On de-funding

David Climenhaga's call to de-fund the right holds plenty of appeal on the surface, particularly in the wake of a federal government that's spared no prisoners in pulling funding from any group which might disagree with its reactionary worldview with no regard for how much good its projects might accomplish. But I'd think that in an echo of the argument over party funding, it's worth keeping in mind the broader question of how public debate should be funded in general.

We can argue all we want to de-fund the right when it comes to public money. But the right will never lack for private actors with a massive incentive to fund a noise machine out of their own pocket on the understanding that even a tiny change in upper-bracket tax rates can make up the cost. And a call to de-fund the right can only strengthen a countermovement along the lines of the Cons' when the political winds shift.

So instead, the principle that's worth promoting is that it's in the public interest to encourage a broader range of voices than we'd hear based on private investment alone - which includes ideas like Climenhaga's proposal to take a closer look at tax credits to private charities, but also encouraging support for groups who don't have the money up front to buy their way into the conversation. And while public money shouldn't be used as a source of patronage for either side, nor should it be manipulated so as to deliberately exclude anybody.