Give 'till it hurts

Kady O'Malley's new blog drew my attention to this article about senior ministry staff being solicited for $1,000 donations to the Conservative Party. One of the key points in her post, with which I concur, is that the willingness of people to talk to reporters about the issue is a sign that folks at Canada's New Government™ are starting to buck at the harness (extra points to Kady for her description of PMO 'communications directrix' Sandra Buckler – perhaps we can draw The Frog Lady out of her hiatus to produce some art). As the Globe article points out, the Liberal Party made a similar request when it was in government, which, in my memory, didn't result in staffers hitting speed-dial to the Ottawa bureau chiefs.

That said, I think the CPC is completely justified (as are all political parties) in expecting its staff to contribute as much as they can afford. Senior ministerial staff make six figures. They should have no trouble scraping 1,000 bucks together, especially when you consider that they'll get up to half of it back at tax time.

And even more importantly, political staff should know better than anyone that political success is driven by money. Everyone who's cares about the outcome of elections needs to contribute what they can, in terms of time and money.

Lastly, a point of clarification: the Globe article indicates that the maximum allowable contribution is $1,000 to the party or individual candidate(s). In fact, under the FAA (also known as An Act to Screw the Liberals With Their Pants On), there are separate donation limits for these two categories of donations. One can donate the maximum amount ($1,100 actually, if one wants to split hairs) to the party, and the same amount again to a candidate or candidates (if giving to multiple candidates, the aggregated total cannot exceed $1,100).

And there's a third category of donation, again with its own $1,100 limit: leadership contests. This doesn't apply to the CPC right now, of course, but the Liberal Party is still collecting donations toward retiring the campaign debt of the 11 men and women who were so instrumental in revitalizing our party last year. Click here and please be as generous as you can.

So, why do it?

Given the downside to public life, as outlined in my earlier post, why do folks choose to run and run again? I mean there's clearly no shortage of candidates. I spent part of yesterday evening at an event with the various Liberal candidates for Ottawa Centre. Six candidates running for two nominations, all eager to step up and serve.

Having spent no small amount of time with various politicians and would-be politicians, it's been my experience that most of them are driven by one or both of these two things:

1. Desire to effect change
2. Ego

You don't have to have both to get elected, but I'll argue you need them both to be effective over the long term. The extrinsic rewards of politics primarily gratify the ego – masses of volunteers campaign workers, victory parties, parliamentary privilege. Change is harder to come by and the failures far outnumber the successes. It takes a powerful belief in the process to compensate for a shortage of ego.

Belinda, we hardly knew ya

There are lots of reasons to be disappointed about Ms. Stronach's decision to leave politics. We need more strong women in politics, not fewer. She's always carried a star quality that's rare and valuable. And many it will view it as another example of weakness in the Liberal Party.

But most disappointing, I think, is that she was just starting to get good at the actual work of politics.

Politics looks glamourous but it's really not. The hours are long, the pressure is high, the work is often incredibly mundane, it's largely thankless and the pay is a fraction of what one can make in the private sector. Sometimes I wonder why anyone would want to run for office.

So public life struggles to attract and retain the best and the brightest, particularly women, who are perhaps less ego-driven than men (if I can indulge in a gross generalization), Belinda being the exception that proves the rule.

Someone's been watching too much film noir

Okay, this is for all those who whine about liberal media bias. Only those few who take the time to read more than just the headline and first paragraph will see that the "shadowy network" is made up of two people who haven't been involved with the party for years. But let's not let the facts interfere with a salacious headline.

Convenient timing for this bit of gossip from an unnamed source (who, by the way, is not identified as a Liberal). With any luck, police will finish reviewing the remaining files in time to release some new vaguely incriminating tidbits in the middle of a spring election.