• Designer signs of the times [ Toronto Star ]
• Toronto to levy new tax on trash [ Globe and Mail ]
• The pain of being a second city [ Toronto Star ]
• Let there be light for walkers down under [ Toronto Star ]
• Mayoral scrap in Vaughan goes to court [ National Post ]
• Vaughan’s civic election now in hands of court [ cbc ]
• A small victory for Di Biase [ Toronto Sun ]
• Big city, big bucks! [ Toronto Sun ]
• What mayoral candidates spent [ Toronto Star ]
• 1 council seat equals $100Gs [ Toronto Sun ]
• Loophole allows for big campaign spending [ Globe and Mail ]
• Councillor’s lavish re-election tab [ National Post ]
• Ontatio opens vault for McMichael [ Globe and Mail ]
• New bill shores up Lakes’ protection [ Globe and Mail ]
• Plan for new hydro line has opponents buzzing [ Globe and Mail ]
• Crash fuels debate on road safety [ Globe and Mail ]
• NDP, Tories may find it’s not easy being green [ Globe and Mail ]
• Northern river expected to recover from acid spill [ Globe and Mail ]
• Residents spring into action [ National Post ]
• Smog and traffic jams gum up city’s ranking in quality of life survey [ National Post ]
photo from Toronto Star
5 comments
$3.2m paid to refund electoral donations! If this was reduced from 75pc to 25pc the city would save *at least* $2.1m in an election year and probably more (since many people are probably not so convinced of the merits of the likes of Mammoliti to fork out the same amount if they are only getting 25pc back). With the reduced budgets would come less leaflets, less posters. How can we get this done?
I think the money is well spent, Mark. $2.1 is a drop in the bucket of 7 billion. Its money put into an democracy and it helps people who don’t have organization tie to existing political parties. By reducing it to 25c it only emboldens incumency and thelikes of Mammoliti.
Matt
I sincerely doubt incumbency could possibly get worse than it is. Why not ask citizens to at least put up dollar for dollar – but for the city to give three for every one is crazy at a time when services like public health, libraries and pools are being chopped by hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Furthermore, while candidates might not be explicitly tied to a party it was clear at the last election that party politics is not absent from our elections – one only needed to look at colour schemes, not least in my ward (29). Money is not the only way parties can help – there’s volunteer networks and voters lists too.
I just think incumbency will get worse with the reduction of dollars. I think our elections, the very essence of democracy, should not be considered as part of the chopping block of expenses. Especially when amortized over four years.
The network of volunteers certainly comes from parties. But the organization comes from having money, especially the use/trading of lists. By reducing money you force independents into a much harder job — they can produce less funds which means less materials to reach voters. Reducing money encourages independent candidates to join parties becuz that’s where they ‘ll be able to fund raise and that’s the way to get the word out.
More materials = more volunteers = more of a chance. Take away money you have less materials, which leads to less volunteers which leads to less of a diversified field of candidates.
Sadly, incumbency CAN get worse. Relying on more private funds allows for more personal favours, etc…
I should note that I don’t like what Mammoliti did by spending $73,000 on fundraising parties. Buyt I think the electoral finance reform that foes into effect for 2010 nullifies this type of behaviour.