Ontario Election 1999 Background Papers By York University Professors Robert Macdermid & Fred Fletcher

Backgrounder #9 Spending at the Riding Level Does Make a Difference

TORONTO, May 28, 1999 --

Discussion about election spending is generally focused on the parties' central campaigns. While differences in what each of the parties can afford to spend may affect the outcome of the election, winning or losing cannot be directly attributed to total spending. There is, however, a direct relationship between spending and winning in individual ridings. In the past two elections, spending at the constituency level has been closely tied to winning.

1995 Election Campaign

In the 82 ridings won by the Conservatives in 1995, Tory candidates spent on average $0.77 per elector while Liberal candidates spent $0.68 and NDP candidates spent $0.38.

In the thirty Liberal wins, their candidate spent $0.82, the PC candidate spent $0.59 and the NDP loser spent $0.54 per elector.

In the 17 constituencies that returned NDP members, that party's winning candidate spent $1.04 per elector while the Tory candidate spent $0.78 and the Liberal candidate $1.05 per elector. The higher spending in NDP wins reflects the fact that the NDP and Liberals contested northern Ontario ridings where the electorates are smaller, and special spending limits allow the candidates to spend a greater sum per elector because of the added costs of campaigning over a very large area.

1990 Election Campaign

In the unexpected NDP win of 1990, the record of local spending and winning was very similar to the pattern of 1995.

In the 74 ridings that the NDP won, they spent on average $0.62 per elector while Liberals spent $0.81 and the PC candidates spent $0.49 per elector.

Liberal candidates spent on average $0.78 per elector in the 36 ridings they won, while the Tory candidate spent $0.49 and the NDP candidate spent $0.37.

In the 20 Conservative wins, their candidate spent, on average, $0.71 per elector, the Liberal candidate spent $0.74 and the NDP $0.25.

The Conservatives and NDP have shown they are able to target their spending much more efficiently than the Liberals.

When Tory and NDP candidates lose, they usually haven't run a contending campaign. They each have safe ridings where the other party is not a contender and does not bother to mount a strong campaign.

The current NDP campaign certainly targets ridings in this way, and the Tories also demonstrated this in 1995, orienting their campaign and their advertising towards the (905) area code region and other urban belts. The Liberals, on the other hand, are usually competitive in more ridings than either of the other two parties, finishing second more frequently than the NDP or Tories. This means that they are far less "efficient" in turning dollars into votes and wins. They are forced to campaign across more ridings and in a sense across more regional issues. For example, the Tories appear to have written off the North while the NDP will mount only token campaigns in much of the 905 and inner 705 regions. The Liberals will contest both of these regions, and must feature policies that will attract voters in both regions.

Determining the effect of spending on campaign results is complex. In the past two Ontario elections, in 1995 and 1990, all three parties spent very close to the limit governing central party spending, yet the elections produced a defeat for the party in power both times, first with an NDP majority, then a Conservative majority. One might, therefore, conclude that spending has no effect on outcomes But sometimes its not how much you spend, but how they spend it. Even if all the parties' central campaign budgets are about the same, they don't all spend in the same way.

In recent campaigns, the NDP for example, has spent a much larger portion of its central campaign budget on salaries and consulting than the other two parties. In 1995, the NDP spent 10% of its central budget this way, while the Tories spent only 3% and the records show the Liberals spent nothing on salaries and consulting. This pattern is the same for the 1990, 1987 and 1985 elections. This may suggest that NDP candidates and campaign workers need salaries, whereas, supporters of the other two parties are able to donate time and campaign skills without pay.

Some commentators still prefer to associate the ability to attract money with popularity: "The winners always spend more money since they are more popular and can raise more money." In fact, the saying that is closer to the truth is: "It helps to have wealthy friends." Consider the following facts:

Money raised for winning/losing Conservative/Liberal/NDP campaigns in 1995:

In the 82 ridings the Tories won in 1995, the candidate campaigns raised, on average, $15,122 from corporations and $14,726 from individuals in contributions of greater than $100. In ridings where Tory candidates lost, the comparable figures were $5,688 from businesses and $6,737 from individuals.

The 30 Liberal candidates who won in 1995 took in, on average, $13,571 from corporations and $10,124 from individuals who gave over $100. For the 100 losing Liberal candidates, the figures were $7,040 from corporations and $8,464.26 from individuals.

The 17 winning NDP candidates in 1995 received, on average, $6,218 in contributions over $100 from corporations, $10,983 from individuals and $2,034 from unions. In losing NDP candidate campaigns, businesses contributed on average $1,206, individuals $6,482 and unions $1,398, all in the form of donations over $100.

In this election, there will be significant differences in central party spending. The Tory campaign has already indicated that it will spend the $4.2 million permitted, while the Liberals have said they will spend $2.7 million and the NDP $3.5 million (National Post, May 10, A7). The Conservative party's war-chest will certainly allow them to spend to the limit. The other two parties may well have to go into debt to keep pace with the Tories, or be forced to curtail their spending during the crucial closing week of the campaign.

Of all the parties, the NDP is least likely to be able to outspend its rivals even in seats where it wins. The fact that it does win despite this handicap suggests that victories can be achieved without expensive campaigns and using traditional volunteer methods. But now that campaigns have been shortened, there will be less time to organize volunteer-intensive campaigns and money will play a larger part in the outcome.

This points to a Conservative advantage which makes it possible for them to outspend their rivals. Corporate contributions to Conservative candidates were a very important part of the 1995 win. Only a complex multivariate analysis can quantify that importance, but reducing corporate donations to the level of that received by the Liberals would certainly have reduced the Tory wins, and may have even stopped the Common Sense Revolution in its tracks. When the financial records for this election become available in the year 2000, the evidence will show that the degree of Tory candidates' reliance on corporate contributions has grown. It will be very difficult for Liberal and NDP candidates to overcome this advantage in the current election.

-30-

For more information on fund-raising by Ontario's political parties see the paper by Robert MacDermid, Funding the Common Sense Revolutionaries: Contributions to the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, 1995-97 on the website www.socialjustice.org.

Robert MacDermid teaches Political Science at York University and is the author of "TV Advertising Campaigns in the 1995 Ontario Election," in Revolution at Queen's Park: Essays on Governing Ontario. Sid Noel, Editor, (Toronto: James Lorimer, 1997). Fred Fletcher teaches political science at York University and is among the co-authors of Government and Politics in Ontario. He has written extensively on election campaigns.

For more information, please contact:

Professor Robert MacDermid
Political Science
York University
(416) 736-5265
(705) 357-2459
rmacd@yorku.ca

Professor Fred Fletcher
Political Science
York University
(416) 736-2100, ext. 88819
ffletch@yorku.ca

Sine MacKinnon
Senior Advisor for Media Relations
York University
(416) 736-2100, ext. 22087
YU/063/99