Campaing And Election Rules

[dnsfurlan]

There are two issue that have popped recently with regard to the way campaigns are run in this country. One is campaign financing. The other is campaign speech. In both cases, rules have or are being put into place which diminish the freedom citizens and groups have to support their preffered political party. Their justification is that they create a fair environment in which campaigns can be run. I wonder.

I think in both cases the government is being used as an arbiter of what is fair and unfair, instead of allowing citizens to decide for themselves.

Regarding campaing finance, parties now have to meet certain requirements in order to get financing from the government. But why? Shouldn't the people of this country decide who they want to support financially with their own money? As long as the financing is reported, where's the problem? With the public financing rules now being implemented, governments decide how parties are financed, not the people.

Furthermore, the same people arguing for these rules say nothing about regulating what the media can and should say during election campaigns. Doesn't this very fact shift power towards the media when it comes to advocating for political parties?

Which brings me to regulating campaign speech. And there are two aspect to this.

First, there is the limiting of third party speech which Stephen Harper fought against before becoming leader of the Alliance. The argument for these kinds of rules is that it would take away power from people with money. But since when was it a crime in a free country for people to have money and use it in ways they see fit? Why prevent people from speaking out during elections?

Second, rules about when and how parties can advertise during a campaign. Indeed, I think this is one of the silliest rules one could imagine.

Here in Ontario, the parties are not allowed to run ads for the first week or so. Meanwhile, no one is preventing the geniuses at the Toronto Star or any of the other media outlets from venting their own opinions and analysis of the campaign as it unravels itself.

I just don't know what it is about freedom that people don't like. Or, for that matter, what it is about money that they don't like. I also don't understand the apparrent hypocricy. If rules are good for everyone else, why aren't they good for the media as well?

In free countries shouldn't people be free to decide who and how they want to support political parties, and shouldn't they also be allowed to make their voices heard if they so wish? Preventing this seems like another attempt at punishing succesful people by having the government take control of the rules and the process. Is this really freedom?