Provincial politicians and parties got kicked off the big-money gravy train this month. Now it’s municipal politicians’ time to get off, although the number of them wallowing in that kind of cash isn’t clear.
The government introduced legislation Monday that imposes campaign-finance limits, similar to the new provincial ones, on local elections around B.C., banning union and corporate donations.
The new restrictions on provincial parties provided a generous cushion, by providing tax money to replace the lost income. But there’s no help for municipal candidates, who will be facing new limits and restrictions.
Municipal Affairs Minister Selina Robinson said they’ve never been eligible for public funds.
The bill won’t be passed for another week or so, but it will take effect retroactively tonight. So unions and corporations intent on backing someone have one day left to find declared candidates for next year’s contests and write them cheques.
After that, the new limit is $1,200 per donor per year, with no contributions allowed from unions, corporations or any entity outside of B.C.
The bill was warmly received by the Union of B.C. Municipalities, which has had a resolution asking for such changes on the books for a few years. Oak Bay Mayor Nils Jensen was also on hand to applaud it, as Oak Bay tried to sponsor another motion to that effect at the UBCM convention last month.
A widespread sense of unease has been developing over campaign financing at the municipal level, mostly because, as with the provincial scene, there was next to nothing in the way of restrictions.
There was a notorious example in Vancouver of a developer donating almost a million dollars to one campaign, grossly out of proportion to the average contribution.
And there was also a lavish donation, on a smaller scale, to a campaign on the Sunshine Coast. But much of the concern that prompted municipal campaign finance reform is more about the potential for unfairness than actual purchase of influence.
The B.C. Liberals made some modest changes to municipal campaign financing, but ignored the key demands. Until this year, they had no intention of cracking down provincially. So they couldn’t impose limits municipally when there were none provincially.
On the local civic scene, the restrictions will have considerable impact on next year’s campaigns. Candidates for the last Victoria mayoral race in 2014 listed a few dozen donations that were over the $1,200 level. And there were numerous unions and corporations that donated amounts over and under that limit.
If the new standards had been in force at that time, a considerable sum of money would have been subtracted from the campaigns.
Candidates in B.C.’s 189 local governments now will have to rely on individuals in B.C. who can only donate to a maximum of $1,200 once a year. That limit applies to candidates and any elector organization to which they belong.
Robinson said people can be confident that their local and provincial governments will be working for all voters, “not just those able to write the largest cheques.”
Jensen said it will make for fairer campaigns, and Oak Bay has advocated for such changes. He listed $1,300 in corporate donations during his 2014 campaign.
There are also new restrictions on loans to candidates, political organizations or advertising sponsors. They can’t be at less than prime rate, and the amount counts toward the contribution limit, so it can’t be over $1,200.
The previous government imposed election-expense limits last year that will take effect during next year’s campaigns. It’s a flat $10,000 for mayoral and $5,000 for council candidates in communities under 10,000 population.
In bigger towns, it will be determined by a per-capita formula. There are also expense limits on third-party advertisers and on issue advertising that doesn’t directly support a specific candidate.
The B.C. Green caucus, partners with the NDP in the confidence agreement, supported the bill, saying the undue influence of developers and unions has eroded people’s trust in government.
Liberals took a pass on reacting to the change, because the only possible reaction would be: “Wish we’d done it sooner.”
The one downside to the bill is the potential to make doorstep fundraising campaigns that much more relentless, as individuals will be the only targets left.
