When it comes to municipal campaign finance reform, it’s pretty clear the people whining the loudest have never run a local campaign.

With no party system in place, and no TV media giving much coverage to any races outside the largest media markets, and with a 20-30% turnout rate in most cities, voter outreach is tough. It costs real money to mail all those homes – 25 cents each for printing and sending out unaddressed admail; likely $1.50 a piece for a direct mail piece. Add in the cost of those hideous signs, brochures, feeding phone bank volunteers pizza, ads in the paper, and you’re talking real money.

Personally, I’d like to see MORE money in local races – voter outreach is a way to boost turnout.

Not to say the current system is perfect; it’s not. But here’s what should happen. Anyone should be able to give any amount they want to any candidate they want. But all of those donations should be disclosed five days BEFORE the municipal election.

Look at it like this: if serial killer Clifford Olson donated $500 to a council candidate in Vancouver – would it really matter to you if Olson’s donation was under a prescribed limit? Wouldn’t you like to know why a candidate is taking money from Olson BEFORE you go into the voting booth?

Right now, the law says that donation doesn’t need to be disclosed until months after the vote – long after you cast your ballot. By then, it’s too late.

Proactive disclosure is the best way to go, because it leaves everything in the hands of the voter. If voters don’t like Peter Armstrong’s $960,000 donation in Vancouver, they can vote against the NPA. If they don’t like CUPE’s influence in New Westminster, they can vote against the candidates who took money from the unions. If they are concerned about the influence of developers in Surrey, they can vote against whoever took money from them.

Leave these decisions in the hands of the voters. Candidates, knowing the donations will factor into some people’s decisions, will police themselves accordingly.