Free Speech Vsersus Fairness

maplesyrup · February 9, 2004

The Supreme Court is to begin hearing this week into whether or not third parties can spend money during election campaigns.

The people in favour of third party ads say that denying them is an infringement on free speech.

The opponents of third party ads say that they will eliminate fairness in the voting process, as there are spending limits during election campaigns.

I am against these third party ads because it means weatlhy interests like the National Citizen's Coalition will be able to unduly influence the voters, or buy the election.

Non partisan my ass.

What say you?

theWatcher · February 9, 2004

I am against these third party ads because it means weatlhy interests like the National Citizen's Coalition will be able to unduly influence the voters, or buy the election.
Non partisan my ass.

Who says all third party ads come from the "wealthy"? In a free country you should be able to express an opinion.

How does restricting third party ads help promote free speech? How does the new party financing rules serve democracy?

How do you express a personal point of view or a group of like minded individuals now?

Start a new party? Nope, sorry you can't do that. Party financing now occurs based on the number of votes you received in the previous election. What's that? Your party didn't exist in the previous election? That's too bad, you can't get any funds. So sad.

Can your group put an ad together to express their point of view or show an injustice in the world? No, the Liberals want to quash that too. A "rich" group might try to influence something and that's interfering on Liberal turf. They are the only rich group that gets to decide things like that. Oh sure the other three parties can too, but are now severely curtailed because funds are now extremely limited.

We might as well paint the white part of our flag red and put a few stars and a sickle on it.

Michael Hardner · February 9, 2004

Who says all third party ads come from the "wealthy"? In a free country you should be able to express an opinion.
How does restricting third party ads help promote free speech? How does the new party financing rules serve democracy?

The American founding fathers didn't anticipate mass media when they devised the constitution. As such, there's no easy place to categorize it, within the framework of those constitutional rights.

I don't think it's a freedom of speech issue. You are able to express an opinion in this country, but buying up the airwaves to express an unchallenged opinion is a detriment to democracy IMO.

The Reform party didn't get started because someone had a pot of money to spend. It started because of a grassroots movement. It took them a few years to get recognition and respect, but eventually they became the official opposition party.

Would you have the Stronach family purchase the party and run it for their own ends ? Would you have them flood the airwaves with commercials, persuading the party faithful that Harper is unfit to lead ?

These are the types of tactics that work against democracy, and the types of tactics that these laws will hopefully override.

Television advertising isn't conducive to intelligent and open debate. It tends towards emotive, irrational, and one-sided arguments IMO.

maplesyrup · February 9, 2004

I could be wrong but my understanding is that this restriction on third party advertising is only during the election campaign period.

theWatcher · February 9, 2004

Would you have the Stronach family purchase the party and run it for their own ends ?

Well they are already doing that. They don't need any special advertising laws to do it.

Bulk votes, phone in votes by proxy, low numbers in Quebec, means you will end up opposition leader.

You are able to express an opinion in this country, but buying up the airwaves to express an unchallenged opinion is a detriment to democracy IMO.

How can you express an opinion if you can't create a party or advertise? And the government (Liberals) can spend as much as they want and have no limits at all. How is that fair?

Meanwhile the government (Liberals) can spend as much as they want to advertise anything they feel like.

From: Liberals fear worst in Auditor General's report

Conservative MP John Reynolds said, "(Martin) knew what was going on, and it happened under his watch even though he will try to cover it up."
At the heart of the scandal are allegations of misspending by Gagliano's ministry as part of a program to boost the image of the federal government, particularly in Quebec following the narrow result in the 1995 sovereignty referendum.

But critics allege the program was used to reward donors to the Liberal Party of Canada. As much as $100 million went to a handful of advertising firms with close ties to the Liberals.

This is called the golden rule. He who has all of the gold makes the rules.

Michael Hardner · February 9, 2004

Well they are already doing that. They don't need any special advertising laws to do it.
Bulk votes, phone in votes by proxy, low numbers in Quebec, means you will end up opposition leader.

Money alone will not buy you a position of governmental power. Stronach won't win.

How can you express an opinion if you can't create a party or advertise? And the government (Liberals) can spend as much as they want and have no limits at all. How is that fair?

The government can't spend money promoting the Liberal party. At least not legally. The goverment spends money raising public awareness about its programs etc. etc.

Conservative MP John Reynolds said, "(Martin) knew what was going on, and it happened under his watch even though he will try to cover it up."
At the heart of the scandal are allegations of misspending by Gagliano's ministry as part of a program to boost the image of the federal government, particularly in Quebec following the narrow result in the 1995 sovereignty referendum.

But critics allege the program was used to reward donors to the Liberal Party of Canada. As much as $100 million went to a handful of advertising firms with close ties to the Liberals.

This is called the golden rule. He who has all of the gold makes the rules.

If true (and I happen to think that it is) then this is an abuse of power, wouldn't you agree ?

And what is the best way to deal with abuse ? You deal with it.

When the smoke settles on this, we'll have a situation where issues of public policy are debated in the press, at the watercoolers, and on television news programmes not in 30 second TV commercials.

This can only be good for the quality of debate in society.