From football to property and beyond, inequality is the mother of all crises

Inequality does indeed affect us all, both physically & mentally. It's foolish to say that the poor people are happier than wealthy people. No, poor people are not happy because they have to work that much more to earn just enough to fill theirs & their children's stomachs. Then, there are education costs, housing costs, utilities, healthcare costs, & now, even the clean, drinking water costs money. Add the social exclusivity of poor people & their families due to their poverty & the life of the poor person is just hellish.

To develop & provide sustainable resources to everyone equally, the wealthy & the poor, every country needs to invest in its infrastructure & economic policies. Although, the writer of this opinion post takes a simplistic view that if Netherlands can increase taxes, & also spread its tax net, to help out the vulnerable sections of its own populations, then everyone else can, it is pretty much impossible to do that without proper practice of faith & religion.

How will religion help in alleviating poverty & instituting equality among the populace? Netherlands is a small Scandinavian country with a much smaller population than many developing countries, like Pakistan, India, Brazil, Argentina, Nigeria, Kenya, Thailand etc. It is also a pretty much a homogeneous population, very much unlike many other developing countries around the world. Still, it's impossible to eradicate inequality because the rich control the political policy-making machine.

This eradication, or at least, alleviation of inequality, can only happen through ethical people in governments & policy-making area. Increasing taxes or spreading the tax net far & wide may help in increasing the government coffers but won't help much if that money is once again ends up in the pockets of rich executives & wealthy citizens of the country, or politicians loot that money. So, how does the general public ensure that government is full of good, ethical people? And even after identifying such honest people, can the general public act rationally enough to bring them to power & stick by them, while, they increase taxes on rich people, & use those taxes to upgrade the horrible situation the general public is living in? Remember, all this will take time, whereas, the general public will want to see substantial major changes as soon as possible.

Only ethics can help there, & ethics comes through religion. Ethical & religious people will need to become leaders & consider government coffers public money & hence, need to be spent on them.

Besides ethics & religion, huge changes in electoral policies need to be implemented. These kind of substantial changes to alleviate poverty & inequality need a good & long time frame, like a decade or more, easily. But, in most democracies, even when they are stable, a government & leader has about a few years, anywhere from 8 to 10 years to finish his / her work. Of course, that has to be done, if & when, opposition parties are silent & happy with what the government is doing (then, what's the point of the opposition party?). But, these fundamental economic & social changes can easily take couple of decades to meaningfully show any changes in the system.

So, inequality indeed adversely affects a major portion of the general populace, but alleviating or eradicating inequality requires a lot more work than simply changing the tax system (even that is huge work in itself).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/feb/08/football-property-prices-beyond-inequality-mother-of-all-crises-tax-lilianne-ploumen

Inequality affects all of us. I live in Amsterdam, where house prices are now rising so sharply that ordinary, hard-working people don’t get a look-in. In London, it’s been like that for years. Whole neighbourhoods are unaffordable. Century-old football clubs have become the playthings of billionaires.

And the trend continues. More and more of the world’s wealth is in the hands of fewer and fewer people. I believe that tolerating this growing inequality will go down in history as humanity’s biggest mistake since communism.

People are essentially social animals. They can inspire each other, but they can also frustrate and discourage each other. And that’s what gross inequality does. It unravels the very fabric of our societies. It robs people of decent jobs and decent pay. And it robs them of their sense of purpose and self-worth.

In developing countries, the gap between rich and poor is far bigger. And it isn’t merely a technical issue, it is the result of political choices. Inequality is truly the mother of all crises. Whether it is conflict, climate change, economic stagnation or migration flows, inequality is always a major underlying cause.

Last autumn, the UN adopted new global goals. One of the main targets is to eradicate extreme poverty by 2030. To achieve that, economic growth must stay at the level it had for the past 10 years and its benefits must be far bigger than average for the poorest 40%.

The challenge we face is summed up in the slogan: “Leave no one behind”. The smartest policy here is to invest in the poorest of the poor. If we don’t, there is no way we will defeat extreme poverty by 2030. Which means we won’t generate the economic growth needed to achieve the other global goals. And we won’t reach our climate goals either.

“Leave no one behind” is also a moral imperative. In the past 25 years, globalisation has helped the world make spectacular progress on poverty. But at the same time we’ve allowed large groups to lag behind, and an even larger group to fall by the wayside completely. One of the main causes is exclusion. Whether it is on the basis of gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation, entire groups are being left out.

The mantra that no one should be left behind offers hope of a much-needed correction. It means managing globalisation properly. It means ending the unbridled power of elites. If realised, it would mean everyone could finally benefit from – and participate in – global development.

We know how to make this happen. Last year, we analysed Dutch policy to see how we could contribute more to inclusive development. It resulted in a plan of action worth €350m (£269m) that we are now putting into practice.

The plan consists of 20 measures across two areas. The first involves generating work and income for African women and young people with poor future prospects. The second consists of 10 measures to prompt robust political dialogue with developing countries on inclusive growth and development.

That dialogue is crucial, because resistance to change is often strongest precisely where change is needed most. In many poor countries, elites cling stubbornly to wealth and power until conflict, death and destruction are inevitable.

But the most powerful weapon against inequality is tax. Governments have to fight tax avoidance and tax evasion. My country has initiated the renegotiation of 23 tax treaties. We’ve proposed anti-abuse provisions to ensure that the Netherlands is no longer an attractive option for companies that want to avoid taxes. And we now forgo tax exemptions on goods and services provided under official development assistance.

At the same time, we need to broaden the tax base in the developing countries, which often rely on consumption taxes that make the poor pay a higher proportion of their income in tax than the rich. These countries need a progressive tax regime. And for that they need assistance in administering and collecting more complex forms of taxation, such as income and wealth taxes.

Taxation is not a popular subject for politicians. But it deserves far more attention. A recent study, by Jan-Emmanuel De Neve and Nattavudh Powdthavee, brings further proof that higher taxation equals more happiness.

For many developing countries, the tax burden is still 10-15% of gross domestic product. According to the UN, they’ll have to raise collection to about 20% just to be able to finance their share of the global goals. In Scandinavia, the average tax burden is more than 45%. I wish the same for every country! Provided the money is spent well, of course.

So we have our work cut out. To the super rich, I say: trickle-down is dead. To the elites and the kleptocrats in poor countries, I say: there’s a limit to how high you can build the gates around your communities. The time has come to pay. Make sure the payment is in taxes.

US Elections: Theater with Deadly Consequences

A great interview with Lawrence Wilkerson, which essentially, supports what I have been saying, in my blogs here, for a while, now, that real democracy does not exist in the world. Everyone likes to talk about it but the general public does not know what real democracy is or how or what should it be? Should it be like what happens in the Western countries; America, Canada, UK, Australia etc.?

Problem is that the general public falsely thinks that as long as the elections are free & fair (that's an assumption in itself), & as long as the general public is getting out to vote & elect the person that they think is the right person to lead them and their country on the international stage, then it must be democracy. That's NOT Democracy.

Democracy is when makes every decision, or at least, major decisions, with the approval of the general public. After all, the general public is the real guardian of the country. It is akin to shareholders being the real owners of public corporation, & the directors of the company calling emergency meetings or the shareholders to vote on the major issues that company is facing. For instance, a country like, America, would've chosen to ask the citizens about invading their privacy before actually doing it, but as we all know, that's not how that issue played out in real life.

As Larry Wilkerson & Paul Jay discussed in the interview, that the democracy has become a charade in North America & other countries as well. The people in politics are all one & the same. Their political issues do not differ too much from each other. Only the faces change every few years but the major issues of the country never change or get resolved. This in turn has turned off the general public from taking part in electing their leaders, & only less than half of the general population actually votes.

Media, of course, has dumbed down the general public even further. It has played its hand in destroying the democracy very beautifully & to its full advantage. However, I will blame the public, here. Media is a business & will always provide what is in demand, & stupidity is in high demand. Public does not want to see or hear anything which would make them think critically. Of course, that just makes the corrupt politicians of the world do whatever they want to do. Hence, the drama of democracy keeps playing out where the victims don't know that they are the victims, the powerful keeps becoming powerful, & everyone thinks they they are living in a democratic country.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uh2vmEM4uc

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: ... I think American electoral politics and much electoral politics in many countries is much like that. It's mostly theater. There's a war of rhetoric, a war of election campaign ads, and the media treats the theater as if it's real. And it's not just the campaigning. It's while Congress and others are governing. The reality of power, the real interest beneath the politics, is rarely revealed in the media, and the media loves the partisan theater. Why? Because they make money out of it. 80% of campaign donations apparently are going to buy television ads, so it's not in television's interest to pierce the veil of this theater.

... it's very much the same thing in politics. It's got nothing to do [with] whether you know anything or not about the issues. Can you make the crowd pop? Can you make people vote for you?

COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON, FMR. CHIEF OF STAFF TO COLIN POWELL: I think your metaphor, Paul, is absolutely spot on. It is theater. The real manipulation of power, the real abuse of power, the real use of power takes place behind this charade that is the--you might call it the charade of democracy. That's essentially what we've made it. Elections, of course, are the least important aspect of democracy. The institutions, the culture, the society, the people, they're the important aspects of democracy. But elections are something that we hype all the time, whether it's in this country or other countries. We send observers and so forth. But I agree with that overall metaphor, that it's mostly theater. And in this country, we do Shakespearean theater, if you will, because it's true theater in this country.

JAY: So, while what's being said in the campaigns are mostly just messaging and trying to come up with little catchy phrases and pick some wedge issue that will get people excited, I mean, very little to do with public policy and what real solutions are, that being said, it's not that it's theater without consequences. It does have some consequence who happens to win. So let's get a bit into that. I mean, assuming the Republicans do take the Senate--and as we do the interview, it looks like they're going to--does it matter?

WILKERSON: It's a part of our system. ...

JAY: If you go back to when President Obama was elected and the real disgrace of the Bush-Cheney administration in every level, from foreign policy to economics, I mean, foreign policy leaving a complete disaster of the Iraq War, and on economics, certainly playing a big part in the crash of '07 and '08--of course, Bill Clinton helped contribute to that, but it was a total runaway train in terms of what elites in banking and so on could get away with with Bush-Cheney. Does it somewhat shock you, if you put your mind back then, that we're in a place where the Republicans could actually control both houses?

WILKERSON: It does, because, as Gore Vidal said very eloquently at one point in his life, we're the United States of amnesia. We don't have any memory. We don't have any retrospective look. Very few of us do, anyway. Most people do what they do, whether it's vote or go to work or whatever, based on a very immediate, local set of circumstances. And going back to--.

JAY: But a lot of that has to do with the media. The media has to have a lot to do with that.

WILKERSON: Well, a lot of it does have to do with the media. It does have to do with the media. And when you have a media that is captured, basically, by the corporate interests in this country, then that media is not going to tell you much except that which keeps you in your somnolent state. And that's really what our media does. It keeps us in an apathetic, somnolent state. The media has no interest in sparking real issues, in debating those issues, in discussing those issues, in parsing those issues so that you can see the meat and the blood and the bones of those issues. They don't want to do that. My god, that might excite someone to actually become smart.

JAY: Yeah. It's also like you take, like, the NBA or any of the professional sports leagues, where they do what they can to kind of even out the teams, because if the teams aren't competitive, who wants to go pay money to go see basketball or football? I mean, the media has the same interest. If they don't keep the Republicans and Democrats competitive, then who needs to spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars on television advertising? So it's in their interest to rehabilitate a party and not let it collapse completely.

WILKERSON: Absolutely. You just put your finger on the heart of things, too. One of my students asked me the other day: do you really think there's that much difference in foreign-policy formulation between the Republicans and the Democrats? And, of course, my answer was no, there's not. There's hardly any distance between them. Oh, you can pick an issue here and an issue there ... but you're not going to find that big a divergence between either party. And I would even submit you're not going to find that big a divergence with regard to what corporate interests dictate those politicians do between either party either. You're going to find that there's just as much responsibility, as you just pointed out, for the current economic problems in this country belonging to the Democrats ... who engineered the disassembling of FDR's protections during the Great Depression and afterwards, as there is amongst the Republicans, who were so explicit, if you will, in the way they fought war at the same time they didn't raise any taxes and things like that. But they're both complicit in the same kind of maneuvers, in the same kind of abuse of power for their own interest, for their very parochial, narrow individual interest, and for the larger and grander interests of the corporate interests whom they represent--big pharmacy, big food, big energy, and so forth.
...

The Deep State and the Power of Billionaires - David Cay Johnston on Reality Asserts Itself

If you are a regular reader of my blog posts, then you will know how I love to talk about how people around the world has a false notion of democracy & think that voting is democracy. Here, in the first part of this interview, the investigative reporter, Mr. David Johnston, talks about how instead of "one-man, one-vote" concept of a true democracy, the whole governmental system is rigged in such a way that the concept of democracy actually becomes "more wealth, more votes."

The naive, or perhaps, ignorant, public thinks that their vote matters. Before every election, the public is cajoled by the media to get out & vote because "your vote matters." Heck, I also vote in every federal & provincial elections in Canada, but I also keep in mind that my vote won't have much of an effect on the final outcome because the system has already decided who will be the next "puppet" or public "face" of the government. Most importantly, the policies of the government never change, or at least, not materially enough, to help make life any better for the poor & stricken public. The rich keep getting richer regardless of who comes in the powerhouse.

Another interesting thing to think, coming out from the interview, is how our education system churns out people who cannot think critically about their surroundings. They only care about their next paycheque. They don't care, or perhaps, trained to think about their own lives only. They are put into such a financial position that they are running from one errand to next, without ever having enough time to sit down calmly & think critically about their situation & the world around them. That's what the governments around the world want their citizenry to be & do; be a compliant little worker, who works like a machine, devoid of any critical thoughts.

One other thing Mr. Johnston briefly touched upon is that the people around the world equate wealth with virtue. Somehow, we still think that if someone is wealthy, then they must be pious & virtuous. Even most Muslims around the world incorrectly assume that if their fellow Muslim is wealthy, then he/she must be a pious person. Why? How so? Most wealthy people nowadays become wealthy by wrong means; be it morally wrong or legally wrong. They try to influence the economic & political policies of the government in their favour. They think that their wealth let them wield more power & votes over the government & the poor masses. Although, those poor masses are the ones who made them that wealth. Consequently, the poor masses stay poor, wealthy keep politicians in their pockets, & the political establishment keeps a facade of democracy on the actual face of oligarchy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0byZ1Rl8-8

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: What does that do to your vision of America?

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON, PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: Well, it's very troubling, largely because it's not seen by most people and it's not held to any kind of account. And one of the flaws in our notion that we live in a democracy is that a very narrow group of people select who we get to vote for. Someone like Dennis Kucinich might have a lot of popular appeal, but he will never be a serious candidate for president, because those people who have a lot of money in this country are going to use the system to make sure he isn't there.

JAY: And the media.

JOHNSTON: That's right. President Obama--look at how closely he's identified with Wall Street. I chuckle every time somebody says he hates white people. Almost everybody on the staff is white in the White House--overwhelmingly white. He's an enemy of Wall Street. Really? Really? Zero prosecutions of the big bankers for what are well-documented frauds, including by the Federal Crisis Inquiry Commission, whose report Congress paid for and then threw in the round file 'cause they didn't want to look at it?

JAY: Yeah, African Americans may have voted for him, but he is the Wall Street candidate.

JOHNSTON: He absolutely is. And everybody who gets to run is the Wall Street candidate.

And so the fundamental problem we have is, look, most people want to live their lives, and if they can have a reasonably decent place to live and a car that'll start in the morning and a job with a reliable income and they can have a dog if they want one, they're pretty much happy. Part of that is because our education system is designed to make sure that we produce nice, compliant factory and office workers. You can have a better conversation about politics, sociology, wealth, culture with the average waiter in rural Ontario or rural Hungary or rural France than with the average MBA in a suit sitting in the first-class section of an American airplane. Trust me, I've tested this. Alright? And so we live in a society where we just put blinders on to these things we don't want to see.

I mean, think for a moment about this use of drones to take out people who I have no doubt are serious enemies of the United States, but which also have taken out wedding parties and children. Just imagine (and this, I think, can happen with the technology): somebody puts a drone up and they want to take out me because I'm seen as a horrible person, and in the process they take out a whole bunch of children who happen to be standing nearby. Do you think that we would react to that by saying, oh, well, that's just casualty of war? So we aren't thinking very carefully and deeply about the long run.

And, Paul, the biggest observation that all this has made me come to is if you look at our policies in America today, whether they're economic policies, political or diplomatic policies, if you believe, as James Watt, Ronald Reagan's interior secretary, said, that we'd better use up all the resources quickly, because Jesus is coming back and he'll be really ticked off, all of our policies make sense. But if you believe human beings are going to be here for way beyond any period of time they've already been here, our policies don't make any sense at all. We need to be thinking about the fact that we're just stewards for the time that we're here, and we should be thinking about the great-great-great-great grandchildren none of us alive today will ever see.
...

JOHNSTON: And we also have this ideology that if you're wealthy, somehow that's virtuous.
...

JOHNSTON: ... So within this sphere there are fractious elements, different elements, people who have different and contending interests, people who have no interest in this but care a lot about that.

But nonetheless, yes, there is a power elite, as C. Wright Mills called it. It operates on its own interests and behalf. And it certainly doesn't like people like journalists.

So what do you see has been going on now since the beginning of the age of Reagan? Bumper stickers: "I don't trust liberal media". Really? You're going to trust Fox News, where I can document to you beyond question they just make things up, and they don't correct when they're wrong, and they knowingly mislead? I mean, I've made mistakes. Journalists make mistakes. When journalist make mistakes, we not only run corrections, but the Jayson Blair episode at The New York Times, where this sociopath got loose in the newsroom, 90 percent of what he did was inconsequential stuff, didn't cause any damage--lying, but inconsequential--Times ran a 14,000 word Sunday front page self-exposé. When The Philadelphia Inquirer found out its star political reporter was the mistress of the Democratic political boss of South Philly, they ran--I think it was 32,000 words exposing how they had missed this and not seen it. You ever seen that on Fox News? And yet they tell lies all the time.

And so you understand that an important element of the wealthiest class in America maintaining its position is making sure that most Americans do not think critically about these things, that we have two-income families who are having trouble getting by, so that they are devoted entirely to trying to hold their family together and they don't have the ability to be involved in political activities, to then make it hard to vote, to reduce the number of voting machines, to challenge people's right to vote, to make these robo calls, if you go to the polls and you don't have your ID, you'll be arrested sort of stuff that is nonsense, but people who don't know better are afraid. And it's very, very troubling. And, by the way, many of the very, very wealthy people that I know in this country--and I know lots of them--they are as troubled as you and I are about this. They're just not going to assault it frontally.
...

Welcome to British Columbia, where you ‘pay to play’

If we remove all mentions of Canada, its provinces, & any other identifying names & such, then nobody would know that this is a story coming out of a G8 country; a country that is considered transparent, honest & fair. British Columbia (BC) is run by provincial Liberal party; having pretty much the same political agenda / platform as the federal Liberal party (the same party whose head is the Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau).

As the article below explores that "vast sums flooding the system" & businesses are essentially buying & paying their way through the government. Isn't that considered bribery? Isn't bribery essentially paying another party to influence their decision in your favour? Canadian foreign departments, missions, & businesses are urged to not bribe any foreign government to get their way but apparently, the affairs in Canada's interior is telling a different story.

Heck, the article even compares BC pay-to-get-your-way scheme against some of the world's most corrupt countries in Middle East & Africa. In some cases, heck, even they have better rules than BC. And, Canada thumbs its nose, in matters of fairness & transparency, towards the rest of the world.

This leads to my second point: corruption in government. In developing countries, a government is considered corrupt when its government officials & wealthy citizens / private businesses are into each other to the point where there's a clear sense of collusion. It is considered corruption when the wealthy elites can buy off their politicians with money, or, as I said above, bribe.

The law & order clearly seems to be non-existent when lobbyists can shower anyone, except an MLA, with any amount of money & gifts, to get whatever they want, to the point, that those lobbyists can easily lie in lawsuits to win them. Government officials can easily become lobbyists themselves quite easily & readily, & use the connections they have built up in the government to wield influence. Isn't that corruption in the government? Please keep in mind that we are still talking about the provincial government of British Columbia in Canada, & not Zimbabwe, Uganda, Algeria, Pakistan, India, or Vietnam etc.

Then, the question of my favourite topic comes to the fore: democracy. Is this democracy when companies like Kinder Morgan can pay almost $700,000 to get their controversial pipeline approved, when there's a sizable group of citizens who are against that approval? Is this democracy when ordinary citizens are being asked, or perhaps, forced, to fork out more money than they should / could, in the form of taxes, insurance, healthcare, & housing costs, when almost 3,000 lobbyists are telling their clients in BC that you can get anything done in BC, as long as you are willing to pay up big fees; the bigger the fees, the better your chances of getting what you want.

So, unlimited funds can be funneled towards a provincial government, by wealthy citizens / private businesses to get what they want, & collude with government to influence its policies, & all the while, railroading ordinary citizens in the process, who are not being heard at all. Does it look like that should be happening in Canada or Nigeria, for instance? How many people around the world knew or even thought that something like this happens in Canada? But this is happening in Canada. These developed countries of the Global North & West talk big, & thumb their noses at developing countries, when it comes to corruption & democracy, all the while, the same things are taking place in their own backyards.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/in-british-columbia-big-money-means-big-problems/

Last year, the British Columbia Liberal Party raised more money than any ruling party in any other province in the country. It pulled in 13 times more than the Quebec Liberal Party, six times more than the Alberta NDP, twice what the Liberals did in Ontario. That’s a province with three times B.C.’s population, an economy triple the size, and a head-office count quadruple that of the Western province. And all this was before Ontario brought in sweeping reforms ending corporate and union donations, dropping the ceiling on annual individual donations and banning cash-for-access fundraisers.

Bananas, right? Now consider that in the three years since Christy Clark’s majority win, the Liberals have added some $32.5 million to their war chest. In the first 12 days of January alone, they took in almost half a million dollars in contributions, approaching what Manitoba’s ruling NDP did in all of 2015 in the run-up to that province’s last election. And consider that in the 10 years leading up to 2015, the B.C. Liberal Party took in $3.1 million from Alberta oil and gas firms, almost twice as much money as that province’s governing party at the time, the Progressive Conservatives.

British Columbians’ faith in democracy is being undermined by the vast sums flooding the system, and there’s a growing concern that their government is essentially being bought and paid for by a wealthy clique. And with figures like those above, it’s getting hard to argue against the idea that democracy in B.C. has devolved to which party can amass the biggest pile of dough.

B.C. political fundraising is a free-for-all. Parties can accept any amount of money, property or services from any corporation, union or person living anywhere in the world. The single limit to this frenzied giving: charities are barred from donating.

This puts B.C. in a unique position. Most of the developed world, and some of the planet’s most corrupt nations, including Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kenya and Russia, set ceilings on party donations, according to data compiled by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, based in Stockholm, Sweden. All of North America, all of Eastern Europe and the entire Arab world except Lebanon and Iraq bar donations like the $30,000-to-$50,000 ones the B.C. Liberal party has received in recent years from foreign donors.

It’s so bad that the New York Times last month went to B.C. to write a scathing piece on the Clark government’s “unabashedly cozy relationship between private interests and government officials.” Deputy Premier Rich Coleman said he found the reporting “laughable.” Outside Liberal ranks, few found it funny.

It is not known how much the B.C. Liberal Party has pulled in from outside Canada. But Dermod Travis of IntegrityBC has compiled a list that he calls the “$100,000 club.” It has 177 members, including developers, mining companies and energy firms that have fed the party some $55.7 million in the past decade.

Critics have pointed out that B.C.’s conflict of interest commissioner Paul Fraser—whose son is a long-time friend of Clark’s and sits on her executive council, as a deputy minister—has never, in 9 years, found the Clark government in violation of B.C.’s conflict of interest legislation. ...

Critics similarly point to contributions by large companies like Ecotex Healthcare Linen Service ($115,000 donated to the Liberal party since 2005), Emil Anderson Construction ($50,000), Kinder Morgan and its industry supporters ($719,000) and Imperial Metals and its subsidiaries ($195,000). Those same companies have, respectively, received a 20-year government laundry contract, a $36-million six-lane highway expansion contract, Clark’s approval for a controversial pipeline and a permit to open a new mine. In the case of the mine approval, it came one year after Imperial Metal’s controlling shareholder, N. Murray Edwards, hosted a $1-million fundraiser for Clark in Calgary. There is no suggestion of nefarious activity in any of these cases. But critics say the mere appearance of conflict is worrisome.

None of it is up to the public to litigate. It is, however, up to government to adopt regulations, legislation and practices that prevent even the whiff of conflict of interest from sullying B.C.’s global reputation.

“The only people not embarrassed by any of this are Christy Clark and the ruling Liberals,” B.C. NDP Leader John Horgan told Maclean’s. “There is nothing funny about giving donors and loyalists a billion-dollar tax cut while making regular people pay for it with higher bills for car insurance, electricity and health care. There’s nothing funny about a ruling party raking in millions from developers while watching housing prices soar out of reach, without lifting a finger to help. Politics is about trying to make things better. This is embarrassing. I’m certainly not laughing.”
...

The mudslinging shows how badly rules are needed, regardless of which party is in power.

B.C.’s financing free-for-all is perfectly mirrored by its ballooning lobbying industry. Few rules or regulations govern it, either. Competition is tight: 3,014 lobbyists and organizations fought for access in B.C. this year, 1,195 more than even Ontario.

Unlike Ontario, however, lobbyists in B.C. can shower almost anyone except an MLA with gifts and benefits of any value, as often as they want. They can use false and misleading information in pleading their case. They don’t have to declare when they’re lobbying: the sales jobs can be couched as a friendly chat between old pals. And all but ministers, who are subject to a 12-month cooling-off period, can do it the second they quit their job as a public office holder. B.C.’s lobbying watchdog has urged the Clark government to adopt regulations that would limit all of the above. Last summer, when Elizabeth Denham stepped down from the role, she made it her “parting wish.”

At this point, “there is no daylight between government relations roles at B.C.’s biggest companies and the premier’s office,” one lobbyist based outside the province told Maclean’s, speaking anonymously, given concerns of professional retribution. “That line has been completely erased. That is literally their social network. They go to each other’s cottages. They take trips together,” he adds, describing raucous dinners he has attended with Clark’s staff and a group of select lobbyists. The mix of warmth and competitiveness has fostered an unusual and deeply unhealthy intimacy. “No one is breaking any rules or laws or doing anything criminal,” the lobbyist is quick to add. “B.C. has no rules, so everything goes. It’s like the Wild West: only the fittest survive.”

Infinite leniency and infinite money make for a toxic mix. “I have to tell my bosses, ‘In B.C., you have to pay to play.’ ” If your client doesn’t donate, it puts you at a competitive disadvantage, he adds. It’s a small province, after all; the Liberals know exactly who is funding them, the lobbyist notes, magnifying the role donors play and the access they receive in return.

This gets to the root of the problem: the huge amount of money soaking the system, he says . “The only way to fix it is by taking money out.” If changes don’t come soon, he adds, “British Columbians will lose all faith in their politicians.”

In response to increasingly loud concerns over political financing, the Liberals often point to “real-time disclosure,” which the party deemed a radical new approach to financing when it was launched last March. Ever since, the party has disclosed new contributions on its website within 10 days of receipt. That is, the party is now doing what B.C.’s Election Act forces it to do annually, just faster. The problem is, no one wanted speedier transparency. 86% of British Columbians do, however, want corporate and union donations banned.
...

Nevertheless, on Jan. 23, Clark dined with Kelowna’s elite at a $5,000-a-plate event at the Mission Hill Winery, which has pumped $200,000 into B.C. Liberal coffers since 2005. (The next day, the premier refused to name her guests, who were shuttled into the winery in dark vehicles, cloaked in secrecy.)

Clark, perhaps the best retail politician to ever emerge from B.C., is widely expected to cruise to a second majority in B.C. in the coming May election, giving the Liberals a record fifth term. Still, she’d do well to consider the main take-away from Donald Trump’s stunning, unforeseen win last November. Pitchforks come out when people get angry over the influence wielded by political donors, when a cozy system appears to benefit only the ruling class, when regular folk feel ignored and defeated, and politicians don’t notice.