If political morality does become a defining issue in any spring election, Stephen Harper still has an ace to play — his opposition to the direct public subsidization of political parties.

The governing Conservatives would prefer that an election be fought over the economy. They reckon that this is their strong suit.

The Liberals, and to a lesser extent the New Democrats, want Harper’s high-handedness to be a defining issue. And here, the Prime Minister has given them plenty of ammunition.

He has refused to provide MPs with basic financial information. One of his ministers has, in effect, been accused by Commons Speaker Peter Milliken of lying to Parliament. Crown prosecutors have decided that there is enough credible evidence to charge four senior Conservatives with breaking election financing laws.

But these same financing laws also give the governing Conservatives a rich target. Under legislation introduced in 2003, the federal government is required to provide an inflation-adjusted subsidy, now set at about $2 per voter, to any political party able to meet minimal levels of support.

This direct public subsidy was part of a trade-off for Parliament’s decision to drastically limit campaign contributions by corporations and unions. And, given that it is tied to voter support, it is arguably fairer than the old system. (If you vote for, say, the Greens, your $2 goes to that party; if you fill up at Esso, you have no control over who that company chooses to support.)

True, the $27 million for direct financing is just a portion of the public money spent on political parties. An additional $29 million went to major parties to subsidize their 2008 national election campaigns plus an estimated $27 million to subsidize local contests.

On top of this, tax-deductible political contributions cost the federal treasury roughly $20 million a year.

Harper has made it clear that he doesn’t want to tinker with the election expense or tax break subsidies. His party does disproportionally well from them.

But the Prime Minister did serve notice in January that he will take on the $2 per voter direct subsidy.

The Conservatives are less reliant on this particular goody than any other party. And politically, it’s the most vulnerable.

First, it is easily understood. It is not buried in the income tax system. If politicians get votes, their parties get cash. At a time when politicians are not in high repute, this is a tough sell

Second, the separatist Bloc Québécois receives the federal subsidy. In fact, it relies on it more than any other party.

Logically, this can be justified. But outside of Quebec, a scheme that subsidizes a party determined to break up Canada is wide open to attack.

More to the point, a clever assault on direct public financing of political parties can blunt the opposition’s moral critique of the Harper government.

The opposition parties argue that Harper has no respect for democracy. The Conservatives can counter that they respect taxpayers but have no time for political parties determined to feed at the public trough.

The opposition insists (correctly) that Harper’s government runs roughshod over the privileges of MPs. The Conservatives can say that politicians already are too privileged.

The opposition will argue that they are bringing down the government over substantive matters such as corporate taxes or pensions. The Conservatives can say their opponents are interested only in the cash.

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

As Harper found in 2008, attacking the public financing of political parties can be disastrous at the beginning of a minority parliament (it almost led to his government’s early defeat.)

But in an election the Conservatives are ready to fight, it has the whiff of a winner.

Thomas Walkom's column appears Wednesday and Saturday.

Read more about: