Political campaigns need money to function. Effective campaigns require funds for advertising, campaign materials, events, staffing, travel, and technology. All these activities cost money, but they are essential for candidates to connect with voters, communicate their platforms, and build trust within their communities. When campaigns have the resources they need, they can engage more deeply with their constituents, making them better representatives who are in touch with the people they serve. This connection is vital for a healthy democracy, as it encourages voter participation and ensures that politicians are responsive to the needs and concerns of their constituents. 

Campaigns Need Resources 

It is good for democracy when people are connected to their politicians. When politicians actively engage with their constituents, it fosters a sense of community and encourages more people to vote. This engagement helps build trust and ensures that elected officials are aware of and responsive to the needs and concerns of the people they represent. By having the resources to reach out and communicate effectively, politicians can create a more informed and engaged electorate. 

Effective campaigns require funds for various essential activities. Advertising on television, radio, online platforms, and in print media helps candidates reach a broader audience. Campaign materials such as flyers, posters, and promotional items are crucial for spreading the candidate’s message. Making phones calls and knocking on doors costs money. Organizing events like rallies, town halls, and meet-and-greet sessions allows candidates to interact directly with voters. Additionally, staffing, travel, and technology expenses are necessary to maintain a well-organized and efficient campaign operation. All of these activities are crucial for reaching voters and running a successful campaign. 

In Canada, corporate and union donations are banned, meaning only individuals can donate to political campaigns. There are also strict donation limits for individuals. This means that there is ultimately not a lot of money in Canadian politics given the tasks that campaigns must do. Despite these limitations, having adequate resources is essential for candidates to run effective campaigns and engage with their constituents. Ensuring that candidates have control over the funds they raise can help them better manage their campaigns and connect with voters. 

Current System: Power Imbalance 

In most, if not all, provinces and federally, the funds raised by politicians are ultimately controlled by the party and are the property of the party or one of the party’s electoral district associations. This centralized control can lead to a significant power imbalance, as party leaders have the authority to decide how funds are allocated and used. This system is primarily regulated by the Election Act, RSBC 1996 c 106 in British Columbia, which outlines the rules and regulations for political contributions and campaign financing. At the federal level, political fundraising is regulated by the Canada Elections Act, SC 2000, c 9, which sets similar guidelines and restrictions. 

Party leaders can veto re-election bids and redirect funds, influencing candidates’ political futures. This control can stifle independent voices and limit the diversity of views represented in the political arena. Candidates who do not align perfectly with the party leadership may find themselves at a disadvantage, as they rely on the party for financial support and resources. This dynamic can discourage candidates from expressing independent opinions or pursuing innovative policies that may not align with the party’s agenda. 

If candidates controlled their own funds, they could be more independent of the party, which could lead to a stronger democracy with more views represented. More candidates would be incentivized to build strong political campaign organizations, putting them in a stronger position to run for leader or take up significant organizational roles within their party. This shift in control could also encourage more grassroots involvement in political campaigns, as candidates would be directly accountable to their donors and constituents. 

BC United Party Example 

Kevin Falcon’s unilateral decision to suspend the BC United Party’s campaign left candidates without access to the money they had previously raised themselves for their own elections. Now, these candidates must raise that money again and buy back assets from their previous campaigns or from the BC United Party itself. Candidates who were previously BC United candidates but are running as independents or for other parties now have to raise all of that money over again. This situation underscores the need for candidates to have direct control over the funds they raise, ensuring they can continue their campaigns independently of party turmoil. 

Jody Wilson-Raybould Example 

Jody Wilson-Raybould, the former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, became a central figure in the SNC-Lavalin affair. The scandal erupted when reports surfaced that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his senior officials had exerted what Wilson-Raybould described as pressure to intervene in a criminal case against SNC-Lavalin, a major engineering firm facing charges of fraud and corruption. Wilson-Raybould resisted this pressure, leading to her being moved to another Cabinet portfolio and her eventual resignation from the Cabinet. After being expelled from the Liberal Party, she had to start fundraising from scratch for her independent re-election campaign. Control over the funds she initially raised would have made her transition smoother and more equitable. However, those funds were raised in the context of her being a candidate for the Liberal Party of Canada, highlighting the complexities of fund control in political campaigns. 

Arguments for Candidate Control	Arguments for Party Control
Empowerment: Candidates can campaign more effectively and independently, reducing undue influence from party leaders.	Stability and Cohesion: Centralized control ensures stability and strategic resource allocation.
Independent Voices: Candidates wishing to run as independents or switch parties wouldn’t be financially crippled by previous affiliations. It would also give these candidates more influence in parliament.	Brand Consistency: Parties maintain a consistent message and brand across all candidates. People vote mostly for the party and for the leader.
Reduced Dominance: Decentralizing financial control lessens party leaders’ power to manipulate caucus members, giving individual MPs more influence and taking that influence away from the party leadership.	Efficient Resource Management: Parties can move resources around strategically to support candidates in tight races or counteract well-funded opponents.
Increased Accountability: Candidates directly accountable to donors and constituents can lead to more transparent and ethical fundraising.	Support for New Candidates: Centralized funds provide essential support for new or less well-known candidates. Candidates who are not able to build strong political fundraising machines are still able to run for office.
Strengthened Democracy: Independent politicians can better represent constituents’ interests, fostering diverse opinions and solutions. We don’t elect parties; we elect Members of Parliament. So why do the parties have all of the power?	Unified Strategy: Centralized control allows for a unified strategy across all candidates, ensuring that the party’s overall goals and messages are consistently communicated.

Arguments for Candidate Control: Empowering candidates to control their own funds would allow them to campaign more effectively and independently, reducing undue influence from party leaders. This shift would encourage more independent voices and diverse opinions in parliament, fostering a stronger democracy. Candidates would be directly accountable to their donors and constituents, leading to more transparent and ethical fundraising practices. Additionally, decentralizing financial control would reduce the dominance of party leaders, giving individual MPs more influence and promoting a healthier political environment. 

Arguments for Party Control: Maintaining centralized control of funds ensures stability and strategic resource allocation within the party. This control allows parties to maintain a consistent message and brand across all candidates, which is crucial as people often vote for the party and its leader. Centralized funds enable efficient resource management, allowing parties to support candidates in tight races or counteract well-funded opponents. Moreover, centralized control provides essential support for new or less well-known candidates, ensuring that those who are not able to build strong political fundraising machines can still run for office. Centralized control also allows for a unified strategy across all candidates, ensuring that the party’s overall goals and messages are consistently communicated. 

Conclusion 

Ultimately, giving more control over the funds raised by a candidate to that candidate and moving the control away from the party would empower candidates and local party members, strengthening our system of parliamentary democracy. This could give local candidates and MPs more influence over their party leader, moving the balance of power closer to voters.