Not allowed Christy

[flamingfingers]

Urbane wrote:

I'm inclined to support the the idea of not allowing corporate/union contributions.

Whew!! After 2 full pages of back and forth, FINALLY you have provided something that appears to be an answer!!
And with it 'some' meagre support for an NDP initiative!!

[Urbane]

Whew!! After 2 full pages of back and forth, FINALLY you have provided something that appears to be an answer!!
And with it 'some' meagre support for an NDP initiative!!

Ha ha . . . I gave you the same answer many posts ago! I hope you can stretch out now after turning yourself into a pretzel defending the NDP for doing exactly what the Liberals did! Anyway, we shall see what the NDP initiative looks like, then I'll listen to the arguments on both sides, and then decide whether or not to support it. As I said I've said twice previously (and now a third time) I'm inclined to support the move to prohibit corporate/union contributions.

[fluffy]

There has been a little issue brewing through the last couple of municipal elections here in Penticton that I think has some bearing on this discussion. The issue was the proliferation of campaign signs on public property, sometimes little gardens of twenty or more signs for the same candidate. It was only until fairly recently, like in the last decade, that this practice became legal, up until then you could not put a campaign sign on public property. This made sense to me in that advertising principals of product placement and name retention say that the more signs you can get out there the more likely a voter is to have your name on their mind when they step into the polling booth. That basically says that the guy with the most signs (read "deepest pockets" here) is going to have an advantage over candidates with fewer signs. So, the guy with more money gets a better chance. Is that right? No, of course it isn't. The old way (before our elected candidates changed the rules) you had to place your signs on private property, which means you had to have the support of the property owner. The more supporters a candidate had, the more signs he/she could get out there. The number of signs on display was a good display of just how much support a candidate had among the electorate, not a display of how many signs they could buy.

I would say that corporate and union donations are similar in nature to signs on public property, They give a candidate a financial advantage over his/her rivals which doesn't necessarily mean they have the support of a greater number of voters. At the risk of over-simplifying the issue, corporations and unions do not get a vote, they should not even be in the game. It is between the candidate and the voter. The risk of back room dealing and favoritism between elected officials and their corporate/union sponsors is a given, and perhaps the biggest sole reason to end the practice, but the principle is the same. The relationship between elected officials and the individuals who vote them into office gets lost when those voters just become pawns to be tossed aside once the votes are counted.

[Smurf]

It is so sad that these things always get turned into left/right, NDP/Liberal. Who cares, one is as bad as the other. Why do we end up with 90% of the discussion being about something of little or no importance when the real issue is whether or not the action is wrong. The Liberals at this point are the ones that have to make the decision because of their majority and that makes them responsible. It's tough to be the boss. Now is the time to correct it and that is up to the Liberals.

This system reeks of corruption no matter who is involved and as far as I am concerned should be stopped. The corruption is almost proved when you go back to the election when Dix was leading and business suddenly turned donations to the NDP. Why would they do that if it wasn't to secure government favour. They were immediately willing to dump the Liberals and back the NDP. Does anyone think they had a change of heart or were they just hedging their bet. If we disagree with this action let's let Christy know as telling the NDP till you're blue in the face can't help in the current house situation. Does anyone think the NDP have any power what so ever in parliament.

[Urbane]

It is so sad that these things always get turned into left/right, NDP/Liberal. Who cares, one is as bad as the other. Why do we end up with 90% of the discussion being about something of little or no importance when the real issue is whether or not the action is wrong. The Liberals at this point are the ones that have to make the decision because of their majority and that makes them responsible. It's tough to be the boss. Now is the time to correct it and that is up to the Liberals.

This system reeks of corruption no matter who is involved and as far as I am concerned should be stopped. The corruption is almost proved when you go back to the election when Dix was leading and business suddenly turned donations to the NDP. Why would they do that if it wasn't to secure government favour. They were immediately willing to dump the Liberals and back the NDP. Does anyone think they had a change of heart or were they just hedging their bet. If we disagree with this action let's let Christy know as telling the NDP till you're blue in the face can't help in the current house situation. Does anyone think the NDP have any power what so ever in parliament.

Yes, and sadly it seems (on here) to come down to an "I hate Christy Clark" message on every single subject. And to be fair, for some it's "I hate the NDP." As long as the federal policy of no corporate/union contributions is working then I would support that policy for our province.

[The Green Barbarian]

Yes, and sadly it seems (on here) to come down to an "I hate Christy Clark" message on every single subject. And to be fair, for some it's "I hate the NDP." As long as the federal policy of no corporate/union contributions is working then I would support that policy for our province.

I wouldn't equate "I hate the NDP" with those who just simply point out how mind-numbingly stupid the NDP are. There is a difference.

[flamingfingers]

GLOBE EDITORIAL
There’s a simple way to stop politicians selling access for cash
The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Apr. 01, 2016 4:00PM EDT
Last updated Friday, Apr. 01, 2016 3:50PM EDT

Let’s say you’re a provincial government that’s recently been embarrassed by revelations concerning political fundraising. We have a prescription to fix your problem, and our democracy.

Maybe you’re British Columbia Premier Christy Clark, whose Liberal Party quietly takes advantage of the province’s lack of political donation limits. As an example of what that allows, The Globe this week revealed that Simon Fraser University chancellor Anne Giardini recently hosted an intimate dinner with the Premier. Price of admission: a $10,000-per-person donation to the party. Sources also told The Globe of events with ticket prices as high as $20,000. The government insists it is not selling access to the highest bidder.

The fix for all of this is simple: Download a copy of the excellent rules governing donations at the federal level – whose cornerstone principle is that only citizens should be allowed to donate to political parties. Photocopy the legislation. Pass it into law in your province. Problem solved.

In federal elections, corporate and union money is banned, and individual donations are capped at $1,525. Federal law also strictly limits spending by third parties – a huge problem in Ontario, where American-style Superpacs, allied with the Liberal Party and funded by millions of dollars in union donations, have for years circumvented the rules on campaign spending, donations and disclosure.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/ ... e29495009/

And get set for the good premier to 'announce' that legislation is being prepared 'as we speak' for implementation of provincial legislation that will achieve the very same thing, "sometime in the fall of 2018" (or when 'we grow the economy', or when the Sparkle Ponies have farted, or when... well, you know how it goes..)

[Urbane]

^^ It would seem as if the federal law is working but here's a question: How do you stop a corporation or a union from trying to circumvent the law? Example: What if the BCTF, for example, decided to run ads that were clearly anti-Liberal without mentioning the Liberals by name? We all know that example isn't just hypothetical so what's the solution?

[flamingfingers]

I think this would at least help:

Ontario’s auditor general turns up heat in showdown over partisan ads
Ontario’s auditor general fires another broadside against Wynne’s proposed changes to government advertising act

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/ ... n-ads.html

I believe also that ads must contain the qualifier "paid for by the **** " I know I ALWAYS look for that on ads.

[erinmore3775]

" Premier Kathleen Wynne has agreed to meet this week with Ontario's opposition leaders to talk about reforming the province's political fundraising rules. After a week of intense criticism over fundraising quotas for Liberal cabinet ministers, Wynne sent a letter on Sunday to Progressive Conservative Leader Patrick Brown and NDP Leader Andrea Horwath saying she wants their input on finance reform. "I am committed to phasing out corporate and union donations to political parties and reducing the amount that individuals can donate," she wrote."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/wynne-ontario-fundraising-1.3518867

Smurf wrote concerning the state of BC politics, " This system reeks of corruption no matter who is involved and as far as I am concerned should be stopped. The corruption is almost proved when you go back to the election when Dix was leading and business suddenly turned donations to the NDP. Why would they do that if it wasn't to secure government favour."

It seems that Premier Wynne, after her party was embarassed by recent fund raising endeavors, is now prepared to "enhance " the integrity of political fund raising. It will be interesting to see if Premier Clark follows in Wynne's footsteps. I for one hope so.

[Smurf]

I believe everyone on here should write their MLA, Clark and Horgan and tell them we want this mess cleaned up right now. If we have enough time to post on here we have enough time to write a quick note where it might actually do some good. As far as I am concerned the only people who should disagree with this are the ones involved. It might never be perfect but at least it can be a lot better. And as I said before I would like to see lobbyists forced to meet with a parliamentary committee of all parties to make presentations and not making deals behind closed doors which also has a bad smell to it. Our governments are supposed to be for everyone, not just those that can afford to go to 10 or 20 thousand dollar a plate dinners or pay lobbyists to work for them.

Lets go for it folks. Lets see if we can actually make some changes.

[Rwede]

*removed*

[Urbane]

I believe everyone on here should write their MLA, Clark and Horgan and tell them we want this mess cleaned up right now. If we have enough time to post on here we have enough time to write a quick note where it might actually do some good. As far as I am concerned the only people who should disagree with this are the ones involved. It might never be perfect but at least it can be a lot better. And as I said before I would like to see lobbyists forced to meet with a parliamentary committee of all parties to make presentations and not making deals behind closed doors which also has a bad smell to it. Our governments are supposed to be for everyone, not just those that can afford to go to 10 or 20 thousand dollar a plate dinners or pay lobbyists to work for them.

Lets go for it folks. Lets see if we can actually make some changes.

Good idea Smurf. I've just emailed the premier.

[The Green Barbarian]

^^ It would seem as if the federal law is working but here's a question: How do you stop a corporation or a union from trying to circumvent the law? Example: What if the BCTF, for example, decided to run ads that were clearly anti-Liberal without mentioning the Liberals by name? We all know that example isn't just hypothetical so what's the solution?

Exactly. The BCTF runs those stupid ads, wastes millions of dollars on them, and then runs out of strike pay on day 3. Just horrible fiscal management and bonehead decisions.

[maryjane48]

*removed*