Spending Spree Hypocrisy

Fri Mar 16 09:54:07 2007
NCC Articles

By: Gerry Nicholls / The Globe and Mail

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s recent billion dollar spending spree highlights the hypocrisy of politicians when it comes to money.

Politicians, after all, claim to despise what they call the corrupting influence of money on the political process.

That’s why they pass laws to regulate and control money when it comes to our elections.

We now have a law on the books, for instance, making it a crime for individuals to contribute more than $1,000 to a political party.

We also have “gag laws” that essentially make it a crime for private citizens or independent groups to spend their own money to express their own views during elections.

Are these measures infringements on free speech?

Of course.

But politicians tell us these are “necessary infringements” because if citizens were free to spend their own money as they saw fit, it would lead to a society where “the rich” would “buy elections” and “unfairly” influence voters.

So where is the hypocrisy?

Well politicians seem to believe “buying elections” and  “ using money to influence voters” is actually a good thing, as long as a) they are the ones spending the money and b) they are spending somebody else’s money.

Take Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s recent binge of spending announcements, which lead many to believe an election is in the offing.

Even the most ardent Harper apologist would have to concede these announcements, which total about $12 billion and counting, are more about helping the Conservatives win the next election than about a wise use of tax dollars.

Certainly it’s no coincidence that a disproportionate amount of the federal spending just happens to be aimed at areas which have tactical political importance.

 The key electoral battleground of Quebec, for example, is now awash in federal funds, with the Conservatives promising to finance everything from local theatres to water treatment systems.

And vote-rich Ontario is also getting a lot of special attention.

Just recently the Prime Minister was in Toronto to announce with great fanfare that his government was going to spend a whopping $700 million to upgrade and expand the area’s mass transit system.

Good news for Toronto certainly.

But is it fair that taxpayers in Kelowna, BC or Gander, Newfoundland are helping to subsidize a new subway line in Toronto?

 Does it even make economic sense to spend that kind of money on mass transit?

Who cares?

The important thing is the Tories need to win seats in the GTA if they are to capture a majority in the next election and if dishing out a half a billion dollars helps to achieve that goal, from a political perspective it’s money well spent.

And who knows how many other spending goodies aimed at key special interest groups will be announced in the impending federal budget.

Now to be fair, Harper is not doing anything all that unusual.

Politicians have been bribing people with their own money since the days of the Caesars in Ancient Rome.

But maybe it’s time for politicians to be a little more consistent when it comes to money and politics.

In other words, money can’t be both good and bad depending on who is doing the spending.

If it’s bad for private citizens to spend money on politicking, than it stands to reason it’s also bad for politicians.

So how about this for a new law: Make it illegal for the government to announce any new spending initiatives say six months prior to an election. (The move towards fixed election dates makes will make this easier to implement).

Such a law would certainly stop surplus-rich governments from trying to buy elections. They would also level the playing field and give all parties more of an even chance.

But if that’s too unrealistic, maybe our politicians should try something easier: scrap all election gag laws and admit that citizens should have the right to spend their own money to express their own political views.

This won’t stop politicians from cynically spending tax dollars in the run up to an election, but at least it will make them a little less hypocritical and restore an important freedom to all Canadians.

Article originally appeared: Thursday, March 15, 2007