Have you called the police yet? Why not? You were mugged this week in broad daylight courtesy all in the name of democracy. The suspect who perpetuated this crime against Canadian taxpayers lives at 24 Sussex Drive and his accomplices and co-conspirators can be found in the House of Commons.

On Wednesday, Bill C-24, the Prime Minister's controversial (can you say understatement?) political finance reform passage passed third reading in the House and is now heading East down the hall through Centre Block for a pit-stop in the Senate. After a quick tune-up vote, it's off to the Governor General for Royal Assent, and then it becomes law.

Bill C-24 bans union and business donations to political parties and leadership campaigns but still allows limited donations to individual candidates. To make up for the lost income, taxpayers will now subsidize 90% of the budgets (up from 50% presently) of all registered political parties on an annual basis based on the number of votes each party received in the last federal election. The National Post aptly dubbed C-24 as the Incumbency Protection Act.

The theory behind Bill C-24 is that business and union money corrupt the political process and sour public perceptions of politicians and the institutions of government.
The evidence for this is tenuous at best.

But C-24 was conveniently hatched as political cover for a Prime Minister who was (and still is) badly tainted by the Shawinigate golf-course, Auberge Grand Mere scandal. It was also hatched to deflect attention from a government that is still reeling from the stench of corruption allegations for everything from the GroupAction photocopying for big bucks fiasco to severe problems with the federal sponsorship program to seeing six Ministers resign or be shifted - not to mention appointed to Denmark - from their portfolios for dalliances such as contracts to old girlfriends to lost vacation cheques in the church collection plate to bullying of crown corporation bureaucrats trying to sell federal surplus lands.

Even if money buying undue influence was the problem, then simply end the addiction to business and union cash as opposed to replacing it with the equally appealing narcotic free taxpayer cash.

Starting in 2004, each political party will receive $1.75 annually for each vote received in the last election. The money is supposed to be doled out in increments of 58.33 cents each quarter, but a last minute change to C-24 will see the first amounts handed out in lump sums to the parties next year.

This benefits the Liberals immensely. Just after New Year's Day, a cool $9,191.954.25 will be dumped into party coffers courtesy of you and me based on 5,252,031 votes garnered in 2000 election. This money will arrive just in time to eliminate the party's debt and replenish money that sought out the Manley, Copps and Martin leadership campaigns.

In fairness, all other parties in the house will also make off like bandits. The Canadian Alliance and PCs (both parties opposed C-24) will net $5.7 million and $2.7 million respectively. The Bloc bank account will bulge by $2.4 million and the NDP will get $1.9 million. Bill C-24 also includes more generous tax credit provisions - now making it ten times more tax advantageous to give to a political party as opposed to a charity, shame - and lower thresholds for political candidates to qualify for taxpayer reimbursement of their expenses.

So in an election year, we will now fork out an extra $42.4 million to political parties and other entities (increased tax credits, more Elections Canada costs) and $29 million in non-election years. And these payments will be indexed to inflation.

Sadly, this bill will do nothing to reduce public cynicism toward political financing or politics in general. In fact, it will likely have the opposite effect. With taxpayers now set to foot 90% of the bill for political machines, the incentive for politicians to come down from the Hill and meet with us in our constituencies and see the whites of our eyes is further minimized. Money will now flow automatically to the party, why bother going out to work for it b?

On this point I write from experience because this is how we raise money, city after city, meeting by meeting, face to face, and eyeball to eyeball. And make no mistake about it; there is a great deal of personal and organizational accountability that stems from this process.

And to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, to compel an individual to fund views that s/he abhors, is tyrannical. Indeed it is. The inevitable passage of C-24 into law will erode democracy, not enhance it. Public cynicism will remain and the only thing alleviated will be the weight of our wallets.

There goes the Prime Minister … "hey, stop that man, he took my wallet."