Corporate Candidates Benefit From New Campaign Rules


So when you heard that developers couldn’t contribute to municipal political candidates fund-raising, you went, “Good idea. Makes campaigns more democratic.”

Except Premier Kathleen Wynne’s reforms actually make corporate interference in campaign more prevalent.


Because what few reporters left covering municipal politics can’t find a company on candidates’ documents … just employees and executives. But those donations are there, just under individual names.

Furthermore, the Ontario government has created Super PACs like those in the U.S. Corporate and labour organizations plus individuals can create their own fund-raising campaigns outside of those by candidates and so get around their donations to individual politicians.

So why the faux reforms? Because these same organizations donate to provincial parties and you can’t offend, can you? Wynne’s reforms look like reforms except they are not.

Need proof?

Why is there limited availability of beer from multiple outlets in Ontario? Why is there a beer oligopoly?

Because brewers contribute mightily to provincial campaigns. There is no good reason for maintaining a beer oligopoly unless you’re running for office.

No one else benefits except politicians.

And so municipal politicians who toe the corporate line will get massive funding through individual company employees and executives and through Super PACs.

Who benefits? Mayor Jim Watson.


• To comment on this post, use the reply box at the bottom of this page.

• Start your own debate or comment on another pressing issue, by going to The Bulldog Forum.

• To Get More Than 30 Great Features On The Bulldog From Lifestyle To Technology And Much More, Go To The Full Bulldog Index. Click Here.

• Return to The Bulldog (Ottawa), The Bulldog ForumBulldog Canadian or Bulldog Politics.

2 thoughts on “Corporate Candidates Benefit From New Campaign Rules

  1. This is an object lesson on bait and switch. The provincial government made a lot of headlines a couple years ago when they claimed to have “banned” corporate and union contributions to provincial and municipal election campaigns. All that they really did was re-arrange the deck chairs, while making it more difficult to follow the money. And they wonder why they are held in such low esteem.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *