Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Dix wants to ban Corporate and Union Donations to political parties


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Harbinger

Harbinger

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,197 posts
  • Joined: 12-October 05

Posted 14 April 2013 - 10:03 PM

B.C. NDP leader Adrian Dix will ban corporate and union donations to political parties if elected.
On the eve of the kickoff of his election campaign, Dix stood with four would-be MLAs at Vancouver’s Roundhouse Community Centre and admitted some of his union brethren may not be happy.
“This is a major reform of politics in British Columbia,” said Dix. “I think this is good for the business community and the labour movement as well. Groups will continue to support political parties but will not be involved in fundraising.”
Dix was asked about Premier Christy Clark’s $100,000 TV appearance which is set to air on Sunday night: “I think that’s fair. I think that’s fine. The Liberals will get a lot of attention for what they do tonight.”
Dix said his intention is to limit conflicts of interest with huge donors, but said how political parties choose to spend the money they raise is up to them.
In a press release, B.C. Conservative Party leader John Cummins said his party fully supports the proposal.
“Over two years ago, when I first declared my candidacy for the leadership of the B.C. Conservatives, I pledged that we would ban corporate and union donations,” said Cummins. “I have long believed that special interests, insiders and cronies have had too much influence in politics.”
Dix noted that the federal government has banned such donations — a point seized upon by B.C. Liberal MLA Mary Polak as condoning taxpayer funding of political parties.
“We disagree with the use of taxpayer money to fund political parties, it’s not the way to control spending and make sure that we’re growing the economy,” Polak said in a release. “It’s very concerning that the NDP are trying to hide this important detail.”
While Dix makes the case that the corporate/union ban is about integrity, the policy would appear to represent a major shift in financial power in the direction of his own party.
Statistics show that in 2012 the B.C. Liberals raised about $10 million while the B.C. NDP raised $7 million — in effect a $3-million advantage to the Liberals.
However, if everything else remained the same, taking union and corporate donations out of the mix would have left the B.C. Liberals with $5 million, and the B.C. NDP with $5.4 million — a $400,000 advantage for the NDP.
B.C. Green Party leader Jane Sterk told The Province she supports the policy, even though she notes it would help the NDP.
“I think it’s great if he’s going to follow through with that,” said Sterk. “I hope he’s doing it for the right reasons — the NDP has always had a lot of contributions from individuals.”
Sterk said the Greens would like to see each individual’s donations limited to $2,500 per year, to prevent, for example, business or union leaders from replacing the huge corporate and union donations with huge “individual” donations in their own name.
Dix said if he becomes premier he will strike a legislative committee on campaign reform with representation from all political parties with more than five per cent of the 2013 popular vote, as well as any elected independent MLAs.


Read more: http://www.theprovin...l#ixzz2QVO5eirk


  • 0

Posted Image


#2 MC Fatigue

MC Fatigue

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,568 posts
  • Joined: 13-March 12

Posted 14 April 2013 - 11:46 PM

Posted Image

It would be nice to see political parties not in the back pocket of big corporations. This is a long time coming.
Of course, knowing corporate scumbags they'll find a loophole somewhere.
  • 1
" I don't understand, can somebody tell me what's going on? Why is there a drunk Chinese man doing push-ups on my front lawn?......and why's he wearing lipstick??"

#3 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,574 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 15 April 2013 - 12:10 AM

It would be nice to see political parties not in the back pocket of big corporations. This is a long time coming.
Of course, knowing corporate scumbags they'll find a loophole somewhere.


And unions? What are your thoughts on their political contributions?
  • 1

#4 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,817 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 15 April 2013 - 12:11 AM

Dix.

Penis thread.

Ahahah, oh man. :bigblush:
  • 0
Posted Image

#5 Harbinger

Harbinger

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,197 posts
  • Joined: 12-October 05

Posted 15 April 2013 - 07:35 AM

And unions? What are your thoughts on their political contributions?



has to go both ways. Of course. and limiting personal donations as well
  • 0

Posted Image


#6 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,683 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 15 April 2013 - 07:41 AM

Is that even constitutional? Would it apply to third party advertising that seems to dominate the airwaves?
  • 0

#7 Dazzle

Dazzle

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,751 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 15 April 2013 - 07:43 AM

I think it's easy to be in this position if you're not the one receiving much of those donations to begin with.

What am I voting for if I'm voting for Dix anyway?

So far, spending money on teachers - great. What else?
  • 0
Posted Image --> THANKS EGATTI.

I have to say Dazzle's was the coolest. ROTFLOL


#8 Dazzle

Dazzle

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,751 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 15 April 2013 - 07:45 AM

Posted Image

It would be nice to see political parties not in the back pocket of big corporations. This is a long time coming.
Of course, knowing corporate scumbags they'll find a loophole somewhere.


This is a pipe dream and the reality is that ALL political parties will be swayed by money. Historically, that has always been the case and on a micro level, money can corrupt the individual.

I don't see how a party can be incorruptible, despite these 'rules'.
  • 0
Posted Image --> THANKS EGATTI.

I have to say Dazzle's was the coolest. ROTFLOL


#9 Lockout Casualty

Lockout Casualty

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 935 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 12

Posted 15 April 2013 - 07:55 AM

This is a pipe dream and the reality is that ALL political parties will be swayed by money. Historically, that has always been the case and on a micro level, money can corrupt the individual.

I don't see how a party can be incorruptible, despite these 'rules'.


By that logic we shouldn't bother with laws at all, as they're bound to be broken. This is a positive move for democracy, so credit where it's due.

This is a good move by the NDP, especially for the fact they will be hurt by it much less than the Liberals. Funny, half of Liberals' donations came from unions and corporations, yet it's the NDP and the teachers that we should all worry about.
  • 0
“Hi Nigel, just a quick note to say that I am always ready to do exactly what is asked but it would have been a great help to know in advance what the strategy was.”

- Carolyn Stewart Olsen, Conservative Senator.

#10 LostViking

LostViking

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,367 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 09

Posted 15 April 2013 - 08:14 AM

This is a pipe dream and the reality is that ALL political parties will be swayed by money. Historically, that has always been the case and on a micro level, money can corrupt the individual.

I don't see how a party can be incorruptible, despite these 'rules'.


This is definitely not going to reduce corruption in political parties, nor do I think that is the point. What it may do is ensure that the parties that have the most money behind them won't be able to use much of that money to push their candidate. In theory a smaller party can be just as visible and have their message heard just as clearly as a bigger party. However, they will find ways around it, likely this will turn out to be a good way to prevent smaller parties from gaining funding while the bigger parties already have some sort of slippery backup plan to get funds anyways.

I have my doubts that this will make things better, but I still support the idea.
  • 0
Posted Image

#11 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 15 April 2013 - 08:49 AM

sTwo areas of contention.

Taxpayer funded donations. I am fundamentally opposed to political parties being funded by taxpayers. I support a political party of my choice by donation of my choice. Nothing rankled me more than the federal system where my tax dollars were going to fund the Bloc Quebecois who were dedicated to breaking up Canada. If a party cannot get its support from its members and donors, then too bad so sad.

What about "volunteer" work - work in kind? This is a huge advantage for the BC NDP.

As we have seen in the past when the BC NDP broke the law on participating in elections, much of that stemmed from unions having their paid staff seconded by the BC NDP as volunteers we saw with the recall campaigns. Another area where Adrian Dix was forced to admit he broke the law after being outed by a BC NDP field operative after Clark and Dix continually denied his unlawful participation.


As Vaughn Palmer wrote on January 19, 2011 in a column on Dix and his time as chief political operative and fixer for Glen Clark and notes that Adrian Dix does not come to the table as the saying goes "with clean hands":

When the New Democrats faced a trio of recall campaigns against their MLAs in the late 1990s, then premier Glen Clark called, as he usually did, on the skills and drive of his chief political operative Adrian Dix.


Dix put together what proved to be a successful effort to quash the recallers, lining up support and resources from NDP headquarters and the trade union movement.


He did most of this by phone, though twice he visited the key battleground of Prince George at his own expense. He also persuaded government staffers to go into the field on their own time, while facilitating an arrangement that saw the labour movement quietly cover several thousand dollars' worth of travel expenses.


All this had to be done on the sly. The NDP-authored recall legislation imposed strict spending limits. And the NDP line was that local MLAs were unfairly targeted by dark forces -- "outsiders, special interests, lobby groups" -- from beyond their ridings.


Accordingly, Clark denied the role of his own office in stage-managing the fight. "Mr. Dix has a job in Victoria," he told the legislature. "He was not involved in the recall campaigns in those ridings."


Only after an NDP field operative blew the whistle to the news media did the truth come out. "I had quite a bit of involvement," Dix conceded.


Not only then and there. A review of the files finds Dix playing a central role in many of the controversies in the Clark era.

http://www2.canada.c...002230f2521&p=1

If find Dix's concern about conflict of interest laughable given the BC NDP Constitution guarantees unions credentialed delegates at Conventions.


10.10.2. Calculation of delegate credential entitlement for affiliated organizations will be based upon the following:

• For an affiliated union, whether that affiliation is through the union’s local, provincial or national office, delegate entitlement will be calculated by aggregating all affiliated individual members from all affiliated locals of the union or through regionally based organizations as approved by Provincial Executive.

http://www.bcndp.ca/...tution_2009.pdf
  • 3
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#12 pwnstar

pwnstar

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,308 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 10

Posted 15 April 2013 - 08:58 AM

cool
  • 0

Posted Image


#13 Langdon Algur

Langdon Algur

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,991 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 07

Posted 15 April 2013 - 09:48 AM

"Dix noted that the federal government has banned such donations — a point seized upon by B.C. Liberal MLA Mary Polak as condoning taxpayer funding of political parties.
"We disagree with the use of taxpayer money to fund political parties, it's not the way to control spending and make sure that we're growing the economy," Polak said in a release. "It's very concerning that the NDP are trying to hide this important detail."


WOW.  Given the amount of tax payer money the BC Liberials have spent on thinly vailed campaign ads such as the BC jobs plan ads the above quote is so ironic it's sickening.

Edited by Langdon Algur, 15 April 2013 - 09:53 AM.

  • 1
"What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?" ~ Henry David Thoreau

#14 silverpig

silverpig

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,402 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 03

Posted 15 April 2013 - 09:56 AM

sTwo areas of contention.

Taxpayer funded donations. I am fundamentally opposed to political parties being funded by taxpayers. I support a political party of my choice by donation of my choice. Nothing rankled me more than the federal system where my tax dollars were going to fund the Bloc Quebecois who were dedicated to breaking up Canada. If a party cannot get its support from its members and donors, then too bad so sad.


How do you feel about tax credits for donations to political parties?

If you are against direct funding of political parties by the government, you should also be against tax credits for political donations as they are taxpayer funded donations.

I donated $500 to a political party last year. I got a tax break of ~$350 for it. Following the money, the political party I donated to got $500, I was out $150, and the government was out $350 in taxes, money that went to a political party of my choice.

What is even worse about this system than the "dollars for votes" system, is people who can afford to donate more up front can influence this government funding of political parties more than people who can't. When I was a student, I didn't have $500 to put up, and $150 was even a stretch, but I did have a vote. Now that I have a job, I can afford to donate $150, and can afford to float $500 until I get my $350 rebate. Less fortunate people cannot.

What we can say is that offering tax credits for political donations is in fact just another mechanism of funding political parties with public funds and I am curious as to your position on it.

Edited by silverpig, 15 April 2013 - 09:57 AM.

  • 1
Moo

#15 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,377 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 15 April 2013 - 10:36 AM

The day somebody ACTUALLY figures out how to remove money and power from politics is the day we will see truly representative, smart governing of and for the people. That day is sadly a LOOOOOOONNNNNNG ways off if it ever comes.
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted Image

#16 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 15 April 2013 - 11:08 AM

And under the heading of its deja vu all over again... all blast from the discredited past of Glen Clark/Adrian Dix era:


Mike Smyth@MikeSmythNews 23m
Dix promises "Jobs Protection Commissioner" for forestry. Uh-oh, getting deja vu of Glen Clark's "Jobs and Timber Accord." Fail.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#17 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,416 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 15 April 2013 - 11:16 AM

yeah deja vu

Mike Smyth@MikeSmythNews 1h
Lib platform has "specific measures" to control govt spending, I hear. Problem: they doubled debt, skirted own balanced-budget law. #bcpoli
  • 3

#18 Gross-Misconduct

Gross-Misconduct

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,231 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 07

Posted 15 April 2013 - 09:31 PM

Great idea. But seeing how the BC Liberals like to operate covertly and skirt the rules (Ethnic Vote Scandal) I'm sure they will find a way around this also.
  • 0
Posted Image

#19 Dazzle

Dazzle

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,751 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 15 April 2013 - 09:57 PM

Great idea. But seeing how the BC Liberals like to operate covertly and skirt the rules (Ethnic Vote Scandal) I'm sure they will find a way around this also.


Don't kid yourselves. NDP has been skirting the rules, as has any other party in Canada historically.

No party is squeaky clean, aside from maybe the Green Party.
  • 1
Posted Image --> THANKS EGATTI.

I have to say Dazzle's was the coolest. ROTFLOL


#20 Gross-Misconduct

Gross-Misconduct

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,231 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 07

Posted 15 April 2013 - 10:07 PM

Don't kid yourselves. NDP has been skirting the rules, as has any other party in Canada historically.

No party is squeaky clean, aside from maybe the Green Party.


I agree. You can't be a politician and have any kind of moral compass.
  • 0
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.