Developer donations can be kiss of death

Do developers buy favours by making election campaign donations?
Developers use to play it smart. They donated to everybody regardless of election platform, chances of winning or if they liked a candidate.
Candidates use to play it stupid. They accepted donations from developers. In the end, every politician look like he or she was on the take.
Times, they are a changing. Well sort of.
When it comes to donations from developers, Election 2006 is all over the map in York Region.
In the last election in Vaughan, incumbent Mayor Michael Di Biase accepted  a whooping $196,750 in corporate, including developer, donations while in Markham,  regional councillor and now mayoralty candidate Frank Scarpitti took $48,175 in similar donations.
In Richmond Hill, mayoralty candidate Dave Barrow claims you can’t run a campaign without corporate donations.
Barrow ought to take some how-to-get-elected-lessons from some of the boys and girls in the north. But, not from Newmarket’s Tony Van Bynen.
So far, Van Bynen has accepted a $500 donation from a local developer. Meanwhile, he’s refusing all donations from out-of-town-product builders.
Because KGM is from Newmarket, Van Bynen considers it okay.
“I’m only taking donations from the local business community,” he said.
I don’t care if KGM hails from heaven. Van Bynen would have more credibility if he didn’t touch any developer’s money, local or otherwise.
So far, Newmarket mayoralty candidate Diane Springstein has not been offered campaign donations from developers. When asked if she plans to accept campaign money from developers, she said she hadn’t given it any thought; that she didn’t do the fundraising and, in the end, said, “probably not,” to the question. 
In East Gwillimbury, incumbent mayor Jamie Young will not take a plug nickel from a developer, while his opponent, John Hayes, won’t accept a red cent from anyone. Mr. Hayes is bankrolling his entire campaign himself.
In King Township, no candidate for mayor is getting the financial backing from any developer. Mayoral candidates Margaret Black, Stephen Pelligrini and Mark Healy are running flat-out campaigns without the help of developers. Taking money from a developer in King Township would be the kiss of death.
In Aurora, incumbent mayor Tim Jones figures he can get re-elected without help from developers, while the same goes for mayoralty candidate Nigel Kean.

Comments

[Tom]

This is what Di Paola has posted on the yorkregion.com 'election' website. Could somebody please
decipher the meaning in/of this statement:

"While I am confident we are starting to move in the right direction with new provincial legislation and the expansion of our VIVA and GO service, we must continue to fight to protect all remaining greenspaces."

How on earth do we elect people like this!?!?

[Tanis Hargrave]

I find the article on the kiss of death very interesting, however there is no mention about who ....if any are, on the take in Whitchurch Stouffville.

[Sandra Carvello]

'no mention about who...if any are, on the take in Whitchurch Stouffville'!!!!?????? 'If any'? Please, we know who 'they' are. This blaring omission of Whitchurch Stouffville makes me wonder who else is being controlled.

[Sandra Carvello]

'no mention about who...if any are, on the take in Whitchurch Stouffville'!!!!?????? 'If any'? Please, we know who 'they' are. This blaring omission of Whitchurch Stouffville makes me wonder who else is being controlled.

[Tom]

Who's on the take in Richmond Hill?
Clue: who campaigns hardest with a message of responsible growth, sustainable development and GREEN spaces!!
You guessed it!

[Tom]

Who's on the take in Markham?
Clue: Which Markham Councillor provides legal representation for large development corporations in his ward while moonlighting as a councillor in the same ward?

[Randy Mole]

Wayne Emmerson's last campign was almost entirely financed by the developers and half of Sue Sherban's last campaign was financed by developers . The 2 have made some questionable decisions and very pro development stands . I believe there are people out there who are more interested in the integrity of the Candidates rather than their ability to collect developers dollars

[Ian]

Financing municipal campaigns

Well, the system is broken. The senior levels of government (Feds and Prov) grant themselves tax exemptions for their election expenses, one way and another, while they have not "downloaded" the same priviledges to the municipal level.

They don't seem to mind downloading responsibilities!

This means that candidates, who will be making serious decisions on behalf the public interestwhen elected, must rely on whatever money they can get their hands on to run.

Fine for the well-to-do - they hve deep pockets. Not so good for everyone else.

So, if you want to win an election, it is not easy to turn down support - from whatever quarter. Some that I know accept no compensation for running - reasoning that it will only take 10 weeks of salary to cover the expense if they win.

Not a good system for the majority - though probably effective for those who do not necessarily have the public interest at heart, some developers for example.

We really need to think about the systematic problem while recognizing the behaviours of our politicians. We will remind them that donations must not sway their judgement and decisions.

It is in large part the duty of us all to keep a close eye - to insist on accountability. As long as we remain awake to the probem it can be managed.

We could have a better system, less prone to abuse.

[Tom]

There should be some sort of legislation in place to prevent individuals, like the Markham councillor, from getting paid by developers while they are on council. Councillors do have to declare conflicts of interest before debates but this does not address what happens behind closed doors or in the back rooms of council. What it amounts to is legal and legitimized corruption.
While this councilor is being paid by taxpayers in his ward he's also on the payroll of the developers.

This is a gross ethical violation by any standards and represents a viscious attack on the trust vested in the representative by his constituents.

Sadly, it would seem that the local press is more interested in reporting on the geometric variety of lawn signs rather than tackling tough issues like this.

[Randy Mole]

Our press really hasn't made much of the issue . The Council in Stouffville all received a golden handshake from WalMarts for helping them get the new store open for Christmas. Not many (maybe only one, I don't know the question never got asked!!) refused that . I've heard people say "oh $750is nothing that can't buy a vote . Maybe but those 750's do buy an election. and my question to those who think it doesn't matter is . "Why do developers bankroll the incumbents then if not to create an obligation?" and if the incumbents want that money next time? I am certainly not naive enough to think there is no pressure to perform