Another common sense change being proposed by Rachel Notley and her   
   government.  All one has to do is look south of the border to see what can   
   happen when unlimited election spending happens - and the billionaires begin   
   to buy their chosen governments.   
      
   Note that British Columbia still does not restrict campaign donations from   
   corporations and unions.  Neither does Ontario.   
   ______________________________________   
   Calgary Herald        -  July 30, 2016   
      
   NDP proposes to cut election campaign spending by millions of dollars   
      
      
   The NDP is proposing to cap election spending by parties at about $1.6 million   
   — a move that would reduce campaign expenditures by millions of dollars and   
   could have a significant impact on the next provincial vote in 2019.   
      
   At a meeting of the legislature’s special ethics and accountability   
   committee on Wednesday, Calgary-Shaw MLA Graham Sucha put forward a motion   
   that would impose a campaign spending limit of approximately 60 cents per   
   elector, indexed to inflation.   
      
   Based on Elections Alberta figures from April of this year, that would work   
   out to nearly $1.6 million.   
      
   Sucha did not respond to an interview request Friday, but he told the   
   committee earlier this week that the motion reflects the commitment of all   
   MLAs “to getting big money out of politics.”   
      
   “We really want to make sure that we have a level playing field in ensuring   
   elected officials are accountable to citizens of Alberta and not those with   
   the deepest pockets,” said the NDP MLA, who also proposed local candidate   
   spending limits of $40,   
   000 for most ridings and $50,000 for northern constituencies.   
       
   After taking office last year, the NDP government, with the support of the   
   other parties in the assembly, immediately banned unions and corporations from   
   making political donations.   The ethics and accountability committee was   
   struck to examine other    
   potential changes to election laws, whistleblower legislation and conflict of   
   interest legislation, with a report due in October.   
       
   Sucha’s spending cap would be close to what the NDP spent in the 2015   
   campaign, when it shelled out nearly $1.7 million as it upended the   
   four-decade-old PC dynasty.   The Tories, who for years had a marked financial   
   advantage over their rivals, spent $   
   4.3 million, while the Wildrose spent nearly $1.2 million as the party formed   
   the official Opposition.   
       
   In the 2012 election, the PCs spent $4.6 million, while Wildrose doled out   
   $2.9 million.   
       
   The proposal from the NDP comes as the Wildrose continues to hold a   
   significant financial lead over other parties.   
       
   The party and its constituency associations raised over $1 million in the   
   first half of 2016, compared to $761,668 for the NDP and $212,898 for the PCs.   
       
   Talk also continues to swirl about the possibility of uniting the Wildrose and   
   Tories in time for the next election.   
       
   Wildrose MLA Jason Nixon, who sits on the ethics committee, suspects the NDP   
   is putting forward a spending cap out of concern it will be at a disadvantage   
   in the 2019 election.   
       
   Nevertheless, Nixon said Wildrose is not opposed to a spending limit, though   
   there are concerns the NDP’s proposed cap is too low.   
       
   “Our biggest concern is that we’re not handcuffing parties so much they   
   can’t actually get out and communicate with Albertans,” said Nixon.   
       
   He said some of the rural constituencies are so large they require significant   
   resources to cover. At the same time, a lower spending cap may give an unfair   
   advantage to incumbents who generally start a campaign with much higher name   
   recognition than    
   their rivals, he said.   
       
   Alberta Party Leader Greg Clark said he and other opposition MLAs on the   
   committee were caught off guard by the proposal of spending caps.   
       
   He is concerned the NDP is trying to give itself an edge, given that it has   
   the resources of government at its disposal in the run-up to the election   
   call. A limit that is too low could make it difficult for other parties to   
   compete, Clark suggested.   
       
   While many other jurisdictions in Canada have spending caps, Sucha’s motion   
   would give Alberta the lowest per-capita limit in the country, said Clark.   
       
   According to figures provided to the committee, British Columbia, with a   
   slightly larger population than Alberta, has spending limits of $4.4 million,   
   while the federal cap is calculated on a basis of 74 cents per elector.   
       
   Sucha said in committee the figures brought forward are reflective of what is   
   seen nationally.   
       
   “I’m not trying to reinvent the wheel here,” he said.   
       
   Sucha’s motions were adjourned for further debate. The committee will hold a   
   series of meetings in August to deal with the outstanding issues ahead of its   
   deadline.   
       
   MLAs are almost certain to significantly lower current political donation   
   limits in Alberta, which sit at $15,000 annually per individual donor,   
   doubling in an election year.   
       
   Clark said stricter donation limits are needed, but the committee has to   
   explore the consequences of adding spending caps as well.   
       
   “At this point, I really have more questions,” said the Calgary-Elbow MLA.   
   _________________________   
   BC:   
   http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/no-ban-on-m   
   nicipal-political-donations-says-bc-government/article29746715/   
      
   Ontario:   
   http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-proposes-political   
   fundraising-bill-with-ban-on-corporate-union-donations-1.3585863   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)