maplesyrup Posted May 19, 2004 Author Report Posted May 19, 2004 Keeping a level playing field Federal Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is the immediate political loser of yesterday's Supreme Court decision to uphold spending controls on third-party election advertising Chantal goes on to talk about the corporate community being involved in the free-trade debate. What a huge mistake that was. Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France
Black Dog Posted May 19, 2004 Report Posted May 19, 2004 The NCC claims to have 40,000 members. The CTF claims to be non partisan and has 61,000 members. I would be interested in the detailed lists of millionaire members you no doubt can present of either or both these groups. The NCC will not disclose its membership. But it was founded by Ontario insurance millionaire Colin M. Brown and is currently headed by his son. A clue as to who the NCC represents can be found in the list of those who who have been awarded the NCC's Colin M. Brown Freedom Medal, which reads like a who's who of right wing luminaries: Conrad Black, Peter Worthington, Ted Byfield, David Somerville, Mike Harris, Ralph Klein, John Crosbie, Thomas Bata, Michael Walker and Diane Francis. As for the CTF: yeah, they'r enon-partisan only in the sense that the only party they support are themselves. Your fear that somehow or other third party advertising is going to benefit the rich, most of whom are already huge corporate backers of the Liberals, or in some cases the Tories, seems quite - well, quaint. Third party advertising is generally done by groups representing tens of thousands of people, be they the NCC and CTF or various labour unions. Rich people don't need to conduct advertising. They do their business in the back rooms. No doubt, but back-room bargains still need a modicum of public support before thet become policy. Take a look at the early 80's campaign to cut inflation (which, at the time, was already at a reasonable and managable level). We had corporations, shareholders and Bay Street lobbying the Bank of Canada to jack interest rates. This was followed by a public campaign to convince people that the debt was spiralling out of control and that massive cuts were needed. The public bought it, interest rates jumped, and the country plunged into a recession which took years to recover from. ? Who is equal to whom here? By this law only the politicians can really engage in advertising, and only to certain preset limits. Everyone knows the Liberals are sitting on a gigantic mint of cash that they are going to use to pour advertising out into every possible mediam ad nauseum once the election starts, completely overwhelming not just what the other parties can afford to spend but what they are allowed to spend. That big pot of cash came, as everyone knows, from rich corporate backers who are expecting (and will get) payback after the election. No indignation on your part about that, just a demand they not be interfered with by any third parties. I'm curious: what is the CPC's policy vis a vis corporate donations? I somehow doubt they don't have their collective head in the through right next to the Grits. Indeed, I'm all in favor of campaign finance reform. The Grits and Cons are turning into the Canadian equivilant of the Democrats and Republicans: both represent the same interests and pursue similar policies, but with different rhetorical twists. If this Supreme Court decision were applied to the US election, would Michael Moore's new film "Fahrenheit 9/11" be allowed? (He spent more than $150,000 to make it.) Yes, as its not advertising. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Argus Posted May 20, 2004 Report Posted May 20, 2004 As to my analogy the public has a finite appetite for election advertising. They will not listen to endless amounts it. They will hear what is adveritsed most often in the most popular forum, (the loudest voice). If it is controlled so that everyone has a small but equal portion it will be a discussion among equals. Furthermore don't we want to hear what the politicans think on issues from their own mouth or do we want the spin?!? Time to dumb up the political debate in this country (to say pre TV days) and 30 sec. "Paul Martin has stolen your money" ads won't do that. We elect politions based on what they have to say not on what someone else says the said. Election advertising is dumb and simple minded, and it is NEVER the politicians or would-be politicians talking about what they want or believe. Surely you realize it is done by teams of ad agency people combined with party spin doctors. They decide what the ads will be, and, in the event they have a politician actually on the camera, they decide the background, write the speech, tell them how to say it, what expression to have on their face, and what clothes to have on their backs. Do I want to hear what politicians think out of their own mouths? I'd love to! But that's not going to happen, on TV advertising or anywhere else. Dumb up the political debate!? How could it get any dumber! This is going to be another mudslinger of a campaign, with the issues on the back burner. Besides, are we going to believe anything any of them say about the issues anyway? Dalton McGuinty anyone? Examine the limits set. A total of $150,000. The Liberal Party has already spent $4 million on pre election advertising! You fear they're going to be drowned out by some third party? If you really want to keep third parties from overwhelming people you could at least set a reasonable limit for spending, as the chief justice said. But that didn't happen. Instead the limit was set so low that no third party can make any reasonable attempt to get its message across to the masses. This is not a law meant to keep third parties from overwhelming people with advertising. This is a law to silence third parties. BTW, I find it interesting that of the 4 non Quebec/Francophone judges, three voted against this law. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted May 20, 2004 Report Posted May 20, 2004 well, reality. - YOUR- money? Uh, no, it's not. This my absolute favorite argument. If I give my money to the federal government (expecting services in return) it is my money and I am told to be indignant that it is taken from me. If I give it to Telus (expecting services), it is not my money and Telus can do whatever they want with, (oh wait I can not have a phone right). WTF is the difference? Because I elect one and the other is 'private?' Companies do not exist for their own sake, they exist for the sake of their customers, their employees and their owners. The company must be subservant to the individual. They have no 'buisness' advocating any sort of political position, (and no neither do unions). Absurd. The obvious difference between your "giving" money to a government and to a private company is that you are forced to give money to the government. No one is forcing you to get a cell phone or get it from Telus. They are a private company and they are responsible only to themselves. They can do anything they want with their money provided they provide you with the services you pay for. Private companies do not exist for your benefit or their employees. They belong to their owners. And the management is responsible only for doing their best to increase the value and return on their owners' investment. If that means lobbying politicians to get laws which favour them, then that's what they should do. I have no problem with the pharmaceutical companies lobbying for higher prices. I have a problem with crooked governments giving in to them. The politicians are paid to do what is in OUR best interest just as the lobby firms are paid to do what is in their customers best interst and the company management is paid to do what is in the owners' best interests. The only problem is the breakdown with the politicians, who don't give a damn about us when it comes to doing what's best for THEM instead. And you solve that problem by not voting for crooked, dishonest, unethical politicians like Paul Martin and Jean Chretien. Then the politicians will not betray us because it won't be in THEIR best interests to do so. Keep voting for politicians who lie to you and you get what you deserve - corrupt, dishonest governments. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
August1991 Posted May 20, 2004 Report Posted May 20, 2004 BTW, I find it interesting that of the 4 non Quebec/Francophone judges, three voted against this law. The three dissenters were all appointed by Mulroney. The six of the majority were Chretien appointees. In fairness though, the dissent was not on principle but rather that the sum ($150,000) was too small. What is happening here is that the State is becoming closely involved in the political process. The State now solely finances parties (amounts based on past electoral success). With this decision, the State will exclude all forms of non-Party advertising (defined as Elections Canada wants). The next step will be for the State to get involved in the operations of political parties. (e.g. how leaders or candidates at riding level are selected). This will be justified to ensure transparency, equal opportunity and "diversity". Many Canadians may well agree with the noble intent. But in effect, this will remove all originality from the electoral process. This is Soviet bureaucratic boring. And this is precisely what the Liberals want: the status quo. Quote
Black Dog Posted May 20, 2004 Report Posted May 20, 2004 What is happening here is that the State is becoming closely involved in the political process. The State now solely finances parties (amounts based on past electoral success). With this decision, the State will exclude all forms of non-Party advertising (defined as Elections Canada wants). All parties should be funded equally. Individuals should be allowed to dionate to their party of choice with set limits on how much they can give. The next step will be for the State to get involved in the operations of political parties. (e.g. how leaders or candidates at riding level are selected). This will be justified to ensure transparency, equal opportunity and "diversity Funny. That's sort of what Stephen Harper wants to do: Link. According to Harper's plan, a Conservative government would introduce permanent party membership lists similar to the voter registration list in the United States. Under the scheme, Canadians would voluntarily sign themselves up on a national list as members of a particular party. Only those registered would be eligible to vote in party nominations or leadership races. As well, Harper would allow Canadians to designate a small amount of their taxes to the federal party of their choice. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
August1991 Posted May 20, 2004 Report Posted May 20, 2004 If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Harper is shrewd. And at least it won't be the Liberals setting up the system. But frankly, the bureaucracy all this would create would be horrific. This is a road nobody in their right mind should want to go down. But we've started down it already. It's the natural conclusion. Quote
August1991 Posted May 20, 2004 Report Posted May 20, 2004 The federation announced plans to embark on a cross-country tour through 40 communities during the election campaign in order to push for the return of half of federal gas tax revenue to municipalities and to advocate lower gas taxes. Can they do that? Can they spend money organizing meetings? Renting halls? How will they advertise their meetings? G & M CTF Plans A bad law is one that invites non-compliance. Quote
DAC Posted May 27, 2004 Report Posted May 27, 2004 Let’s talk about little people, like me. Or am I rich because I own half of home, maybe? Here’s the gag issue. If 30,001 people each spend $5 on a front yard sign that reads “Vote for democracy, Vote against the Liberals”, they become criminals liable to up to five years in prison. If 601 people in any given riding do this, they become criminals. If a citizen or group of citizens of any size seeks to get an issue related to any political party before the broad public in an effective way, during the election campaign, that citizen or group of citizens risks being imprisoned for up to five years. The Liberal policy is clearly “government for the politicians, by the politicians, and of the politicians”. This is not just against rich people. It's against anybody who wants to express his opinion in a way that makes it heard by a meaningful number of people. Quote
idealisttotheend Posted May 27, 2004 Report Posted May 27, 2004 If 30,001 people each spend $5 on a front yard sign that reads “Vote for democracy, Vote against the Liberals”, they become criminals liable to up to five years in prison. If 601 people in any given riding do this, they become criminals. I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me this is only true if these people pay $5 into an organization which then makes the signs and distributes them. If you make such a sign and I (and 30,000 other people) buy the sign and choose to display it then it's perfectly legal. It's against anybody who wants to express his opinion in a way that makes it heard by a meaningful number of people. Can you really express your opinion in a 30sec television spot? Wouldn't it be better to express your opinion in such a fashion where the target audience can express their's back? Perhaps a useful amendment to this law would be to make it legal to spend money on advertising public meetings where everyone can express their opinions and not just listen to the opinions of those who can raise the most money. Quote All too often the prize goes, not to who best plays the game, but to those who make the rules....
August1991 Posted May 27, 2004 Report Posted May 27, 2004 Election advertising is defined in section 319 of the Canada Elections Act. "Election advertising" may be interpreted as a message that is:-transmitted by any means during an election -transmitted to any person or persons with whom the originator of the message does not have some common cause or connection, and -is intended to influence how an elector might vote, by promoting or opposing a registered party or the election of a candidate, including one that takes a position on an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated. Canada Elections Act Section 319 If you pulled the lawn sign stunt, this is the Elections Canada form you would have to complete. I am of the opinion that if the US had the same election law we have in Canada, Michael Moore would not be able to show his film "Fahrenheit 9/11". [bTW, this point has been debated in a different thread of this forum.] Can you really express your opinion in a 30sec television spot?In all honesty, the only person who should answer that question is an individual viewer.The drafters of the US constitution, a product of the Enlightenment, seem to have understood that idea better than many alive today. Quote
DAC Posted May 27, 2004 Report Posted May 27, 2004 I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me this is only true if these people pay $5 into an organization which then makes the signs and distributes them. If you make such a sign and I (and 30,000 other people) buy the sign and choose to display it then it's perfectly legal. I'm not a lawyer, either, but I read the Supreme Court's decision fairly carefully. Part of the law is that if people collude to avoid the limits, that is if they do the same thing independently to get past the legal limits, they are held guilty. If all the people came up on their own with different signs to the same effect, it might be impossible to convict them under the law, but the group effort is clearly denied by the law. Any combination of people who are not working as a registered political party (read 50 nominated candidates) who individually or together spend $3,001 per riding or $150,001 throughout the country on the same issue identified with any party, are liable to be convicted under the elections act - and it's a criminal offence. Are there 20,000 or 30,000 of you who will join me in challenging that attack on citizens participation in the election? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.