Few things exemplify the differences in how politics are played in Canada and the USA as does the role of cash in campaigns. It’s easy to argue that the campaign spending limits imposed by the Chrétien government are too severe and are handicapping parties’ ability to organise and carry their message to the voters. It’s a big country and campaigns are expensive and the proportion of the populace that can be convinced to finance a party is small. The $1000 maximum donation exacerbates the problem.
But contrast our problem with that of the USA where campaign spending limits err virtually non-existent. Jeffrey Simpson covers the issue well in today’s The Globe and Mail noting that contestants may spend half a billion dollars seeking to get the nominations before the campaign for president even begins. But potentially scandalous at the expenditures may be, at least the candidates seem able to engage the American public in the campaign in ways Canadian politicians can entertain only in fantasy.
That Hilary Clinton had to put $5 million of her own money into her campaign this week to keep it competitive in the contest with Barrack Obama, who is attracting money like a magnet, is indicative of the trouble facing her organization. While the pundits wage-in on that matter, why is no one questioning just how Clinton came to have $5 million to donate to her cause? This is a woman who worked almost two decades ago as a small-city lawyer and was noted for nothing so much as a few questionable real-estate deals. Her husband’s scandal prone administration left the family with huge personal legal bills and, it was widely held, huge debts when the couple left The White House. Since then Hilary has drawn a US Senator’s salary; good bucks surely but not the kind of income that allows you to sock-away a spare $5 million. If Bill’s public speaking career has enabled him to pay off his debts while financing his globe-trotting lifestyle and give his wife enough cash that she has $5 million to spare, then shouldn’t it be noted that he, not she, is supporting the campaign? Where did the $5 million come from? Who is financing the nouveau-riche lifestyle of a couple who has really only held public service jobs? Mitt Romney may have spent $35 million of his own money, but at least we know something about the businesses he has owned and how he may have come to have it.
This is not just an American thing. Close to home, i have witnessed “ordinary folk” who, basically, were living month to month on public sector incomes. Within months of their getting elected, their lifestyle has been upgraded well in excess of their publicly disclosed salaries. Suddenly there are new houses and cottages and travel and.... Are they living on borrowed cash? Are they getting undisclosed loans and, if so, from whom? Are they getting insider investment advice and, if so, from whom? Don’t these possibilities deserve as much attention as the possibility that cash is being passed over and under the tables in brown envelopes to be stashed away until needed in safety deposit boxes and numbered off-shore bank accounts. Why is no one asking?
But contrast our problem with that of the USA where campaign spending limits err virtually non-existent. Jeffrey Simpson covers the issue well in today’s The Globe and Mail noting that contestants may spend half a billion dollars seeking to get the nominations before the campaign for president even begins. But potentially scandalous at the expenditures may be, at least the candidates seem able to engage the American public in the campaign in ways Canadian politicians can entertain only in fantasy.
That Hilary Clinton had to put $5 million of her own money into her campaign this week to keep it competitive in the contest with Barrack Obama, who is attracting money like a magnet, is indicative of the trouble facing her organization. While the pundits wage-in on that matter, why is no one questioning just how Clinton came to have $5 million to donate to her cause? This is a woman who worked almost two decades ago as a small-city lawyer and was noted for nothing so much as a few questionable real-estate deals. Her husband’s scandal prone administration left the family with huge personal legal bills and, it was widely held, huge debts when the couple left The White House. Since then Hilary has drawn a US Senator’s salary; good bucks surely but not the kind of income that allows you to sock-away a spare $5 million. If Bill’s public speaking career has enabled him to pay off his debts while financing his globe-trotting lifestyle and give his wife enough cash that she has $5 million to spare, then shouldn’t it be noted that he, not she, is supporting the campaign? Where did the $5 million come from? Who is financing the nouveau-riche lifestyle of a couple who has really only held public service jobs? Mitt Romney may have spent $35 million of his own money, but at least we know something about the businesses he has owned and how he may have come to have it.
This is not just an American thing. Close to home, i have witnessed “ordinary folk” who, basically, were living month to month on public sector incomes. Within months of their getting elected, their lifestyle has been upgraded well in excess of their publicly disclosed salaries. Suddenly there are new houses and cottages and travel and.... Are they living on borrowed cash? Are they getting undisclosed loans and, if so, from whom? Are they getting insider investment advice and, if so, from whom? Don’t these possibilities deserve as much attention as the possibility that cash is being passed over and under the tables in brown envelopes to be stashed away until needed in safety deposit boxes and numbered off-shore bank accounts. Why is no one asking?
