A recent ThinkHQ Public Affairs survey finds that most Calgary voters are unaware of the role of third-party advertisers (TPA) in the election. However, researchers say that powerful TPAs may cause problems for the candidates they endorse as more become aware of their influence.
According to the survey, roughly half (49 per cent) of Calgarians agree that “Calgary’s municipal election finance rules are broken and need fixing,” while 47 per cent say that the rules are “an improvement over the past”.
However, it may be the case that most Calgarians are unaware of the changes made following the 2017 municipal election.
Since the 2017 election, corporate and union donations directly to candidates are illegal — likely the city’s attempt to crack down on lobbyists — and individual contributions are capped at $5,000.
However, unions have found a way around these new regulations.
To fill the void of large corporate donations, many TPAs have filled the void and initially had no cap on how much could be received from donors — though this was later amended to a $30,000 cap.
As researchers note, only 16 per cent of voters are “definitely aware of the changes,” while 45 per cent are unaware.
ThinkHQ’s survey notes the accumulation of some $1.7 million for advertising by ‘Calgary’s Future’, with most donations coming from unions.
“Calgary’s Future wants to build a new city council,” their website’s About section reads. “We can’t do it without your help.
“Together, we can find, support, and elect community leaders who share our vision for a resilient economy, quality city services, responsible spending, and strong neighbourhoods.
“This is our chance to change Calgary’s future.”
While many of their advertisements are general — merely including a broad, pro-business theme — they do have a list of candidates they plan to support throughout the election.
Thus, as October 18 approaches, it is not too much of a stretch to think that these advertisements will become increasingly specific, promoting one candidate to the detriment of another.
More controversially, the TPA promotes vaccine passports, which, if expanded, may discriminate against Calgarians that can not be vaccinated, as well as oppressive mask mandates, asking their supporters to sign petitions to see them enforced.
Among their long list of contentious issues, Calgary’s Future wants to see city growth mitigated — which usually means preventing independent building developers from building new houses — by promoting affordable housing (i.e. more crappy apartments) and public subsidies in the downtown centre. Unfortunately, plans like this often backfire and only serve to further the homeownership crisis.
Calgary’s Future also came out in favour of the Green Line, an insanely ambitious $4.9 billion project to expand the light rail system on behalf of urbanites at the expense of Calgary’s taxpayers — many of whom prefer driving to being crammed onto trains.
Indeed, when voters were made aware of Calgary’s Future’s involvement in promoting candidates, many responded negatively or indifferently.
According to the survey, 45 per cent say they disapprove of the TPA (26 per cent strongly), while 17 per cent neither approve nor disapprove, and 24 per cent say they are unsure how they feel. Only 14 per cent support Calgary’s Future’s involvement.
“…. For many voters, support from a TPA funded almost entirely by City unions evokes a negative response (considerably more than positive) and is likely to influence their choices at the ballot box,” writes ThinkHQ Public Affairs Inc. President Marc Henry.
“There’s a risk of backlash for candidates receiving these endorsements and support. If they are branded by voters as ‘the union candidate,’ this TPA support may do them more harm than good on election day, particularly in many of these open ward races where the margins will be quite thin.
“To be clear, Calgary’s Future is not breaking any rules doing what they are doing; they seem to be following the rules to the letter. But in elections, voters tend to believe that money and influence travel together. $1.7 Million is an awful lot of money, leaving many voters to suspect it’s being spent to procure a City Council where City unions have an awful lot of influence.”
