Someone pointed me to an article here:
here.
Here are some thoughts on the matter.
First of all lets look who is behind this.
"The NCC -- a conservative lobby group formerly headed by Alliance leader Stephen Harper --" - quote taken from a related article Here.
To see what the election act actually limits one can read Bill C-2 here.
specifically (the part about third parties) Here.
The truth of the matter is that third party advertising IS ALLOWED. Perhaps not as much as conservatives with DEEP pockets would like. A quebec high court has already said that such restrictions could still be constitutionally justified! (Alberta and Ontario have ruled otherwise - but then again look at the political landscape in Ontario and Alberta).
I am all for any sort of campaign reform that restricts spending by special interest groups (i.e. third parties). Restrictions are not the same as Prohibitions! If all third parties are bound by the same rules - then the restrictions are fair. This seems to be the case in this legislation.
Most people are for the separation of Church and State. We should be equally interested in the separation of Corporation and State. By limiting third party spending on campaign adds - you limit the ability of corporations to lobby for their own special interests and support candidates willing to cave to that lobby during an election.
I would be willing to allow unlimited spending by individuals from their own personal pocketbook - This preserves the freedom of speech in individuals. But I am not willing to grant a corporation (which is not a person by any definition in reality - though sometimes granted 'person status' under the law) with the same freedoms as individual persons.
Lets Look at the source:
The globe and mail is a very right of center publication. The editorial policy of the paper clearly has a right of center bias.
But even if we assume there is still some journalistic integrity at the Globe that present both sides of an argument (even if there is a bias towards one) the article itself is not an article - IT IS AN EDITORIAL! It has not been edited - nor is it held to that standard. This is purely the opinion of GERRY NICHOLLS - and "...[his] group, the National Citizens Coalition" - Unfiltered opinion of an involved party.
Lets Look at the Pitch:
It is clever of the NCC to use examples such as Kyoto and same sex marriage and gun control. Hot button topics that resonate on an individual level. He doesn't talk about campaigns for Pay for Service health care. He doesn't talk about campaigns for increased logging. He doesn't talk about campaigns for lowered environmental regulation for oil and gas. He doesn't talk about relaxing other lobbying regulations at the federal level. And it is precisely those kinds of issues that 'third parties' with deep pockets would get behind and spend big.
This isn't a defense of personal free speech in Canada. It is a lobby to allow BIG corporate spending in individual ridings to elect candidates that are sympathetic to BIG corporate needs.
This is precisely the reason the legislation was put in place. It is a form of campaign reform. It is a way of keeping the playing field level. If all third parties are bound by the same rules it makes sure that the Monsanto's can't outspend the Greenpeace's in getting their message to the electorate.
ASIDE: It is also clever that the article was crafted to sound as if 'third parties' were smaller political parties. No 'third parties' are not political parties like the liberals or the conservatives or the NDP. They are bound by their own set of rules under election legislation. Third parities here means outside special interest groups.
andre
Posted by andre at February 9, 2004 08:44 PM