LETTERS: Election choices subsidized

The column by Peter Dolezal, The economics of a long political campaign, was misleading.

The column by Peter Dolezal, The economics of a long political campaign, was misleading.

“It is not the cost of the campaign itself; that is financed by the political parties.” Perhaps Dolezal is not aware of the Fair Elections Act.

The oxymoronic  Fair Election Act increased the Conservative spending limit to $54.4 million: subsidy 50 per cent taxpayer reimbursement, cost $27.2 million for election dollars spent. That same $54.4 million donated provides a subsidy of 75 per cent  tax credit, potentially turning $54.4 million in contributions into $40.8 million tax dollars.

Total potential subsidy — $68 million.

We can debate the amount but make no mistake, all parties are subsidized by our tax dollars.

The election of 2011 with the democratic $2 per vote combined with a 50 per cent reimbursement on the maximum $21 million allowed to be spent, provided the Conservative party a total subsidy of $27.35 million (Elections Canada).

That’s a “fair” legislative raise by their majority — $27.35 to $68 million dollars.

Dolezal repeated the false and misleading statement of Stephen Harper launching the 42nd 2015 election at Rideau Hall: “It is important that these campaigns be funded by the parties themselves and not the taxpayer.” Harper’s Party and Contributors are heavily subsidized.

Fair legislation, I think not. Less than two per cent of voters donate to a political party; yet 100 per cent of taxpayers, subsidize their choice.

Harry Atkinson, Sidney