SECOND QUARTER
Bloc Québécois. . . . . . . . . . . . $703,364
Conservative Party of Canada. . . $2,654,997
Green Party of Canada . . . . . . . $477,890
Liberal Party of Canada . . . . . . .$1,851,789
New Democratic Party . . . . . . . .$1,282,011

THE THIRD QUARTERLY ALLOWANCE WILL BE (ESTIMATED) :

PARTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THIRD QUARTER
Bloc Québécois. . . . . . . . . . . . $453,569
Conservative Party of Canada. . . $2,973,066
Green Party of Canada. . . . . . . .$293,729
Liberal Party of Canada. . . . . . . $1,418,723
New Democratic Party . . . . . . . .$2,298,195