On limits

There's been plenty of talk about the federal election spending limits lately - with the NDP joining the other national parties in Parliament in planning to spend to the national maximum, while the Libs argue that the limits themselves will help to rein in the Cons during the course of an election campaign. Let's note however that while the national limit caps the amount which can be centrally controlled, the Cons could still use their cash on hand to have a significant advantage - if they're willing to either risk a major campaign scandal, or cede some control to their riding-level campaigns.

Remember that the current system allows a party to freely transfer funds from the national party to riding associations, and to spend substantially more funds on the riding level than the national level. And while the recent talk has focused on the national limits, no party has yet come close to maximizing the amount of spending allowed on the riding level.

Mind you, the closest any party has yet come was the Cons in 2006. And they've already found themselves saddled with a scandal based on their attempt to count federally-funded, centrally-ordered ad campaigns as riding-level expenses. Which should mean that the Cons will be under heavy scrutiny as to how their federal money is used in any upcoming campaign.

Based on that background and the Cons' large amount of reserve cash, the most important funding story in any upcoming federal election may well be the Cons' decision as to how to handle their excess federal money. From what I can tell, they basically have three choices to try to use that money to influence a federal campaign:
- spend as much as they can to influence public opinion before the writ drops in order to avoid any limits altogether;
- run another Conadscam on a larger scale to try to use their permitted riding-level expenses as a conduit for their national campaign; or
- transfer money to Con riding associations without the type of strings associated with Conadscam, to give the riding campaigns an advantage over their competition while avoiding the danger of a national scandal.

It would seem that a party with any trust in its grassroots would be happy to go with option #3, which would allow for the maximum amount of campaign spending while also permitting riding campaigns to target their spending to local issues and/or tactics.

But based on the Cons' protestations that there was nothing wrong with their smaller-scale scam in 2006, I have to wonder whether Harper and Finley really have so much contempt for riding-level activity as to want to run a campaign which takes option #2 to the most extreme possible level. If so, the result would seem to be all-or-nothing strategy: the Cons would accept the risk of having a campaign focused on their own shady operations and distrust of their own grassroots in exchange for the possibility of overwhelming the political scene with their central message.

Of course, it remains to be seen which choice the Cons will make. But it's worth keeping in mind the options which are open to a party with money to burn - and reflecting on what the eventual choice says about the party.