Last week, the Liberal party was handing out ‘sticker packs’ as a reward to anyone who sent in a donation over $5. More than 2,500 donors snapped up packages of stickers commemorating the Liberals’ first year in office — about 1,000 within a couple of days, we’re told.

Presumably, something better than a sticker pack is going to the people writing big cheques at these ‘cash-for-access’ dinners we’ve been reading about lately.

But what reward does a person get for attending a $1,500-a-plate event with a cabinet minister these days? That’s the basic question underlying all these private fundraising events, now causing Justin Trudeau’s Liberals some awkward moments under the ethics spotlight.

We know that all political parties need money — millions of dollars a year, in fact. But what exactly are they selling to get it?

So far, the Liberals’ answers on these questions have been less than adequate. We’ve heard the business-as-usual rationale: “All parties engage in fundraising,” Government House leader Bardish Chagger said in the Commons this week. “We all have to follow the same rules. Those rules were put in place by the previous government.”

In the Commons today, Trudeau himself put forward a similar argument, suggesting that Canadians could trust his party not to sell out to donors. That’s not unlike what the prime minister said when he seemed to be musing aloud in interviews last week about abandoning electoral reform — that the system isn’t so bad, really … as long as Liberals are in charge.

We’ve also heard that Finance Minister Bill Morneau is meeting well-heeled donors as part of his wide-ranging budget consultations. Morneau was repeating again today that the blue-chip donors at these private events are all equal parts of the vast network of Canadians being consulted on what should be in the next budget.

But the same Liberals who were offered sticker packs in those fundraising emails were also given a chance earlier this month to fill out a detailed questionnaire on their budget priorities. By Oct. 15, we’re told, more than 33,000 respondents had taken part in the survey — without having to go to the trouble of attending a cocktail party or pull out their wallets.

It remains to be seen which contributors to the consultations will enjoy more influence, though. Is a checkmark on a survey equal in weight to a word in the Finance minister’s ear?

Without the subsidies, parties have been forced to become 24-7 fundraising machines, selling ‘sticker packs’ or whatever else the public may be keen to buy, just to keep the lights on in their offices. Without the subsidies, parties have been forced to become 24-7 fundraising machines, selling ‘sticker packs’ or whatever else the public may be keen to buy, just to keep the lights on in their offices.

All this angst about political fundraisers at the federal level follows closely on the heels of a similar controversy at Queen’s Park, which has been lagging a decade or more behind Ottawa in putting fundraising limits in place.

Now, after sustained criticism about provincial ministers attending cash-for-access events, Kathleen Wynne’s Liberal government is proposing to ban all MPPs — along with candidates, party leaders, nomination and leadership contestants, maybe even chiefs of staff — from attending fundraising events.

This is ridiculous — probably unenforceable. It’s a policy that says political people can mingle only with people who don’t support them financially. Imagine the fundraising emails in that system: “Give us $5 and you’ll never see us again.” (Wait. Maybe that could work.)

Seriously — I’m not against political fundraising. Though I don’t donate to political parties (obviously), I always find it heartening to see people with enough faith in the democratic system to support it with their hard-earned dollars — or time, in the case of volunteers.

I’d be happy, in fact, if the government brought back the public subsidy for political parties, which was based on how many votes they received in the past election. It was a form of proportional representation, levelling the fundraising field somewhat for smaller parties, and it recognized that parties do public work. Without the subsidies, parties have been forced to become 24-7 fundraising machines, selling ‘sticker packs’ or whatever else the public may be keen to buy, just to keep the lights on in their offices.

Moreover, under the subsidy system, every voter is equal, regardless of income. Whether you earn six figures a year or minimum wage, your vote counts for the same dollar or two in the party treasuries.

The current controversy over Liberal fundraising is, like many political dustups, mostly self-inflicted. As the opposition critics have been pointing out (correctly), it’s right there in the ‘Open and Accountable Government’ guidelines, issued by this government a year ago:

“There should be no preferential access to government, or appearance of preferential access, accorded to individuals or organizations because they have made financial contributions to politicians and political parties.”

That’s pretty clear. And the government can’t claim these rules were written by the last government.

All organizations in the fundraising business, whether they’re political parties or charities, are doing lots of research these days on donor motivation. Some people will give to show support for a worthy cause. Some will donate to a “fight” against an enemy or a disease. Some people will pay up simply out of a desire for belonging — to be part of a group.

Donor motivation is the key to the cash-for-access issue, too. In the case of these high-priced events with ministers, we may be asking the wrong people what defines “preferential access”. The government says it’s not selling influence. But what do the big donors believe they’re buying?

More than sticker packs, we can wager.

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.