Election hint: to ensure campaign funding, win

Everyone knows that it takes money to run for office; the higher the office, the more money it takes.

That's why we have laws governing how campaign money can be raised, and more more laws governing how it can be spent. And more laws again requiring full disclosure of where every dollar came from, and where it all went.

This week, Canadians discovered that from as far back as the last three federal elections, there are still 39 candidates who together owe almost three quarters of a million dollars in borrowed funds that has not been repaid.

The percentage of deadbeat candidates for Parliament, compared to the general populace, is not encouraging.

Much of those debts, the candidates likely owe themselves. Raising money via donations isn't easy (just ask the manager of any of Red Deer's non-profits), but I imagine raising money to finance an election campaign must be even harder.

Therefore, many people running for office must necessarily be wealthy enough to largely finance their own campaigns.

Except doing so exclusively isn't legal.

Unlike the United States, where spending money on electioneering is considered part of free speech guaranteed by their constitution, Canadians have embraced a far more frugal view of democracy.

The right to hold office must not be restricted to billionaires, or to people willing to promise favour to wealthy individuals who back their candidacy.

That's the theory, anyway. Cynics are invited to insert their comments here.

But suppose you want to lead a federal political party. Getting there — especially in Canada where such a campaign involves a whole lot of travel — requires a serious outlay of cash.

There are legal budget limits, however. These days, Liberal candidates seeking to become the next Justin Trudeau are allowed a total of $950,000 for their camapigns. Given the vast amounts we are used to seeing spent by parties in federal elections, that doesn't seem like much.

But try raising it $1,200 or less at a time. That's the current allowable donation limit (the figure is subject to change due to inflation). The result is that only the perceived favourite — like Trudeau — would ever be able to gather the hundreds of thousands of individual donations that would bring one even close to that limit.

So “loans” for these campaigns are allowed. They must all be reported to Elections Canada, and they all must be paid back within 18 months of the end of the campaign, or they risk being ruled as illegal donations.

You can see how a losing candidate would have an extremely difficult time raising hundreds of thousands to repay loans for expenses in an election they have already lost.

In the 2006 Liberal leadership campaign that elected Stephane Dion, the borrowing and spending limits were much higher, leading to the embarrassing picture of a Ken Dryden still unable to settle accounts with Elections Canada for his campaign. Even after he was given multiple extensions to the rule that requires him to pay back the money ($225,000, much of which he likely “borrowed” from himself).

Would you be willing today to fork out a couple hundred at a fundraising dinner to hear Dryden speak on, say, social development (a portfolio he held as a member of cabinet)? He did manage to secure national agreements on early learning and child care, you know.

Not interested? Understandable. Understandable also is Dryden's predicament.

Likewise the alacrity of the federal Conservatives to press the point. The guys who wrote the new rules for election spending midway through the Liberals' 2006 leadership campaign are not happy that the commissioner for Elections Canada is not taking these deadbeat bums to court.

Yves Cote ruled the laws requiring the payback of these loans are not enforceable in a criminal court. Therefore, he can only suggest that the people who still owe money for their losing campaigns work a bit harder to settle accounts.

Raising large amounts of cash in bits and pieces has become a specialty of the federal Tories. The new rules definitely favour their team.

They introduced legislation in 2011 to fix what chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand said renders the Canada Election Act incoherent and ineffective, but those corrections didn't get a ticket on the Conservative omnibus.

As far as I can see, “incoherent and ineffective” give a big advantage to the Conservatives.

The other parties will need more coherent and effective platforms to win the widespread support that is now needed to fund their campaigns. To win, you must . . . well, win.