Article content continued

Well, what could be more democratic than that? Are we to confine our notion of democracy to the collective choices of millions of citizens, each having the same vote and the same say in how we are governed? That might meet some formalistic definition of democratic equality. But what about people with greater, shall we say, needs?

Whether the government subsidizes wind power may not matter much to you, but it matters a great deal to someone in, say, the wind power industry. Adjusting for the difference in stakes, the $6,000 an executive splashes out to bend the premier’s ear at a private reception and dinner is worth about the same as a single vote to the average person. (Math available on request.)

Besides, there is also the important principle that the Liberals need the money. As the premier explained, “the money to run a party has to come from somewhere.” Sure, some of it might come from small individual donations by citizens seeking only to advance the ideals for which a party stands. And some of it might come from secret $6,000 cocktail receptions with the premier hosted by lobbyists for industries under government regulation. Deux poids, deux mesures.

I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking the executives paying thousands of dollars to chat with the premier on the down-low are hoping to exert some kind of pull. You’re thinking the combination of large donations to the party and close proximity — or more precisely, large donations to the party in exchange for close proximity — looks like some kind of sordid pay-to-play scheme.