Court rulung on ads coming

[maplesyrup]

Court ruling on ads coming

Stephen Harper, now Conservative leader, launched the appeal four years ago when he was head of the National Citizens Coalition, a conservative lobby group. It challenges limits brought in by the federal Liberals just before the 2000 election campaign.

The law says special-interest groups may spend up to $3,000 per riding and up to $150,000 in total promoting political views during a general election. The limit means, in practical terms, that groups may only spend up to $3,000 in 50 ridings. Canada now has 308 ridings.

Registered special interest groups must also submit financial reports showing contributions and advertising expenses to the Chief Electoral Officer.

If the limits are struck down by the court, groups such as drug firms, tobacco companies and labour unions will be able to advertise freely in the campaign.

Harper is alone among the four leaders of the major political parties to sign a pledge circulated by the coalition to scrap the law if elected.

Yesterday, a spokesperson for the National Citizens Coalition said "free election speech" hinges on the high court ruling.

This is strictly about the rich and powerful trying to control election outcomes promoted by the Conservative leader Stephen Harper. Who did Harper say he represented again?

Free speech issue my ass.

Canadians want a level playing field during their elections, and thank goodness that Chretien brought in the new election fonancing act.

[Hugo]

This is strictly about the rich and powerful trying to control election outcomes

You mean like the gay-rights lobby groups? They've launched a very blatant attempt to influence the outcome of the next election, far more so than any rich man or corporation.

[maplesyrup]

And how is that?

[Hugo]

See here.

[maplesyrup]

So a gut rights group is going to publicize how MPS voted on issues dealing with sexuality. What's wrong with that?

I know in the US, and in Canada as well now, groups track voting records of politicians and publicize their track record prior to elections. I find that kind of information quite helpful, don't you?

I mean if someone is anti-gay I would want to know about that person's intolerance, in order to not to vote for that person.

[Hugo]

What's wrong with that?

You tell me. You started a thread by saying, "this is strictly about the rich and powerful trying to control election outcomes" as though it were a bad thing. Here I have given you an example of a rich and powerful group (gay-rights groups are extremely well-funded and, outside of trade unions, probably the most influential groups in Canada) that has deliberately and blatantly set out to control election outcomes, and you say, so what?

Are you recanting your initial contention?