"Think Canadian political parties are dominated by big-business?"
I world be GREATLY surprised if they were, though perhaps not for the reason that you imply. I don't think that Canada HAS any 'big business', at least not by the standards down here. In fact, despite their much higher taxes than the US, I'm pretty sure even without checking that we have individual US States, even individual companies, with higher annual revenue than the entire annual revenue of the Canadian government.
No offense intended to our northern neighbors, but US elections are generally for much higher stakes with a much greater difference in likely policy outcomes depending on which of our parties win and with a much richer (on average) population and corporate sector to engage in donations and other election-related activities. It would be more counterintuitive if US elections were NOT receiving much more money and a much higher percentage of corporate involvement.
Thanks for crunching the numbers. I fear our neighbours to the South went sideways when they passed a law declaring corporations are ‘persons’, thereby allowing them to donate huge amounts to election campaigns.
There are actually strict limits on how much people can spend on a U.S. election. But the Citizens United v. FEC (2010) ruling effectively removed all limits on spending by super-PACs. That's probably where most of those $16 billion came from.
"Think Canadian political parties are dominated by big-business?"
I world be GREATLY surprised if they were, though perhaps not for the reason that you imply. I don't think that Canada HAS any 'big business', at least not by the standards down here. In fact, despite their much higher taxes than the US, I'm pretty sure even without checking that we have individual US States, even individual companies, with higher annual revenue than the entire annual revenue of the Canadian government.
No offense intended to our northern neighbors, but US elections are generally for much higher stakes with a much greater difference in likely policy outcomes depending on which of our parties win and with a much richer (on average) population and corporate sector to engage in donations and other election-related activities. It would be more counterintuitive if US elections were NOT receiving much more money and a much higher percentage of corporate involvement.
Thanks for crunching the numbers. I fear our neighbours to the South went sideways when they passed a law declaring corporations are ‘persons’, thereby allowing them to donate huge amounts to election campaigns.
There are actually strict limits on how much people can spend on a U.S. election. But the Citizens United v. FEC (2010) ruling effectively removed all limits on spending by super-PACs. That's probably where most of those $16 billion came from.