Why Alberta remains the wild west of campaign finances

Money is the mother’s milk of politics. Nevertheless, there have been periodic attempts at campaign finance reform in Canada. Most famously in 2003 when the Chretien government banned corporate and union donations and put a cap on individual donations. The Harper government went further when it lowered the individual donation limit to $1,200 and got rid of the per-vote public subsidy that provided parties with millions of dollars.  

But Alberta remains the wild west when it comes to campaign finance. This is true at the provincial level and it is also true in Calgary elections. In the 2013 Calgary election, donations are capped at $5,000 per year and can be provided by individuals, corporations, and unions. There is no limit on spending and disclosure of campaign contributions is required only after the election.

There have been some good efforts at increased transparency. In 2010, Naheed Nenshi voluntarily disclosed his list of donors during the campaign and this forced his two main mayoral opponents, Ric McIvor and Barb Higgins, to do the same. In 2013, Civic Camp created a financial disclosure website and by Thanksgiving over half of all councillor candidates had participated. Additional candidates released their donor lists independently. Most of the incumbents and chief challengers have disclosed their campaign contributions, but some exceptions remain. Incumbents Andre Chabot and Jim Stevenson, as well as Ward 4 challenger Sean Chu, have said that since there is no legal requirement, they will not post their lists prior to the election.

Campaign spending is not a problem with the 2013 mayor’s race. Mayor Naheed Nenshi has raised less than $500,000 and the other mayoral candidates are running shoestring campaigns. This is well below the 2010 election when Ric McIvor spent $1.1 million, Barb Higgins $666,000, and Nenshi $400,000. However, in the tight ward races the spending has climbed even higher than in 2010 when the average winning councillor spent over $94,000. It is expected that most incumbents and a few key challengers will spend well over $100,000 in 2013.

Efforts at campaign finance reform are important. The more money that it takes to win, the higher the barrier becomes for potential candidates (especially women). However, reformers also need to recognize that the most popular reform idea – strict spending limits – would be a real advantage for incumbents. It is true that incumbents have an easier time fundraising, especially in the non-election years, then challengers. But incumbents have other built-in advantages such as name recognition and the ability to take credit for spending in their wards (i.e., new recreation complexes or traffic interchanges) that pay off at election time. This advantage explains why incumbents in Calgary win well over 85 per cent of the time. Challengers often have to spend more money than incumbents just to even the playing field. Therefore, reformers need to be careful with unintended consequences with their campaign finance proposals.

Without touching spending limits, there are still plenty of other things that could be improved. First, corporate and union donations should be banned like they are in federal campaigns. This would remove the influence of the two most active donors to municipal campaigns: the development industry and public sector unions. Second, they could require mandatory disclosure of donors prior to election date,  replacing the voluntary initiatives of groups like Civic Camp. Finally, they could lower the limit of donation from $5,000 to $1,000 as is done with federal politics. This would force candidates to seek out a wider base of donors instead of relying upon a handful of well-heeled individuals.