ht: National Newswatch
Now, doesn't that sound reasonable? I thought so.The bill, introduced Tuesday in the Senate, would bar loans from corporations and unions to political parties, riding associations and candidates. It also limits individual loans to $1,100. Only parties, associations and financial institutions would be permitted to lend more.
“It will fight the perception that wealthy individuals can still buy influence and that the rules can be skirted easily if one still has enough money,” said the Minister of Democratic Reform Steven Fletcher. “Loans were used perhaps as a loophole in the past (to increase contribution limits) and we are closing that loophole.”
The idea of borrowing (as well as receiving huge donations) from corporations and unions and wealthy people (like George Soros in America, who ought to be stopped somehow from having such massively unfairly greater influence over public policy direction than does the average American) to finance an election campaign... well, one doesn't have to take too long to visualize the potential deleterious effects of such arrangements upon government and society.
Special interests and wealthy folks have their own agendas in mind when giving or lending large sums of money to politicians and political parties. They expect something in return, perhaps in terms of public policies they want to see implemented even though the majority of the People may not want such policies. They seek to have unfair say and influence over government, compared to the average individual who cannot afford to purchase future favors, unlike corporations, unions and the wealthy.
Indeed, the restrictions on political loans are obviously designed to level the playing field and give the average person relatively more power/say/influence compared to corporations, unions and the wealthy, who, indubitably, unfairly, hugely disproportionately influence politicians and public policy direction.
The new reforms would strengthen our democracy in that wealthy minority interests will be less likely to hijack the democratic and political process for their own agendas, often at the expense of the will of the majority, and the interests, of the People.
But the Liberals don't want this, so they're raising hell about it, throwing crap at the Conservatives who are only trying to strengthen our democracy and democratic processes for the average Canadian and take the unfairness out of the whole thing so that those with more money don't get a greater voice than those with less money. It's about equality. One person, one vote. The financing reforms do indeed tie into the whole democracy and equality of participation concept.
But the Liberals don't want any part of such a thing, because they obviously find democracy to be inconvenient (leader Michael Ignatieff wasn't elected to be leader, nor will he be, as to go through a leadership contest would, in the eyes of the Liberal elites, be inexpedient). They also obviously see equality to be inconvenient, as they do depend on wealthy elites, greedy, agenda-driven corporations and greedy, agenda-driven unions to help them in many ways to get a lot of votes, which is why they're always kissing those entities' asses (Kiss one ass, and the owner of that ass will tell his guys what a great ass-kisser you are, and then his guys will want to kiss your ass, expecting that you might reciprocate... Oh my, isn't that just gross? Well, them Liberals, you know about 'em... they do like to kiss each others'... Oh, ok. Sorry! Moving on now...).
Also, it's clear that Liberals who still owe money they borrowed to get elected are hoping that they won't have to pay it back...
Loans that can’t be paid can be written off, according to Elections Canada rules. The Conservative bill would force riding associations or the candidate’s party to pay up if a candidate can’t.
We know that a bunch of Liberals who contested past leadership campaigns, including current "leader" Ignatieff, owe, amongst themselves, hundreds of thousands of dollars. And they've been given extensions as they've passed their deadlines without having repaid their loans. So is it any surprise they don't want this reform? Of course not. They're trying to cheat, to weasel out of their responsibilities, run away from their debts. Shame!
The NDP supports the reforms:
“It’s absolutely the right thing to do,” said NDP MP Pat Martin.
Oh, those poor, poor, pitiful Liberals. Well, they shouldn't have borrowed so much (or at all) in the first place, should they?
Besides, donations do look better as financing for election campaigns, don't they? When you give money away, that means you believe in the candidate/party. When you lend money to them, what does that mean, then? Keep that in mind while remembering that the Liberals don't get much in terms of donations and have to borrow money to finance their campaigns. Not a good sign for them, is it? So little confidence, the People have in them!
