Taggart's Man in Ottawa
Taggart had a man in Washington.
It wasn’t until yesterday that I actually figured out what that meant. That man wasn’t only a lobbyist. That man was a fundraiser who literally bribed congressman into doing his bidding. So, why is money so important? In politics, money is the vehicle to articulate an idea. In business, politics is the vehicle to simplify business. Money is required by both politicians and businesses. Bizarre love triangle.
The Federal Accountability Act was introduced yesterday. It is 250 pages of amending legislation, tweaking already strong legislation under the auspices of making government more accountable. It is the perfect example of why campaigning on policy is a bad idea. There are good things in it, don't get me wrong, but it isn't the vehicle for massive change as it is being heralded.
One provision absolutely drives me bonkers. I can understand a universe where eliminating political contributions from corporations and unions can be seen as a good idea. Personally, I think corporate money is very important because it actually provides POORER candidates a chance to compete with the rich ones. Rich people have rich friends. Poor people have poor friends. Corporations and unions can contribute to rich people and poor people, and have employees or members. But I digress.
The limitation that the proposed act places on individual contributions is far more incommodious. The current standard of $5,000.00 (adjusted for inflation to $5,200) is not really all that much money. There were very few people who contribute this much. On its face, however, it is an affront to the constitutional right to free speech. Whether it is a reasonable infringement is debatable. Lowering it to $1,000.00 will produce a constitutional challenge, and if I can find someone to lend me a couple hundred grand, I will violate the law myself and take it all the way up to the top.
From Buckley to Harper (the case, as spearheaded by the PM by the same name) it is an established principle that limitations on contributions and spending can exist, but those limitations cannot be arbitrary, and they cannot infringe on a citizen’s ability to involve themselves in the political process. For me, this is an infringement because it prevents me from attending the events which I want to attend- it’s a violation of my right to assemble as much as it is a violation of my right to speech.
But, if I get 200 of my friends in a room at $200.00 apiece ($40,000.00) I am in violation of no law, and there is no registration requirement?
If the purpose of the legislation is to reduce the influence that money has on an election, or on a political party after an election, do you think that I should be able to organize that event? I can guarantee that exactly ZERO mps would balk at the chance to have that fundraiser held in their riding. I can also guarantee that when I call them the next day, they will pick up the phone. Forget the lobbyists who work on the campaign and then go back to their job at Summa Strategies, or the Ministerial staffer who quits to go and work for a trade association, the fundraisers I am talking about are the real problem.
It is true that most of these people work in the G.R. industry. That is a coincidence. Most of the attendees are nouveau riche or old money aristocrats who like to have cocktail parties and hob-knob with Ministers. Lillian Rearden, for example. These events will continue to exist, and making the price tag $1,000.00 instead of $5,200.00 isn’t going to change a thing.
Do you know how I know that most of the changes don’t matter? The people directly responsible for the scandal are either in jail, or on their way. The individuals involved in the sponsorship scandal were clearly in violation of Canada's election laws when they Funneled money in unmarked envelopes. Making legitimate donations smaller certainly would not have curtailed that type of egregious behaviour. They broke existing laws.
Justice Gomery pointed out that the vast majority of public servants are honest and there are measures in place to weed out the bad people. I don’t think that anything in the Accountability Act will stop people who are decidedly corrupt from continuing that practice. In fact, as best as I can tell, in order to stop government corruption, the Tories have decided to limit my rights.
I don’t care what the contribution limit is. If I have something to say, and I want to support someone who shares my views, I think I should be allowed to do it. My critics would tell me that I can register as a third party, and involve myself that way. Guess what- limitations abound on that speech as well.
If there is a public registry of contributions, and a public registry of government grants and contracts, I can draw a line between a huge contribution and a direct benefit. That is all we need.
It wasn’t until yesterday that I actually figured out what that meant. That man wasn’t only a lobbyist. That man was a fundraiser who literally bribed congressman into doing his bidding. So, why is money so important? In politics, money is the vehicle to articulate an idea. In business, politics is the vehicle to simplify business. Money is required by both politicians and businesses. Bizarre love triangle.
The Federal Accountability Act was introduced yesterday. It is 250 pages of amending legislation, tweaking already strong legislation under the auspices of making government more accountable. It is the perfect example of why campaigning on policy is a bad idea. There are good things in it, don't get me wrong, but it isn't the vehicle for massive change as it is being heralded.
One provision absolutely drives me bonkers. I can understand a universe where eliminating political contributions from corporations and unions can be seen as a good idea. Personally, I think corporate money is very important because it actually provides POORER candidates a chance to compete with the rich ones. Rich people have rich friends. Poor people have poor friends. Corporations and unions can contribute to rich people and poor people, and have employees or members. But I digress.
The limitation that the proposed act places on individual contributions is far more incommodious. The current standard of $5,000.00 (adjusted for inflation to $5,200) is not really all that much money. There were very few people who contribute this much. On its face, however, it is an affront to the constitutional right to free speech. Whether it is a reasonable infringement is debatable. Lowering it to $1,000.00 will produce a constitutional challenge, and if I can find someone to lend me a couple hundred grand, I will violate the law myself and take it all the way up to the top.
From Buckley to Harper (the case, as spearheaded by the PM by the same name) it is an established principle that limitations on contributions and spending can exist, but those limitations cannot be arbitrary, and they cannot infringe on a citizen’s ability to involve themselves in the political process. For me, this is an infringement because it prevents me from attending the events which I want to attend- it’s a violation of my right to assemble as much as it is a violation of my right to speech.
But, if I get 200 of my friends in a room at $200.00 apiece ($40,000.00) I am in violation of no law, and there is no registration requirement?
If the purpose of the legislation is to reduce the influence that money has on an election, or on a political party after an election, do you think that I should be able to organize that event? I can guarantee that exactly ZERO mps would balk at the chance to have that fundraiser held in their riding. I can also guarantee that when I call them the next day, they will pick up the phone. Forget the lobbyists who work on the campaign and then go back to their job at Summa Strategies, or the Ministerial staffer who quits to go and work for a trade association, the fundraisers I am talking about are the real problem.
It is true that most of these people work in the G.R. industry. That is a coincidence. Most of the attendees are nouveau riche or old money aristocrats who like to have cocktail parties and hob-knob with Ministers. Lillian Rearden, for example. These events will continue to exist, and making the price tag $1,000.00 instead of $5,200.00 isn’t going to change a thing.
Do you know how I know that most of the changes don’t matter? The people directly responsible for the scandal are either in jail, or on their way. The individuals involved in the sponsorship scandal were clearly in violation of Canada's election laws when they Funneled money in unmarked envelopes. Making legitimate donations smaller certainly would not have curtailed that type of egregious behaviour. They broke existing laws.
Justice Gomery pointed out that the vast majority of public servants are honest and there are measures in place to weed out the bad people. I don’t think that anything in the Accountability Act will stop people who are decidedly corrupt from continuing that practice. In fact, as best as I can tell, in order to stop government corruption, the Tories have decided to limit my rights.
I don’t care what the contribution limit is. If I have something to say, and I want to support someone who shares my views, I think I should be allowed to do it. My critics would tell me that I can register as a third party, and involve myself that way. Guess what- limitations abound on that speech as well.
If there is a public registry of contributions, and a public registry of government grants and contracts, I can draw a line between a huge contribution and a direct benefit. That is all we need.
posted by Atlas Hugged at
9:06 a.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home