May 21, 2010

Mr. Wayne Drysdale, MLA

Grande-Prairie – Wapiti

Chair, Standing Committee on Public Safety

c/o Jody Rempel, Committee Clerk,

801 Legislature Annex,

9718-107 Street,

Edmonton, Alberta,

T5K 1E4

RE: Financial disclosure rules for party leadership contestants

Dear Mr. Drysdale,

It has come to our attention that your committee has been asked by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to review and make recommendations for potential legislation surrounding financial disclosure rules for party leadership contestants.

It is my pleasure to provide some input on behalf of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and our over 74,000 supporters nation-wide.

Our mandate is: lower taxes, less waste and accountable government.  The issue of disclosure of financial contributions to candidates for leadership of provincial political parties fall within the accountable government portion of our mandate.

We have been active in pursing stronger campaign contribution disclosure at all levels of government for most of the past decade.  In fact, our website (www.taxpayer.com) is the only location where all of the 2006 PC Leadership Campaign financial disclosure documents are currently located.

However, while we would favour any form of mandatory disclosure of contributions, we believe mandatory pre-vote disclosure of campaign contributions is a necessary step to ensure transparency and accountability for our elected leaders and for those who will have access to the powers of spending the public purse.

Why disclose contributions?

Election and leadership campaigns need money to communicate their messages to party members and the public.  This money can either come from the candidate or from contributors to the campaign.  In most cases, at least for the more serious contenders, a significant portion is coming from donors.  Those donors may be contributing for various reasons (eg. personal or family relationships, supportive of campaign platform or candidate beliefs, to gain future access and influence, etc.).  These, and others, are all very valid reasons for making contributions, and should be considered a form of expression by the individual.  As such, it should be protected and not limited as freedom of expression is a fundamental freedom guaranteed by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There is a strong belief (driven by years of it actually occurring in many jurisdictions) that those who have access and influence over elected leaders will use those advantages to benefit themselves, at the expense of taxpayers.  Therefore, there is a strong and understandable desire from many citizens to seek to limit the ability for others to influence candidates, elected officials and party leaders.  This is a near impossible task without violating the right of others to express themselves through campaign contributions.  However, the only option that both protects the freedom of expression, while exposing and potentially limiting influence is to, by law, disclose all financial contributors to election and leadership campaigns, before the vote.

Pre-election disclosure of campaign contributions allows all voters to walk into the ballot booth with full knowledge (or at least the ability to gain full knowledge) of who is going to potentially be influencing each candidate after the election.

For example, a small-business owner or union member might alter their vote in an election if they knew that other small businesses or unions were financially contributing to a particular candidate.

Learning this information after the vote is significantly less useful to the average citizen or party member.  With post-election disclosure citizens can use the information to attempt to see if the victor is in fact being influenced by their donors, but they cannot pass judgement for years into the future in most cases.  However, if they have access to the information before the vote, they can make their choice with full knowledge of who is likely to be influencing the victor post-election.

Disclose spending?

We believe the goal of any new piece of legislation should be to identify influence and enhance accountability of our elected officials.  How much a candidate spent would only be useful as part of an audit to ensure that figures on the surplus/deficit of a candidate are indeed accurate and that discounts on goods and services were rightly identified as donations-in-kind.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation would not oppose legislation that required disclosure of spending, but it is not nearly as vital as pre-election disclosure of contributions.

Surpluses/Deficits?

As witnessed with Calgary Mayor Dave Bronconnier and with former Federal Liberal party leadership contestants, both large surpluses and large deficits can be amassed during election and leadership campaigns.

Surpluses derived from those contributing to a campaign should be used for those purposes, and as such rules similar to provincial, federal, and now, municipal general elections should be followed. Surpluses should either be contributed back to the party or donated to a registered charity.

Deficits, resulting in candidates borrowing money from individuals or companies can result in an end-run around donation limits (if there are any, for which, of course, we would not advocate).

Further, without limitations on how they are to be repaid, deficits could create a loophole to get around pre-election disclosure (if there is any, for which, of course we are advocating).  For example, a candidate might run a $10,000 deficit with the pre-arranged agreement that a donor, whom they did not want disclosed pre-election, come in after the fact and cover the shortfall.

The best option would be to either ban campaign deficits all together, with the individual being banned from seeking public office if they are found to have run a deficit or have the candidate have to pay it off with personal funds.

Limits on contributions?

As previously mentioned, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation does not favour limiting the amount that could be contributed.  However, we would support limitations on who can contribute.  Specifically, groups like public sector unions, who are contributing dollars that are taken without consent from their members and contributed without consent to candidates, should be banned from doing so.  At the very least they should be required to gain the consent of their membership.  Further, any group who receives public funding should be banned from contributing.  If they are not, it would be tantamount to funnelling public tax dollars to political parties or election campaigns.

When to disclose?

As previously mentioned, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation strongly favours pre-election disclosure of campaign contributions.  This could either be done all at once, five days prior to the vote (with a ban on any further contributions), or could be done on a on-going basis with all donations disclosed publicly within 48 hours of receipt (with a ban of any further contributions four days prior to the vote).

Time period?

The major problem with leadership races is that, especially with a governing party, the campaigns may begin before a vacancy is known.  This makes disallowing any contributions until the leadership contest has officially begun very restrictive.  Therefore, a candidate should be able to declare him or herself eligible to be running for a position or the leadership of a party at any point, whether there is a vacancy or not.  This declaration should be made to Elections Alberta.  For example, Mr. Jones running for the leadership of the People Party could declare himself to Elections Alberta as an eligible candidate and begin collecting contributions that very day, even though the People Party has a leader and that leader has not declared any intention of resigning.  This may not, however, mean that the People Party is going to, or has any intention of allowing Mr. Jones to run for the position.  However, it would trigger the requirement for Mr. Jones to disclose his donors, file financial statements and follow all other rules laid out in the legislation.

Role of Elections Alberta?

Elections Alberta should play a key role in hosting the financial and pre-election contribution disclosure records on its website.  Further, it should enforce the rules set up by the legislation.  They should also maintain and provide copies of any forms and documents, and be a registrar for those who wish to seek the leadership of a registered political party.  However, the political parties themselves should continue to maintain their own sets of rules regarding eligibility for candidacy, voting, etc. 

Penalties?

Financial penalties are generally not effective.  If a candidate is found to have intentionally violated the disclosure or financial requirement laws, they should be deemed ineligible to seek public office in Alberta ever again.

In closing, we are encouraged that that your committee is reviewing the various options surrounding disclosure of party leadership.  We would be pleased to provide further information if so desired.

Sincerely,

Scott Hennig

Alberta Director

Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Downloadable Version: 

Drysdale - Leadership rules (May 21, 2010).pdf

By: Scott Hennig
Posted: May 21, 2010
Topic: Alberta

Contact the regional director Scott Hennig for further information.

Type: Presentations

Join Us   |   Donate