Fund-Raising Review By Province - Conservatives

As promised, let's dig into La Presse's party fund-raising data to see what we can conclude about where and how Canada's political parties have raised money over the past few years - starting with the party which has lapped the field in the area.

The numbers are arrived at as follows:
- The full list of donations is sorted by party.
- The party donations are sorted first by province, then by year.
- Once the sorting isolates the donations for a province and year, those amounts are summed and included in the chart below, alongside the percentage of the Cons' annual donations sourced from the province.

Due to some imperfections in the data, some donations aren't classified by province (in the Cons' case totalling $54,199.70) or year (totalling $3,594,456.53), while others included in more authoritative totals seem to be missed entirely. And the 2010 numbers are even more spotty since they're based on quarterly rather than annual data. But assuming there's no systematic reason for particular types of donations being missed, we should still be able to draw some conclusions from the partial data.

Conservative Donations - 2007-2010 (partial)

Prov	2007$	2007%	2008$	2008%	2009$	2009%	2010$	2010%
AB	$2,380,340.42	20.09%	$3,716,554.54	20.18%	$2,664,881.58	20.00%	$1,452,201.50	24.15%
BC	$2,019,853.99	17.05%	$3,100,353.52	16.83%	$2,250,832.69	16.89%	$1,038,942.14	17.28%
MB	$463,520.5	3.91%	$803,726.78	4.36%	$664,025.63	4.98%	$295,992.94	4.92%
NB	$135,870.93	1.15%	$262,806.92	1.43%	$202,580.19	1.52%	$77,061.01	1.28%
NL	$20,881.78	0.18%	$58,065	0.32%	$18,615	0.14%	$19,010	0.32%
NS	$160,287.36	1.35%	$301,036.59	1.63%	$241,260.57	1.81%	$98,618.29	1.64%
NT	$24,711.25	0.21%	$29,851.25	0.16%	$22,008.50	0.17%	$17,459	0.29%
NU	$1,750	0.01%	$3,735	0.02%	$7,330	0.06%	$7,100	0.12%
ON	$4,891,693.16	41.29%	$7,448,196.41	40.44%	$5,409,701.47	40.60%	$2,405,206.29	40.00%
PE	$73,704	0.62%	$77,067	0.42%	$87,418.49	0.66%	$17,290.02	0.29%
QC	$1,172,699.74	9.90%	$1,804,613.22	9.80%	$1,094,044.96	8.21%	$261,928.92	4.36%
SK	$460,756.01	3.89%	$755,387.63	4.10%	$623,807.58	4.68%	$306,239.01	5.09%
YT	$41,450	0.35%	$56,270.45	0.31%	$38,505	0.29%	$16,390	0.27%
Total	$11,847,519.14	n/a	$18,418,114.31	n/a	$13,325,011.66	n/a	$6,013,529.12	n/a

So what can we tell from the above? On a first look, there are a few details worth highlighting - keeping in mind that with election years and incomplete data limiting the value of looking at the totals, the most important information figures to lie in the comparison between provinces.

To start with, the most remarkable trend in the few years of data is the Cons' drop-off in Quebec fund-raising.

It's not much of a secret that the Cons' strategy from the end of 2008 onward has largely involved punting on the province aside from their then-current seats. But they didn't seem to have a lot to lose to begin with, having never brought in so much as 10% of their annual fund-raising from a province with 23% of Canada's population. And from that starting point, it's stunning to see how their abandonment of Quebec played out from a fund-raising perspective - with a modest but significant drop in 2009, followed by a dive off a cliff in 2010 to the point where the Cons' Quebec fund-raising rated behind that from each of Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Meanwhile, the Cons have found what strikes me as a surprising counterweight to make up for that Quebec decline.

I'd have expected the Cons to have maximized their western fund-raising long ago, while still having some room to grow in Ontario as they've expanded their vote totals there. But La Presse's numbers show exactly the opposite.

In fact, the Ontario haul as a proportion of Con fund-raising has been relatively stable - which seems to signal that the Cons have already tapped the market to the extent reasonably possible. Instead, it's the prairie provinces that have actually increased their relative contribution fairly steadily in recent years - with Saskatchewan increasing each year, Manitoba nearly doing the same, and Alberta seeing a striking jump in 2010, even as all were already contributing well above their share based on their population totals.

Finally, one other note of interest is the effect that Danny Williams' ABC campaign looks to have had on the Cons' fund-raising in Newfoundland and Labrador. Not that they started from much of a position of strength originally - but in both 2007 and 2009, the party actually managed to raise more from each of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories than it was able to bring in from a province with half a million residents and a nominally affiliated provincial government.

On unlikely donations

Since I haven't seen much follow-up on La Presse's fund-raising map and database, I'll be taking a stroll through the data over the weekend - with a particular focus on how Canadian political donations break down geographically. But before I get into the more serious content, let's start with more of a curiosity.

Until this year's election, it wasn't uncommon to hear commentators frustrated with the state of Canadian politics muse that they'd vote for the Bloc if only it ran candidates outside Quebec. But who knew that at least a few put their money where their mouth was?

From 2007 to 2010, the Bloc raised a total of $29,291.19 from donors outside Quebec - a figure which included multiple donations from individuals in Victoria, Ottawa, and Embrun, ON, as well as a single maximum donation in 2009 from St. John's, NL. But apparently the common cause of putting up firewalls around provincial jurisdiction wasn't enough to induce anybody from Alberta to donate to the Bloc's cause over the four-year period.

Monday Morning Links

- For those who missed La Presse's brilliant take on the Harper Cons, here's Phillipe Gohier's translation:

The controversy surrounding the terms of the census is typical of the pillaging the conservatives have engaged in since coming to power. Not only is their behaviour dictated by simplistic ideology, the Conservatives impose their politics while displaying a exceptional degree of incompetence.
...
Before this government does even more harm to the institution that is the government of Canada, the intelligent people within the federal cabinet have a duty to rise up and stop the pillaging. Otherwise, the Harper government may be remembered as one of the most incompetent and harmful governments this country has ever known.

Unfortunately, it's not clear what "intelligent people within the federal cabinet" the editorial could be referring to. Which means that it'll fall to those of us outside Harper's control to bring about the change Canada needs.

- Meanwhile, the Globe and Mail reports that the order to gut the census came from Stephen Harper himself based on nothing more than vintage tea-party anger at the concept of governments having accurate information on which to base decisions. And the observation that Harper considered doing away with a mandatory short form as well raises the question: would he have taken that step too if he didn't hope for population shifts to work to his party's political advantage?

- Rick Salutin nicely encapsulates the conservative view of government by highlighting its affinity for the "fear sector":

The (prison and security sectors) aren’t as cost-beneficial as the military. They don’t make much to sell to the rest of the world, or generate social benefits. But deduct the impact of all three from the U.S. economy, and from its employment stats (including people in the armed forces or jail), and that mighty economic engine would be a holey mess.

The Harper government is clearly impressed. They don’t seem to mind big government, if they can tax and spend in the fear sector. So they’ve expanded our military budget and just announced a $9-billion (or maybe $16-billion) purchase of 65 U.S. jets we’ll have to find some use for. They’re increasing the prison population through U.S.-style sentencing laws and planning “major construction initiatives” that will boost (sorry) corrections costs by 43 per cent. On homeland security, there’s that amazing $1.2-billion spent at the G20.

But it’s a hard sell. Canadians will have to be persuaded to shift more money from a stretched health-care system to the fear sector. The benefits here aren’t as obvious. For buying those jets, all our firms get is the right to bid on U.S contracts. Lotsa luck. Mostly, though, there’s the fear culture that you need for a fear sector.

- Finally, Erin points out that the Bank of Canada's moves to push up interest rates look to be based on a theory that makes the confidence fairy look like a marvel of rational economics:

By my count, the (latest Monetary Policy Report) expresses concern eight separate times about anemic business investment. It acknowledges the point I have been making about capacity utilization, suggesting that business investment “is likely to remain sluggish relative to previous recoveries, owing to high levels of unused industrial capacity”.

But then the MPR’s tune changes: “Nevertheless, business investment is expected to increase to levels consistent with previous recoveries, driven by the need to expand capacity and to increase productivity in a more competitive international environment”. Mark Carney repeated this language in his remarks.

The two statements seem almost contradictory. Don’t the “high levels of unused industrial capacity” obviate “the need to expand capacity”?
...
The central bank’s mystifying words may simply provide cover for its actions. Two days before the MPR, the Bank of Canada raised interest rates again. This policy encourages cash accumulation and discourages investment in three ways.

First, higher interest rates mean higher returns on cash balances and higher costs on loans to finance investment. Second, higher interest rates diminish the possibility of inflation eroding the value of cash balances and hence the incentive to invest in physical assets as a hedge against inflation. Third, higher interest rates push up the exchange rate, which increases the relative value of Canadian cash holdings but reduces the competitiveness of Canadian production and exports.

The Bank of Canada is serving up anti-investment policy with a side of pro-investment rhetoric.