Candidates running for city council will have to "work a little bit harder" to raise funds for their election campaigns with new election-financing rules coming into effect but should have little impact otherwise, Mayor Lyn Hall says.
The provincial government has introduced legislation banning corporate and union donations and limiting donations from individuals to $1,200 per donor per year. It would also ban donations from out-of-province sources.
Of the $41,275 Hall spent on his campaign, $16,200 came from corporations and $6,500 from unions. Contender Don Zurowski spent $72,249.29 with $55,329.64 coming from corporations and the balance from individuals.
Hall said he welcomes the changes and predicted it will make it easier for first-time candidates to run a competitive campaign.
"Sometimes, they're not in a position to raise as much money as an incumbent, so it should level that playing field," he said.
It will mean getting contributions from more people to run a $30,000 to $40,000 campaign, Hall said, but doubts candidates will be sent into a "mad scramble."
Donations from unions were significant for five of the candidates elected to council in 2015.
Now retired United Steelworkers local 1-424 representative Frank Everitt received $15,400 from union sources, while Jillian Merrick took in $7,000, Brian Skakun gathered $4,399, Garth Frizzell attracted $4,250 and Terri McConnachie drew $3,800.
Despite the support she received from organized labour, Merrick said she's happy with the changes.
"I think that personhood is an important part of democracy," she said. "We don't allow corporate entities or societies or unions to vote in elections and so we should hold some of the same principles to influence elections."
The changes will probably mean Merrick's next campaign will be run on a smaller scale.
"I had originally hoped to keep my campaign very small," she said of the 2014 election. "And then it got bigger and so with the new rules coming down the pipeline, I can keep it small.
"Fundraising and spending on elections swallows up a huge amount of time and probably the most stressful part is monitoring all that."
Merrick said she relied heavily on social media to get her message out.
"It was pennies on the dollar and it was very effective," she said.
Skakun said the changes effectively amount a way to get labour money out of elections because, in his experience, he has found corporations rarely donate to candidates in local elections.
But as an incumbent he doubts the changes will have much impact on whether he is re-elected in 2018. For newcomers, it could be a different story.
"It might be tough for them if they were going to count on labour support," Skakun said.
Over the elections he's run in, Frizzell said he's had donations from both corporations and unions at different times and the changes will probably play a bigger role in municipalities where slates of candidates run for council.
"I don't see the unions or corporations actually being able to whip a vote or influence a vote as it stands right now in Prince George so the impact of this on us will be negligible," Frizzell said. "It'll change where the equilibrium is a little bit but I don't think it'll impact at all on how decisions are made at the council table."
Albert Koehler who largely self-financed his campaign to the tune of $18,646.39 would like to see of limit on the amount a candidate can spend and suggested $15,000 when asked for a number.
"At the moment, we don't have a level playing field independent of the restrictions [on donations] coming from companies and unions and so on," Koehler said.
He also said there are ways around the rules, such as taking money earned through a corporation and donating it as an individual.
"Someone can somehow get money into his or her account and to the outside it looks as if it's all private money," Koehler said.
Spending on campaigns for school board trustee was much lower. At $2,717, Trish Bella was the biggest spender and only $150 came from unions. Nearly 90 per cent of her campaign was self-financed.
Editor's note: On Monday, the Ministry of Muncipal Affairs and Housing sent the following in response to Albert Koehler's comments:
The Local Elections Campaign Financing Act (LECFA) has rules that aim to prohibit indirect contributions from occurring. These rules were in place in the Act prior to the recent amendments, and continue to be a part of the campaign financing rules in the amended Act.
In particular, LECFA makes it illegal for any individual or organization (including a corporation or union) to make a contribution by giving money, services or resources to someone else so that they will make a contribution on their behalf.
LECFA also makes it illegal for an eligible individual to make a contribution with money, property or services that are not their own. Only eligible individuals will be permitted to make campaign contributions to candidates and elector organizations and those contributions are limited to $1,200 for the relevant election campaign. The $1,200 contribution limit also applies to candidates contributing to their own campaigns.
With regard to expense limits, the 2016 amendments to the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act put in place expense limits for candidates, elector organizations and third-party advertisers. Expense limits for candidates:
- In communities with a population of less than 10,000, the expense limit will be $10,000 for mayoral candidates and $5,000 for all other candidates.
- In communities with a population of 10,000 or more, expense limits will be determined using a per-capita formula to recognize that the size of the community can affect a candidate's campaign costs.
Expense limits for elector organizations:
- An elector organization will not have its own expense limit. Instead, endorsed candidates will sign over a portion of their expense limit for the elector organization to spend during the campaign period via a campaign financing arrangement (CFA). This approach is to ensure neutrality between endorsed and independent candidates.
- Elector organizations will be required to attribute campaign period expenses to each endorsed candidate. Expense limits for third party advertising:
- Under the third party advertising framework, expense limits will apply to both directed adverting and issue advertising:
The limit for directed advertising will be the following:
- In a community that has a population of less than 15,000 people, the directed advertising limit is $750.
- In a community that has a population of 15,000 people or more, the directed advertising limit will generally be five per cent of the mayoral candidate (or candidate) expense limit in the corresponding election area.
- The limit for issue advertising is not easily tied to a specific election area and will be subject to a separate, overall limit of $150,000.
- This overall limit will also act as the maximum amount that a third party advertiser can spend in total (e.g., directed advertising and issue advertising must not exceed $150,000). Elections BC is responsible for enforcing the rules in LECFA and has authority to conduct investigations to ensure compliance with the rules set out in the Act.
