In 2003-ish, Canada abolished corporate and union donations to political parties. To make up for the loss of revenue, a subsidy was created. During every election, each party would be given $2 for every vote it received. In 2008, and again in 2011, the Conservative party is trying to abolish this subsidy. Economic reasons for abolishing the subsidy are largely rubbish as only $30m is spent on this subsidy, so this argument is entirely ideological. Personally, I prefer the subsidy to remain as it is, how it is.
First off, there's an idea of money attraction. Certain ideologies appeal more to the poor and certain moreso to the rich. Not all parties attract the same proportion of people from all income categories, so a per vote subsidy allows these disparities to be partially neutralized. Parties whose ideology appeals more to the rich will undoubtedly raise more money, but this subsidy makes the "poor man's ideology" more viable and active on the political stage. Just because an idea is not economic doesn't mean it's not important. In the Canadian arts scene, subsidies are doled out on precisely this basis, with a fair amount of success, so a similar trend ought to remain in place in the political theatre.
The per-vote subsidy allows the partial neutralization of an inherent problem in Canada's first-past-the-post system. Canada is divided into geographical districts and that carries with it some voting trends. In the prairies, a majority of voters support the conservatives so almost every district in the prairies goes to the conservatives. While there is nothing wrong with voting conservative, the set up of this system disenfranchises non-conservative voters in districts where no change in party MP has happened in decade, which demotivates people to vote. Having a subsidy in place where your vote means your party of choice gets money as a result of your vote ensures that all votes "count". Your party will be poorer if you stay at home. With the abolition of the subsidy, that motivation to vote is removed, and voter turn out is worse off for it.
Although it may seem easy to vote and then give your $2 personally to your party of choice, that's not how all people work and it is unfair to punish those who do not individually contribute. Conservatives run on a basic psychological platform of individual responsibility rather than collective action, which explains why conservative platforms usually place more emphasis on uninterrupted economic activity (where the individual flourishes and is responsible for his own successes) and less on social programs (where the group takes care of an individual, even if he has "failed"). Progressive and liberal voters tend to be more the other way around, to varying degrees. The reason these characteristics matter is that abolishing the per-vote subsidy would create a system where party fundraising is dependent largely on individual responsibility, which unfairly favours the right. There are still tax breaks and a few other government mechanisms that contribute to party coffers, but those only kick in AFTER individual responsibility, whereas the per-vote subsidy kicks in BEFORE individual responsibility. Whereas private donations cater to individual responsibility, the per vote subsidy caters to collective action, so it is unfair to promote one group over the other.
In short, politics costs money, and $30m keeps this issue as ideological, not economical. While no subsidy is perfect, the per-vote subsidy does a lot of good to the Canadian political scene in that it gives all parties a minimum amount of spotlight potential (i.e. TV ads and radio commercials cost money, so some money is required), so it lets the left compete with the right on a more active basis. This subsidy does not harm the right, but aids the left. Since there is no net harm, this subsidy should remain in place.
