If there’s one constant in Canadian politics, it’s that all new federal governments have campaigned successfully on the ethics issue and, as a corollary, that all governments are voted out on one.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau might want to give that little truism some thought before the House of Commons reconvenes on Jan. 30. He also might want to remember that most political scandals do not stem from an actual transgression. They are caused by political mismanagement that an enterprising reporter can, and will, exploit.

Perhaps if Trudeau had given the ethics ticket some thought before shooting his mouth off during the most recent election campaign about governing under the highest ethical standards and avoiding any appearance of conflict of interest, he wouldn’t be in the political mess he’s in now over the so-called “cash for access” affair.

All political parties have to raise money to feed the democratic process, and often that means with methods some of us may find odious. Let’s be clear: charging people $1,500 to munch with the prime minister is quite legal, and anybody who thinks that kind of price tag is going to get them a favour from a government – or even get the prime minister to remember his or her name – is naive. All parties do functions like these; those who attend go to be seen or to get their yearly donation over with to avoid receiving an annoying telemarketing call.

Cash for access may be far from critical for this government’s survival, but the uproar certainly is a pain in the prime ministerial posterior that will cost political capital if not shut down soon in 2017.

And the practice probably will be. Watch for Trudeau to follow the example of Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and announce the end of $1,500-a-plate dinners with cabinet ministers. And watch for the federal Liberals to float the idea of a return to direct per-vote subsidies, which the previous prime minister took away from political parties in 2011.

That will be a lesson for Canadians. If we really want “goody two-shoes” politics, we will have pay for it. From there, the cash-for-access story will begin to lose its legs.

Sure, the Opposition parties will howl in outrage, but there will be a limit to how much hypocrisy the public will tolerate.

This is particularly true regarding the Conservatives, as they had to plead guilty under the Elections Canada Act for advertising spending fraud in 2012. And, oh yes, a Tory cabinet minister, Peter Penashue, had to quit for breaking just about every rule in campaign spending in 2011. Then there was Dean Del Mastro, formerly parliamentary secretary to the prime minister, did jail time for election expense fraud in 2008.

When the uproar is all over, Trudeau will have learned from a rookie mistake in his first election as Liberal Party leader.

Perhaps Canadians and the media who serve them can do some thinking, too, beginning with a look southward at the state of politics in the Indicted States of America, where political donations rule. This is what we need to prevent.

Political parties and the elected officials they represent are separate entities. Related but separate.

One concentrates on fundraising and keeping a ground team in place; the other concentrates on governing – or opposing, as the case may be.

The two entities don’t know what each other is doing. Certainly, we don’t know what goes on in the backrooms.

This is likely why former prime minister Stephen Harper replaced his highly successful election-management team of 2011 with his own apparatchiks in 2015. Conservative members of Parliament were just as rattled as the voters were by the robo-call scandal.

The people in charge of keeping the campaign infrastructure in shape usually are volunteers who often have to come up with workarounds to deal with regulations imposed by elected officials. These volunteers often feel unappreciated and have to be appeased.

What’s astonishing is that Canadians and their media focus on what the elected officials are doing, not on the backroom operatives who usually don’t have to account for their actions.

It’s too bad there was never a royal commission to look into what went on in the campaign rooms of the 2011 election. At a minimum, Canadians would gain more comprehensive and pragmatic knowledge of how politics really works.

© 2017 Investment Executive. All rights reserved.