TheStar.com - Embarrassing, unhealthy, = unseemly

Advocates from the left = and right=20 of the political spectrum are pushing Queen's Park to give Toronto and = other=20 municipalities a new funding deal, or watch cities crumble. And they've = begged=20 for electoral reform to end excess spending, and the undue influence of = big=20 corporations on local elections.

Few, except the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and = councillors=20 who wink-wink-nudge-nudge behind closed doors, have clamoured for a = four-year=20 term for city councillors.

So, what does Premier Dalton McGuinty gallop in to provide? = Legislation=20 to keep councillors in office for four years instead of three =97 a = change the=20 people didn't ask for; one that's unhealthy for local democracy.

Satisfied with the three years they now enjoy, councillors = weren't=20 clamouring for four-year terms, despite the self-serving benefits of = such a=20 move. Perhaps, embarrassed by a system that already overwhelming tilts = election=20 success in the favour of incumbents, local politicians didn't publicly = advocate=20 for such a change.

But, of course, they'll take it.

Councillors will also take, for another four years, lax election = spending=20 rules that Toronto council has been trying to tighten, with no help from = Queen's=20 Park.

For example, a city councillor, though he has a campaign spending = limit=20 of $30,000, is allowed to spend $75,000 on a fundraising party that = raises=20 $15,000. The $75,000 is not considered part of the campaign spending = limit. And=20 any surplus at the end of the election =97 some councillors have amounts = reaching=20 $70,000 =97 can be banked as a war chest for future elections. How does = a newcomer=20 compete with such a money-making machine?

Where's all this money coming from? At least half is from = corporations.=20 Some councillors get 80 per cent of their contributions from = corporations or=20 unions, mostly corporations. Newcomers get only about 20 per cent from=20 corporations.

The whole thing is unseemly. It leaves the impression councillors = are for=20 sale, especially when, despite contribution limits of $750, a developer = and his=20 affiliated companies made 72 donations totalling more than $40,000 in = 2000.

Toronto city council asked Queen's Park last year to change the = rules so=20 the reforms would be in place by this election period, starting Jan. 1. = Silence.

Council was forced into some stop-gap reforms. For one, it ended = the=20 practice of giving a rebate to corporations for money donated to a = campaign. The=20 rebate (75 per cent of the amount up to a limit) is still available for=20 individual donors, not unions or corporations.

There is one problem. And it relates to the surpluses.

The rebate rules state that a candidate for council must decide = to opt=20 into the rebate program. But if he does, any campaign surplus belongs to = the=20 city.

If you're trying to end the surpluses, this sounds like a good = move.=20 Except that councillors wanting to hang on to their surplus will simply = stay=20 away from the rebate program.

Doesn't the benefit of the rebate (it's considered an incentive = for the=20 average citizen to contribute to a campaign and become engaged in the = political=20 process) override the fear of lost surplus? And don't corporations want = the=20 rebate?

No and no. It seems that corporations have much bigger fish to = fry when=20 they contribute to a candidate's campaign. Influence peddling may be = more=20 important than the rebate.

In fact, in the last municipal election, 90 per cent of the = rebates went=20 to individual donors, not corporations, even though corporations donated = at=20 least half the cash. Almost half the candidates for council didn't opt = into the=20 rebate plan. And when they did, they filed 42,000 rebate applications on = behalf=20 of donors, but only 18,000 donors bothered to apply for the rebate.

Yesterday, City Councillor Howard Moscoe, who has little time for = the=20 reforms, said they are hurting the very people they are supposed to = help: the=20 average citizen. And it's having no effect on big business that it is = supposed=20 to curb.

"What's happening is an enormous inducement for people who want = to=20 accumulate huge surpluses to not give the rebate. And it doesn't affect=20 donations at all," Moscoe says.

"The whole purpose of the rules was to give challengers, = non-incumbents,=20 a break. Now nobody's getting a break here and it's all a big sham. = Councillor=20 Michael Walker's holier-than-thou reforms have, in fact, created the = opposite of=20 what was intended."

It's not Walker's fault that strong proposals he and Councillor = Cliff=20 Jenkins promoted are not law today. The fault lies at Queen's Park.

And it'll be 2010 before reforms can be in place.

Royson James usually appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. = Email: rjames@thestar.ca.

Intermittent Clouds
H -2 / L -9
';=0A= content +=3D ' ';=0A= content +=3D '4 Day Forecast ';=0A= content +=3D '


Today\'s Features
>	Food