Former NPA Councillor Nancy Chiavario was completely handicapped with her fellow vcaTEAM running mates in 2002, largely because of a lack of funding in comparison to her competitors.
From the road, the report that has been released by the joint task force tasked with making recommendations for electoral change on:
- Campaign finance, including contribution / spending disclosure and limits, and tax credits
- Enforcement processes and outcomes
- Role of the chief electoral officer (B.C.) in local government elections
- Election cycle (term of office)
- Corporate vote
- Other agreed upon matters, (e.g. matters raised in UBCM resolutions such as eligibility of local government volunteers to be candidates)
is a pretty decent read.
I am intrigued by the prospect of four-year terms (which interestingly would put Gregor Robertson and Vision Vancouver into 2015 if they were to win the next election – their deadline for fulfilling their promise to rid the city of street homelessness).
But the campaign finance suggestions are really going to change the landscape of how local elections are run in British Columbia.
Here are the highlights
- Third party advertisers should be forced to register and fully disclose what they are going spending their money. This is a no brainer, and with all the controversy that has befallen Kash Heed, is really something that must happen so that voters are aware of the origin of the messaging that they are greeted with away from the parties and candidates.
- The suggested 90-day disclosure rule will eliminate the ambiguity that candidates from all parties – successful and otherwise – have been trolling in over the past few elections. The winners should be particularly be open to scrutiny so as to avoid any accusations of impropriety later on.
- The proposed spending limits for candidates, elector organizations and third party advertsisers is the game changer. I of course worked with Vision Vancouver last election (managing the campaigns of Kashmir Dhaliwal and Raj Hundal), and saw first hand what it was to be a part of a party campaign with a 7-figure budget avaialable. On the other end of the spectrum, I also managed worked on the failed vcaTEAM experiment in 2002 (managing the campaigns of Stephen Rogers and Art Cowie), where collectively the newly created party could barely afford any advertising or even campaign materials like brochures. I feel strongly that smaller parties and independent candidates represent an important component of opening up greater accessibility when it comes to the electoral process. The benefits of incumbancy should be enough of an advantage for a party like Vision Vancouver, and so it only makes sense to limit the size of the contributions. When Chretien did it, he changed the face of federal political fundraising forever, and parties who didn’t adjust (namely his own) have suffered ever since. More individuals donating smaller amounts only serves to improve the process and create a more level playing field.
I for one don’t want to see another $5 million election. The rich should not be the only ones that have a chance at serving in office.
