Campaign Finance Reform?

In the news today, Stephen Harper, that bastion of democracy, reiterated his policy towards election financing. He said that the if the Conservatives win a majority in this election, they would ban public subsidies for political parties. Currently, national parties receive a subsidy of about $2 per vote each year (new subsidies determined by how well you did in the last federal election). This subsidy is relatively new, introduced by the Chretien Liberals in 2003, in order to ban big business and big donors from influencing elections. They introduced a personal cap of $5000 to donate to a political party, which was then revised down to $1100 by the Harper government. This was all done to limit the influence of big spenders, and to avoid American style politics.


On the surface, this seems fair. Eliminate public financing for political parties, and relying solely on your ability to fund raise, seems a good idea. I think it's a bit opportunistic. The Conservatives are clearly the best at fund raising, and their war chest is bulging (I did up a quick spreadsheet to show where all the money is going). Harper said "We think money should come from voters. Not from corporations, not from unions and not from government. They should come from the voters". I think that's exactly what it is. Coming from the voters. Maybe not at rallies, but from voters nonetheless.

I have two reasons for resisting Harper's idea:

1. Attack ads. Both in and (especially) outside of a campaign. This was one of the things that separated us from our American friends. I guess Harper likes them - he sure uses them a lot.
2. Four senior Conservatives are facing charges they broke Canada's election law in 2006 by carrying out a scheme that enabled the party to exceed election-spending limits. 

Bottom line, I like the $2/vote even more. Maybe that's all they should get to spend.