If there is anything good to be said about Trump, at least he has made formerly less engaged members of the public more conscious and rightfully angry with the role of money and corruption in politics. It’s nothing new, but at least we’re more willing to yell and organize to do something about it now than most of us were just a few years ago when the post-Occupy Wall Street fatigue had really sunk in. Yet while more people might be willing now to talk politics, we do face the obstacle of having to pry our eyes away from the carnival show south of the border. But trust me brothers and sisters, the show at home, while less vulgar and loud, is just as riveting.
Money, both old and corporate, and in some cases both, is no stranger to politics in Canada. Every election cycle you will be bombarded with reminders of price tags for failed or promised government projects — but also with accusations of $10,000-a-plate dinner fundraisers and seedy business connections. It makes us feel a little icky and politicians know it, but yet it happens every year and we chalk it up to the realities of needing money to run successful campaigns; there is staff to be paid, signs and Facebook promotions to be bought, and branded office supplies to be ordered. The federal Liberal party has managed to find itself dirtied already with mentions of pay-to-play politics, general entitled impropriety, and their golden boy being gifted private jet flights to island holidays hosted by his millionaire friends.
Yet it doesn’t get much better, even in B.C. with the provincial Liberals (who don’t overlap or coordinate as much as you’d think with the federal Liberal party — indeed they are much further to the right and closer to the Progressive Conservative model) and Christy Clark has found international fame last month as the focus of a well-documented and spread New York Times piece titled “British Columbia: The ‘Wild West’ of Canadian Political Cash.” In the leadup to what is bound to be a relatively exciting race in this great province, what better way to build up our notoriety abroad than as a haven for corporate interests, unlimited political donations, and shady rule making. Every vote counts, but it would be naive to think that sometimes money doesn’t have a more immediate power as far as politicians and parties are concerned. Clark isn’t the only one taking advantage of the undue influence we have allowed as citizens, and I doubt even regulations and public outcry will make her the last, but when she and the party elite have spent the last few years building an image of a business- and industry-friendly party it is a little suspect when you start wondering how much your support matters over the ones filling her pockets. Then you get to the whole thing of her getting paid not only by the taxpayers but an additional stipend by her party; and although there might be a perfectly reasonable and best practiced reason for that, I can’t help that it makes me almost as furious as the vaguely righteous but not specific on details or context outrage that people had with Clinton’s emails.
As long as staffers, officials, and organizers need to be able to buy lunch and pay rent, money will never be completely out of politics; but there’s a line that we’ve let get crossed a long time ago that has at this point probably been paved over to build a parking lot or gaudy gold tower for a brother-in-law of someone we expected to govern, lead, and promote our best interests. Maybe we’re angry enough to do something about it. Or maybe we’ll feel less angry if we just take another nap and wait another few years.
