On Public Subsidies for Political Parties

In the upcoming federal budget, the newly-minted Conservative majority will initiate the phasing out of public subsidies for political parties.

This move has been coming for some time. Ever since the Tories first tried to do it in 2008, and in the process spurred a crisis that almost cost them government, they have been waiting for the chance to chop the transfers to the opposition parties. Of course, their piece of the $27 million pie will also disappear, but Harper's party has become much better at fundraising than the others since the current funding regime was put in place by Jean Chretien in 2004. The NDP aren't terrible at it, but still do not do as well as the Tories. The Liberals, however, are abysmal at raising money from individuals, and therefore stand to lose most from the elimination of the $2 per vote subsidy (unless you're a supporter of the Bloc Quebecois, who, as I've previously argued, are on the verge of extinction partly due to their money woes).

Individual contributions to political parties are currently permitted to a limit of $1,100 per person per year. For this measure to make any sense at all, this limit must be raised to give parties a fighting chance at replacing the lost revenue once the subsidies are gone. As Jeffrey Simpson points out: "Transparency, a higher individual limit and the end of public subsidies would be a reasonable compromise. But, of course, the Conservatives with their majority are not looking for compromise." Harper wants to use the baseball bat of his majority to kneecap his competitors -- especially the flailing Liberals.

I believe the Tories should be very careful they don't get exactly what they wish for. By tilting the playing field so boldly and obviously in their own direction, they risk incurring the wrath of the public over time. The subsidy will be gone in time for the next election, meaning the annual infusions will play a reduced role in campaign preparations for the October 2015 election than it has in the past few campaigns. If the Conservative Party of Canada means to use a perceived advantage to attack its adversaries through spending dollops of cash on negative pre-election ads in 2014 and 2015, the public may finally revolt.

If any lesson can be learned from the Orange Crush this year, it's that Canadians are tiring of the old tactics and want a different political environment. The Tories would be wise to heed that lesson, lest they start turning their perceived advantages into tangible liabilities at the most inopportune moment.