Dear Editor:
Much has been made of “big money in politics,”condemning corporate donations to political parties and union donations in the same breath, as though they were in any way comparable.
Much ado about nothing.
Let’s look at some numbers. Take an “average” union worker, earning an “average” income of $50,000. Of that, typically one per cent goes to union dues. The union has to pay staff wages and other operating expenses, and the operating fund has to feed the strike fund. Maybe – and that’s a big maybe – the union can put 10 per cent of its income towards a political donation. Bear in mind as well that this would require the democratic assent of at least a majority of the union members, but for practical reasons a super-majority, and realistically, a super-super-majority.
In order for this union to donate $100,000 towards a political party, it would have to have 2,000 members. Contrast this with a CEO with an income of $1,000,000 who donates 10 per cent of his income to a political party.
Now, there’s nothing inherently wrong about people supporting political parties. The whole point of political parties is to implement the will of the people. But the real question is, which is more representative of society, one extremely wealthy person or 2,000 workers?
Much ado about nothing.
Victor Finberg, Burnaby
