The federal government gives money to political parties in three ways: tax rebates for donations to political parties from Canadians, campaign expense refunds, and the cash-per-vote system that Finance Minister Flaherty is proposing to eliminate. As cynical as it may be to make a change to the election finance system because it is advantageous to your own party, it is at least as cynical again to oppose it on nothing more than its disadvantage to your own party.  I think we have to decide whether our campaign finance system is better off with or without Flaherty’s proposed change on more objective criteria. The campaign finance system needs to achieve a few objectives:  It needs to ensure that differences in wealth do not lead to unfair differences in influence in democratic decision-making (that’s why there are limits on who can donate, and how much).  It needs to ensure that there are enough resources in the system to allow for an effective national debate on issues of federal importance.  It also needs to be fair; to ensure that all this is accomplished without structurally preferring individuals or ideologies of one type or another, except in ways that reflect the preferences accorded to those individuals or ideologies by Canadian voters. So, we look at the system now, and we look at the system after the proposed change.  The only difference is the non-existence of the cash-per-votes.  So how does cash-per-votes affect these factors?  With regard to wealth and influence, the cash-per-votes system prevents the need for donations, which likely has some effect in reducing the influence of wealthy individuals.  However, given the limitations on who can donate, and how much, it’s unlikely that the effect of removing it would be terribly great.  With regards to ensuring adequate funding, that is why cash-for-votes exists, and removing it would negatively impact that aspect of the system.  With regards to fairness, cash-for-votes is fair among those to whom it applies, but it excludes two groups: independent candidates who can never receive the funding, and new political parties which can’t receive it until after they have contested an election.  Removing it would remove those aspects of unfairness (though independent candidates would continue to be disadvantaged in other ways by the donation system). I don’t think anyone is arguing that the government has an obligation to provide funding to political parties that can’t convince Canadians to support them.  So, to determine which effect is more important you have to consider whether or not the reduction in funds makes the remaining funds inadequate, and if so, whether that’s more important than the enhancement in fairness. People may have arguments either way on that.  If they don’t, they’re lying to you about what the issue is.  Yes, this is self-serving for the Conservatives.  Yes the Conservatives are cutting only that source of political funding in which they have the smallest advantage.  But if we oppose it for no other reason, we are putting our interests ahead of Canadians’ democracy, too.