|
If you buy a political ad during elections you can go to jail (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
How would they define political donations though? To me it seems like it could be pretty easy to go around it. Not really a great idea, but might help to deal with the current corrupt situation... But yeah something needs to be done about the role of money in politics, not only in Canada but in pretty much every western world country. |
Limiting direct donations is a start; afterwards they can work on blind trusts, slush funds and other vehicles used to "hide" political donations.
It may not be possible to completely eliminate political buyouts, but we can at least not make it so easy.
Personally, I think we'd be better off if parties weren't allowed to advertise or accept donations at all, in any form, period. We're a long way off that beaten path, though. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
^ One of the reasons I intend to vote for Harper is simply the reforms he's planning with donation limits, elected senators, etc. Even if he accomplishes nothing else of importance, if he follows through with those promises then it will pave the way for fair elections and a fair legislation process which will at least help subsequent governments to do some good for this country. |
This is definately a bonus but on a more personal note, in my riding (Toronto - Centre) I like this one a LOT
| quote: |
Transit Tax Credit
The CPC recognizes that one of the most pressing problems facing Toronto is the problem of traffic gridlock and a rush hour that gets longer every day. If elected, the CPC would introduce a tax credit for using a monthly Metropass or GO Transit monthly pass which would also allow parents to claim their children's passes. This will not only reduce pressure on city roads, but will also help the environment!
|
>>Source: Lewis Reford<<
Now if we think about this logically, I spend roughly $100/month on a TTC monthly pass (used mostly for the purpose of getting to and from work).
This works about to ~$1200 a year saving before taxes.
In essence, I'd have to make an extra ~$1500 gross (using 22% Federal Income Tax Rate).
For most people in this tax bracket, this like going to your boss and asking for a 3-4% raise (assuming the median of between $35-$70K).
Yes, that's an instant 3-4% raise folks...
Think of what you can do with an extra $1200... ;) |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
This is definately a bonus but on a more personal note, in my riding (Toronto - Centre) I like this one a LOT
>>Source: Lewis Reford<<
Now if we think about this logically, I spend roughly $100/month on a TTC monthly pass (used mostly for the purpose of getting to and from work).
This works about to ~$1200 a year saving before taxes.
In essence, I'd have to make an extra ~$1500 gross (using 22% Federal Income Tax Rate).
For most people in this tax bracket, this like going to your boss and asking for a 3-4% raise (assuming the median of between $35-$70K).
Yes, that's an instant 3-4% raise folks...
Think of what you can do with an extra $1200... ;) |
I don't think your math is right. The CPC would make transit passes tax deductible, not make them free. You'd be saving about $264 per year.
Then there are people like me who take GO Transit ($145/month) AND the TTC ($80/month-tokens or $91/$99-Metropass) everyday. :wtf: Using the same assumptions, I'd save $623 per year. :eyespop: That's over-and-above the money I'd save from the CPC's tax cuts (income tax, GST, dividend tax, hopefully capital gains tax, etc.). |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
I don't think your math is right. The CPC would make transit passes tax deductible, not make them free. You'd be saving about $264 per year.
Then there are people like me who take GO Transit ($145/month) AND the TTC ($80/month-tokens or $91/$99-Metropass) everyday. :wtf: Using the same assumptions, I'd save $623 per year. :eyespop: |
That does make more sense yes lol.
I didn't read that right; TAX credit.
Still, $600 is $600. :clown:
That's almost an Xbox360! lol :tongue3 |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Limiting direct donations is a start; afterwards they can work on blind trusts, slush funds and other vehicles used to "hide" political donations.
It may not be possible to completely eliminate political buyouts, but we can at least not make it so easy.
Personally, I think we'd be better off if parties weren't allowed to advertise or accept donations at all, in any form, period. We're a long way off that beaten path, though. |
To me it seems like a limit on free speech. You should be able to do whatever you want to with your money, if you are a company or a private person, especially when it comes to politics. Perhpas make it illegal to advertise for a political party? So ads like "our helthccare system sucks" would be legal, but "vote liberal" wouldn't. Donno if that would help a lot though, and it would still be bad for free speech - big time.
If no one were allowed to do any donations whatsoever then how would you do political compaigning? Even the simpliest forms cost money... And it would practically impossible for a new party to start up. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
To me it seems like a limit on free speech. You should be able to do whatever you want to with your money, if you are a company or a private person, especially when it comes to politics. Perhpas make it illegal to advertise for a political party? So ads like "our helthccare system sucks" would be legal, but "vote liberal" wouldn't. Donno if that would help a lot though, and it would still be bad for free speech - big time.
If no one were allowed to do any donations whatsoever then how would you do political compaigning? Even the simpliest forms cost money... And it would practically impossible for a new party to start up. |
How is limiting donations a limit on free speech? A transfer of funds is not "speech".
People SHOULD be allowed to spend whatever money they want on whatever ads they want - I'm simply talking about large sums of money being given to a political party which is ALWAYS, beyond a shadow of a doubt, being used to buy political favours. If McDonald's wants to advertise for the Liberal party, fine, let them do it of their own volition, because they like the company's platform, not because they think it will get them handouts or special laws/regulations in their favour.
Sure, it doesn't completely eliminate the problem, a corporation can still say "we'll give you free advertising if you give us [blank]", but that's a lot more risky for a company to do if their preferred candidate doesn't get elected. And when a corporation donates money to a political party, it's relatively invisible to employees; however, if Sears started broadcasting ads for the NDP, I think their employees might have a thing or two to say to them.
The problem I see is visibility. No political party is going to want to be directly affiliated with a corporation ("The CPC - brought to you in part by Sony/BMG"), but donations are often "under the table" in a certain sense and usually without consent of employees/shareholders. So if you allow individuals and businesses to SAY whatever they want about a party (as it should be), but don't allow the parties themselves to TAKE MONEY from those individuals, the whole process becomes a lot less easily corruptible. People and businesses can't bribe politicians with advertising as easily as they could bribe them with cold hard cash.
If you believe that it's not fair to ban party donations then fine - at least limit them to an amount that can't be used as a form of bribe. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
How is limiting donations a limit on free speech? A transfer of funds is not "speech".
People SHOULD be allowed to spend whatever money they want on whatever ads they want - I'm simply talking about large sums of money being given to a political party which is ALWAYS, beyond a shadow of a doubt, being used to buy political favours. If McDonald's wants to advertise for the Liberal party, fine, let them do it of their own volition, because they like the company's platform, not because they think it will get them handouts or special laws/regulations in their favour.
Sure, it doesn't completely eliminate the problem, a corporation can still say "we'll give you free advertising if you give us [blank]", but that's a lot more risky for a company to do if their preferred candidate doesn't get elected. And when a corporation donates money to a political party, it's relatively invisible to employees; however, if Sears started broadcasting ads for the NDP, I think their employees might have a thing or two to say to them.
The problem I see is visibility. No political party is going to want to be directly affiliated with a corporation ("The CPC - brought to you in part by Sony/BMG"), but donations are often "under the table" in a certain sense and usually without consent of employees/shareholders. So if you allow individuals and businesses to SAY whatever they want about a party (as it should be), but don't allow the parties themselves to TAKE MONEY from those individuals, the whole process becomes a lot less easily corruptible. People and businesses can't bribe politicians with advertising as easily as they could bribe them with cold hard cash.
If you believe that it's not fair to ban party donations then fine - at least limit them to an amount that can't be used as a form of bribe. |
Limiting transition of money might not be a limitation of free speech per se, but it still is a limitation imo. Because of the simple reason that in today's political climate it takes money to say something, so if you don't have it you won't get anything said. So limiting your right to express yourself through donating will also limit your free speech.
That said I still see the problem and something defently needs to be done, but it has to be done carefully.
The conservatives proposed to: "End the influence of big money in politics by banning corporate and union political donations and limiting individual donations to $1000."
This is wrong. First of all, why couldn't they limit the donations for companies to the same amount? It's not fair that indiviuals are allowed to donate a small sum but companies or unions arent. Secondly, the amount could easily have been bigger, not even for 10 000 I can't see how any party would change their policies, it's not a significant sum. So imo the conservative proposal doesn't make things a whole lot better, it might deal with corruption, but it will limit free speech. And I much rather have free speech.
So the best way to go might be to limit donations to something like 10 000 dollars, and everyone can donate that amount, even companies. Then you should probably increase the amount of money given to the parties through the federal budget ("political party subsidies", donno the English word, or if you even have that system?). In that way the money through donations would be less important, and the number of voters more important. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
The conservatives proposed to: "End the influence of big money in politics by banning corporate and union political donations and limiting individual donations to $1000."
This is wrong. First of all, why couldn't they limit the donations for companies to the same amount? It's not fair that indiviuals are allowed to donate a small sum but companies or unions arent. Secondly, the amount could easily have been bigger, not even for 10 000 I can't see how any party would change their policies, it's not a significant sum. So imo the conservative proposal doesn't make things a whole lot better, it might deal with corruption, but it will limit free speech. And I much rather have free speech.
So the best way to go might be to limit donations to something like 10 000 dollars, and everyone can donate that amount, even companies. Then you should probably increase the amount of money given to the parties through the federal budget ("political party subsidies", donno the English word, or if you even have that system?). In that way the money through donations would be less important, and the number of voters more important. |
Companies IMHO should not be vying and paying for political favours during an election, period.
MY vote shouldn't be overshadowed by some company X's contribution because they want political / corporate favoritism.
That's cronyism and has no business swaying an election.
Last time I checked, corporations don't vote, people do. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Last time I checked, corporations don't vote, people do. |
Good point. However, corporations are a very important part of our society, and they should also be given the right to influence. I defently see your point though, and I somewhat agree as well :) But point is still, even though it might be wrong for companies to affect too much of politics (I am personally very much against this) it is (imo) more wrong by a government to say that someone has too much influence. Kinda like even though I think racism is wrong, I still think you should be allowed to have that opinion. Free speech should have as few limitations as possible. |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
The problem I see is visibility. No political party is going to want to be directly affiliated with a corporation ("The CPC - brought to you in part by Sony/BMG"), but donations are often "under the table" in a certain sense and usually without consent of employees/shareholders. So if you allow individuals and businesses to SAY whatever they want about a party (as it should be), but don't allow the parties themselves to TAKE MONEY from those individuals, the whole process becomes a lot less easily corruptible. People and businesses can't bribe politicians with advertising as easily as they could bribe them with cold hard cash. |
I don't really think the employees of a company should have a say, unless they are specifically part of that decision making process. If a company was to ask employees their opinion i think that would be great, but no means should they have to. You are being paid for your time, and a company should be free to spend its money how ever it wants.
The shareholders on the other hand should be informed, because they own the corporation. No argument there.
In regards to business and individual contributions; what does it cost to run a campaign? I see figures for contributions, but how much is actually spent? Only by getting a sense of the cost, can we append a realistic contribution limit.
Honestly, I i think it would interesting to see budget campaigns, I think it would really make people think differently about what to focus on. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
I think Jeff made the most important point: corporations and unions don't vote.
If you or I like a party enough to not only vote for them but also donate some money, that's fine. People should be voting and supporting their parties based on their individual needs.
Corporations and unions don't have individual needs. If a corporation or union makes a donation, it is practically a given that they are paying not to support a platform, but a certain corporate or special-interest agenda. There is no other way of looking at it - corporations and unions don't represent any particular person or persons.
The problem is (specifically to St. Andrew) that you're looking at this backwards. It's not a matter of telling individuals, corporations, etc. what they're allowed to donate; it's a matter of telling the parties what type of donations they're actually allowed to accept. If you hand me $20 and I tell you, sorry, I can't accept this - that's not placing a limit on your freedom. It's not placing any restriction on how you spend that money. It only says that if you give me that money, I will simply give it back to you.
You wouldn't go to jail for donating $2000 to the Liberals; they'd just be forced to send $1000 back to you.
As for the actual limit, I think $1000 is a perfect number because almost everyone can afford that amount. I'm flagrantly opposed to the idea of punishing high income earners, but in any democracy there is always one place where the little guy *must* be given the same level of influence as the wealthy and powerful, and that is in the election process. I don't think it's really punishing successful people anyway; it's not a tax.
If enough people donate $1000 to a party it can support a pretty kick-ass campaign. I don't see why anyone, no matter who they are, could possibly want to donate $10,000 to a political party unless they're expecting to get something in return. |
|
|
| kwongandy |
instead of leading us down the garden path, this is a better perspective...
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/a....asp?Language=E
there are plenty of corollaries that we can draw from this data. i'm sure there must be some positive result with the number of seats vs. after the fact money contributed. and plenty of others that we want others to see and not to see. |
|
|
|
|
