CATCH has calculated that nine of the councillors elected in 2006 each got at least two-thirds of their reported funding from corporations. Five others, including Eisenberger, refused to accept money from either unions or corporations.
Corporations provided 53% of all the donations over $100 reported by Hamilton’s mayor and councillors, even though six of the sixteen collected none at all. That’s because nine of the other ten got at least two-thirds of their campaign money from corporate donors.
Maria Pearson topped the list, collecting 82% of her funds from corporations. She was closely followed by Bernie Morelli (80%) and Sam Merulla (79%). Dave Mitchell, Terry Whitehead, Lloyd Ferguson, Tom Jackson and Chad Collins were clustered in the 73-75% range, while Brad Clark got 69% of his financial support from corporate donors.
Margaret McCarthy, Mayor Eisenberger, Russ Powers, Brian McHattie, Bob Bratina and Scott Duvall were at the other end of the scale with zero donations from corporations. The first five also took nothing from unions, while Duvall got 45% of his funds from that source.
The remaining councillor, Robert Pasuta, got 40% of his funds from businesses, mainly incorporated farms in his rural ward, and the rest from individuals or his own pocket.
McCarthy took no donations of any kind, personally financing her entire campaign. Russ Powers paid for about three-fifths of his election costs, and got the rest from individuals. Bratina, Eisenberger and McHattie relied 100% on individual donors.
It is clear that corporate donations and the like are a critical source of funding for some councilors. Many of these councilors are also on the committee that is looking at this whole thing. Does this seem appropriate to you? Would it not be better to have a third party body consider the options and report to the Mayor/Council and the Public, in a timely manner? (by the way, by Third Party- I don't mean consultants.).
Special thanks to the good people at C.A.T.C.H. for doing great research on this.
Most Hamiltonian's, like myself, had no idea how these councilors get re-elected year after year. It's no wonder these councilors are in the pockets of developers, corporations and unions and not representing the needs of their constituents and doing what's best for this city. I commend the Mayor and all the councilors who won their ridings without the need for corporate or union funding. Ommitting corporate and union funding would allow for good and competent people to run for office without being puppets for developers and corporations. Shame on those councilors who can't do it on their own.
ReplyDeleteMargaret
Very definite conflict of interest on this. Kudos to the Mayor and Councillors McCarthy, Powers, McHattie, Bratina and Duvall for their principled integrity.
ReplyDeleteAs for the rest, is it any wonder why this council is not perceived as working for the best interests of all citizens?
Having once witnessed the shallow, insincere defenders of unfettered corporate donations, I note that to label this matter as a conflict of interest is about the best that can be said about it.
Union donations are just as influential as corporate ones, last time I checked.
ReplyDeleteThere are about 11 different unions that deal with city hall, so taking almost half of your donations from them, while deciding issues that directly affect them (unionized employees) at council is clearly a conflict of interest.
The only Councillors who can take the high road in all this are those that self fund or only take donations from the rank and file voters.
If corporations and unions want to influence council they can hire and register Lobbyists to do that for them.
Hamilton has a Lobbyist Registry, yet only one person is registered, your's truely.
What's wrong with this picture?
MAW makes a very valid point re donations from unions. In my view, campaign financing should come from ONLY individuals - from the candidate his or herself and from individuals. And if indeed MAW is the only registered lobbyist, then the whole atmosphere is even more polluted than I thought. As regards conflicts of interest, this council culture is far too casual - to use a less inflamatory word than the ones that readily come to mind. What may have been acceptable 20 years ago is no longer acceptable in today's political milieu at whatever level and the dinosaurs who don't recognise that better adapt or they'll be politically extinct in due course.
ReplyDeleteMayor Eisenberger, I believe, drew a lot of support at the last election because of his platforms regarding the call for individual only campaign donations and the institution of an Integrity Commissioner. For this council to dither and procrastinate as it has on these matters speaks very clearly for the need to put those reforms in place ASAP. This council has again and again shown that it is unwilling to "police" itself and that has really tarnished its effectiveness.
I don't see a problem with corporate funding of election
ReplyDeletecampaigns. Isn't there a $750 cap? What's the harm in that?
MAW did again, bring up a topic worthy of further debate. MAW
is Hamilton's one and only, dare to be derided and longing to
be lucrative, "registered" lobbyist. I am wondering when the
last time was that MAW exercised this privilege. What are
the requirements and prerequisites for becoming a genuine
lobbyist? Can anyone lobby pro bono for good causes or must
one be paid to bend ears for any old cause?
Why is there only one registered lobbyist in Hamilton?
Are there any people bending council's ears illegally?
If a few councilors are invited to a Tiger Cats game
and their ears just happen to get bent, are we sup-
posed to get bent too?
"Chapman raised concerns about councilors sitting in Ecklund's box
at a football game. She said she was worried about inappropriate
lobbying after reading about the game in a magazine story
on Ecklund's City of Waterfalls initiative."
City down to 10 finalists for watchdog job
http://thespec.com/article/632621
I certainly hope MAW applied for the integrity commissioner position.
I know he would do a great job, because there is no way to control
who says what to whom and when. I believe it is much easier and
more re-WARD-ing to have oneself invited into the bloody club
box, than to sit for hours in a stiff shirted lobby, waiting
for an opportunity to breath down the backs of our elected
officials as they're trying to make their deadlines.
MAW is a good man and he is doing things by-the-book.
I just think that lobbying is overrated. And look what
IT has done to the US with all the big oil and pharma
special interest groups disproportionate propaganda
pedaling on capitol hill. Now there's good reason
to get bent!
Come on WR2U. Whats the harm> it ain't 750. Its up to 82% of total take.
ReplyDeleteElvis P.