Moot points on municipal matters

The good news on the election spending limits council is proposing (SP Apr 12/11) is that we will not be mandated to foot the bill. Those who feel the benefits of this council can ante up and see if they can help return the big spenders to the executive chairs.

It was interesting to read that Council used modest population numbers to establish the threshold for spending. I would have thought they stuck to the "fastest growing city" numbers. Based on $165,000.00 for the mayor's chair they projected the city population to be 220,000.00. Better yet, it is deemed that it only cost $.75 per citizen to win.

On the issue of donors, it is true that as long as you keep a reporting limit on the donated amount, people will donate one dollar shy of that amount. I'm supporting the idea that all donated money should be reported, large and small. It is too easy for a supporter to have their kids, or an employer, their employees, donating to a candidate when in realty it is the same person coughing up the cash.

On the "What's left out" section of the article I was taken aback by idea floated that self-funded campaigns should be banned as critics believe that this would give wealthy candidates an advantage. How about the idea that a self-funded campaign means that you are beholding to no one.

Last but not least, how about a ban on the use of tax-funded Blackberries, computers, fax machines, business cards and every other item given to elected councillors and not available to other candidates.

This whole bylaw is a joke as no one monitors the spending anyway and the rules get made up along the way. The only time a candidate would be required to account for spending under this bylaw is if a citizen lodges a complaint and then the examination would be held by a person appointed by the council in question.

This whole thing can be chalked up to "appearances can be deceiving."