Article content continued

This is wrong even in principle. Why should fairness between parties be preferred to fairness between the individuals of which they are composed? If a party with 100,000 donors is under the same cap as a party with 1,000, then the first party’s donors have, as individuals, a hundredth as much say in the campaign as the latter’s.

The real scandal is not what is illegal — direct foreign spending on Canadian elections — but what’s legal

But in practice no such fairness is even attempted, at least when it comes to “third parties.” Certainly they should not face less restrictions than the official parties, as has been the case in recent Ontario elections. But neither should they be given less room to make their case. If that’s how their supporters prefer to express themselves — if none of the parties adequately represents their view — that’s their business.

The current bill, for example, rightly seeks to regulate both parties and third parties during the “pre-writ” period immediately prior to the official campaign: where parties could spend $1.5 million each, third parties could spend $1 million.

Once the writ drops, however, even that pretense of parity disappears. Third parties would be limited to $500,000 apiece. The parties? In 2015, the major parties were allowed to spend more than $54 million. Each. The candidates, collectively, spent even more.

Much of this, what is more, was defrayed by the taxpayer: through the 75-per-cent tax credit that applies, uniquely, to political contributions, and through the partial reimbursement of candidates’ expenses. And most of it was,not just unnecessary but harmful: spent on things that hurt democracy, like robocalls, attack ads, photo ops, and push polls. All of this apparatus of bamboozlement, too, would be preserved intact under Bill C-76.

The government says the bill is aimed at “restoring Canadians’ trust” in the democratic process. What trust?