Roundup: Fundraising moral panic

Posted on by

In case you missed it, the moral panic over the past week or so is ministerial fundraisers, first in Ontario (and to a certain extent BC), but that’s bled over in to the federal sphere, because apparently we were afraid of missing out. And don’t forget, the federal rules are already pretty strict, with corporate and union donations already been banned and the contribution limit is pretty small (and when it comes to leadership contests, the Conservatives and NDP conspired to screw the Liberals, who were mid-contest at the time, but that’s beside the point). The point is that there’s a lot of unnecessary tut-tutting, particularly around a perfectly legal private fundraiser that the Minister of Justice is holding at a Toronto law firm. “Oh,” they say. “Some of these lawyers may want to be judges one day.” And this is the point where I look at people who say that straight in the face and ask if they really think that a federal judicial appointment can be bought for $500. Really? Seriously? Even on the issue of legal contracts, the minister can recuse herself if said law firm bids. There are processes around this kind of thing. The Ethics Commissioner said that there is no apparent conflict of interest here, but that doesn’t stop people from crying “money for access!” And when you have people like Duff Conacher going on TV and decrying that limits should be $100 because that way it’s equal for everyone, you have to wonder if that logic extends to not everyone can have nice things, so we should ban them so that it’s fair for everyone. Also, if you lower the limit too low, then people start looking for other ways to raise money, and all you have to look to is Quebec, where their strict donation regime became quickly susceptible to corruption. Of course, Conacher won’t be satisfied by any ethics regime unless he’s in charge of the parliamentary thought police, and frankly, anyone who quotes him in one of these stories becomes suspect because it means they’re going for cheap outrage. Are there bigger problems of perception in places like Ontario, where there aren’t any donation limits? Yes, indeed. But that’s not the case federally, and the minister is following the rules. Frankly, I’m not fussed that the PM is shrugging this off because honestly, this isn’t something that we should be lighting our hair on fire about.

Good reads:

  • The government announced the process for their year-long defence review and the panel who will conduct it. More reaction from Stephen Saideman here.
  • The PBO made his preliminary report on the budget, but finds it wanting when it comes to openness and transparency.
  • Thomas Mulcair does the interview rounds with John Geddes and Peter Mansbridge.
  • The NDP’s youth wing isn’t too thrilled with Mulcair, while other party members say that they can’t afford a leadership race.
  • Kellie Leitch filed papers for her “exploratory bid” for the leadership, while Maxime Bernier files his papers today. Here’s a look at some of the leadership rules.
  • Here is the tale of how the National Capital Commission used various tactics to push back against the former government on the Victims of Communism memorial.
  • Senator Wallace is being threatened with eviction from his office, but it sounds suspiciously like payback from his former Conservative colleagues.
  • Andrew Potter tries to reconcile Stéphane Dion’s “responsible conviction” position and the Saudi LAV sale, and can’t.
  • In addition to my conversation with Senator Cowan about the shape of Senate independence, here’s his conversation with Kady O’Malley.

Odds and ends:

An Ontario Progressive Conservative MPP made a vulgar joke about Karen McCrimmon at a local event, and it went over like a lead balloon.

RBC will be combing through their records to see if there is any actual wrongdoing with their being named in the Panama Papers (and no, it’s not guaranteed).

One thought on “Roundup: Fundraising moral panic”

  1. I understand, of course, that the use of the term “moral panic” is intended to denigrate the arguments of those who are concerned about ‘pay for play’ access to Ministers and other politicians. But here’s the thing: On November 27, 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issued a laudable directive on “Open and Accountable Government.” That directive says, in part, “Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries should ensure that the solicitation of political contributions on their behalf does not target departmental stakeholders.” The directive’s definition of “departmental stakeholders” includes “individuals employed in, contracted by, or who otherwise represent corporations and organizations that have current or anticipated official dealings with Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, their staff or their departments.” That definition undoubtedly includes the Toronto law firm which is hosting the LPC fundraiser featuring the Minister of Justice. It is not enough to claim that such a fundraiser is within the law, because the Prime Minister’s directive says, specifically, that “public office holders have an obligation to perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.” We have just emerged from the Harper era in which saying one thing and doing another was considered an acceptable way of governing. Canadians have every right to expect that our new government (“a better government, not just a different government,” as Justin Trudeau said so often on the campaign trail) will behave in a better way — the way outlined in the Prime Minister’s directive. If the Prime Minister says one thing in his directive and, subsequently, doesn’t see that he and his Ministers should have to live by those words, that says more about Mr. Trudeau than Mr. Conacher.

Comments are closed.