British Columbia has many facets worthy of international acclaim 鈥� a fantastic natural environment, a rich aboriginal history, a lively arts culture and an economy that has fared well when others have faltered.
But there鈥檚 an aspect to sa国际传媒 that has caught the attention of the New York Times that is a cause for collective shame 鈥� political financing.
鈥淏ritish Columbia: The 鈥榃ild West鈥� of Canadian Political Cash,鈥� said the headline Friday. The article recounts Premier Christy Clark鈥檚 annual $50,000 stipend from the sa国际传媒 Liberal Party, hinting that the payment could be construed as 鈥減ersonal enrichment from the handouts of wealthy donors, some of whom have paid tens of thousands of dollars to meet with her at private party fundraisers.鈥�
The article delves into last year鈥檚 ruling by sa国际传媒 conflict-of-interest commissioner that there is no conflict in the party stipend, then notes that the commissioner鈥檚 son is a deputy minister in Clark鈥檚 government.
Unlike most of the rest of sa国际传媒, says the article, sa国际传媒 has no restrictions on who can make political donations and how much they can donate.
While that might be news to New York Times readers, there鈥檚 nothing in the article that hasn鈥檛 already been reported by sa国际传媒 media. And it鈥檚 something we have frequently criticized in editorials 鈥� three times in 2016 alone. And we used the term 鈥渨ild west鈥� twice.
Old news, right? Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
Not quite. Sometimes it takes the perspective of an outsider to help us see things more clearly. If all we鈥檙e seeing is sa国际传媒 politics, we might think the situation is normal, but someone looking at the broader picture, at other jurisdictions, will see it for the bizarre situation that it is. It isn鈥檛 acceptable, it isn鈥檛 ethical and it should be changed.
The sa国际传媒 Liberals insist there鈥檚 no need to restrict contributions, because money doesn鈥檛 buy political favours.
In 2010, as the Local Elections Task Force was hearing recommendations on campaign finance reform, Bill Bennett, minister of community and rural development at the time, rejected the idea that money buys influence.
鈥淵ou don鈥檛 buy influence because you give a large donation,鈥� he said. 鈥淵ou give a large donation because you believe in the person for the job, and probably that candidate encapsulates your world view more so than the other candidate. The assumption or belief that somehow or other you are buying influence is actually quite insulting to anyone who is in public office.鈥�
It鈥檚 insulting all right 鈥� to anyone who can see the connection between money and influence, and to British Columbians who, according to a 2010 poll, overwhelmingly favour contribution limits and a ban on corporate and union donations.
Political insiders, too, know that money makes a difference in politics. In a 2016 TV interview, Martyn Brown, who served as chief of staff to former premier Gordon Campbell, gave a blunt assessment of political financing in sa国际传媒 鈥淔or the Liberals, the housing industry, construction industry, real estate, the liquor industry, energy industry, certainly the mining industry, big forest industry 鈥� all gave exceptional amounts of money, and they got exceptional attention,鈥� Brown said.
鈥淣o corporation, no industry, no union gives the level of money that they give to politicians without expecting special consideration in return, and they do get it.鈥�
Even if all politicians were so thoroughly ethical that they could disregard the source and size of contributions, there will always be the perception that money talks 鈥� and politicians listen.
The only sure way to remove the whiff of corruption is to bring in limits that ensure special interests cannot buy government favours. We don鈥檛 need a New York Times article to tell us that.
