Ban big money bill

Most middle and working class families cannot afford to donate $1200. This limit doesn't stop corporations from donating, it just makes them work harder--they can still parse out cash to board members, staff and their spouses so the money will add up, it'll just make them work a bit harder to exert their influence. But make no mistake, they will still try. Québec's limit is now $100 and they seemed able to run the last election perfectly fine. I would support a limit of $500 max. Make it realistic for average folk otherwise you are still giving the wealthiest 5% of the population an unfair ability to influence political outcomes.

This legislation would drive more honest politics, reflecting the concerns of citizens, not profit interests.

Just to add to my free hydro idea, I'd like to see BC hydro get into the research & development and international sales of renewable energy, solar, wind, geothermal, and electromagnetic power generation systems,

When Stephen Harper killed Jean Chretien's per vote party subsidy the public then knew that they had an undemocratic dictator who was going to use any trick to keep power. The per vote subsidy encourages voting. It means that even if your candidate/party loses you can still help them by voting. It is truly good! To those politicians and pundits who cynically put negative spin on this beneficial mechanism I would say, "So you would do the same as Stephen Harper did the day he stabbed our democracy in the back?"

First off, I like the idea of per-vote funding, probably at the $1 mark. Ideally, the voter would actually be given a separate box: "would you like $1 from the consolidated revenue fund to be given to a registered political party*? if so, indicate which party below" (separate selection from voting, incl. under P.R.; you can "give" to party not on your ballot, *and additional option of "the [indep] MLA candidate I voted for".) - HOWEVER, if you are going to let this one slip through, despite all the misgivings out there about it, (A) the individual donation limit has to drop even further, (B) and/or the "tax rebate" for personal donations needs to either max out sooner (e.g. $100), and/or be a smaller percentage to start with (e.g. 50%).

Overall, I am in favour of the proposed legislation except for the provision of public subsidies to each political party. I do not feel this is a tax payer responsibility. Each Party needs to be creative in its fundraising and budget accordingly. Admittedly, this will be a challenge. If the federal government can eliminate such subsidies (under Harper) then so can the provinces.

I fully support the intent and content of the bill, including the per vote subsidy interim plan. But I am afraid we may have lost some trust with voters due to the way this topic has been presented by the media who are reporting that it was slipped into the bill without first getting advice from an "independent commission who would review campaign financing", as promised prior to the election. 

In the debate and conversations I've observed the most contentious point seems to be the funding of the parties by taxes. This debate is almost completely reactive, and for the most part, I believe, reflects a lack of understanding about how political systems work; why it is more advantageous to have equitable public funding of the process rather than vested-interest funding; that the proposal is itself designed as a transition mechanism. In short, I think that the communications and messaging around the proposed public funding for the parties should be prioritized and vigorous, otherwise we are looking at an issue that can cause more and more reactive debates that are going to tie up a lot of time and energy, mire down the process and could even derail it.

I like the idea of political funding being done based on number of votes received and percentage of the popular vote. We don't need a tiered fundraising system that relies on donations. If British Columbian's paid per election term an "election tax" of let's say $5, a total of $17M could be allocated to political parties as funding. (Based on a $5 tax being applied to all 3.4M eligible voters in BC).

Parties would receive funding two ways: on a per-vote system and based on their percentage of the popular vote. Using a per-vote algorithm, the BC greens would receive $1,661,935 for total votes received where the Liberals and NDP would each get $3.9M respectively. Independents would get $248,745 for their 49,749 votes. Furthermore, $2.8M of the remaining $17M pool would go to the Liberals and NDP each, while the Greens would receive $1.2M and others the remaining $179,686.84. By using an integrated system like this, everyone would receive funding based on election success and would have it paid for by the electorate. Parties would then have to budget their expenses until the next election cycle. The overall numbers would be as follows:

Liberals - $6,861,201.55

NDP - $6,847,667.20

Greens - $2,862,699.41

Others - $428,431.84

Total* - $17M

*allocation of resources based on a $5 per person per election term cycle paid for by the 3.4M estimated eligible voters in British Columbia.

I do wonder what John Horgan is up to, holding expensive golf and other events. He looks dishonest!

These ideas sound good so far.

Campaign contributions should be limited to voters only, and to an amount that just about anyone can afford, perhaps $50. This could be supplemented by a multiple of the amount from the public purse. If the multiplier was three, then a $50 donation would be supplemented by $150, making a total of $400. A mechanism would be needed to permit someone who could not afford even $50 to donate, perhaps through the tax system. The tax deductions on the income tax return should be eliminated. By the way with the present system if a poor person contributes $100 it actually costs them $100, whereas the cost to a rich person is $25; this is seriously unfair. Political parties are not mentioned in the constitution. Thus government funding should not go to parties, as in the per vote subsidy proposed. Only to individual candidates as per the above. Parties will not like that, but will have to work something out.

Public financing is appropriate but with it must come more effective oversight, particularly related to nominations. Political parties perform a fundamental function in a democracy. They are the gatekeepers for anyone wishing to enter public life. That function should not be open to abuse of all kinds as is the case in all parties. Increased public funding dooms the notion that political parties are private organizations that exist to serve the interests of members and the leadership. The NDP/Green should not just dip into the public money but simultaneously amend the Elections Act to regulate inter party nomination and leadership contests and have Elections BC administer such contests.

I echo those that identified these 2 points:> 1) What can deter a corporate owner paying $1200.00 on behalf of their employees? They've got millions. 2)Is $1200 too high? (Keeping in mind parties need money, so lower amounts may not be realistic period.)

There is zero accountability for a donation, and the amount is ridiculously high. Better have every donation routed through a central commission where it is fully documented first, then sent to the political party (yes, like that in Quebec). The donation is so high that ordinary low income folks are left out of the process. A low income person may be able to afford 10 or maybe 20 dollars, but one person donating 1200 dollars can get 60 times 'bang for the buck'. the max donation should be capped at 25 dollars. I agree with government funding for political parties based on the popularity vote. However, that should fund every party that fields candidates in the previous election.

The BC greens raised money without corporate or union donations. Isn't that enough to run a good campaign? That said, the taxpayer is already funding donations via tax credits. Haven't read the bill, but financing on a per-vote basis might be preferable if it's one or the other. I too got forced to sign up and lost my first draft. Annoying.

This bill may not restore the public's trust in government as much as hoped. We are already seeing headlines in the news and on social media that point out that the subsidies constitute a broken election promise, quoting a Horgan campaign speech in which he promised that subsidies would not be needed. It has also been implied that the provision is payback to the Green Party for the Confidence and Supply Agreement (quoting subsidy amounts that make it clear that the Green Party's annual subsidy is a much larger percentage of their total fundraising amount for the 2017 election, than is the case for the Liberals or the NDP). There is also a widely expressed distaste for using public money to support political parties at all. Overall, I'm afraid it's going to take a huge amount of education, explaining, and counterarguments to the naysayers to prevent this much-needed reform from turning into a serious political liability to haunt the NDP and Greens in the 2021 election.

I like everything I have read so far about what is in Bill 3. I tried to read the text itself, but I did not achieve the clarity I wished. Does the bill forbid in-kind donations such as time off for volunteering? Thanks. P.S. I lost the first draft of the above because I was forced into the account sign-up process and carelessly closed the tab. I was not expecting the sign-up and did not appreciate it.

I really like the bill including the per vote financing of political parties. Under current system taxpayers are funding political parties big time, with maximum rebates for big donors being about $550 so this is nothing new. The per vote financing of political parties is fair. No taxpayer will have their $2.50 given to a party they didn't vote for. 796,772 Liberal voters will contribute to the Liberals, 795, 106 NDP voters will contribute to the NDP, and 332,387 Green voters will contribute $2.50 to the party they voted for. What's unreasonable about that? It will be the only tiny fraction of the taxes you pay that you have any say in how it is spend.

This and your demonstrated behaviour to eschew such financial influence is one of the main reasons I voted for and financially supported Green party.