Vancouver council rejects voluntary campaign spending limits

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      Vancouver city council has voted against a motion from Green councillor Adriane Carr urging voluntary campaign finance restrictions for the November 2014 election.

      Both Vision and NPA councillors voted against the proposal in the absence of provincial regulations to ensure that all municipal parties are complying with campaign finance restrictions.

      “This motion of Councillor Carr’s I feel is very dangerous, because then it says, we’re all going to take Scout’s honour, pinky promise, we’ll all do it, but people get desperate during elections, we’ve all seen this over and over again, and somebody could break the rules,” said Vision Vancouver Kerry Jang.

      “Practical delivering of democracy is just as important, and this motion does not deliver democracy, but actually delivers an unfair playing field.”

      According to a memo from city clerk Janice MacKenzie, any voluntary campaign finance limits adopted by city council would not be enforceable and would only apply to current councillors, not to other candidates running for office, electoral organizations or third party advertisers.

      Carr said she believes there could be a level playing field under voluntary limits.

      “I think we have, in the public, a feeling of distrust of politicians...I hear us not trusting ourselves, not trusting each other in terms of holding to a voluntary pact together,” she said. “I know that this would be voluntary, it would not be enforceable. It would however be ultimately trackable.

      “I think perception here is critical, and it is related to the confidence in democracy, and the democracy in our decisions, and that we should as a council extend the hope that speakers have asked us to uphold, the hope that we can work together in terms of setting some voluntary limits, and adhere to them.”

      Speakers who addressed council on the motion included Randy Helten, who said he wants to see action in time for the November 2014 election.

      “If you cannot follow the letter of her motion, I appeal to you to follow the spirit of her motion, which is to control the influence of money on our democracy and on our political system in Vancouver,” he told council.

      Fern Jeffries, the chair of the Crosstown Residents Association, said the issue of campaign finance limits is “critical to promoting, protecting and preserving the integrity of our democratic system”.

      “The appearance of a conflict of interest is created when developers and unions that make significant contributions to election campaigns of candidates for council also have matters that come before council, and that whether or not these conflicts are permitted in law, they harm the reputation of council and impair the legitimacy of decisions,” she stated.

      Provincial legislation on campaign finance rules is expected to be debated by MLAs in committee this week. If passed, the legislation will extend the length of civic terms to four years.

      Dermod Travis of Integrity B.C. has said the campaign finance changes proposed as part of Bills 20 and 21 “provide little if anything” in the way of serious reforms.

      “If you bring in strong spending limits, you force politicians to be more creative, and imaginative, and actually going out to talk to the people who are meant to vote for them,” Travis said during a media briefing earlier this month.

      He noted that Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi imposed a limit on himself of 65 cents a voter during his reelection campaign, and came in below that at 57 cents a voter. Nenshi’s average donation to his campaign was below $750, he added.

      The Green Party of Vancouver has implemented its own donation limit policy, and its spending limit policy is 65 cents per registered voter for the party. Its donation policy restricts donations to Canadian sources, and stipulates a $5,000 donation limit.

      Vancouver municipal parties collectively spent more than $5 million during the 2011 election campaign.



      boris moris

      Apr 30, 2014 at 11:33pm

      The reality here is that this was a lame attempt by Carr to get publicity. It was no secret that Vision had already asked the province to impose enforcable limits. It seems clear that few are willing to encourage Carr by donating money to a perrenial flop at the polls. Her party has managed to lose virtually every electoral contest it has entered while ensuring that enviromental oversight dismantlers stay in power at the provincial and federal level.
      Just go away you annoying pest

      Rand Chatterjee

      May 1, 2014 at 1:03am

      Vancouver is a city of addictions, and not just those which plague the Downtown Eastside. A far more serious addiction is that of politicians to money, to bought votes, to the undermining of democracy itself. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians have risked their lives and many died to defend democracy and the rule of law.

      Is Vancouver City Council thumbing its nose at Canada's veterans, its heroes of past and continuing wars to defend and extend democracy and the rights of all people to self-determination? Are our Mayor and Councillors such spoiled children that they cannot regulate their own wanton impulses and vile greed? Would they rather just sell our democracy to the highest bidder?

      So Councillor Jang claims "people get desperate during elections". Do we realty want DESPERATE PEOPLE running our city?

      Save Vancouver

      May 1, 2014 at 8:11am

      Three cheers for Councillor Carr, Vision Vancouver and the NPA are just puppets of developers. I just wish the Greens were running a myaoral candidate.

      John S

      May 1, 2014 at 9:38am

      It looks like big money rules in Vancouver at the expense of democracy. The 9 Councillors who voted against the motion were funded primarily by the development industry!

      City policy is made over $25,000 a plate lunches with the Mayor. This has to stop. A slogan for November 2014: Vote NOBAD - Not Owned By A Developer

      bela the bug

      May 1, 2014 at 10:26am

      Wow, ain't technology great? I've been monitoring this thread and in the space of a few minutes the Pro Carr comments each gained over 10 thumbs up. That's democracy in action...Green Party style. Now that's what I call desperate.


      May 1, 2014 at 10:43am

      "people get desperate during elections, we’ve all seen this over and over again, and somebody could break the rules"????

      Can you be just a little more specific, Mr. Jang?
      Define 'desperate' please and cite some examples?
      Example of what 'we've' seen 'over and over again' would be nice?
      Are you describing a process where a donor gives money to a politician in return for political favours? If not, what are you referring to?

      If we had real media, they would be jumping all over Jang's remarks?

      BTW -- this was a stupid tactic by the NPA and proves they don't really have much to offer the city. This 'smear' tactic didn't work for Dix in the last election, so why would they think it would work at the civic level?
      The problem is influence-peddling -- not the money itself.