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.