Where there is man, there is manhood. Where there is political financing, there is potential frolicking.
Despite the reforms of the Electoral law, despite the corruption exposed by the Charbonneau commission, the risks of slippage remain. Every time things turn around, citizens’ confidence in politicians and democracy is shaken.
This week, Radio-Canada told us that a citizen who wanted her MP to take her file to the Minister of Finance was told that she would instead have to pay $100 to participate in a fundraising activity where she would have the opportunity to speak to Eric Girard herself1.
When we know that the Electoral law requires that political contributions be made “without compensation or consideration”, it is unacceptable to monetize access to ministers.
However, fundraising cocktails and “networking” activities are not uncommon. These types of events are fertile ground for the emergence of a market of influences where political and economic interests meet. Because the participants who pay $100 don’t go there to chat about rain or shine with the ministers.
Should we therefore “get ministers out of political financing” as recommended by the Parti Québécois?
Should we prohibit the announcement of projects, contracts or subsidies during political fundraising activities, as recommended by the Charbonneau commission?
And there, why not take logic to its logical conclusion by completely abolishing private political contributions?
After all, over the years and scandals, the maximum annual contribution has already fallen into disarray, dropping from $3,000 to $1,000 in 2011, then to just $100 in 2013.
To compensate, the government has more than tripled the public funding it provides to parties. Now, private financing represents less than a quarter of total financing, whereas it constituted more than three quarters of their income around 2010.
But wanting to reduce private financing to zero is a bad idea.
If they depended solely on public money, parties could lose sight of the interests of those they represent, experts say2. We do not want to kill activism, internal party democracy and the accountability that goes with it.
Even worse. If funding came solely from the public, we could see the emergence of “cartels” of old parties which would block the emergence of new political groups, since public funding is granted according to the number of votes obtained by each party during the last election. .
In short, a clever mix of private and public remains the best approach. And Quebec is already one of the places in the world where private financing is most regulated.
This does not mean that there are no screws to tighten in our electoral machinery. Unlike political financing, which has undergone numerous reforms, the supervision of electoral expenses has not been modernized. And the advent of fixed date elections poses many challenges.
Since the election date is known in advance, political parties launch their campaigns before the official call, which allows them to avoid the limit on advertising spending which only applies during the campaign.
In 2018, their pre-campaign spending exploded by 400%. And in 2022, the pre-campaign advertising featuring a lady singing the praises of François Legault, with her blue cap and her famous striped sweater, caused a lot of talk.
It is not normal for parties to circumvent the rules of the game. For them to leave the starting blocks before the start of the race.
The absence of a ceiling limiting spending during the pre-campaign favors parties with deeper pockets. This compromises equality of opportunity, without us having the information to clearly understand the extent of the problem.
The intensification of pre-campaign activities also increases the risk that elected officials subtly begin their partisan activities while continuing to sit in the National Assembly and lead the state.
Several provinces, such as Manitoba and Ontario, regulate government advertising to ensure that public money is not diverted for partisan purposes. Quebec should follow suit.
It should also force third parties (unions and businesses, for example) to register if they make expenditures before the official campaign.
Élections Québec is currently conducting consultations in this regard3. It is time to act if we want to clean up practices in time for the next elections.
The position of The Press
Reducing private political funding to zero is not realistic. But the Quebec Election Act still deserves a turn of the screw, particularly to regulate pre-election advertising which allows the rules of the game to be easily circumvented.