New column day

Here, on how political fund-raising scandals in Ontario and British Columbia only highlight the complete lack of rules governing donations in Saskatchewan.

For further reading...
- SCOTUS' Citizens United decision is here (PDF). And Michael Hiltzik discussed its effect after the fact, while Charles Wohlforth offered a personal view on how fund-raising affects political decision-making.
- Martin Regg Cohn broke the news about Ontario's fund-raising quotas for cabinet ministers here. And Adrian Morrow followed up by exposing both a fund-raiser closely tied to the Hydro One privatization's beneficiaries, and the connection between corporate subsidies and donations.
- Meanwhile, Gary Mason reported on Christy Clark's five-figure access fees. And the CP reported on the dividing line between the B.C. Libs who want to keep the status quo as long as they can, and the NDP which is pushing for limits.
- The Globe and Mail's series on money and politics featured a column on Saskatchewan's particularly outdated rules governing political donations. And Tammy Robert has been reviewing the current state of donations in Saskatchewan.
- Finally, the CP surveys fund-raising rules across Canada. And Duff Conacher points out that any province looking to remove big-money donations from its political system will find a prime example in Quebec.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Alexander Panetta reports on the G20's agreement on the need to crack down on tax evasion - as well as the steps Canada needs to take to get our own house in order:

The final communique warned of actions against countries that don't agree within a year to adopt bank-reporting standards being promoted by international agencies.
...
One section of the G20 communique applies to more countries, including Canada. It says countries must do a better job of tracking down the true owners of companies, specifically those who might be hiding behind strawmen.

Dennis Howlett says Canada is currently in non-compliance with that provision. The executive director of Canadians for Tax Fairness says oversight is especially weak in some provinces.

"Canada has a lot of work to do to comply with the international standards on transparency of beneficial ownership," he said.
...
A recent report by the group Transparency International said Canada runs afoul of multiple internationally-agreed standards set by the G20. It says Canadian law doesn't properly define beneficial ownership — the true identity of people drawing profit from a company. It also says authorities aren't required to track their identity, nor can they easily access their identity.

- Steven Chase confirms that the Libs' choice to approve a massive arms deal with Saudi Arabia came long after they were aware of increasing human rights abuses. And Susana Mas highlights the Libs' limited and selective disclosure of the facts they're willing to share publicly even now.

- Raul Aldaz reviews Gianluca Passarelli's study of the presidentialization of political parties around the world. And in what looks to offer a prime example, Tim Naumetz points out Justin Trudeau's plan to take any remaining policy-making levers out of the hands of the Libs' membership.

- Duff Conacher suggests that we can look to Quebec for an example in taking big money out of party politics.

- Finally, Trish Kahle discusses the need and opportunity for the labour and environmental movements to develop shared goals, rather than allowing cynical corporate interests to pit them against each other:

Environmental politics must become generalized in the labor movement, and vice versa. The language of climate justice has already begun to infuse a sense of class politics into environmentalism, and green groups’ support for recent labor struggles is a promising step forward. Initiatives like the Labor Network for Sustainability, Trade Unions for Energy Democracy, and the BlueGreen Alliance are helping to connect the dots. But environmentalists must go further, acknowledging that there can be no real solution to the energy crisis without the input and leadership of the people who already do the work. Understanding the climate crisis as part of neoliberalism’s larger attack on public welfare and democracy (with the impacts, like all social failings in the United States, experienced more acutely by people of color and particularly by African Americans) can help expand the terrain on which both unions and climate activists struggle.

Ultimately, we live in the world we build. That world is both social and ecological, constantly made and remade through what sociologist Jason Moore has described as “the web of life.” If organized labor—and the climate—are to have a fighting chance, unions must offer real alternatives to the world of “shared sacrifice” and dead zones, of poisoning by austerity, of cheap fuels and cheap lives. What would it take for today’s coal-belt communities, channeling the Miners for Democracy, to fight not against EPA regulations but for jobs restoring lands destroyed by mountaintop removal mining? What would it take for union activists to have a meaningful say at the next international climate talks?

This work is just beginning. But with a shared vision to guide it, labor environmentalism can take us far. Its core demand is simple: to build a world that all of us, not just the rich or white, can actually live in.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Michael Warren pushes the conversation about a cooperative effort to topple the Cons toward what looks to me to be more fertile territory, suggesting a policy accord as an alternative to a non-compete agreement or merger.

The main issue I'd raise is whether it's necessary or desirable to work out detailed policies in advance, or whether the better course of action is to develop complimentary messaging that encourages as many non-Con votes as possible without eliminating the differences that bring out different groups of voters. But it's well worth noting that there are plenty of options between merging and rejecting the idea of cooperating - and it may not take much to shape the narrative of a campaign in a direction that both parties would seemingly have reason to pursue.

- But of course, that narrative also needs to be directed toward winning seats. And there's good news on that front, as at least one of the parties to any potential coalition is working on expanding its Quebec base.

- I'll deal later with the substantive question of how the NDP in particular should see per-vote funding based on an interesting Rabble discussion. But for now, Duff Conacher notes why per-vote funding is a plus for Canada's broader political system:

The annual per-vote subsidy of $1.95 for federal political parties should not be eliminated as Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper proposes because it is one of the most democratic aspects of Canada's political finance system as it gives a cash boost to parties that do not elect as many members of parliament as they should because of the flaws of our first-past-the-post voting system.

- Finally, Warren Kinsella is right on target in noting the weak spot in the Cons' latest attack ads:

Canadians aren’t frightened about a coalition. English Canadians don’t like the Bloc very much — but if Duceppe’s party is out of the equation, voters are quite OK with a coalition, in fact.

The issue was hotly debated last summer. A poll conducted by Harris-Decima right afterwards found more than half of Canadians, from coast to coast, were fine with some sort of co-operation between the Liberals and the NDP. About 60% said they supported ideas ranging from a non-compete agreement to an outright merger.

The main focus of the Reformatory ads are off the mark because, one, the Conservative Party itself is the result of a coalition. Two, in 2000, Harper himself secretly signed a deal for a coalition with the Tories and the Bloc. Three, some of the most revered Canadians — Jean Chretien and Ed Broadbent — like the idea. Four, even Harper’s most ardent suitors, like Lorne Gunter, call his coalition fear mongering “fairy tales.”

I’ve put together a few attack ads in my day. To work, they have to “surface feelings” about something.

Problem is, these ads “surface feelings” about something Canadians aren’t afraid of. At all.

Keeping watch

I don't think there was ever much doubt that in light of the Cons' utter refusal to accept accountability for themseves, Democracy Watch was bound to become a critic rather than an implicit supporter (as it was in 2006). But Duff Conacher has stepped up his group's criticism, coming out swinging at the Cons for their broken promises:

The Conservatives lied to voters when they promised a new era of accountability by ending the controversial practice of appointing partisans to federal agencies, boards and commissions, a government watchdog group says.

Since the beginning of the year, the Tories have made about 800 appointments, many of them with close ties to the party, and there is still no sign of an independent public appointments commission, said Duff Conacher, co-ordinator of Democracy Watch, a group advocating government accountability and corporate responsibility.

"To lie to the voters, to mislead the voters during the last election on this issue of government accountability shows a very high level of hypocrisy and dishonesty," Conacher said.

Not that the Cons' lack of honesty should come as news. But with one of the groups which helped push the Cons into power now echoing the opposition's rightful criticisms, the Cons' effort to be believed will only get tougher as time goes by. And hopefully the result will be a more believable government before too long.

An idea worth saving

So far, exceedingly little has actually been accomplished on the ATM fee front, as the Cons have rejected the NDP's call for legislation, and the banks have predictably ignored Jim Flaherty's series of threats to continue talking. (And all this while the Cons' corporate tax cuts also figure to disproportionately benefit the banks over other businesses.)

But Duff Conacher has a suggestion which is both worthy of discussion in its own right, and likely to make action on ATM fees (whether legislated or not) seem like a compromise the banks will be glad to accept:

Duff Conacher, chairperson of the Canadian Community Reinvestment Coalition, thinks Ottawa should look at more than convenience fees.

"If the federal Conservatives are actually concerned about protecting bank customers from gouging, they must require banks to undergo an independent audit of all bank fee charges ... and require fees to be decreased wherever the audit finds excessive profit."

Of course, the terms of reference for an audit would have a huge role in influencing the outcome. But if properly designed, such an audit could both help to lower fees in the short term, and ensure that the banks couldn't simply shift fees elsewhere - particularly if such audits were designed to occur regularly in tandem with the government's reviews of the Bank Act.

And it's not as if the principle would be against the a drive for accountability in general. Instead, it would simply spread that accountability into private-sector entities whose privileged position is the result of government choices.

Of course, the Cons are even less likely to approve of Conacher's suggestion than of the NDP's plan to focus on ATM fees. But if Conacher continues to take up the call (and the NDP highlights the idea as one to consider), it may well be possible to push the banks into some real action to benefit Canadian customers.