“Washington is like a strip club,” former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee once said. “You’ve got people tossing dollars, and people doing the dance.”

Huckabee was decrying the influence of money in American politics, but his words apply north of the border as well. And for once, we’re not talking about Quebec.

This week, the Globe and Mail published the results of its investigation into so-called “cash-for-access” fundraisers held by Liberal politicians in Ontario. In the two years following Premier Kathleen Wynne’s election as leader, the party held 223 fundraisers, 159 of which were private events with fewer than 50 guests, netting $19.6 million.

While the guest lists were not disclosed, the Globe matched recorded donations with the dates and ticket prices of the events, and found “a pattern of industry-specific events, in which corporate elites, union leaders and lobbyists in a given sector were invited to pay for time with the Premier or minister involved in their file.”

And that time did not come cheap. Ticket prices ranged from $3,000 to $10,000. Events included cocktails, garden parties and gatherings at high-end hotels and restaurants. Representatives of development and construction companies attended events featuring Finance Minister Charles Sousa and Transportation Minister Steven Del Duca. Infrastructure providers paid to spend time with Premier Wynne. Electricity company executives forked out funds to break bread with Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli.

The latter prompted a complaint to the province’s Integrity Commissioner, Bob Wake, by Democracy Watch, an Ottawa group that monitors the impact of fundraising on the democratic process. When the complaint was rejected for lack of standing (one has to be a sitting member of the legislature), Ontario NDP deputy leader and MPP for Bramalea-Gore-Malton Jagmeet Singh stepped in, asking the commissioner to investigate a Liberal party dinner held in December 2015 with both Chiarelli and Sousa.

In response, Sousa stated that “all political parties participate in events that fund their electoral campaigns and it is done independently of government activity. I welcome further reforming the fundraising system and I hope MPP Singh and the opposition parties will agree to make these reforms.”

While Wynne is no longer defending such events as ‘part of the democratic process,’ as she did back in March, the Liberals are showing no interest in eliminating them. Neither, it would seem, are the opposition parties. While Wynne is no longer defending such events as ‘part of the democratic process,’ as she did back in March, the Liberals are showing no interest in eliminating them. Neither, it would seem, are the opposition parties.

The reforms to which Sousa refers are contained in Bill 201, legislation which would ban donations from unions and corporations and reduce by half the limit on personal donations, to $7,750 a year. Individuals would be able to give $1,525 to each political party — the same amount that is permitted under the Canada Elections Act, but a limit that the co-founder of Democracy Watch, Duff Conacher, says is still too high.

“The federal limit is a charade. The federal limit for donations by individuals is $1,525 to the party, but another $1,525 to the riding association of each party, and it’s actually over $3,000.”

Bill 201 also does nothing to ban cash-for-access fundraisers. While Wynne is no longer defending such events as “part of the democratic process,” as she did back in March when the story first broke, the Liberals are showing no interest in eliminating them.

Neither, it would seem, are the opposition parties — probably because they’ve all held similar events, including a $9,975-a-plate fundraiser for Andrea Horwath featuring NDP Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, which got Notley in hot water back in her home province.

In response to the Globe investigation, a spokesperson for the premier’s office maintained that “we have been clear that donations do not influence policy decisions; any suggestion otherwise is completely false.”

That’s the official line. The experience in other jurisdictions, such as Quebec, points in another direction. There, the government called an inquiry — the Charbonneau Commission — to investigate allegations of corruption in the construction industry and political influence-peddling. The Commission unearthed a shocking level of corruption at the municipal level, but no direct links between fundraising and specific contracts at the provincial level.

However, Quebec’s former deputy premier, Nathalie Normandeau, has since been charged by the province’s anti-corruption unit, UPAC, with conspiracy, corruption, breach of trust and fraud for allegedly granting government contracts in exchange for gifts and political donations between 2000 and 2012.

Quebec’s response to the findings of the Charbonneau Commission was to slash the individual political donation limit to $100, and establish a public matching fund which allocates $2.50 per dollar raised for the first $20,000, and $1 per dollar raised for the first $200,000, per party. Cash-for-access events such as those being held in Ontario are prohibited.

Will the Ontario Liberals amend Bill 201 to bring it in line with Quebec’s low limits on donations and public funds, or stick with the higher limits and zero public funding of federal legislation? Whichever path they choose, if they continue to allow cash-for-access, they’ll defeat the very purpose of any reforms — which ought to be to prevent money from buying power and influence. Worse, they will fail to restore public confidence in the democratic system.

And in an ironic twist, they’ll risk angering the very private sector businesspeople currently ponying up for pricey tickets — people who are getting tired of being repeatedly hit up for contributions, no matter how enjoyable ‘an evening with the Hon. K. Wynne’ can be.

One lobbyist, who asked to remain anonymous, put it very well: “The system was working well for the Liberals … But they pushed it too far.” Indeed.

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.