Political funding in 905 mainly from developers

The Toronto Star June 1st edition, gave us some insight as to why our councils may seem to us to be "developer-friendly". It's not all in our heads.

A study released Thursday by York University political science professor Robert MacDermid found that local councillors in the suburban cities and towns bordering Toronto get the bulk of their campaign funds — in one case as high as 96.7 per cent — from corporate contributions, primarily from developers. Oh my, what a surprise!

A detailed analysis of the money shows that across the 905 municipalities almost 70 per cent of all corporate contributions came directly from developers or companies that represented construction interests. In Toronto it's 44 per cent. But then they don't have all that open land waiting to be developed in Toronto. Not like we have in the 905 areas, certainly in Clarington!

"Citizens have a blame here," MacDermid said. "In their absence from politics both as voters and as contributors, business and development interests fill that void."
As a result their interests dominate in the 905 area where there is more land to be developed, he said.

There is a way to remedy this - and Ajax Mayor Steve seems to have found it. Ajax has the 2nd highest individual voter participation behind Toronto, and they are the only municipalities to offer rebates for individual contributions. In the case of Ajax, voters can get 75 per cent of the first $100 donated to a politician back and 50 per cent of the next $150 pack. The cap for rebates is $250. It's a way to get individuals to donate and those big donations by developers aren't needed.

Parish has asked the province to step in and reform campaign finance laws, but to date his plea seems to have fallen on deaf ears, as usual. Perhaps Clarington should consider following the Ajax lead though, and offer rebates. It couldn't hurt. (Only for individual contributions, not unions and corporations)

Of course all politicians will dismiss any suggestion that developers have undue influence because of their election contributions. In some cases that may be true, in others not. But the perception of impropriety is as important as the real deal itself, and there is certainly that perception. Especially when there are "planning" decisions that make absolutely no sense other than to give developers what they ask for, at times even against the recommendations of planning staff. They can usually find an excuse for their actions, but not always a plausible one. We're not that stupid.