More from Tasha Kheiriddin available More fromavailable here

As Marx and ABBA both reminded us, it’s a rich man’s world. Or, if we’re talking politics, it’s a rich party’s world. With our first fixed-date federal election a mere five months away, and with the unofficial campaign already well underway, this contest promises to be the costliest in Canadian history.

Already, the three main parties are splashing out on new television advertising — touting their strengths and, in the case of the Tories, mocking their opponents’ weaknesses. Add to that the efforts of unions and advocacy groups, and you can expect to see millions of dollars dropped before the writ does.

And when that will happen remains anyone’s guess. Several months ago, pundit Alice Funke pointed out that while the Electoral Reform Act sets a fixed end point for the federal election campaign, it does not set a starting date. The government can call the election whenever it wants — as long as it’s at least 37 days before October 19. Spending limits will then be calculated based on the length of the campaign: Funke even speculated on the possibility of a summer-long slugfest of 77 days and a $100-million limit.

While that might sound crazy by Canadian standards, a seven-week, $35-million campaign might not. Or what about a nine-week, $45-million campaign? Every additional seven days represents roughly $5 million in additional allowable expenses. And that’s $5 million that the Conservatives have — and the other parties don’t.

When you add up all election contributions from individuals and transfers from associations and candidates made since the 2011 vote, the Conservatives leave their opponents in the dust. The Tories raked in $76.1 million from 423,440 donors; the Liberals, $54.9 million from 344,072 donors; the NDP, $31.5 million from 213,282 donors; the Greens, $8.2 million from 77,500 donors, and the Bloc Quebecois, $2.8 million from 15,859 donors.

Setting an early official start date would force the other parties to spend $5 million a week just to match the Tories’ efforts — money they don’t have unless they borrow it, which could weaken them financially for future elections. Setting an early official start date would force the other parties to spend $5 million a week just to match the Tories’ efforts — money they don’t have unless they borrow it, which could weaken them financially for future elections.

And that’s just voluntary contributions. These numbers don’t include the roughly $2 per-vote public subsidy the main parties received until it was eliminated on January 1, 2015, or the 50 per cent reimbursement of 2011 national campaign expenses for parties winning at least 2 per cent support. Electoral district associations also got back 60 per cent of candidates’ expenses in ridings where they took at least 10 per cent of the votes.

In other words, the Tories have every reason to want a long, expensive campaign. Even before it officially starts, their rivals feel obliged to get out of the gate early and start spending down their war chest on ads and counter-ads. But those expenses are not on the order of those of an official campaign. Setting an early official start date would force the other parties to spend $5 million a week just to match the Tories’ efforts — money they don’t have unless they borrow it, which could weaken them financially for future elections.

And this isn’t a temporary condition limited to 2015; this is how federal campaigns must be fought now. With the subsidy dead and buried, parties now rely solely on voluntary donations. Convincing supporters to become donors has become a full-time preoccupation, intimately tied to policy priorities. The parties blitz their supporters when they do or say something they think they’ll like: the Tories on crime bills, the NDP on daycare proposals, the Liberals on their pro-choice views. And they fearmonger: Send money, they’ll say, or the other guys will bring back the gun registry … or gut health care … or outlaw abortion.

And they’ll also ignore certain policy files simply because they don’t pay. When was the last time Conservative supporters got a fundraising email extolling the government’s plans to tackle climate change?

And while donations are capped at $1,500 per person (up from $1,200 as of January 1, 2015), they come disproportionately from higher-income Canadians. A study by University of New Brunswick professor Paul Howe and student Brianna Carmichael, published in the Canadian Parliamentary Review in 2014, found that “among those giving amounts over $750, 51.7 per cent are in the top income quintile, compared to 8.0 per cent in the bottom quintile … There is also a connection between income and size of donation apparent in mean donation amounts: $485 for the lowest income quintile, compared to $543 for the top income quintile.” Other studies cited by the authors also found that donations vary by age; older Canadians, not surprisingly, tend to donate more than younger Canadians.

So it’s probably no coincidence that this election promises to be all about the preoccupations of the middle-aged middle class: family benefits, taxes, security and retirement savings. This is despite the fact that many of the problems ascribed to Canada’s middle class actually belong to the working class, and the fact that fewer seniors live in poverty (12 per cent) than do members of the general population (13.8 per cent). So nobody’s really talking about the needs of low-income Canadians and the young. Where is the next proposal to end child poverty, or to create jobs for millennials?

All of which begs a question: Are parties pandering to the priorities of the over-45 middle-to-upper income voters because they’re the people who pay the bills? Instead of “democratizing” elections with fixed dates and individual limits, it appears we’ve skewed them even further in favour of people with deep pockets — and the parties that are able to convince them to pony up.

Tasha Kheiriddin is a political writer and broadcaster who frequently comments in both English and French. After practising law and a stint in the government of Mike Harris, Tasha became the Ontario director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and co-wrote the 2005 bestseller, Rescuing Canada’s Right: Blueprint for a Conservative Revolution. Tasha moved back to Montreal in 2006 and served as vice-president of the Montreal Economic Institute, and later director for Quebec of the Fraser Institute, while also lecturing on conservative politics at McGill University. Tasha now lives in Whitby, Ontario with her daughter Zara, born in 2009.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.