FDA Electoral Finance Study of the 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election

FDA Electoral Finance Study of the 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election

Electoral Finance Study Completed October14, 2013

Executive Summary

This FDA electoral finance study focuses on the 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election. The main purpose of the research is to tabulate the amount of contributions for all candidates. As the research progressed, further inquiry was made into the reporting system used by the City of Calgary, within provincial legislation. (2013 election finance data is not publicly disclosed until after Election Day on October 21, 2013; only voluntary and incomplete financial data is available now.)

Our results indicate that the top three candidates accounted for two-thirds of total campaign financing or 67 percent. The FDA also observed a wide variation between candidates with respect to the proportion of financing originating from different types of contributors. This includes distinctions based on contribution amount (under $100 versus over $100), and contribution source (individuals versus business versus unions). For example, 95.9 percent of gross contributions to all mayoral candidates were over $100, while 4.1 percent of gross contributions to all mayoral candidates were under $100. Also, 51.1 percent of total contributions to mayoral candidates were from corporations.

The FDA concludes that electoral finance process in the 2010 City of Calgary mayoral election had a number of shortcomings, which in turn likely impacted the electoral fairness of the election, and the correlation between the voice of Calgarians and the election results.

The FDA acknowledges that the root issue stems from Alberta’s Local Authorities Election Act, which the Alberta Provincial Government has jurisdiction over. However, the FDA believes that the City of Calgary still

Prepared By

Mr. Michael Fabris, Bachelor of Accounting, Brock University.

Purpose of the Calgary Mayoral Election Financial Study

The purpose of the Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA)’s electoral finance study (the Study) is to examine the nature and distribution of campaign finances during the 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election. Analyses will be performed on the campaigns in aggregate, and also within each individual campaign.

The views in this electoral finance study are the views of the FDA only. FDA members are in no way affiliated with the City of Calgary, any of the Mayoral candidates from the 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election, or any of the province's registered/non-registered political parties. The Study is an independent assessment based on objectivity, transparency, and non-partisanship. The FDA assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors in its data collection or inaccuracies in its research of relevant electoral finance documents.

Acknowledgement

Representatives from the FDA requested and were granted a face-to-face meeting with the City’s Chief Returning Officer, Barbara Clifford; the purpose of this meeting was to discuss the details of the provincial legislation and how it is executed in practice. Subsequent requests for information were made also via telephone and email. The FDA would like to thank Ms. Clifford for taking the time to meet with us in her office and for providing us with first-hand information about the entire process.

© 2013 Foundation for Democratic Advancement. All rights reserved.

About the Foundation for Democratic Advancement

The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) is an international independent, non-partisan democracy organization. The FDA’s mission is

to measure, study, and communicate the impact of government processes on a free and democratic society.

Overall, the FDA works

1. to ensure that people become more knowledgeable about the outcomes of government processes and can then make decisions that are more informed;

2. to get people involved in monitoring government processes at all levels of government and in providing sound, practical, and effective suggestions. (For more information on the FDA visit: www.democracychange.org)

To ensure its objectivity and independence, the FDA does not conduct privately paid research. However, if you or your organization has an important research idea or are aware of an important

Foundation for Democratic Advancement | FDA Electoral Finance Report: 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election

issue on government processes, the FDA is available to listen to your idea or issue and possibly help raise public awareness by initiating and leading change through report research and analysis. Please contact the FDA at (403) 669-8132 or email us at [email protected] for more information.

Visit our website for a complete report of FDA Report on Electoral Finances from the 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election: www.democracychange.org

For further information and/or comments on this report please contact Mr. Stephen Garvey, Executive Director of the Foundation for Democratic Advancement at [email protected]

The FDA is a registered Canadian not-for-profit organization, and therefore it cannot issue tax-deductible receipts. In addition, the FDA is the sole funder of this report. As mentioned, to maintain its independence and objectivity, the FDA does not conduct privately funded research projects. The FDA relies on donations. If you value this report, please consider donating to the Foundation for Democratic Advancement to help cover the costs of producing this report and communicating its content to Albertans, and to continue its work in Alberta, Canada, and abroad.

The FDA is committed to providing the public with objective information. Please let us know how we are doing at [email protected]

How satisfied are you with the Alberta municipal electoral finance laws? Please let us know at [email protected] After reading this Report, we want to know what you think; please go to this url and share your perspective with us! FDA Electoral Finance Report on the 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election

Foundation for Democratic Advancement | FDA Electoral Finance Report: 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election

http://democracychange.org/fda-electoral-finance-study-of-the-2010-calgary-mayoral-election/

Table of ContentsIntroduction......................................................................................................................................5

Analysis...........................................................................................................................................6

Overall Breakdown and Relative Percentages.............................................................................6

Campaign Contributions..................................................................................................................8

Contributions under $100..........................................................................................................10

Contributions over $100............................................................................................................12

Analysis of Campaign Finances by Contributor Type...............................................................13

Contributors Who Gave to Multiple Candidates.......................................................................15

Conclusion...................................................................................................................................30

Recommendations..........................................................................................................................31

Advantages and Disadvantages of a Donation Transaction Database.......................................34

Practical Concerns and Recommendations................................................................................34

References......................................................................................................................................38

FDA Electoral Finance Study Team..............................................................................................39

Page 5 of 39

Introduction

The FDA's study on the 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election based findings on non-partisanship and objectivity.

The electoral finance study involved five main components:

1) Tabulation of all reported sources of campaign financing;

2) Breakdown of overall campaign financing, by candidate and by contribution amount segments;

3) Further tabulation and analysis based on contributor source (individual, business, union);

4) Investigation of instances where the same contributor has supported more than one candidate; and

5) Investigation of an improved format of campaign finance disclosure.

Raw data from all of the candidates’ legal public disclosure forms was entered into a master spreadsheet; this was used to determine relative percentages within each campaign. To improve the comprehension of the results, the FDA also looked at all of the campaigns in aggregate, in order to determine which candidates captured the greatest proportion of donations under $100 and those greater than $100.

The report is limited in that all reported amounts are not audited by the City of Calgary, nor the province of Alberta. In fact, the only supporting schedules that candidates are required to submit are for all contributions greater than $100. Furthermore, these supporting schedules are not checked by election officials to ensure that they equal the amounts reported on legal disclosure forms.

The FDA acknowledges that private citizens and corporations have the legitimate right to contribute to as many candidates as they choose. The FDA is not making any moral judgments regarding this practice; however, the FDA believes that it is in the interest of democracy to determine the frequency and magnitude of this practice. This analysis is justified since the beneficiary candidates are usually “front-runners”.

Foundation for Democratic Advancement | democracychange.org | FDA Electoral Finance Report: 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election

Page 6 of 39

Analysis

Overall Breakdown and Relative Percentages

A breakdown of the total finances for the 2010 Mayoral race, by candidate, is below. These amounts include financing from all sources, including net contributions and other sources such as fundraisers, the candidates’ own funds, and surpluses from prior campaigns.

Candidate Total Revenue Total Revenue %

Richard McIver 1,084,021$ 35%

Barbara Higgins 610,429$ 19%

Naheed Nenshi 404,654$ 13%

Melvin Stewart 326,953$ 10%

Robert Hawkesworth 290,221$ 9%

Craig Burrows 215,418$ 7%

Joe Connelly 182,215$ 6%

Jon Lord 24,970$ 1%

Bonnie Devine 1,647$ 0%

Sandra Hunter -$ 0%

Total 3,140,528$ 100%


Page 7 of 39

These relative percentages are illustrated in the following chart:

Richard McIver35%

Barbara Higgins19%

Naheed Nenshi

13%

Melvin Stewart10%

Robert Hawkesworth9%

Craig Burrows

7%Joe Connelly6%

Jon Lord1%

Bonnie Devine0%

Total Campaign Revenue


Page 8 of 39

Campaign Contributions

Since 68 percent of campaign finances are derived from actual contributions, an analysis has been prepared on this specific source.

The proportion of gross contributions of total campaign revenue has been calculated for each candidate below. It is evident that gross contributions accounted for over half of the total revenues for each candidate, with the exception of Richard McIver.

Candidate < $100 > $100Total Gross

ContributionsTotal Financing

Gross Contributions as % of Total

Financing

Richard McIver 14,146$ 517,559$ 531,705$ 1,084,021$ 49%

Barbara Higgins 5,543$ 509,186$ 514,729$ 610,429$ 84%

Naheed Nenshi 47,958$ 350,471$ 398,429$ 404,654$ 98%

Melvin Stewart 3,433$ 306,050$ 309,483$ 326,953$ 95%

Robert Hawkesworth 14,476$ 165,390$ 179,866$ 290,221$ 62%

Craig Burrows -$ 113,150$ 113,150$ 215,418$ 53%

Joe Connelly 670$ 95,501$ 96,171$ 182,215$ 53%

Jon Lord 1,720$ 13,250$ 14,970$ 24,970$ 60%

Bonnie Devine 590$ 800$ 1,390$ 1,647$ 84%

Sandra Hunter -$ -$ -$ -$ 0%

Total 88,536$ 2,071,357$ 2,159,893$ 3,140,528$ 69%


Page 9 of 39

The following chart illustrates the proportion of each candidate’s contributions, separated by amount.

Richard

McIv

er

Barbara

Higgins

Nahee

d Nensh

i

Melvin St

ewart

Robert Haw

kesw

orth

Craig B

urrows

Joe Connell

y

Jon Lord

Bonnie Dev

ine

Sandra

Hunter $-

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

Calgary 2010 Mayoral Candidates' Contributions, as Proportion of Total Campaign Revenue

< $100 > $100 Total Revenue


Page 10 of 39

Contributions under $100

Bonnie Dev

ine

Nahee

d Nensh

i

Jon Lord

Robert Haw

kesw

orth

Richard

McIv

er

Melvin St

ewart

Barbara

Higgins

Joe Connell

y

Craig B

urrows

Sandra

Hunter0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40% 36%

12%

7%5%

1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%

Under-$100 Contributions as Percentage of Candidates' Finances

Percentage


Page 11 of 39

Candidates captured the under-$100 pool of contributions in the following proportions. Clearly, over half of this pool was captured by Naheed Nenshi. It must be noted that this pool only represents 3 percent of total aggregate campaign revenues.

Naheed Nenshi54%

Robert Hawkesworth16%

Richard McIver16%

Barbara Higgins

6%

Melvin Stewart4%Jon Lord

2%Joe Connelly

1%Bonnie Devine

1%

Contributions < $100


Page 12 of 39

Contributions over $100

In contrast, 66 percent of total aggregate campaign revenues came from contributions exceeding $100. This pool of funds was captured by candidates in the following proportions:

Richard McIver25%

Barbara Higgins25%

Naheed Nenshi17%

Melvin Stewart15%

Robert Hawkesworth

8%Craig Burrows

5%Joe Connelly

5%Jon Lord

1%Bonnie Devine

0%

Contributions > $100


Page 13 of 39

Analysis of Campaign Finances by Contributor Type

Candidates are not required to report their contributions by type of source (individual, business, or union). As a result, the FDA had to analyze each candidate’s supporting schedule to determine the relative percentages. This required several steps:

Conversion of PDF files (from the city’s website) into excel format; Identification of each contribution as either individual, business, or union; and Tabulation of the results

Candidate Individual Individual % Business Business % Union Union % Total Total %

Richard McIver 347,094$ 36% 613,275$ 63% 6,300$ 1% 966,669$ 100%

Barbara Higgins 199,249$ 39% 304,937$ 60% 5,000$ 1% 509,186$ 100%

Naheed Nenshi 224,392$ 64% 120,399$ 34% 5,000$ 1% 349,791$ 100%

Melvin Stewart 218,750$ 71% 87,300$ 29% -$ 0% 306,050$ 100%

Craig Burrows 126,450$ 68% 60,250$ 32% -$ 0% 186,700$ 100%

Robert Hawkesworth 99,985$ 60% 64,905$ 39% 500$ 0% 165,390$ 100%

Joe Connelly 19,001$ 27% 50,500$ 73% -$ 0% 69,501$ 100%

Jon Lord 2,250$ 18% 10,400$ 82% -$ 0% 12,650$ 100%

Bonnie Jean Devine 300$ 38% -$ 0% 500$ 63% 800$ 100%

Sandra Hunter -$ 0% -$ 0% -$ 0% -$ 0%

Total 1,237,470$ 1,311,966$ 17,300$ 2,566,737$


Page 14 of 39

Richard

McIv

er

Barbara

Higgins

Nahee

d Nensh

i

Melvin St

ewart

Craig B

urrows

Robert Haw

kesw

orth

Joe Connell

y

Jon Lord

Bonnie Jea

n Devine

Sandra

Hunter $-

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

Campaign Finances by Contributor Type

UnionBusinessIndividual


Page 15 of 39

Contributors Who Gave to Multiple Candidates

Donor Candidate $ Amount

Albi Corp.Craig Burrows $800

Melvin Wayne Stewart $1,000 Richard William McIver $3,400 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $1,000 Total $6,200

Amalgamated Transit Barbara Joan Higgins $4,000 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $500 Total $4,500

Aspen Properties Ltd. Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000 Melvin Wayne Stewart $5,000 Naheed Nenshi $5,000 Total $15,000

Atlas Development Corporation Naheed Nenshi $300 Richard William McIver $400 Total $700

Balmon Investments Ltd. Melvin Wayne Stewart $500 Richard William McIver $2,500 Total $3,000


Page 16 of 39

Baywest Homes Barbara Joan Higgins $1,000 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $5,000 Total $6,000

Bennett Jones Barbara Joan Higgins $1,500 Richard William McIver $1,600 Total $3,100

BKDI Architects Barbara Joan Higgins $2,500 Craig Burrows $1,000 Naheed Nenshi $1,000 Richard William McIver $4,000 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $1,000 Total $9,500

Boardwalk Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000 Craig Burrows $5,000 Melvin Wayne Stewart $1,300 Richard William McIver $4,400 Total $15,700

Brant McDermott Craig Burrows $150 Richard William McIver $300 Total $450

Brian Edy Richard William McIver $250 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $250 Total $500


Page 17 of 39

Brian Felesky Naheed Nenshi $500 Richard William McIver $500 Total $1,000

Brian Rogers Professional Corporation Naheed Nenshi $500 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $500 Total $1,000

Brownlee LLP Barbara Joan Higgins $500 Richard William McIver $1,000 Total $1,500

Bruce Cameron Craig Burrows $150 Richard William McIver $150 Total $300

Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP Naheed Nenshi $500 Richard William McIver $1,000 Total $1,500

Burns West Corporation Barbara Joan Higgins $750 Craig Burrows $200 Total $950

Calgary Cab Drivers Society Naheed Nenshi $500 Richard William McIver $1,000 Total $1,500

Calgary Fire Fighters Assoc. Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000 Naheed Nenshi $5,000 Richard William McIver $5,000 Total $15,000


Page 18 of 39

Cam Bailey Naheed Nenshi $2,500 Melvin Wayne Stewart $1,000 Total $3,500

Carma Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000 Melvin Wayne Stewart $5,000 Richard William McIver $13,150 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $5,000 Total $28,150

Cedarglen Group Inc. Melvin Wayne Stewart $5,000 Richard William McIver $5,000 Total $10,000

Checker Cabs Craig Burrows $400 Richard William McIver $450 Total $850

Chris Davis Naheed Nenshi $250 Richard William McIver $250 Total $500

Citiland Capital Corp. Craig Burrows $400 Richard William McIver $1,800 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $1,000 Total $3,200

Cohos Evamy Richard William McIver $700 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $500 Total $1,200


Page 19 of 39

D.A. Watt Consulting Group Ltd Naheed Nenshi $400 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $500 Total $900

Daniel Hays Melvin Wayne Stewart $1,000 Richard William McIver $1,000 Total $2,000

Daryl Fridhandler Barbara Joan Higgins $2,500 Naheed Nenshi $250 Total $2,750

David McLellan Naheed Nenshi $5,000 Richard William McIver $800 Total $5,800

Dialog Barbara Joan Higgins $2,000 Naheed Nenshi $1,000 Richard William McIver $1,500 Total $4,500

Ecco Waste Systems LP Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000 Richard William McIver $6,000 Total $11,000

Edmund Sardachuk Melvin Wayne Stewart $200 Richard William McIver $500 Total $700


Page 20 of 39

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Naheed Nenshi $300 Richard William McIver $1,200 Total $1,500

Encana Corporation Naheed Nenshi $3,000 Richard William McIver $3,000 Total $6,000

Genesis Land Development Corp. Barbara Joan Higgins $1,000 Naheed Nenshi $1,000 Richard William McIver $2,350 Total $4,350

Genstar Development Partnership Barbara Joan Higgins $1,500 Richard William McIver $2,900 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $300 Total $4,700

Geo-Energy Enterprises Ltd Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000 Naheed Nenshi $2,500 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $2,200 Total $9,700

George Brokman Melvin Wayne Stewart $1,000 Naheed Nenshi $500 Richard William McIver $200 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $1,000 Total $2,700

Gibbs Gage Architects Barbara Joan Higgins $2,500 Craig Burrows $400 Richard William McIver $3,900 Total $6,800


Page 21 of 39

Gurmeet Brar & Kathie Mintoft Naheed Nenshi $1,000 Richard William McIver $1,000 Total $2,000

Harley Hotchkiss Barbara Joan Higgins $1,000 Melvin Wayne Stewart $2,000 Richard William McIver $1,000 Total $4,000

Hoffman Dorchik LLP Melvin Wayne Stewart $750 Richard William McIver $2,350 Total $3,100

Homes by Avi (Canada) Inc. Richard William McIver $1,000 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $1,000 Total $2,000

Hopewell Development Corp. Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000 Craig Burrows $400 Richard William McIver $200 Total $5,600

Hopewell Residential Communities Inc. Naheed Nenshi $2,500 Richard William McIver $7,000 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $5,000 Total $14,500

Interbase Consultants Ltd. - Calgary Craig Burrows $400 Richard William McIver $3,000 Total $3,400


Page 22 of 39

Interplan Strategies Inc. Craig Burrows $200 Richard William McIver $2,000 Total $2,200

JEC Enterprises Inc. Barbara Joan Higgins $1,000 Richard William McIver $13,250 Total $14,250

Jim Dinning Naheed Nenshi $500 Richard William McIver $500 Total $1,000

Kabir Jivraj Melvin Wayne Stewart $2,500 Naheed Nenshi $1,000 Total $3,500

Kang Construction Ltd Barbara Joan Higgins $1,000 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $1,000 Total $2,000

Ken Cartier Craig Burrows $200 Richard William McIver $600 Total $800

Knightsbridge Homes Ltd. Barbara Joan Higgins $1,500 Richard William McIver $1,500 Total $3,000


Page 23 of 39

Larry Ryder Melvin Wayne Stewart $500 Richard William McIver $300 Total $800

M Ann McCaig Barbara Joan Higgins $2,500 Naheed Nenshi $500 Total $3,000

Marchese Holdings Limited Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000 Richard William McIver $4,100 Total $9,100

Marquis Communities Development Inc. Barbara Joan Higgins $3,000 Richard William McIver $3,000 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $3,000 Total $9,000

Marton Murphy Naheed Nenshi $3,000 Richard William McIver $7,000 Total $10,000

Mary Rozsa de Coquet Naheed Nenshi $2,400 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $500 Total $2,900

Mattamy Homes Limited - Calgary Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000 Richard William McIver $5,200 Total $10,200

Matthew Brister Barbara Joan Higgins $3,500 Melvin Wayne Stewart $1,000 Total $4,500


Page 24 of 39

McLeod & Company Melvin Wayne Stewart $500 Richard William McIver $1,000 Total $1,500

N. Murray Edwards Craig Burrows $4,400 Melvin Wayne Stewart $2,000 Richard William McIver $5,000 Total $11,400

New Urban Consulting 2009 Inc. Barbara Joan Higgins $1,000 Richard William McIver $600 Total $1,600

Nexus Builder Group LP Barbara Joan Higgins $2,500 Melvin Wayne Stewart $2,500 Total $5,000

Norr Architects Planners Barbara Joan Higgins $1,500 Craig Burrows $400 Richard William McIver $5,400 Total $7,300

Odgers Brendston Naheed Nenshi $500 Richard William McIver $750 Total $1,250

Opus Corporation Naheed Nenshi $5,000 Richard William McIver $800 Total $5,800


Page 25 of 39

Penn West Petroleum Ltd. Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000 Melvin Wayne Stewart $2,500 Naheed Nenshi $2,500 Richard William McIver $2,500 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $2,500 Total $15,000

Quinn Corp. Holdings Inc. Barbara Joan Higgins $1,250 Richard William McIver $2,300 Total $3,550

RGO Office Products Partnership Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000 Melvin Wayne Stewart $1,400 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $300 Total $6,700

Richard Haskayne Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000 Melvin Wayne Stewart $5,000 Naheed Nenshi $5,000 Total $15,000

Rick Balbi Architects Richard William McIver $300 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $300 Total $600

Riddle Kurczaba Barbara Joan Higgins $1,000 Richard William McIver $3,100 Total $4,100


Page 26 of 39

Rob Taylor Naheed Nenshi $3,333 Richard William McIver $3,100 Total $6,433

Robyn and Gordon Ritchie Barbara Joan Higgins $2,000 Richard William McIver $1,000 Total $3,000

Ron Kurczaba Craig Burrows $400 Richard William McIver $800 Total $1,200

Ronmor Holdings Inc. Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000 Craig Burrows $400 Richard William McIver $6,700 Total $12,100

Royop Development Corporation Barbara Joan Higgins $1,000 Craig Burrows $400 Melvin Wayne Stewart $500 Naheed Nenshi $500 Richard William McIver $2,350 Total $4,750

Sam Kolias Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000 Craig Burrows $5,000 Melvin Wayne Stewart $5,000 Richard William McIver $5,500 Total $20,500


Page 27 of 39

Scott Thon Barbara Joan Higgins $300 Richard William McIver $300 Total $600

Shane Homes Ltd. Craig Burrows $3,800 Melvin Wayne Stewart $5,000 Richard William McIver $4,750 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $3,000 Total $16,550

Shepard Development Corp Barbara Joan Higgins $2,500 Naheed Nenshi $2,500 Total $5,000

Sirocco Golf Club Ltd. Barbara Joan Higgins $2,000 Richard William McIver $3,000 Total $5,000

Sri Chandran Craig Burrows $200 Richard William McIver $300 Total $500

Susan Paton Melvin Wayne Stewart $500 Richard William McIver $150 Total $650

Swan Homes Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000 Craig Burrows $1,000 Total $6,000


Page 28 of 39

Tonko Realty Advisors Ltd. Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000 Richard William McIver $300 Total $5,300

Trico Development Corporation Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000 Melvin Wayne Stewart $5,000 Naheed Nenshi $5,000 Richard William McIver $8,000 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $2,500 Total $25,500

Tristar Communities Inc. Barbara Joan Higgins $1,000 Naheed Nenshi $1,000 Richard William McIver $3,300 Total $5,300

Truman Development Corporation Barbara Joan Higgins $4,000 Richard William McIver $4,450 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $3,000 Total $11,450

United Communities L. P. Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000 Craig Burrows $1,000 Melvin Wayne Stewart $5,000 Richard William McIver $5,500 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $13,000 Total $29,500

Urban Systems Ltd. Barbara Joan Higgins $3,500 Richard William McIver $2,750 Total $6,250


Page 29 of 39

Van Kolias Craig Burrows $5,000 Melvin Wayne Stewart $5,000 Total $10,000

W Brett Wilson Naheed Nenshi $500 Richard William McIver $300 Total $800

Walton Development & Management Inc. Barbara Joan Higgins $5,000 Richard William McIver $6,250 Robert Andrew Hawkesworth $3,000 Total $14,250

WAM Development Corporation Barbara Joan Higgins $2,500 Richard William McIver $3,250 Total $5,750

WRD Borger Construction Ltd. Barbara Joan Higgins $2,000 Craig Burrows $5,000 Naheed Nenshi $2,000 Richard William McIver $2,100 Total $11,100


Page 30 of 39

Conclusion

The 2010 Calgary electoral finance results show a disparity in electoral finance amounts between the mayoral candidates. For example, three mayoral candidates had 67 percent of the total electoral finance revenue of all mayoral candidates. The FDA acknowledges that electoral finances cannot guarantee an election win, and yet there is no evidence that a candidate with minimal electoral finances can win a competitive election. In addition, the high incidence of individuals and organizations contributing to more than one candidate (99 recorded incidents totaling $595,333 and 23.2 percent of total contributions to mayoral candidates) may suggest the possibility of special interest influence. Further, based on Alberta mean total income of $35,250 (Statistics Canada, 2011), the cap on contributions of $5,000 per year favours wealthy Calgarians and corporations and unions over Calgarians with middle and low incomes. Interestingly, 95.9 percent of gross contributions to all mayoral candidates were over $100, while 4.1 percent of gross contributions to all mayoral candidates were under $100.

The FDA acknowledges that the root of the Calgary electoral finance issues stem from the Alberta’s Local Authorities Election Act, which the Alberta provincial government has jurisdiction over. However, as discussed in the recommendations to follow, there are some things that the City of Calgary can do to improve electoral finance in Calgary municipal elections, and thereby strengthen the democratic voice of Calgarians.

For more information on Alberta election laws, see the FDA Canadian Provinces Electoral Finance Report


http://www.slideshare.net/FDAdvancement/2013revised-fda-canadian-provinces-electoral-finance-report

http://www.slideshare.net/FDAdvancement/2013revised-fda-canadian-provinces-electoral-finance-report

Page 31 of 39

Recommendations

The Foundation for Democratic Advancement recommends that the City of Calgary adopt a donation transaction database model as a method of publicly reporting all candidates’ finances. Such a system already exists in the City of Toronto. Members of the public can freely search online for any donation transaction, under the following fields:

Candidate name Office Contributor Type Contributor name Postal Code Contribution Amount

Below is an image of a print-screen of the actual online search form, found at the City of Toronto’s Election Services website:


Page 32 of 39


Page 33 of 39

Below is a sample of the results of a mayoral finance search, for all candidates. Total records returned numbered 8,974.


Page 34 of 39

Advantages and Disadvantages of a Donation Transaction Database

Advantages

Reduced data redundancy Reduced updating errors and increased consistency Greater data integrity and independence from applications programs Improved data access to users Improved data security Reduced data entry, storage, and retrieval costs Facilitated development of new applications program

Disadvantages

Database systems are complex, difficult, and time-consuming to design Substantial hardware and software start-up costs Damage to database affects virtually all applications programs Extensive conversion costs in moving form a file-based system to a database system Initial training required for all programmers and users

Practical Concerns and Recommendations

According to the Chief Returning Officer (CRO) for the City of Calgary, there have not been many calls from the public for such a searchable database. And since the implementation of a searchable database would be at the city’s cost, it is not likely that one will be implemented until such demand is perceived from the public. However, in the interests of transparency, the FDA asserts that financial information should always be as readily accessible to the public as possible, with minimal technical barriers.

The FDA contacted the Elections and Registry Services office for the City of Toronto to learn more about the costs associated with the development of an electronic disclosure system. Total costs of $315,000 were reported as approved in the city clerk’s 2006 capital budget for this sys-tem. At the time, staff were anticipating completion within budget. Toronto’s Deputy City Man-ager and Chief Financial Officer reviewed this report and concurred with the financial implica-tions. As a result, the FDA asserts that costs of a searchable online database would be a low risk, manageable investment in public transparency for the City of Calgary.

Another issue that the CRO raised is that Calgary does not have the same number of candidates as the City of Toronto, making comparisons between candidates easier. However, as part of the


Page 35 of 39

FDA’s research, it was first necessary to download and convert all of the website’s PDF files into Excel format, and then identify thousands of contribution records as either individual, busi-ness, or union. Furthermore, it became apparent that many of the reported totals on the support-ing schedules did not agree with the amounts reported on the disclosure form. Nor were these schedules in a standardized format, across candidates. This slowed down the analysis consider-ably. The implementation of a searchable database would help to alleviate the lack of clarity of which donations came from which sources, and how much.

The CRO also raises the issue of the provincial Freedom of Information and the Protection of Privacy (FOIP) legislation. Service Alberta was contacted for guidance on this issue. Below is a direct quote of Service Alberta’s response:

“Section 147.4(1) of the Local Authorities Election Act (LAEA) deals with campaign dis-closure statements. The campaign disclosure statements, which are filed with the munici-pality, must include (a) the total amount of all campaign contributions received during the campaign period that did not exceed $100.00 in the aggregate from any single contribu-tor, and (b) the total amount contributed, together with the contributor's name and ad-dress, for each contributor whose contributions during the campaign period exceeded $100.00 in the aggregate. Section 147.4(3) states that the municipality must ensure that all documents filed under this section are available to the public during regular business hours. Although candidates may advise contributors of the public disclosure require-ments, they are not specifically required to do so under the LAEA.”

The FDA recommends that campaign contributors are informed that their contributions will be disclosed publicly.

The FDA also recommends that the province implement stringent audit requirements for all can-didates whose finances exceed a determined threshold. Otherwise, the public cannot have strong confidence in the accuracy, reliability, and completeness of the financial reporting.

Bill 203 was introduced in 2009 in an attempt to implement more stringent controls over cam-paign finance. Bill 203 was a private member’s bill introduced by MLA Jeff Johnson (Ath-abasca-Redwater), and was an amendment to the Local Authorities Election Act.

The FDA contacted Municipal Affairs for more clarity on the practical implications of this legis-lation on financial reporting:

“Financing of mayoralty or councillor candidates’ election expenses are governed by the provisions of the Local Authorities Election Act (LAEA). S. 118 sets out the kinds of election expenses that can be claimed. Such expenses would offset campaign finances raised for the election. To ensure accountability, municipalities (particularly larger muni-cipalities) where the campaign costs can be significant, may, by the adoption of a bylaw before April 15th of the year of a general election, require that candidates prepare and disclose a public statement showing all campaign contributions received, as well as their


Page 36 of 39

campaign expenses. Additionally, the bylaw will require that a candidate show how ex-cess contributions are to be used. (For example, excess contributions could be donated to a charity, or retained in an account for a future election).”

The bylaw requiring candidates to prepare and disclose a public statement may also require that the statement be audited in accordance with generally accepted audit standards.

If campaign finance rules have been broken, and a candidate has contravened the bylaw, the can-didate is guilty of an offence and subject to a penalty of not more than $1,000 under section 118.(4) of the LAEA. In addition, subject to the Municipal Government Act (section 174), a council-lor that fails to disclose a statement within the prescribed time, and has not been relieved of the obligation to file a disclosure statement by a court order under section 147.8 of the LAEA is dis-qualified from council and must resign immediately. If the Councillor does not resign immedi-ately, the council or an elector may apply to the Court of Queen’s Bench for an order declaring the candidate to be disqualified.”

It would appear then, that cities do not necessarily have to impose an audit requirement on can-didates, although it is within their power to do so if they desire.

The fact that audits are not conducted on campaign disclosures presents a risk of material mis-statement to the public. This risk may lead the public as well as individuals donating to make de-cisions that are not based upon the true information of the campaign finances that have been dis-closed. This is true for the following reasons:

The amounts of the contributions may be greater than has been disclosed; The sources of contributions may not be accurately reflected; and Contribution limits may have not been adhered to.

A risk of corruption obviously exists; however, there is no reliable way to detect every instance of corruption. This does not reduce the efficacy of performing a reasonable audit on campaign disclosures, as can be seen by the fact that one candidate, Naheed Nenshi, did have an audit performed upon his campaign finances. Therefore, it is reasonable to state that each candidate should have an audit performed upon their campaign finances for those receiving or spending more than $100,000. In addition, legal disclosures of finances by candidates should include the date of the contribution transaction, in order to ascertain that annual contribution limits are being adhered to.

These steps would significantly reduce the risk of material misstatement to the public as well as reduce the amount of corruption occurring during elections.

In the interests of the integrity of financial reporting, the FDA asserts that candidates should be required to submit all supporting schedules in an electronic spreadsheet format, which can then be imported into the database. The candidates records should not be accepted until the city’s


Page 37 of 39

chief electoral officer verifies that the supporting schedule and the reported amounts on the dis-closure form are in balance. If discrepancies exist, they should be noted as such.

In addition, all line items on the disclosure form should be backed up with documentation. At the present time, the only backup documentation that is required is a schedule listing all contribu-tions over $100, and the originating contributor.


Page 38 of 39

References

2010 Disclosure of Campaign Finances. (2010). City of Calgary. Retrieved from http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Pages/Election-and-information-services/2010-General-election/Disclosure-of-Campaign-Finances.aspx

Electronic Filing By-law – 2006 Municipal Election Financial Statements. (2006). City of Toronto. Retrieved from http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2006/agendas/committees/adm/adm060606/it029.pdf

FDA Canadian Provinces Electoral Finance Report. (2012). Foundation for Democratic Advancement. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/FDAdvancement/2013revised-fda-canadian-provinces-electoral-finance-report

Local Authorities Election Act. (2000). Province of Alberta. Current as of December 10, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/l21.pdf

Staff Report on the Toronto Election Finance Review Task Force Recommendations. (2004). City

of Toronto. Retrieved from http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2004/agendas/committees/pof/pof040915/it001.pdf

Statistics Canada. (2011). Individuals by total income level, by province and territory. Retrieved March 26, 2011 from http://www40.statcan.ca


Page 39 of 39

FDA Electoral Finance Study Team

FDA Researcher

Mr. Michael Fabris, Bachelor of Accounting, Brock University

Report Writers

Mr. Michael Fabris, Bachelor of Accounting, Brock University

Mr. Stephen Garvey, Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, University of British Columbia and Master of Philosophy in Environment and Development, University of Cambridge

Report Reviewers

Mr. Stephen Garvey, Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, University of British Columbia and Master of Philosophy in Environment and Development, University of Cambridge

Mr. Dale Monette, Bachelor of Commerce, University of Saskatchewan

Design

Mrs. Liza Valentine-Garvey, Master of Architecture, University of Calgary. (lvdesign.ca)


News & Politics

FDA Electoral Finance Study of the 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election