Bungling Bundlers

Let me clearly state for the record that I don't believe in campaign contribution limits. I don't think they accomplish anything other than to force people to find more creative ways to circumvent the limits (and I have a few if you are interested.) But - we have a law, and that law says that people can't contribute more than $1,100 (adjusted upwards for inflation) to each candidate/riding association, party or leadership candidate per year. I get it - the people have spoken, or some semblance of that.

Suddenly, the most valuable person in the room isn't the guy who can stroke a check for $50000.00, its the guy that can get 50 people to write one for $1,000. This person is called a bundler. In America being a bundler is a real job. Let me also state clearly that before changes to the Elections Act, we had bundlers. Except we just called them "fundraisers." They were still valuable, and maybe they also worked as lobbyists. For Airbus.

In a world where the test for corruption is equated simplistically with "buying influence," it is pretty stupid to limit contributions from one person to any amount when that money can be aggregated multiple times by a "corrupt" contributor's friends. Notwithstanding the fact that the last time we really had this problem it was because someone was breaking an existing, and remarkably lax, law - the changes to the law do nothing to improve accountability in the system. All they do is make it harder for honest politicians to raise money if they don't have a friend who can get 50 of his/her friends in the room.

On the one hand, you can't exactly regulate bundlers, because you can extricate the strict nature of the role out and call it "canvassing" or "volunteering." Not all Rolodexes are made equal. The bottom line is that bundlers are just another part of the unregulatable element of the process - just like doorknockers and sign stickers.

On the other hand, the problem with regulating bundlers is that it flies in the face of freedom of association. So, we already have a law that is an infringement on expression, the right to vote and assembly. Regulating the guy who puts the money together is an even tighter restriction on that right to assemble.

If the government is serious about "getting money out of politics" they don't have to limit your contribution - in fact, all they have to do is have tightly imposed spending limits and contribution disclosure regulations on the Candidates and Parties. It would seem in this Parliament, the focus is on how that money is spent (next post, I assure you) but the onus should rest on the person GETTING the money to properly and candidly report it. This area of the law is...routinely under-enforced, with irregularities ranging from the absurd to the...well, outright lies. I can assure you, it takes two to tango, and the fact that I want to give $2500 to my friend is nothing compared to my friend taking $10,000 in small unmarked bills.

Or $300,000. Karlheinz Schreiber was a bundler. 'Nuff said.