On operating assumptions

A couple of notes on today's news about the elimination of per-vote funding to Canada's political parties.

On the relatively bright side, the phase-out period looks to ensure that each party besides the Cons ends up in the black coming out of the federal election:

Flaherty said the government will also make good on the campaign pledge to phase the cut in over time, giving political parties three years to wean themselves off the subsidy.

In their platform, the Tories proposed cutting the subsidy first to $1.50, then $1 and then 50 cents before ending it altogether.

In effect, then, it sounds like the parties will receive $3 per 2011 vote over the next three years. Which means that based on the actual election results and the $21 million national party spending limit...
- The NDP will receive roughly $13.5 million, which will more than fund the 50% share of the party's election costs that isn't already covered by the Elections Canada expense rebate.
- The Libs will receive just over $8 million - which wouldn't quite cover a full national campaign, but should come close to the party's actual expenses after it declined to authorize a $3 million ad blitz at the end of the campaign.
- The Bloc will take in a little under $2.7 million, which should just cover about half of the party's $5.7 million spending limit.
- And the Greens will receive about $1.75 million, which may well cover their entire rebated campaign cost (keeping in mind that the party spent under $3 million in 2008 in a campaign with a far more widespread focus).

Oh, and the Cons will receive about $17.5 million which they don't particularly seem to need.

So for the opposition parties, the smart operating assumption seems to be that the remaining per-vote funding should be seen as effectively wiping the costs of the 2011 campaign off the books - leaving fund-raising to cover future party operations and elections.

But on that front, we're indeed seeing the Libs wanting to change the rules to allow bigger money back into the system:

Liberal MP Marc Garneau, who is running for the interim Liberal leader’s job, said his party recognizes that the financial blow is going to hurt.
...
Liberals will, however, press for an increase in individual donation limits if Conservatives do end the subsidy, he said.

“If individuals want to give more than the $1,100, that’s something that should be discussed,” he said.

Update: And John McKay serves up an even more galling quote here:

“There are certain Canadians who are much more capable of making donations to political parties than others, and I don’t know why they should be denied that opportunity. Five thousand dollars struck me as being a good cap.”

As I noted yesterday, the Cons already figured to have some decisions to make on whether to play around with the donation limit. And the Libs' decision to add their voice to the mix ensures that the issue will receive some more attention while complicating their calculations even further: on the one hand an increased donation limit might be seen as a sign of cooperation even if it's based solely on the Cons' assessment of their own self-interest, but on the other hand it might also turn into an increasingly effective wedge for the NDP to portray itself as the only party opposed to basing political influence on wealth.