‘Pay-for-play’ issue more symbolic than relevant

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 29/10/2016 (3496 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The “scandalous” news out of Ottawa in recent weeks is the apparent “pay-for-play” occurring between the federal Liberals and so-called big donors who have been paying as much as $1,500 to attend private events with cabinet ministers, with the proceeds going to the party.

While this smells to high heaven, is it really an important issue?

Why is this potentially scandalous? Obviously, being able to buy time with cabinet ministers provides the well-heeled with an opportunity to lobby for their cases, whatever those may be. To have the ear of a minister in a relatively private setting would be valuable, particularly if one had an important issuing pending in front of that minister or, for that matter, the government itself.

In other words, this presents one hell of a conflict-of-interest opportunity, or so some might suggest.

Meanwhile, the Liberal government has indicated in its own guidelines that ministers ought to avoid “the appearance of conflict of interest and situations that have the potential to involve conflicts of interest.”

Everyday people, of course, lack this access as they don’t have the ability to write cheques to their local Liberal cabinet minister for a private meeting.

More importantly, evidently, is the appearance of such obvious conflicts of interest and that, my friends, is exactly what the self-same Liberals have been trying to avoid.

Let us take a moment of sober reflection and, perhaps, throw a little cold water on the scandal-mongers out there. This matter is, for lack of a better term, a tempest in a teapot. In my experience, having spent a number of years on the fringes of politics, I would daresay that a $1,500 contribution here or there is probably insufficient to swing a federal minister’s intervention one way or the other.

Canada, thanks to successive governments that focused on eliminating scandals, has a very robust and largely pristine electoral system. While our electoral system is far from perfect, and we occasionally experience mischievous abuses, they are largely minor in nature.

In simple terms, unlike the United States, Canadian politicians are highly regulated in what they can spend in an election bid.

Elections Canada actually sets the limits on what can be spent in a federal election. In most cases, federal ridings typically feature candidates spending between $75,000 and $115,000 per election, linked to the length of the election campaign and the number of voters in a riding.

Given that, imagine how easy it would be for any cabinet minister’s team to raise sufficient funds for an election, or even in an off-year. It is, in real terms, a simple task. Hence, to think some tycoon owns a politician for a measly $1,500 doesn’t pass the smell test.

There are no Sheldon Adelsons or other super contributors in Canada who are funding political parties with $25 million of their own money. Those people, with respect, have huge access in a U.S. political system that revolves around cash. We simply don’t have a similar situation in Canada. Our politicians don’t have necessity to access this type of money.

Donors are also limited in what they can contribute. Even the wealthiest amongst us was legally permitted to contribute a maximum of $1,525 to each registered federal party in 2016. That’s not exactly the kind of money that would make elected officials risk their livelihood.

It looks awful, but it is important to understand the difference between how something looks and what something actually is. Appearance is important, but reality is more important.

Do I believe federal cabinet ministers are available for purchase at $1,500 each? I certainly hope not, nor do I think this is the case. This is a symbolic issue about wealth, privilege and access, but not particularly relevant.