Grounds

Me on Twitter, May 28, 2011 (limited to 140 characters):It appears that smarter people than me seem to agree:Here’s University of Ottawa Professor Errol Mendes, cited in a Toronto Star article three days later about party financing (emphasis added):

Yet Mendes says the trade-off in banning corporate and union donations was providing the federal subsidy. If that is now axed, he says corporations and unions could be expected to make a Charter challenge on the law that forbids their contributions.“There’s a very good chance they could go to court and say we have the right to contribute,” said Mendes, a professor of constitutional and international law.“My view is that with the public subsidy, it was a reasonable limit. Without the public subsidy, I think it’s potentially open for the courts to say you can’t completely prohibit given the fact that the public subsidy is gone.”

Unsurprisingly, here’s what we got in today’s Speech from the Throne:

Canadians rightly expect fairness and accountability in the full range of government institutions that serve them. Our Government will reintroduce legislation to restore fair representation in the House of Commons. It will take steps to phase out direct taxpayer subsidies to federal political parties over the next three years.

To be continued…