Politics is supposed to be about winning ideas.

More often it’s about wining and dining donors — and winning them over as a way to win power. Which is why money politics usually wins the day.

On Thursday, however, Ontario belatedly had a good day. After too many bad years of too much money infiltrating our politics, our MPPs had a good idea.

Unanimously, unexpectedly, the legislature voted this week to clean up its collective act by passing a new election finances Act that outlaws corporate and union contributions, dramatically reduces individual donation limits, and bans traditional fundraising dinners.

For years, all three major parties had been quietly colluding over fundraising — feeding their shared addictions to money politics, outdoing their rivals in hopes of outspending and overpowering one another.

Now, after lagging behind Ottawa, Quebec and Alberta, Ontario has seen the light — and, in some cases, leapfrogged ahead.

No longer will big business and big labour buy their way to the front of the line, gaining privileged access to push their self-interested agendas with cabinet ministers in power — or opposition leaders on the cusp of power.

No longer will donors cosy up to politicians (from any party) at private events merely by paying the price of admission to whisper in their ear, knowing that a dinner ticket has its privileges — so-called “cash for access.”

There are 21 shopping days until Christmas, but 28 frantic fundraising days until the contribution ban takes effect. On Jan. 1, 2017, the days of party bagmen sandbagging corporate and union donors will be done.

For the next few weeks, as they have for the last few years, they will seek donations of up to $9,975 at a time for the party, candidate and riding — nearly $30,000 a year, twice that much in an election or byelection year (not to mention unlimited contributions during leadership races). That’s how the Beer Store, and Ontario’s big brewers, were able to funnel more than $275,000 to the Liberals in a two-year period, plus generous contributions to the Progressive Conservatives.

Despite the connection between financial excess, political access, and policy success, few people paid heed to how companies paid their way. A columnist quickly learns that chasing your tail only gets you so far — sometimes you have to follow the bigger money.

A week-long series early this year revealed the previously secret targets of top cabinet ministers pressured to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars every year for the Liberal party: With an informal quota of $500,000, Health Minister Eric Hoskins shared top billing with Finance Minister Charles Sousa. Other top performing ministers raised $200,000 to $300,000 a year, keen to hit their marks in the fundraising books to avoid being in the party’s bad books.

Amid the public outcry, Premier Kathleen Wynne announced a ban on corporate and union donations, and promised the first comprehensive reform of Ontario’s outdated campaign finance laws by year-end. The opposition PCs and NDP — unable to sell direct access to power but expert in profiting from the prospect of power — suddenly found their voices after years of silence.

The three major parties have agreed on a new annual limit for individuals of $1,200 per party, riding, and candidate ($3,600 in total), plus caps on leadership races. The perennially fourth-place Greens, who raise the least money, made a persuasive case for fairer public funding of the electoral process with per-vote allowances.

The Liberals gave up a good thing in order to do the right thing. Credit also goes to PC Leader Patrick Brown — no slouch at corporate fundraising — for quickly supporting the ban, embracing the idea of public funding to replace it, and voting for the changes last week.

The new law isn’t perfect. There was a missed opportunity to lower the overall campaign spending limits (now in excess of $8 million per party at election time). The law should have closed a gaping loophole allowing parties to exclude polling and research expenses, as the New Democrats requested.

But for now, for once, a political ideal has prevailed over money politics at Queen’s Park. Will it catch on elsewhere?

A decade ago, Stephen Harper led the way by banning corporate and union contributions in Ottawa. After lagging and languishing for so long as the Wild West of fundraising, Ontario has suddenly leapfrogged Ottawa — with lower contribution limits, plus a ban on cash-for-access events (of the kind now plaguing Harper’s successor as prime minister, Justin Trudeau).

Like Wynne before him, Trudeau is stalling for time.

“As you mentioned, Ontario resisted for a long time, and then they took a big leap,” he told the Star’s editorial board Friday, when I pointed to the legislature’s vote the day before. “We’re going to look at what happened in Ontario, what that looks like, and we’ll see.”

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Yes, Ontario “resisted” — for too long. All the more reason for Trudeau to recognize what Wynne ultimately learned:

On fundraising reform, resistance is futile.

Martin Regg Cohn’s political column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. mcohn@thestar.ca , Twitter: @reggcohn

Read more about: