Time to ban third party advertising in Ontario

[Scotty]

I admit I had not really realized how much money was being put into third party advertising before. I know it's illegal at the federal level and do not follow provincial politics as closely. But the intervention of the OPP union in taking out anti-Tory ads in support of their enormous salaries and guaranteed increases caught my attention, as did this column by John Ivison.

Spending by third parties often dwarfs that of the official parties. In the Kitchener-Waterloo byelection in 2012, the teachers’ unions spent $1.5-million on anti-Hudak ads, compared with $370,00 by the Liberals and PCs combined. - Ivison

I find that shocking and unacceptable that third party advertising, who are mainly public service unions, are far outspending the official parties in political advertising during elections.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/06/02/john-ivison-if-opp-unions-attack-on-hudak-is-not-illegal-it-is-at-least-unprofessional/

[Shady]

I disagree. Third party ads are free speech. The real culrpit is the racket that is public employees using money they get from supportive politicians to keep or elect said supportive politicans. In exchange, the politicans pay the public employees what they seek.

[Michael Hardner]

Free speech has nothing to do with purchased common communication channels with limited access- like television and radio. The purpose of protecting free speech is free flow of ideas, and mass advertising works against that purpose.

Political discussion on the backs of mass advertising alienates people, IMO. If you're not aligned with the interests that pay for these messages then who speaks for you ?

[overthere]

It is always instructive to know who your enemies are, and it is very kind of public unions to identify themselves like this.

[waldo]

I know it's illegal at the federal level and do not follow provincial politics as closely.

not illegal: per Canada Elections Act... "third party" means a person or a group, other than a candidate, registered party or electoral district association of a registered party."

350. (1) A third party shall not incur election advertising expenses of a total amount of more than $150,000 during an election period in relation to a general election.

[Scotty]

I disagree. Third party ads are free speech. The real culrpit is the racket that is public employees using money they get from supportive politicians to keep or elect said supportive politicans. In exchange, the politicans pay the public employees what they seek.

We've seen how third party advertising in the states has turned politicians into whores at the trough and poisoned public debate. We don't need that happening here, and it looks like that is precisely what has happened in Ontario, with government uinons greatly increasing their advertising, in support of the Liberals, and in response getting fat pay increases by the Liberals.

And it doesn't look any better when corporations and billionaires do it.

[cybercoma]

Third parties have a spending limit during the election campaign. Does that mean they can run unlimited "information ads" outside of election campaigns like the Conservatives do?

[Scotty]

Third parties have a spending limit during the election campaign. Does that mean they can run unlimited "information ads" outside of election campaigns like the Conservatives do?

What spending limit? And the tories are not the only part which runs ads outside elections. The federal Liberals are running ads now.

[cybercoma]

None of them should. Period.

[jacee]

Free speech has nothing to do with purchased common communication channels with limited access- like television and radio. The purpose of protecting free speech is free flow of ideas, and mass advertising works against that purpose.

Michael, I'm very disappointed.

Free speech and freedom of association ... Of course we are free to collectively speak out via mass communication, advertising, however we like.

Your statement is absolutely ridiculous.

Political discussion on the backs of mass advertising alienates people, IMO. If you're not aligned with the interests that pay for these messages then who speaks for you ?

Anyone you like ... or you can speak for yourself.

Again, ridiculous statement.

.

[jacee]

This is quite bizarre:

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.2661984

"If people start to think they favour one party over another, it raises a whole host of concerns about civil liberties, due process and favouritism."

Pilon called the union's move "quite striking," because police are often aligned with conservative governments and parties.

So ... it's ok that everybody knows that the police are usually Conservative supporters.

But it's not ok for them to criticize a Conservative.

Hunh?!

.

[Scotty]

Michael, I'm very disappointed.

Free speech and freedom of association ... Of course we are free to collectively speak out via mass communication, advertising, however we like.

Your statement is absolutely ridiculous.

That is the Tea Party position, of course, it is the position which has allowed third parties, mostly wealthy people and corporate lobby groups, to spend fortunes on US election campaigns. We don't want that sort of thing here. Would you like to allow corporations and wealthy people to spend as much money as they want on third part advertising during elections?

Edited June 3, 2014 by Scotty

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, I'm very disappointed.

Free speech and freedom of association ... Of course we are free to collectively speak out via mass communication, advertising, however we like.

Your statement is absolutely ridiculous.

What commercials are you running right now ?

Anyone you like ... or you can speak for yourself.

Again, ridiculous statement.

.

Explain why television commercials are "speech". They're not - and this campaign shows why television is a terrible medium for political engagement.

[Michael Hardner]

Would you like to allow corporations and wealthy people to spend as much money as they want on third part advertising during elections?

Good point.

Also, what about people whose interests are not aligned with those who can afford to purchase airtime ? Where is their commercial ?

[jacee]

Shouldn't these two threads be merged?

[bush_cheney2004]

That is the Tea Party position, of course, it is the position which has allowed third parties, mostly wealthy people and corporate lobby groups, to spend fortunes on US election campaigns. We don't want that sort of thing here.....

Then you don't want real freedom of expression and political speech...just Charter pretenders.

[jacee]

Explain why television commercials are "speech".

Now you're just being obtuse, but correct in the sense that we have freedom of expression in many forms, not just speech:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/CONST/page-15.html#h-39

Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;( freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

© freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

I get that you are really disturbed by the OPPA ad, but I think you need to think through your arguments more carefully.

[Argus]

Then you don't want real freedom of expression and political speech...just Charter pretenders.

The ideal for elections is that all should have a reasonably similiar chance to put their platforms to the people. We know that's not realistic, but it's what we strive for - in Canada. In other places, whoever has the fat wallet or the support of the big bankers and corporations gets to down out all other voices, burying them in money. We've seen the results of that. The will of the people is ignored as politicians bow to the will of those with the big bucks. It's anti-democratic, and the supreme court of Canada was right in saying that while this does infringe on freedom of speech and expression a little, during elections, it was neccessary in the interests of free and fair elections. I didn't agree with that decision when it came out. I thought it was ridiculous to suggest wealthy people and corporations would put that much money into election campaigns. Since that time the US has demonstrated to the world how such a thing can happen, and how it can subvert democracy.

I had thought the ban on third party spending in elections was nationwide, not just at the federal level. I think it should be extended now to all elections.

[Argus]

Now you're just being obtuse, but correct in the sense that we have freedom of expression in many forms, not just speech:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/CONST/page-15.html#h-39

Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;( freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

© freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

I get that you are really disturbed by the OPPA ad, but I think you need to think through your arguments more carefully.

You do know that the Supreme Court already heard this case and found that limitations on third party advertising during election were acceptable in the interests of free and fair elections, right?

The court found that, though the spending limits infringe upon section 2b of the Charter, the law is reasonable and is justified in light of section 1. The majority concluded that the objective of the spending limits is electoral fairness. The law has an effect in creating "a level playing field for those who wish to engage in the electoral discourse, enabling voters to be better informed". In addition, section 3 of the Charter is not infringed because the right of meaningful participation in electoral process includes the right to participate in an informed manner. Without spending limits, individuals or groups can dominate the discussion and prevent opposing views from being heard.

[WWWTT]

Free speech has nothing to do with purchased common communication channels with limited access- like television and radio.

Nope sorry, but you are wrong here I believe. But also right

Liquor companies can now advertise their products via tv, radio, etc. etc. Also cigarette companies I believe. Freedom of expression or something like that. No freedom of speech in the charter.

But it's up to those who feel that their freedom has been wrongfully taken away to make the legal challenge. Governments almost never hold up the charter of rights when creating laws.

WWWTT

Edited June 4, 2014 by WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Edited

WWWTT

Edited June 4, 2014 by WWWTT

[cindi]

We've seen how third party advertising in the states has turned politicians into whores at the trough and poisoned public debate. We don't need that happening here, and it looks like that is precisely what has happened in Ontario, with government uinons greatly increasing their advertising, in support of the Liberals, and in response getting fat pay increases by the Liberals.

And it doesn't look any better when corporations and billionaires do it.

It does look that way.

We now have Unifor which represents the media taking out ads against the conservatives, freedom of speech and all but I do wonder why 3rd parties aren't subject to the same financial constraints as politicians during a campaign. Surely that would be fair.

[Bob Macadoo]

What's sleazier than 3rd Party ads......Party Ads made to look like "real" newspaper articles/covers with invalid if not untrue information.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06/04/ontario-election-2014-pcs-ndp-newspaper-ads_n_5445797.html

Like I said "None of the Above".

[Michael Hardner]

I get that you are really disturbed by the OPPA ad, but I think you need to think through your arguments more carefully.

I'm not disturbed by it at all. I haven't even seen it. I just think that calling all forms of communication 'speech' is ridiculous and not supportable. We don't treat television, radio, and talking the same nor should we.

[Michael Hardner]

Liquor companies can now advertise their products via tv, radio, etc. etc. Also cigarette companies I believe. Freedom of expression or something like that. No freedom of speech in the charter.

You can't advertise cigarettes. You can't advertise theories of racial inequality. You can't even show American ads.

You can't have a radio station that plays all American hits, or all Beatles music.

Many other examples.

But it's up to those who feel that their freedom has been wrongfully taken away to make the legal challenge. Governments almost never hold up the charter of rights when creating laws.

I think it would be a good idea for the parties to just agree to limit the practice.