When Money Talks, Democracy Has No Voice

When Money Talks, Democracy Has No Voice

By: Ryan Young

There was quite a bit of talk about political finance reform going around the province last week. Both NDP leader, Earle McCurdy and former Premier, Tom Marshall spoke out publicly in favor of getting rid of large corporate and union donations to political parties. This comes in the wake of a Telegram article that reported Corner Brook Pulp and Paper as being the Liberal’s largest corporate donor, at the same time that the provincial government was making a deal with the company to shore up their pension plan.

Now I am certainly not suggesting that the two have anything to do with each other. In fact, the recent pension deal seems to be a good one for both the province and the company. If there was any issue with the deal at all, it would have to be from the original deal signed under the previous administration. The problem is that in politics, optics are everything and when you see the government making deals with large political donors, it can’t help but breed cynicism and contempt. It is exactly why a large portion of our population think that all politicians are crooks.

An old adage says that when money talks, democracy has no voice. The truth of that statement might be debatable among political circles, but the electorate take it to heart. As far as the average voter in Newfoundland and Labrador are concerned, we are still living under a merchant class system. How could we ever convince them that we are not? Maybe I am naïve in thinking that corruption in politics is the exception rather than the rule, but it is not hard to understand why many people feel differently. As long as the government is doing big money deals with big time political donors, the idea that politicians are crooks will be a hard one to break.

One of the things that really breeds contempt for the system is the way that donors change their allegiances (and their donations) depending on which party is in power or is expected to take power soon. From a voter’s perspective, the only reasonable assumption is that these donations are not made based on political views but on the hope of being in the good books of the governing party when it comes time to divvy out government contracts. Democracy Watch has called our political finance system nothing more than “legalized bribery,” and by all accounts it seems like the majority of our elected officials are quite fine with that label and the status quo.

On an even more disturbing note, it was also reported in the Telegram last week that the St. John’s Board of Trade will be hosting a cash-for-access fundraiser that will give anyone willing to shell out $500 for the opportunity to mingle with the premier and a handful of ministers and federal MP’s. The premier’s office says that it will be a valuable opportunity to meet with business leaders and that they consider all requests seeking the premier’s participation in fundraising activities. MP Nick Whalen has compared it to a “charity fundraiser.” According to James Mcleod, Whalen said: “When people talk about cash-for-access, they mean cash for the politicians for access to the politicians. They don’t mean a charity fundraiser.” I’m not sure I agree with Mr. Whalen on that point since the members who pay the fee get direct access to key decision makers in government. That sounds like cash-for-access to me and the whole thing does not seem to be sitting well with the public at large.

Fixing this problem is so easy that it is ridiculous that it has not been done already Either remove, or place a sensible cap on all donations to political parties. That way there can be no preferential treatment for the biggest donors because no individual, corporation or union would be able to donate any more than any other. Our democracy should not be dependent on who can raise the most campaign dollars or spend the most money on lobbying for favorable contracts or legislation. Confidence in our political system is at an all time low, as evidenced by the record low voter turnout in the last election and the dismal approval ratings of all three parties. It’s time to take the first and easiest step in renewing confidence in our democracy and take the money out of politics once and for all.

Taking Money out of Politics

Taking Money out of Politics


By: Ryan Young 

When Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch raised the alarm last week on Newfoundland and Labradors political finance laws, most people in the province simply rolled their eyes. Political corruption and backscratching was so ingrained in the political culture here for so long that people take for granted that it’s just the way things work around here.
 
It’s no secret that in the golden days of Confederation, lucrative government contracts were reserved for those who supported the government and made regular campaign contributions. Things were so bad under Smallwood that some business owners would not even do business with someone if they were known to be a Tory. Certainly, there are many more safeguards in place these days, such as public tendering, to ensure these things no longer happen, but with the giant shadow of Muskrat Falls hanging over us all, people can’t help but wonder how much favor might have been curried for those Nalcor contracts that never had to go through the tender process.

Conacher went so far as to call our current system “legalized bribery.” Those are strong words, but it can’t be denied that we have the most relaxed rules in the country when it comes to the way we finance politics. There are currently no limits on who can donate to a party or how much they give. In the wake of the federal government announcing new rules for private “cash for access” fundraising events, Democracy Watch thinks that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should be more concerned about their own system.

"What everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador should realize is the system is the scandal, and the system is corrupt," said Conacher.

"You may not see a particular scandal where you will be able to connect a donation exactly to the handing out of the contract, but overall that system is corrupting decision making."

Premier Dwight Ball has a different view. He is satisfied with the way things are currently done because the donations are publicly posted for everyone to see, even if those reports are often a year or two behind schedule before they are published. Ball insists that he does not look at the Liberal donation list when making government decisions. Of course, when he was running for leader of the Liberal party, Ball was a supporter of reform and wanted caps on political donations. Now that he has the power to make the changes, he seems to have lost the appetite. It is not hard to see why so many people are cynical and find it so easy to believe that the whole system is corrupt.

Independent MHA, Paul Lane, began calling on the government last summer to implement a number of democratic reforms, including campaign finance reform. He insists that far too much money is spent on marketing candidates and that the amount of money a candidate can spend should be greatly reduced. In light of the recent revelations by Democracy Watch, Lane told Pete Soucy on VOCM that he will continue to advocate for reform as we move towards the next election.

Democracy Watch has called for a ban on corporate and union donations and a limit of $100 per individual donation, similar to the rules in the province of Quebec. While some may argue that $100 is too low for a small province like Newfoundland and Labrador, the individual amount is not nearly as important as the removal of corporate and union donations. I wouldn’t hold my breath on the government making any meaningful change in their current mandate, but I have a feeling it will end up as an election issue in 2019, whether the Liberals want it to be or not.