There are actually three reasons the Accountability Act limits donations to $1,000.
First, we promised it in the election, so we're delivering it.
Second, we believe that political donations should not be a tool of industry or individuals to purchase influence within the political system, and by reducing the allowable donation to $1,000, you accordingly reduce the ability of individual donors to purchase influence in the political process.
And finally, it will force political parties to reconnect with everyday, ordinary, nine-to-five, lunch-bucket, hardworking people. That's what some parties in this country have done. Other parties have not succeeded in finding broad support from everyday people to finance their operations.
I believe this amendment is designed to subsidize those parties that have not succeeded in building a broad donor base and to subsidize those parties--or that party--that rely on wealthy, connected insiders to finance their operations.
So we will oppose this amendment on the grounds that $1,000 is reasonable and on the further grounds that no one other than the very wealthy would be able to make a $2,000 donation. As such, we wonder why the Liberal Party or any party would want to put in place an amendment here that seeks to empower the very rich to enhance their influence in the democratic process.
The Conservative Party believes that the playing field should be made level for people of all income classes by restricting donations at a reasonable level of $1,000, so we strongly support the existing provisions of the Accountability Act, and we will be voting against this amendment.