Money can’t buy happiness, nor, it seems, a seat on the Canadian Wheat Board’s board of directors.
The highest-spending candidate failed to win in three of the five districts that held votes last fall, according to figures recently released by the CWB election co-ordinator.
In districts 1 and 3, winning candidates Art Macklin and Larry Hill outspent their opponents, Macklin by a wide margin and Hill just barely.
But in districts 5, 7 and 9, top spenders Greg Porozni, Mike Halyk and Jim Downey all lost.
Downey, the Melita, Man., farmer and former provincial agriculture minister, led all 22 candidates by spending $16,017 in his unsuccessful campaign to unseat incumbent Bill Nicholson.
Read Also
Farming Smarter receives financial boost from Alberta government for potato research
Farming Smarter near Lethbridge got a boost to its research equipment, thanks to the Alberta government’s increase in funding for research associations.
That actually put him over the $15,000 candidate spending limit laid out in the election regulations, but the CWB has decided not to pursue the issue.
“We have reviewed it and decided that the overage wasn’t sufficient to warrant any legal action,” said CWB chair Ken Ritter.
The board concluded that the overspending was inadvertent and the best way to deal with the matter was simply to make it public.
Under the CWB Act, the board of directors can ask the RCMP to investigate any alleged breach of the board’s regulations.
Penalties can range from a fine of up to $5,000 and two years in jail.
In Downey’s case, the overspending arose after he personally reimbursed $1,017 to a third party intervener that had campaigned on his behalf and found itself short of money.
Election co-ordinator Peter Eckersley of Meyers Norris Penny said that while that money was donated to the third party intervener, which was well under its allowable $10,000 spending limit, it also had to be included in the $15,000 limit on candidate spending.
“In my opinion that $1,017 took him over the $15,00 limit, which was a technical violation of the guidelines,” said Eckersley, adding he doesn’t believe there was any improper intention on Downey’s part.
Downey described the situation as a technicality based strictly on the accounting methods used by the co-ordinator, with which he still disagrees.
“In my estimation we did not overspend,” he said in an interview.
“We were assured we were doing it the way it should be done and the amount of money we spent was still within our limits, so I really can’t see any issue. I have nothing to hide.”
Eckersley said the problem with Downey’s approach is that a well-heeled candidate could theoretically spend $15,000 on his own campaign and also contribute $10,000 to half a dozen third-party interveners without counting it as campaign expense.
“It’s a potential way around the spirit of the regulations,” he said.
An analysis of the election spending report also shows:
- No one dug into his own pocket any deeper than Porozni, who spent $10,713 of his own money in his unsuccessful campaign. Hill spent $7,662 and Nicholson $7,318 in personal funds.
- Downey received the most in donations, receiving $14,650 from 36 contributors. His campaign also received $3,612 from a third party intervener called Saskatchewan Farmers for Jim Downey.
- The nine candidates who opposed the CWB’s single desk status spent $82,221 on their campaigns, while the 13 single desk supporters spent a total of $78,488.
- Leo Meyer of Woking, Alta., won the title of lowest-spending candidate, with total expenses of $48 in district 1.
- Altogether, the 22 candidates spent $160,709, which equalled $5.98 for each of the 26,852 ballots cast.
- The most expensive race was in district 5, with a total of $46,020 spent. Three anti-single desk candidates combined to spend $31,527 in unseating incumbent Mike Halyk, who spent $14,493.
- While the vast majority of the campaign donations came from individual farmers, several organizations also contributed toward the campaigns.
CARE, an acronym standing for choice, accountability, responsibility and efficiency, supported candidates opposed to the wheat board’s monopoly on exports of wheat and barley. It donated $15,270 to anti-single desk candidates. The National Farmers Union and its locals contributed $4,255 to four pro-single desk candidates. The Western Barley Growers Association gave $2,000 to two anti-single desk candidates.
