Municipal party funding must change
Rewards established parties at the expense of new ideas and independent candidates
Quebec’s minister responsible for democratic institutions, Bernard Drainville, rightly sees the corruption crisis as a golden opportunity for reforming one of corruption’s root causes — the financing of parties. Most of his energy, however, appears to be going into attacking the problem at the provincial rather than at the municipal level, where allegations before the Char-bonneau Commission are so far showing corruption to be intense — notably in Montreal and Laval.
Reform of municipal financing can’t wait. Elections will be held 53 weeks from now in every city and town in Quebec.
There are two problems with the financing of municipal politics.
The one getting all the attention from Drainville so far is donations from business interests seeking contracts, zoning changes or other favours. Montreal Mayor Gérald Tremblay, scrambling to look virtuous, would reduce the limit that individuals can contribute to a political cause to $200 from the current maximum of $1,000. Even better, Drainville would slash it to $100. That would effectively end the ability of favour-seeking business persons to round up extra cheques from associates and family members.
The second problem with financing is as important, perhaps even more so, and Drainville has so far said nothing about it: It’s the way in which taxpayers subsidize politicians.
Public subsidies for politicians are a superb idea in principle, but the method by which they’re distributed subverts local democracy. Subsidies go only to parties, not individuals, and the size of the subsidy is proportional to the number of votes a party received in the last election and to its number of councillors. That might sound innocent, but consider:
The method rewards a party that has done well in the previous election, even if it covers itself with scandal during the next four years — as is the case with Tremblay’s party, Union Montreal. The method discriminates gainst new parties and independent candidates — elements that have the potential to bring fresh energy to the local scene. These newcomers don’t get a cent for the stupid reason that they weren’t around four years before. Imagine the outrage if the NHL were to give a first-place team the first draft pick, and the last-place team no draft pick at all, and yet this sort of illogic flourishes in Quebec municipal politics with hardly anyone saying a word.
The method is extremely profit- able for established parties. In the last election year, 2009, Union Montreal reaped $1.9 million in subsidies from taxpayers. That’s almost three times what it got from those controversial private donations.
These subsidies’ most insidious effect, however, is to prop up the party system. Without these gifts from municipal taxpayers, estab- lished parties would be less dominant. And, as I’ve often written, parties are the bane of municipal politics: They bring hyper-partisanship to city councils and inhibit the sort of collegiality that can make for serious debate and well-considered policy decisions.
To be sure, ideologies have a place in federal and provincial politics, and parties can be useful vehicles for those ideologies. But there’s relatively little that’s ideological about running a city: Providing efficient services is city hall’s main duty.
Worse, municipal parties can allow a clique, unaccountable and unknown to the public, to control city hall: In the case of Montreal’s three parties in each of the last two elections, a handful of insiders (often not elected people) and the party leader have decided who should run for each party’s city council and borough council seats. Unlike with provincial and federal parties, then, Montreal parties’ actual members count for little when it comes to choosing candidates.
If representatives of business in- terests are involved in these backroom dynamics, the result can be a city hall that acquiesces to those interests — and that is vulnerable to corruption.
To reform the system in time for the next election, Drainville would have to act not only fast but thoroughly. He can’t call for the outright abolition of municipal parties: The Charter of Rights guarantees freedom of association. But nothing prevents a reform of subsidies.
The subsidies should go not to parties but, rather, to individual candidates for mayor and councillor. Incumbency should be irrelevant. To qualify, candidates should obtain supportive signatures and token ($5 or $10) cheques from an impressive number of citizens. There’s nothing flaky about this technique: Plenty of cities and states south of the border can serve as models.
“Never let a serious crisis go to waste” has become an adage for reformers. Drainville should make the best of this one.