19/06/2026
Political money is like water.
It never disappears. It simply finds another route.
I was reminded of that while reading a recent Guardian article on political donations.
What caught my attention wasn't the proposal itself but the assumption that changing how money enters politics changes the underlying relationship between money and politics.
It reminded me of a debate from twenty years ago.
Economists have a useful concept called Goodhart's Law. When policymakers target a measure rather than the behaviour they are trying to change, people adapt. The measure changes while the behaviour survives.
The restriction of corporate political gifts is a perfect case study.
It was early 2000 and government was considering both an end to anonymous charitable donations and an end to corporate political giving.
The Conservatives believed restricting corporate money would reduce Liberal buying power during elections.
The Liberals, facing corruption allegations, believed replacing corporate donations with taxpayer-funded grants would appease voters who assumed that if the funding mechanism changed, the relationship between business and politics would change with it.
From where I sat, it was obvious that relationships would outlast the legislation.
My concern was that restricting one mechanism would simply encourage donors to pursue it through different channels.
As restrictions inevitably tightened, I became involved in moving much of the high-net Political Dinner model into the think tank world. What had once been partisan fundraising evolved into award dinners and high-net speaking events.
The format changed, but the participants didn’t.
Business leaders still sponsored tables. Politicians, ministers, and policy influencers still received their invitation. Public policy continued to be discussed and relationships continued to be built. The only change was the name on the cheque.
The latest fiscal returns from some of Canada's largest policy institutions suggest something I don't think government expected when these reforms were introduced.
The Fraser Institute reported more than $16 million in revenue in 2024, roughly $6 million more than a decade earlier. The C.D. Howe Institute reported more than $8 million, also substantially higher than a decade ago. Many other policy organizations report similar results. Add to this the explosion of advocacy organizations and third party advertisers.
I’ve worked with many think tanks and they make an important contribution to public debate. That is not the issue.
The better question is what, really was achieved? If direct political giving is considered problematic because it could influence public policy, why are we so comfortable when much of the same money flows to institutions pursuing many of the same objectives?
Twenty years ago, the debate focused on who could write a cheque.
Today, we should be asking whether it really makes a difference.
As revelations about Reform UK’s donors emerge, it’s clear that increasingly complex forms of patronage can’t be regulated effectively. We need a clean sweep, says columnist George Monbiot
