Comments (4) 
E-mail
PrintThe NDP can improve government forever with campaign-finance reform
As a political reporter over the years, I've been constantly amazed at the stupidity of our provincial government's decisions regarding capital projects.
These are megaprojects that cost in the hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. And they're almost never chosen on the basis of what constitutes sound public policy.
Sure, you'll see all sorts of justifications tossed onto Web sites by paid consultants. But if you seek out independent analysis from academics who specialize in these areas, it has been my experience that they almost always say the government is making the wrong decision.
Glen Clark's natural-gas pipeline to Vancouver Island, the Millennium SkyTrain line, and the fast-ferry construction project were three examples during the NDP years.
More recently, the B.C. Liberals under Gordon Campbell have embraced the Canada Line, a monstrously expensive convention-centre expansion, and a road-and-bridge expansion program that defies common sense.
I've given up hoping that government leaders will ever feel any shame over these decisions because frankly, I don't think they're capable of it. They actually think they're "builders". If it weren't so expensive and didn't cause so much misery for the public, it would be laughable.
None of them seems to see the link between stupid capital projects and a lack of money for such things as environmental protection, help for small business, tax cuts, or more community health workers.
This nonsense will continue unless one party steps forward and introduces campaign-finance reform.
That's because the reality is that these projects are more often designed mostly for the benefit of the contractors and union sector--and these beneficiaries prime the pump of political parties with their financial contributions.
Manitoba, Quebec, and the federal government have sharply limited political contributions from corporations and unions, which will curb the likelihood of these boondoggles.
Premier Campbell, however, sees no need for campaign-finance reform. The status quo is working perfectly fine for him. He more or less said so in his one-and-only interview with the Straight in eight years.
The NDP, on the other hand, has promised to act on campaign-finance reform.
In the past, the NDP has talked about sharply limiting corporate and union donations. I would like to ask Carole James for specifics on this, but her handlers have not responded to the Straight's requests for interviews since the campaign began.
Perhaps Ms. James can pick up the phone and call 604-730-7000 on Monday (April 20) and tell me what she means by "acting on campaign-finance reform".
If she indicates that she's serious about dealing with this issue by sharply limiting union and corporate donations, it just might get some of her Metro Vancouver candidates a recommendation in our May 7 issue, which comes out five days before the provincial election.
Comments
And where are those women groups and all those organizations that gave a dam about their communties, gone and boy oh boy we sure could use them now. You don't think Campbell got rid of those groups so they wouldn't stick their noise in his business of throwing citizens to the streets or keeping women and children off them?
However, if STV were COMBINED with campaign-finance reform, it might be worth supporting. As long as it isn't, it'll be disastrous.
Accountability and Electoral Reform go hand in hand towards improving democracy.
What would make sense is for Elections BC to hand one mailout with each candidate allowed to submit a picture and a statement to ensure that everyone could at least have a bio on the candidates sent to them.
Electoral finance reform is more important under first past the post, where swaying 2 or 3% provincially can swing 10-12 seats.
These myths about STV costing more are not based on modern campaigns.
Most of the campaign money is spent on buying TV, Radio and newspaper and that is not going to increase under STV in most areas since the same radio station or TV network covers the new districts and the cost per candidate will remain the same.
If we look at Ireland, the parties run less candidates than seats (If there is a district of 5, they run 2 or 3 in case voters don't vote the party line.)
With STV there would be fewer campaign offices, less overhead. Some costs per candidate may increase, (such as a mailout) but with less candidates a party could use their money more effectively.
Post a comment