"And they're off - in the lead it's ..... followed by ..... bringing up the rear is .....

Conservatives win fundraising race Stephen Harper is applauded after voting on a non-confidence motion in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill March 25, 2011 (Chris Wattie/Reuters)

Adrian Humphries/ March 25, 2011

If elections could still be bought, Stephen Harper would not need to worry about the 36 days of campaigning: Conservative fundraising has dramatically outpaced that of rival parties, but that resource imbalance may not prove important when votes are counted in May.

"They do have a lot more resources than the other parties. Don’t kid yourself that there is a level playing field,” said Richard Johnston, a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia.

In the three months ending last December, the most recent data available, the Conservatives raised $5,230,303 from 41,769 donors, according to their financial report to Elections Canada. To the nearest dollar, the Liberals raised $2,186,777 from 20,117 donors during the same period and the New Democratic Party raised $1,660,427 from 15,637 donors. By comparison, the Green Party raised $537,039 from 4,433 donors and the Bloc Québécois $348,099 from 3,282 donors.

As well, Elections Canada gives each of the major parties a quarterly allowance equivalent to about $2 for every vote received in the most recent general election.

The Conservatives are the biggest beneficiaries of the system, having received $10,430,835 in 2010. The Conservatives spent $19,418,579 in the 2008 election; the Liberals spent $14,531,853 and the NDP $16,813,890. The Greens spent $2,795,799 and the Bloc $4,879,603. The figures represent a vast amount, much of it eventually to be reimbursed through tax money, but as important as having money — the “war chest” in political jargon — might seem, experts question the impact.

“It is not an iron-clad law of electioneering that if you spend more you meet with more success. Money clearly matters, but there are debates over the impact of money on elections,” said Paul Thomas, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Manitoba.

Lisa Young, professor of political science at the University of Calgary, agrees: “Certainly money helps win elections, but it doesn’t guarantee things.

“One of the most expensive campaigns we have ever seen in Canadian history was the Progressive Conservative Party in 1993. They got two seats.”

She also points to the recent municipal election in Calgary, where Naheed Nenshi won handily after spending the least of the major candidates.

Kim Campbell’s federal debacle and Mr. Nenshi’s mayoral landslide should not be forgotten by federal party strategists; they are stark reminders that beyond a certain amount needed to cover basic campaign costs, it is how the money is spent that matters most.

“In the 1993 election the [Progressive Conservative] Party spent an enormous amount on ads that lost them votes,” said Professor Young.

There has not been a great deal of research on the impact of spending on Canadian elections. It is difficult to measure. Perhaps the best that has been done is a study on the 1988 election that returned Brian Mulroney to power.

“We never found an impact on the course of voter intention — a movement of intention to vote for a party — based on party spending or third-party spending,” said Professor Johnston, who worked on that study.

“To the extent that there is a financial effect, it will be at the margins,” he said, estimating a shift of one to two percentage points. In a close election against the backdrop of a minority government, however, that could prove to be important.

“A couple of percentage points in Vancouver or Toronto could mean all the difference,” Professor Johnston said.

Professional strategists will know this and many expect key swing ridings to be the focus of spending this election. Those who track political financing say there are several things that voters should understand. The first is that the rules changed dramatically in 2007, when businesses and unions were prevented from contributing.

Currently, an individual can donate up to $1,100 to a national party and another $1,100 to local riding associations. Once an election is called, an individual can donate an additional $1,100 to the campaign.

That change hurt the Liberals, a party that was in power for so long that corporations routinely wrote huge cheques, sort of like “protection money,” Professor Johnston said.

They have not adjusted to the need for grassroots fundraising as nimbly as the Conservatives.

Further, the Conservative success doesn’t immediately matter all that much as we move into a campaign. None of the major parties are likely to be turned down by the banks for loans.

“Once the writ is dropped, parties know that for every dollar they spend they will get 50 cents back in election expense reimbursement. If they want to spend $18-million, they know they’re going to get a cheque for $9-million after the election.

Going to the bank with that knowledge makes you a pretty safe bet,” said Professor Young.

All three major national parties will likely be in a position to spend as much as they can, several experts said.

Also, with an election now being called, the importance of a war chest diminishes rather than increases. Election spending is limited equally to $1 per registered voter. Pre-election spending is not. That means the Conservatives lose their biggest advantage the moment the election officially begins. And finally, election financing is not as transparent as it should be, said Duff Conacher, co-ordinator of Democracy Watch, an Ottawa-based organization pushing for government accountability. Under the requirements, reports on riding association donors need only be filed once a year. Likewise, those parties seeking loans, how much the loans are for and who or what institutions make the loans will only be known after the vote.

“In other words, someone can be bankrolling a campaign without anyone knowing it until four months after the election.”

ahumphries@nationalpost.com