With a federal election likely in the first half of 2008, many candidates are already starting to think about where they're going to find the money to run their campaigns. Maybe it's time for us to think about the system of campaign donations.
Ideas like electoral boundary reform and the implementation of a single transferable vote have come up in recent years as ways to make the system better. While both pose the possibility of making politicians more responsive to voters, I think the most fundamental way to give the voters what they want is to introduce campaign finance reforms. The simple mechanics of campaign contributions work out like this: more money equals more influence. While there are caps in place limiting the amount any individual or organization can give, this is a sidetrack to the main issue. Scientific studies in both Canada and the U.S. show that even small gifts have influence, because they create a psychological obligation to return the favour.
The federal Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (otherwise known as the MPs Code) bars politicians and their families from accepting "any gift or other benefit" connected with their position, including sponsored travel. So while politicians are expected (and frequently fail) to uphold these high standards while in office, there's far more leeway while on the campaign trail.
When lobby groups are given the chance to donate, it becomes very psychologically difficult for politicians to betray their backers by doling out tough policy that's ultimately good for the public but not necessarily in the interest of their financers.
Maybe campaign finance reform could get at the heart of what UK columnist George Monbiot says is the real stumbling block to making progress on climate change - addressing the supply side of the equation. He calls every carbon-cutting program on Earth "a sham" in comparison. When candidates are allowed to have campaigns bankrolled by fossil fuel producers, of course they will reach out to them with massive subsidies while throwing crumbs to companies developing alternative energy systems. The tragic part is that it's worse than mere cronyism; as long as governments are allowed to put themselves in a position of owing their gratitude to the coal, oil and gas industry, we'll never scale down the amounts we extract from the ground. And without doing that, runaway climate change is inevitable. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I know mining giant Teck Cominco and the New Car Dealers Association of British Columbia are two perennial heavyweights when it comes to backing campaigns during provincial elections in B.C.If we don't pursue campaign finance reform at the federal level, how about the following option: a list of the top ten campaign contributors below each candidates' name. This would at least help us decide who we're really voting for. Maybe if voters could be a little more certain their elected representative listens to their vote instead of someone else's money, we'd see some higher turnout at the polls. While 64.9 per cent of all eligible voters cast ballots in the 2006 federal election (a slight increase from the record low of 60.9 per cent in the 2004 election), the turnout was far lower among my demographic group, the 18 to 34 year olds. In B.C., just 24 per cent of us voted, even though we have the numbers (about 30 per cent of our province's population) to make our voices heard.
But maybe we're just too jaded to think it matters who we elect anymore, when we suspect politicians are speaking from their pockets instead of their hearts.
