I'm concerned because the bill tries to draw a distinction that expenses incurred for fundraising purposes are not counted as election expenses. My understanding is that means they're not generally going to be clearly reportable. I think that for a bill that's been touted as being about getting money out of politics—for a government that's talked a lot about the need for transparency and accountability—something that tries to draw this distinction and that removes these expenses from what will be visible in the course of reviewing expenses and election returns is problematic. It's hard to imagine how a candidate or a party would solicit funds without also soliciting votes. There's a fundamental flaw in the idea that those things can necessarily be separated.
With respect to the other provision, about excluding expenses for contacting individuals who have made prior contributions of $20 or more in the last five years—part of our concern there is that it gives an advantage to more established parties, it gives an advantage to older parties, and it puts newer parties at a disadvantage. Part of the idea behind both sides of our electoral equation, in what parties and candidates are allowed to do and what voters are allowed to do, is that there's meant to be a level playing field, and I think that provision undermines that.