Money is important in most municipal elections 鈥� too important, perhaps. The province should follow the recommendations of its own task force and implement restrictions on campaign spending.
That isn鈥檛 to say that money buys elections 鈥� the biggest spenders in the November 2014 mayoral elections in Victoria, Saanich, Oak Bay and Esquimalt lost 鈥� but the rising cost of running for office tends to limit who can run. The field needs to be more level.
In a report released in May 2010, the Local Government Elections Task Force made several recommendations for election reform, some of which the province has implemented.
One of the changes that came into effect with the 2014 election was to extend terms of office to four years. But the recommendation to limit campaign spending was not implemented 鈥� the sa国际传媒 Liberals said there wasn鈥檛 time to work that out before the election. That excuse is gone; they now have nearly four years to make the change.
Campaign spending has soared, particularly in the Lower Mainland, where Mayor Gregor Robertson鈥檚 Vision Vancouver spent $3.4 million in last fall鈥檚 election, $485,000 more than it raised. Its archrival Non-Partisan Association raised $2.5 million and spent $2.1 million.
Spending in the capital region was more modest, but still substantial. Dean Fortin spent more than $128,000 in his unsuccessful bid for re-election as Victoria鈥檚 mayor, up from about $77,000 in the 2011 election. Ida Chong, who came a distant third in 2014, spent more than $108,000, and the winner, Lisa Helps, spent about $88,000.
In seeking re-election as Saanich鈥檚 mayor, Frank Leonard spent more than $62,000, while the winner, Richard Atwell, spent nearly $53,000.
(Re-elected mayors Nils Jensen of Oak Bay and Barb Desjardins of Esquimalt were also both outspent by their challengers.)
Council candidates typically spend substantially less than mayoral candidates. Expenses for successful Victoria candidates ranged from about $8,000 to $27,000. In Saanich, successful council candidates spent from $10,000 to $29,000 on their campaigns.
Still, campaign costs could pose a substantial barrier to entering local politics. That is counter to the public interest and erodes confidence. When only candidates and slates with big budgets can be heard during a campaign, municipal elections are closed to independent candidates and new voices.
Campaign contributions are not evil. They are a gesture of support for a candidate鈥檚 platform and abilities. But they are not supposed to buy favourable treatment after the election. When candidates are largely funded by a small pool of contributors with clear special interests, the public rightly fears favoritism.
The province did implement recommended changes to financial disclosure procedures, requiring candidates to file financial statements within 90 days after the election. That鈥檚 helpful, but it would be even more useful if candidates were required to make preliminary reports before the election, so voters could know what interests stood behind the candidates.
Campaign spending limits would reduce the perception and possibility that big money could have undue influence. Even better would be limits on campaign contributions, but the task force declined to make that recommendation, which was its major failure. The task force received 134 submissions in favour of contribution limits and only 31 that were opposed.
Spending limits need to be tailored to the municipality 鈥� limits that made sense in Vancouver wouldn鈥檛 be of much use in Highlands, for example.
Regardless, the province needs to move ahead to limit the role of chequebook politics in municipal elections.
