- Harper Just Doesn't Care - He Is Only In It For The Power - Canadian Democracy Be Dam[Redacted]ed

Posted: 12:18 PM on April 2, 2011
Crunching Numbers
Per-vote subsidy but a fraction of taxpayer support for political parties
Éric Grenier, Globe and Mail Update, Apr. 01, 2011 11:33AM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/per-vote-subsidy-but-a-fraction-of-taxpayer-support-for-political-parties/article1880294/comments/

It is a sad commentary on Harper and the Con's

But,

It is hardly worth making this analysis since it is clear to everyone that the only reason Harper is proposing eliminating the per vote subsidy is because it would severely tilt the field on which Canadian democracy plays out to the Con's advantage.

Harper simply just doesn't care if it hurts the Canadian Democratic process

as long as it helps him to acquire and maintain power.

It doesn't matter that the per vote subsidy was put into the current Elections Act as a compensation to putting a cap (approx. $1100) on contributions.

Nor does Harper suggest that this be brought back in to level the field.

The In-and-Out scandal is all about the same then. Unfairly increasing the amounts a party may spend and the rebates thus throwing the level playing field out of balance.

The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada v. (Gerry) Callaghan (28 Feb.'11) A-63-10 (Federal Court of Appeal)

"(vi) Conclusion
[77] The Respondents’ interpretation of subsection 465(1) would weaken compliance with the limits set by Parliament on the amount of money that candidates may spend on their election and can recover by way of reimbursement from public funds. Abuses could well proliferate, and the statutory objective of promoting a healthy democracy through levelling the electoral playing field undermined."

or perhaps the citation at para 13, referring to the majority judgement in Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 33, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827, when Justice Bastarache said (at para. 62):

"First, the State can provide a voice to those who might otherwise not be heard.
. . . Second, the State can restrict the voices which dominate the political discourse so that others may be heard as well. . . . These provisions seek to create a level playing field for those who wish to engage in the electoral discourse. This in turn, enables voters to be better informed; no one voice is overwhelmed by another."

For "Respondents" it is submitted you can read "Harper and the Con's"

Harper's 'rational' for this is "tax payers shouldn't have to support parties they don't support"

Harper conveniently ends this Con'ism at 'per vote subsidy', when it obviously applies equally to the non-refundable tax credit for political contributions and the rebates for election expenses which is at the heart of the

In-and-Out scandal where "2 Con Senators who served as campaign chairman and chief party fundraiser were among those who were charged." (Winnipeg Free Press, 1 Mar.'11)

" Assuming the credit is doled out in a proportion similar to the share of money raised by each party, that equates to a cost of $10.5-million on donations given to the Conservative Party, $5.8-million on donations to the Liberals, $2.4-million on donations to the NDP, and $700,000 and $600,000 on donations to the Greens and Bloc Québécois, respectively. "


Éric Grenier for your future reference.

"doled out in a proportion similar to the share of money raised by each party"

is a very poor way to estimate.

Because of the graduated tax credit (apparently: 0<75% <=$400<50%<=$750<33.33%<=$1275) a party that has a lot of small contributors will get a larger percentage than a party of a relatively few large contributors.

This is not simply hypothetical since it is common knowledge that the Con's go after a lot of small contributions. Whereas, the Liberals are more stick in the 'good old days" of fewer but larger contributions.

The distribution of the tax credit does not have to be assumed to be estimated in this way.

Since, the reporting requirements under the Elections Act requires that for anyone contributing over $200 their name, etc, and amount be published (see: sections: 403.35(2), 424(2), 435.3(2), 451(2), 478.23(2)).

It also requires the total number of contributors and total contributions for those $200 or under.

So, you can actually calculate, if you have the time, the amounts of tax credits available.

But by comparing the disclosures for $200 and under for each party get a better idea of the cumulative cost to the tax payers of Canada for each party for the tax rebate.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

also posted:
Posted: 4:19 PM on April 2, 2011
Analysis: Fears about scrapping per-vote subsidies wildly off target, Patrick Brethour, Globe and Mail, Apr. 02, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/analysis-fears-about-scrapping-per-vote-subsidies-wildly-off-target/article1968366/