Will a committee tame 'Wild West' municipal campaigns?

It would be pretty easy to take over a mid-sized town in B.C.
Not in an uprising. Just by writing cheques.
Municipal election campaigns are, as Community Minister Bill Bennett said recently, "a bit of the Wild West."
There are no limits on political donations or spending. Third parties can spend as much as they like to influence the election without even revealing their identities.
The potential for corruption is so great that it's almost inevitable.
Say you're a developer keen on a lucrative rezoning or the extension of services to property you own. Or you're a public sector union president, worried about wage cuts or layoffs in the next round of contract negotiations.
You notice that hardly anyone votes - just under 20 per cent of those eligible in Kelowna in the last municipal election, for example.
You recognize that name recognition is important when voters aren't paying much attention to issues and campaigns. That's why incumbents have a huge advantage.
You realize that for a relatively modest sum, you could ensure the election of councillors and a mayor who would see things your way.
And everything you do will be completely legal. No wonder money from special interests have started to play a larger and larger role in municipal elections, from Vancouver to much smaller communities.
In part because of pressure from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, Premier Gordon Campbell government promised to do something about it back on Oct. 2.
A task force would look at all aspects of municipal elections, he said, from campaign financing to changing the current three-year cycle.
The project has been slow in starting. The government says the UBCM needed extra time to decide on its representatives.
But now Bennett and UBCM president Harry Nyce, the co-chairs, have been joined by two UBCM vice-presidents - Quesnel Mayor Mary Sjostrom and Surrey Coun. Barbara Steele.
Liberal MLAs Douglas Horne of Coquitlam and Donna Barnett of the Cariboo-Chilicotin riding. Barnett is a former mayor of the District of 100 Mile House.
You will notice something about the MLAs on the task force. They are all Liberal.
Bennett says the idea of including New Democrats or independent MLA Vicki Huntington never came up and they didn't ask to be involved during the planning stages. And the premier did say in October that government MLAs would be on the task force.
Steele, one of the UBCM reps, is also a Liberal. She ran for the party in 2005.
That creates an interesting problem for the task force, at least in terms of public perception.
Municipal politicians are looking for reforms that include limits on both campaign spending and donations. A survey of 38 B.C. mayors done earlier this year found 82 per cent supported both measures.
The notion that people or organizations with the biggest bank accounts shouldn't be able to determine the outcome of elections has been pretty widely accepted. The federal government, Manitoba and Quebec have all banned union and corporate donations and limited personal donations. Ontario allows donations from companies and unions, but limits them to $15,500 a year, or twice that much in an election year.
But Gordon Campbell has ignored a series of recommendations and insisted that no limits on donations are needed in B.C. There are spending limits.
His theory is that as long as donations must be reported, the public can be alert for any signs of special treatment for big donors.
It's a lame argument. The donation reports come out long after an election. Few people will pore through hundreds of reports. And even if there was favoritism for big donors, how would they know given the large number of decisions quietly made by government?
That puts the Liberal-dominated task force in a tough spot. Any call for donation limits will contradict the boss's insistence they aren't needed.
The group is going to be looking for public input. The output will be what's interesting.
Footnote: The task force has its work cut out. The report and recommendations are due by May 30, because the government would like any changes to the rules for municipal elections to be in place for the 2011 vote. That will require legislative changes.

Heed's 'star candidate' status looking dim

You could make a pretty good movie based on Kash Heed's disastrous political career. A cautionary tale about ambition, the perils of modern politics and the risks of a "star candidate."
Heed was supposed to be a golden boy in the Liberal ranks. He looks good, presented well, at least in a superficial way, and was most recently chief of the West Vancouver police. Ambitious, confident of great things in his future, encouraged by Liberal operatives who pushed Wally Oppal out of the way to create a safe riding for Heed.
And it's all gone to ruin.
Heed is now going to B.C. Supreme Court to try and hold on to his seat. An Elections B.C. audit has determined that his campaign broke the rules. Candidates could not spend more $70,000 on their campaigns; an audit found he spent $4,165 over the limit, the office says.
There are a lot of other issues around the tainted campaign. But let's start with the spending.
It matters. Heed won by less than 850 votes. Illegal campaign spending could have tipped the balance.
B.C. has a Wild West approach to political donations that allows big backers to write unlimited cheques to support parties and candidates. Any violation of the few rules is significant.
Elections B.C. has been asking for a new finance report from the campaign since June and granted Heed repeated extensions.
Last month, it warned Heed's election could be declared invalid and a byelection held.
Heed is pleading ignorance. That's never a great defence, and particularly bad for a police chief and political star.
But in an affidavit filed on Christmas Eve, Heed says he had nothing to do with his campaign spending or financial reports. Oppal recommended two people to run the campaign. Heed says he accepted and they made all the decisions.
Heed says he can't compel them to provide the information and he knows nothing. So all should be forgiven.
But that would mean an election might have been stolen by cheating.
It's a scandal in itself. But there's more.
A Chinese-language brochure smearing the NDP with false allegations was sent out in Heed's riding near the end of the campaign. It was illegal, because there was no indication who sponsored it.
But an investigation linked it to the Liberal campaigners.
Heed's campaign manager Barinder Sall faces five charges as a result, including obstructing justice, submitting a fraudulent document and improper election advertising. Two others involved with the campaign also face charges.
The unreported spending on the brochure is part of the campaign overspending, Elections B.C. alleges.
Heed stepped down as solicitor general while the incident was investigated.
Last May, a special prosecutor cleared him. Gordon Campbell, off at a meeting in Europe, put him back in cabinet.
And then the special prosecutor revealed his law firm donated to Heed's campaign. He resigned. Heed stepped down again.
And a new special prosecutor was appointed and the investigation started again.
The police report is now with the new special prosecutor.
Now an RCMP application for search warrants alleges Heed used $6,000 in public funds that was supposed to furnish his office to pay two campaign workers, including the campaign manager.
It's quite a spectacular mess.
Heed has the right under the Election Act to ask the court to clear him if he acted "in good faith."
But his affidavit doesn't reveal any effort on his part to get the needed information or press his campaign's financial agent to complete the reports. And the act appears to say the "good faith defence" applies only if the financial agent and the candidate both are found to have met the standard. It's not enough for the candidate to plead ignorance.
The Liberals - politicians and party officials - have been silent on the affair.
But the prospect of a continuing scandal, and perhaps a byelection, can't be cheering.
Footnote: The searches also uncovered a 2008 e-mail in which Heed touted his prospects to his future campaign manager.
"Think of things this way: You are a trainer that has a few horses in your stable ," he allegedly wrote. "Wally [Oppal] is getting on and needs to be put out to pasture soon. You have a stallion that has been in training for some time and you and everyone else know he's a winner, but can't wait on the sidelines forever."
Oppal gave up his seat for Heed and lost in a new riding.

Six Things to Know about the BC Liberal Leadership Race

Here are six things you need to know about the race to replace Christy Clark, based on the rules the BC Liberal Party released Tuesday.

First, you better have money or some rich supporters if you even want to try for the job. It will cost you $50,000, payable to the party, to become a candidate. (Plus $10,000 that you’ll get back if the party doesn’t levy any fines for bad behaviour during the campaign.)

Second, it’s going to cost a lot more to win. The spending limit for candidates — on top of the entry fees — is $600,000. That’s a 33-per-cent increase from 2011 when Christy Clark won the leadership, and 71 per cent higher than the spending limit in the 2014 NDP leadership race. Candidates who jump into the race and raise enough money will be able to spend about $120,000 a month on their leadership campaigns. (Money, of course, does not guarantee success, as the BC Liberals proved in the May election. They spent $13.6 million compared to the NDP’s $7.9 million, and got just 1,566 more votes.)

Third, and further confirming the Liberals’ blindness to the public concern about its support for Wild West political fundraising, there are no limits on donations. If a developer or union or even foreign government wants to write a $500,000 cheque to try and get a friendly candidate elected, that’s OK with the Liberal party. The donation will eventually be disclosed — but not until 90 days after party members have voted to elect their new leader.

This free-for-all comes, remember, six months after the Liberals’ deathbed repentance Throne Speech pledged to ban corporate and union political donations and limit individual donations.

You can read the rest of the column at The Tyee.

B.C. laggard in regulating payday lenders

VICTORIA - Everyone - even Solicitor General John Les - agrees the province should be regulating payday lenders to protect British Columbians.
So what won't the government do something?
Payday loan companies were almost non-existent a decade ago. Now there are about 1,350 branches across Canada doing $1 billion in business a year.
Unlike banks and other lenders, the industry is virtually unregulated. The safeguards that protect consumers dealing with other financial institutions don't exist.
The companies serve a useful purpose, despite critics' complaints that exploit the poor. They offer loans to people who have no other access to credit. For someone who urgently needs $100 to make to the next payday - to fix a car, or provide for a child - the companies are a valuable service. Show them a pay stub, write a postdated cheque and you can borrow a small amount for a brief period.
For a price. The Criminal Code makes it a crime to charge more than 60 per cent interest. Typically the companies charge 59 per cent. But they also levy fees for each transaction that push up the real cost of borrowing, in some cases to 1,000 per cent.
The loans can quickly become a trap. Borrow the money against your pay cheque, pay it back and then run short again and go back for another loan. A court case in Ottawa heard that a person borrowed $280. A month later, the amount owing for the original loan had risen to $551, a Tony Soprano kind of transaction.
The companies defend the fees. They run a big risk of not getting paid back, they say, and it's tough to make money on a lot of small loans.
But they agree - mostly - on the need for proper government regulation.  The Canadian Payday Loan Association, which represents operators of about 800 of the 1,350 outlets, has urged governments to step in and set rules for the industry.
The B.C. government says no. When New Democrat MLA Rob Fleming introduced a private members' bill this month to regulate the industry, Les was dismissive.
The bill’s contents are fine, said Les, nothing he could disagree with.
But, Les said, the province can't do anything until the federal government changes the Criminal Code and gives the province the power to set maximum interest rates. Fleming has “the cart before the horse.”
It sounds like an excuse, a lamish one.
It would be helpful if the federal government finally acted on the Criminal Code changes after five years of dithering.
But in the meantime B.C. could act, if it had the will.
The Manitoba government has introduced legislation regulating payday lenders. It acknowledges some provisions require changes to federal law. The fact that Manitoba has passed the legislation and is waiting on Ottawa is intended to add pressure.
But the Manitoba law also introduces useful measures that don't require any federal action. Payday loan companies will be required to warn customers in clear language about the high cost of loans. Borrowers will have 48 hours to change their minds about the agreement. Most importantly, the companies will be required to get provincial Public Utilities Board approval for their fees. Their operations will come under close independent scrutiny.
Many of the same measures were included Fleming's bill.
The Liberals aren't going to adopt an NDP members' bill, but the government could and should bring in its own legislation this fall.
The industry fills a need.
But it can also exploit the vulnerable. If any sector of the financial services industry requires regulation, it's the payday loan operators. Yet governments have largely chosen to ignore them. (Not entirely. Manitoba prosecutors have laid charges under existing Criminal Code provisions; Quebec introduced regulations limiting interest rates and the companies have stayed out of the province.)
The government has acknowledged the need for action. Les has indicated general support for Fleming's bill. B.C. has the ability to start protecting consumers and bring some order to a Wild West industry.
It's time for the excuses to stop and some action to start.
Footnote: The only remedy available to introduced so far has been class action lawsuits. But they are a costly and slow vehicle to bring about change. The amounts claimed are typically small and the base of claimants tough to identify and the legal process could take years.