Obviously the election campaign would have looked much different had the parties not had any corporate backing. Removing corporate backing would be to no party's benefit. Unless the party didn't even bother starting with it.

Imagine a party that doesn't pander to corporations. That party will only seek to connect to the individuals that could actually vote for them. Some people say I have a vivid imagination, but I hope this one is not so far-fetched as to never see it happen.

We've heard the outcry from opposition parties looking for electoral finance reform. However, if you truly want to make a difference, do as Ghandi suggested. Be the change. Any party who truly believes in the need for a ban on corporate donations needs to start with themselves, and not accept corporate donations. Not now, not ever.

Honestly, it's not the only change in our electoral financing that require change. We also need fixed election dates, not this ridiculous 90-day window thing. Along with those fixed election dates should be fixed MLA raises. Any raises that MLAs vote for could not apply to them, but must apply to the next group of MLAs. It provides stability of funding, and incentive to work hard so they can come back in 4 years.

We also need to get rid of the first-past-the-post system in favor of a system that makes every vote count, not just half of them. I know that my vote didn't elect my current MLA (Danielle Smith), nor did it have much influence on it except to say "I'm in the 48% of my constituency who didn't want you." If we had proportional representation across the province, we'd be looking at 38 PC seats, 30 WRP seats, 9 seats for each Liberal and NDP, and 1 Alberta Party seat – a minority government. Given that only 57% of Albertans voted, PCs really only won the support of one-quarter of Albertans. We could easily assume that more than 25% of Albertans' votes would actually be heard if we had proportional representation, or some model thereof.

Alberta's current electoral system is built for controversy. It's built so that the tail can wag the dog, so that issues that matter to the governance of the province get marginalized while the media buzzes around the latest filibuster. Even worse, the Speaker, thus far, seems to have little interest in keeping party politics out of the legislature, meaning that we actually delay even more productivity in the government's operations. If the Speaker did care, he wouldn't have waited four days to tell MLAs spouting off party rhetoric to shove it.

It's time to fix it.

And the party that will actually have a chance to do so is the one who starts modeling it now. I am calling for all parties to support significant electoral reform, not just electoral finance reform. Of course, I have a political party of preference, but if every party jumps on this, it will guarantee the change we need.

However, you can't just say you support it. You have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. Now, which political party will stop accepting corporate donations first, proving themselves to really be for the people?

The Opposition Parties have been spending most of their time in Question Period discussing party politics. Rightly so, the Speaker of the House is finally starting to shut it down.

Somebody needs to teach the Speaker about classroom management.

However, an interesting thought came to me when the suggestion of banning corporate donations to electoral campaigns. The theory is that if an entity is unable to vote, they should have no financial say in how the vote can turn out.

What would have happened in the last election if those pesky corporate donors weren't permitted to donate anything at all? After studying the documents on file with Elections Alberta, the following numbers result. This assumes that none of each party's donations under $375 were corporate, which is a big assumption, but probably not an unfair one.

Instead of raising almost $3 million, the Wildrose Party would have only raised $2.2 million. Albertans apparently believe in them so much they are willing to pay them the same amount it would cost to help Northern Alberta recover from the 2011 wildfires. I wonder if they would have been able to rewrap the "Boob Bus" without their corporate donors, though.

The Progressive Conservatives would have raised $1 million less, and would have only pocketed $500,000. Their deficit would have ballooned to $4.1 million instead. An indicator of how much they depend on corporations, perhaps, and not out of reason to expect the same behavior in government.

The NDP, having only raised just over $500,000 themselves, would still have made off with $380,000. That would have left them with a $300,000 deficit. Without unions backing them in an organized way, they too would be having challenges with balancing the books.

The Liberals would have lost over half of their donations, dropping from their $106,000 to a mere $44,000. This is interesting, considering I just received a document indicating the Liberals have long advocated for a ban on corporate donations.

The Alberta Party would have lost only $8,000 of its donations, and would have stayed at $29,000. Not a large sum, but certainly the corporate donations impacted them, too.

If we assume that the Alberta Party could run 35 candidates at $29,000 ($830/candidate), and this rate were transferrable to other parties, the Liberals would have only been able to run 53 candidates.

Foregoing individual campaigns, $2 million would have been taken out of the electoral equation.

In the party leaders' personal campaigns, Danielle Smith would have run a deficit in her Highwood constituency after losing over $27,000 in donations. Alison Redford, who came out with a surplus of $100,000, would have had that cut in half. Raj Sherman would have lost one-third of his contributions, and Glenn Taylor would have lost only one-sixth of his. Nobody donated specifically to Brian Mason's campaign. For the leaders alone, $100,000 of contributions would have not been handed out.

There are a number of conclusions people can draw from these numbers. First, the Wildrose had lots of individual sponsors with either deep pockets or high hopes. The PCs did not have the financial support of individuals. The NDP have challenges without the support of unions. The Liberal party, who touts banning corporate donations, couldn't survive without them. Aside from the Wildrose, the Alberta Party is the only other party that showed consistent grassroots financial support.

Obviously the election campaign would have looked much different had the parties not had any corporate backing. Removing corporate backing would be to no party's benefit. Unless the party didn't even bother starting with it.

In the past five years, 55 people have died on Highway 63. It is a fact. It is not a commentary that was created for political gain.But somebody hasn't told Alison Redford's Communications office that.

I'm not one to support the Wildrose regularly, but when they called for increased enforcement on Highway 63, I didn't argue because it is in fact a need.

Then Redford's Communications office tweets that Minister of Justice Jonathan Denis stated that the Wildrose wanted a reduction in enforcement.

Come on, Redford, I know when someone's pissing on my boots and calling it a rainstorm.

They justify the claim by saying that the Wildrose wanted less than what the PCs put together. Shayne Saskiw co-authored a report a few days ago recommending AT LEAST 8 officers get placed on the death-stretch. Denis was happy to announce 16 new officers, and said that 8 was a reduction from what the PCs put in place.

I don't know what kind of math the PCs are running, but a Kindergarten student could explain to them that a minimum is not a maximum, 8 is still more than 0, and is not a reduction.

No wonder Raj called it a "fudge-it budget".

But what Denis doesn't realize is that he has just played politics with 55 people's lives. 55 people have died. 19 kilometres of highway have been twinned in an effort to stop this slaughter. And the PCs are comparing the size of their ... commitment.

The last time a political official in Alberta tried to use the lives of others for political gain, the backlash was swift. Just ask Danielle Smith, and her suggestion to "let them eat tainted meat", as it were.

Enough of the gamesmanship. Unless the PCs get their priorities straight, we run the risk of having another 55 people die in the time they've committed to.

Stop using these peoples' lives as a way of trying to gain political points. You're already in office.

For now.

How many hotel rooms can $114,000 buy?Even an inexpensive hotel room in Alberta could run around $114/night, so we would be looking at 1000 hotel-nights. In London, England during the 2012 Olympics, if you booked at the height of demand at $400/night, you'd be looking at around 285 hotel-nights.

That's 285 hotel-nights, booked when demand was highest, never used, and paid for by the Alberta Government.

The trip to London was supposed to be a diplomatic mission; bring awareness of Alberta, its culture, its economic promise, yada yada, to the rest of the world.

Instead, the trip showed to the rest of the world that we have so much money, we can blow it on empty hotel rooms. Or even worse, that we are exceptionally poor at fiscal management, so you should not invest in us.

Premier Alison Redford says that it's not her fault. When her predecessor, Ed Stelmach booked the trip, he booked it for too many people, and the London hotels couldn't resell them.

Steady Eddy must be very familiar with the underside of a bus by now.

So rather than bring the delegation back up to numbers that could use the hotel rooms, the decision was to keep the delegation smaller than originally planned by Eddy, thereby "saving" $123,000 instead, according to Tourism Minister Christine Cusanelli.

Fine. I'll go along with the savings of expenses and air travel. But I will not go along with wasted hotel space. The message that sends to Albertans is "your money is worthless", and to others around the world, it says "we don't need your money".

Instead, use the error to your advantage.

London, England has a homelessness issue. Albeit not a large one, but it is an issue for them nonetheless.

What kind of message would it have sent if Albertans took 285 people off the street for just one night each? What kind of message would it have sent if these 285 people had soft pillows, nights away from car horns or fog, a warm shower, and a continental breakfast for them in the morning?

I would suggest it would not say "we are fiscally incompetent" or "we don't need your money". I would suggest it would make a far more positive statement about Alberta and Albertans.

It would say we are world-class. And it would be right.