On recipients

I don't agree with most of Tom Kent's piece on per-vote funding, as it seems to me that opposition parties making a case against a narrow-minded, anti-democratic government should see plenty of opportunity in defending a funding mechanism that promotes a broad set of democratic options. But Kent's suggestion for a competing set of reforms to party financing does look to be worth some further discussion:

The partial reform Mr. Harper proposes will still leave the parties with plenty of money, in the wrong place. That’s their headquarters, where it helps to concentrate dictatorial power in the hands of party leaders. Reform legislation should put it where it belongs, in the constituency associations of a party’s members.

Those are the heart of a party as a democratic organization. They are where its members discuss the shared attitudes to public policy that bring them together. After direct subsidies end, members’ contributions will be the main source of political finance. But the money doesn’t come from their pockets alone. Contributions are fostered by the lavish tax incentives through which the federal treasury will continue to provide some $20-million a year to the parties. It should go, with the money that comes from the members’ own pockets, where it belongs – to constituency associations. They can then decide how much to hand on to party headquarters. Legislation of that requirement would do much to restore democratic vitality to our dysfunctional politics.

Now, there's plenty about Kent's proposal that needs further clarification or discussion. It's not clear whether Kent is talking solely about the tax credit for party fund-raising, or actually looking to impose a requirement that funds be raised solely through riding associations. Moreover, there's no particular reason why per-vote funding itself couldn't be directed to ridings instead of or in addition to Kent's proposal. And any plan to direct money toward the constituency level would need to be paired with a prohibition on party-based restrictions on such funding.

But it's certainly worth considering whether our system should be designed to facilitate the type of local and dispersed decision-making that would come from putting money into EDAs' hands. And if the opposition parties are looking for additional ways to differentiate themselves from Harper hyper-centralized party structure, then the idea of decentralized funding and control of political parties would look like a promising one.