Read on Twitter
Hey, #ableg: what does $5000 mean to your family? To mine: 10 months of food or 2 YEARS of gas. That's A LOT of 
!
It's absurd that @KayceeMaduYEG is set to let big, secretive donors give this much PER CANDIDATE in municipal elections. Bill 29 needs reform. [1/8]
![Hey, #ableg: what does $5000 mean to your family? To mine: 10 months of food or 2 YEARS of gas. That's A LOT of !It's absurd that @KayceeMaduYEG is set to let big, secretive donors give this much PER CANDIDATE in municipal elections. Bill 29 needs reform. [1/8]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EclB-FaUYAEtlcw.jpg "Hey, #ableg: what does $5000 mean to your family? To mine: 10 months of food or 2 YEARS of gas. That's A LOT of !It's absurd that @KayceeMaduYEG is set to let big, secretive donors give this much PER CANDIDATE in municipal elections. Bill 29 needs reform. [1/8]")
!It's absurd that @KayceeMaduYEG is set to let big, secretive donors give this much PER CANDIDATE in municipal elections. Bill 29 needs reform. [1/8]
Supposedly, this legislation is to help new candidates challenge incumbents. Which is a worthy goal.
But Bill 29 doesn't help challengers. It just helps anyone (incumbent or challenger) willing and able to access big, secretive money. [2/8]
But Bill 29 doesn't help challengers. It just helps anyone (incumbent or challenger) willing and able to access big, secretive money. [2/8]
I'm a first term Councillor who got more votes than incumbents. And I'm talking to a bunch of folks considering a first time run.
A $5000 donation limit per candidate and $10,000 self funding limit will HURT, not help, many of the challengers in Grande Prairie. [3/8]
A $5000 donation limit per candidate and $10,000 self funding limit will HURT, not help, many of the challengers in Grande Prairie. [3/8]
If I run again, I'll be capping the size of donations I'll accept well below $5000. But I have zero worries about funding my campaign.
I'm an experienced fundraiser. More money in the election will HELP me beat inexperienced candidates. Which is not good for democracy. [4/8]
I'm an experienced fundraiser. More money in the election will HELP me beat inexperienced candidates. Which is not good for democracy. [4/8]
Bill 29's contribution limits are WAY too big. Especially outside of the big cities, where most campaigns are run. [5/8]
Here, a winning campaign typically costs between $5000 and $10,000.
To let a donor majority fund multiple campaigns? That ain't right.
To let a wealthier candidate outspend a candidate of lesser means by completely self-funding a large campaign? That ain't right either. 6/8
To let a donor majority fund multiple campaigns? That ain't right.
To let a wealthier candidate outspend a candidate of lesser means by completely self-funding a large campaign? That ain't right either. 6/8
And to do it while eliminating rules on political advertising and campaign disclosures?
That saves minimal work for candidates. It does a lot of damage towards transparency, accountability, and democracy
More money in elections means we need more, not less, transparency. 7/8
That saves minimal work for candidates. It does a lot of damage towards transparency, accountability, and democracy
More money in elections means we need more, not less, transparency. 7/8
I absolutely love that Bill 29 stops war chests from being carried over to future elections. That is a great change. But most of the rest of the Bill is terrible. Bill 29 is in serious need of reform. [8/8]
