For the first time in a decade, all of Hamilton’s perceived leading mayoralty candidates are accepting corporate and union donations to finance their campaigns. Most council incumbents also rely heavily on these funding sources to win and hold their seats.
Brad Clark has never shied away from corporate donations. They covered 87 percent of his 2010 council bid, although he received no union support. His website indicates he’s actively seeking them again for his mayoralty bid.
Fred Eisenberger spurned corporate and union money in both his successful run for mayor in 2006 and his third place finish in 2010, but he is accepting them in his current campaign. He also welcomed them in his brief 2003 mayoralty run and during his earlier campaigns for a council seat.
Brian McHattie refused such monies in each of his 2003, 2006 and 2010 successful council runs, but like Eisenberger now has opened the door to this type of funding.
Concern about such donations and their potential influence on elected officials has convinced at least half a dozen Ontario municipalities to ban corporate and union contributions and/or offer rebates to individual donors. Toronto began this trend in 1997 by banning both corporate and union donations and instituting a rebate program for individual donors. It currently refunds 75% of gifts up to $300, 50% for further amounts up to $1000, and a third of the donation over $1000.
The maximum individual election donation per candidate is limited to $750 in most cities including Hamilton, but Toronto allows up to $2500 to a mayoralty candidate. Ajax banned corporate and union donations in 2000 and began a rebate program. Ottawa passed a rebate law in 2005 to encourage individual donors, and Oakville joined the trend in 2012, but both continue to permit candidates to take corporate and union gifts.
It was primarily corporate gifts to his 2003 campaign that embroiled former mayor Larry DiIanni in a scandal that resulted in 41 charges related to illegal donations. In a plea bargain, DiIanni acknowledged guilt in six of those charges. He continued to collect both corporate and union monies in his unsuccessful mayoralty campaigns in 2006 and 2010, and this year has endorsed Eisenberger.
Bob Bratina accepted only individual donations in his winning campaigns for council in 2005 and 2006 and for mayor in 2010. He is now seeking a nomination for the next federal election – a battlefield where corporate and union donations have been outlawed.
Most incumbent councillors seeking re-election on October 27 collected at least half their 2010 campaign funds from corporations. Jason Farr raised 47% of his first-time campaign funds from corporate sources and 11% from unions. Brenda Johnson relied entirely on individual donors and Judi Partridge personally financed her 2010 campaign after accepting corporate money in her unsuccessful bid in the previous election. Robert Pasuta took corporate gifts in his first election in 2006 but was acclaimed in 2010 so didn’t have to raise any campaign funds.
Unions covered 14% of the 2010 campaigns of Sam Merulla and Chad Collins and contributed smaller proportions to all others willing to accept them except Lloyd Ferguson and Clark. The leading union sources were the CUPE local that represents city workers, the HAND heavy construction association, and the Labourers International Union of North America (LIUNA) Local 837 that represents construction workers and also is involved in redevelopment projects such as the Lister Block.
Opponents of corporate and union election donations argue that they are used to obtain special treatment from governments. “They spend the money expecting it to pay off in future,” argues a recent commentator on British Columbia elections. “The only people who don't believe that are the politicians getting the cash.”
A 2006 academic study of election financing in Toronto and nine surrounding municipalities found that “the development industry is by the far the largest segment of corporate and of all contributions in all communities.” The author, Professor Robert Macdermid of York University, also suggested that this furthers the financial interests of the donor companies and “it seems unlikely that development interests would continue to support an incumbent who had not been supportive of development.”