Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

'It corrodes the reputation of our political institutions'

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, May 21, 2009 9:48pm - 54 Comments

Bruce Anderson offers a long and thoughtful consideration of political advertising.

Reach and frequency of advertising can accomplish a lot in the world of advertising effectiveness, and it may well be the case that Mr. Ignatieff’s reputation suffers somewhat through the coming weeks. But in authorizing these ads, at this time, the risk to Prime Minister Stephen Harper may over the long run prove greater still.

Tags: attack ads, Bruce Anderson, Michael Ignatieff, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

I say ban all ads — negative, positive, anything. No ads.

Critical Reasoning

I’m not sure that would be in the best interests of a democracy.

http://dougsamu.wordpress.com/ dougrogers

The last thing advertisements appeal to is rational discourse. Marketing understands this.
http://coyne kc

Democracy be damned, i’m with Jack!
Jenn

How about local candidate ads only. on local TV,radio, newspapers only. Ban National ads.

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

Right, totally. Local local local. Actually talking to real human beings. Forcing candidates to defend their party’s record, to be the conduit for party communications — like in the old days before the mass media. Combine this with party donations going to riding associations instead of to party HQ and pretty soon you’re talking real democracy.

Jenn

Oh yes, I like that party donations idea too. And after all, if the National office can’t advertise, what do they need with the money?
http://coyne kc

With ideas like this we could actually make our FPTP system work again.

http://www.savedarfur.org Sophia Geffros

I’m for it.

sf

‘It corrodes the reputation of our political institutions’

That’s what dictators say when they crack down on dissent. That’s what communists say when they cancel elections. If the people are allowed to criticize, then national security is at stake.

Go Wherry, save us all.

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

It does not follow that because dictators allege something, it is untrue.

dan in van

It’s what leaders tell us when they go running to the big lady to prevent democracy from working. Oh right, that’s a con-CON talking point. Cue up Jarrid or Babyface’s whine about ‘That evil coalition (2008, not the 2004 version)…
avr

All I’m hearing is “Conservatives keep using attack ads to their advantage, and that’s just not fair.”

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

That’s because your radio has only one frequency.

avr

Or maybe because it’s the one consistent brand of whine on offer around here.
Chuck

Naw. Jack is correct.
http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

Yeah, well, if you glance at the rest of the comments on this post, some people are trying to move on. Anyway, there was a lot of whining in the same key at the Liberals’ attack ads in 2004 and 2006. And it’s easier to ban the ads than to ban the whiners, n’est-ce pas?
avr

And it’s easier to ban the ads than to ban the whiners, n’est-ce pas?

Setting aside the clearly partisan implications – it’s a thinly-veiled attack on one party’s strengths in fundraising, no less so than if, e.g., union members or lawyers were prohibited from any political donations – it’s offensive to free expression and highly unlikely to “restore civility” in any event. Banning the expression of opinions by an open, obvious process where it’s clear who’s saying what (and how much they’ve spent in doing so) would only force messaging strategy wholly into the Anonymous Senior Party Source off-record model we love so dearly. I fail to see how that would be an improvement.

http://Winnipeg Bazoo

I like the idea of banning political advertising outside the writ period, as well as restrictions regarding negative advertising.
How about also curtailing the ability of governments to use public money to sell its policies to the public? Do I really need to pay to be told how much I love the Economic Action Plan? I can assure you, sir, I am well aware of how fortunate I am to be witness to such marvels… I like the EAP lots, let me be frank, so very frank. I can’t wait to see EAP II. I wonder if there will be a subtitle…
madeyoulook

Wow.

As of this moment, all but two of the above posts (“I am not sure” & “That’s what dictators say”) — and maybe a third, for I cannot be sure if “democracy be damned” was actually in jest or not — have no qualms with negotiating the terms of further surrender of the freedom of expression.

Wow.

catherine

Well, they keep poisoning the wells and at some point people decide they don’t want to drink anymore.

But my own view, is keep advertising. Let all parties show their stuff and have voters decide. As flawed as the system is, given that ignorance and bigotry are part of the human spectrum, it is still better than the alternatives.

madeyoulook

Indeed, catherine. I just wish people could distinguish “I don’t want to drink anymore” from “no one else is allowed to drink, either.”

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

Thank God you don’t run a restaurant.

Northern PoV

How to improve the level of political discourse in Canada in three easy steps:

1) Enforce current rules on advertising and other election expenses during the writ period. Absolutely no in-and-out skulduggery!
2) Ban all political polling during the writ period.
3) Ban all political advertising outside the writ period.

avr

“Improve the level of political discourse” = give Liberals (and to a lesser extent, the NDP and Greens) the permanent home-field advantage of lazy, friendly media.

Sorry, NPOV. It’s the same principle as with STV: the public isn’t that happy about massively changing the rules just because you can’t win the way you want to, currently.

Northern PoV

“you can’t win the way you want to”

actually “we” (the Center, the Center-Left, and god-forbid-even the Left) do win, and quite often you may note… (and yes we sometimes see hollow victories in retrospect, just like those of you on the right who are watching the Harper follies) ….

anyway, the constant immature advertising & push-polling resulting in FPTP majority (or large minority) governments formed with ~40% of the vote – that is the story of the last 30 years here in Canada, and it ain’t pretty whether your view is from the left, right or center

And if the “public” doesn’t support change under these circumstances it is incumbent on those engaged in the political discourse to find better ways to advocate change.
nd

Hah right, the left has held power in this country for like 80% of its history, I think it’s hardly in need of changing the electoral ground rules in its favour.

Of course, teh greatest beneficiaries of FPTP are principally the Tories, so it’s no wonder their prevailing interest is in preserving the system which tips the balance in their favour.

William

Political advertising is not meant for people whe read this blog. It is meant to inform and influence the feelings (positive or negative) of the large mass of basically uninformed and uninterested people, many of whom may not even vote.

In recent history, the negative feelings this large mass of voters felt toward leaders such as Day and Manning and earlier Clark and Stanfield certainly influenced their voting habits. So of course the Liberal Party benefited very much from negativity in those times.

And then in 2004 and 2006 the Conservatives point out the the dithering that was Paul Martin and of course Dion was an easy target in 2008. And the large mass of uninformed voters are just now finding out about Iggy`s absence from class for the past 34 years and that will have an effect on how people feel when they enter the voting booth. I suspect the willingness of Anderson and most of the above posts to supress democracy and ban advertising has more to do with their personal political leaning then the overall good of the country.

catherine

When you put it that way – using misleading and unsubstantiated claims in easy soundbites, from any party, to sway the uninformed and uninterested – I have to admit it does not sound like it is for ‘the overall good of the country’.

William

Catherine, where were you when the Liberals were using unsubstantiated and misleading scare tactics against Day and Harper. I just can`t see your sincerity.

Look, rather then burying the heads of the citizens in the sand let`s do it this way. If the Liberals really believe that Iggy`s absenteeism is not a factor then they should market him as a cosmopolitan global citizen who is most suitable to lead our country, kind of like when we were a colony and England would send over some Lord to be our Governor. That would be fair—–let the informed electorate speak.

catherine

Well, I wasn’t voting for them. I only voted Liberal in 2008. I vaguely recall the Liberals launching negative ads outside of election time in years past and not being impressed, although I don’t recall their ads being this personal and spiteful outside of election time.

Ted

Banning political advertising would just give the incumbent party in government too huge an advantage.

Harper has shown no reluctance to use the levers of government to forward partisan gain: funnelling 80%+ infrastructure money to Tory ridings, delivering on cabinet minister’s pet projects, press releases from the government bashing other parties, Baird’s involvement in the Ottawa mayoral election, and most significantly taking out ads to advertise Conservative campaign promises delivered (rather than just government services available, eg. the baby bonus).

Eliminate the ability of opposition parties to advertise outside of an election would mean that only the party in government can advertise.

sbt

“Baird’s involvement in the Ottawa mayoral election”

And what exactly was Baird’s involvement in the Ottawa mayoral election, Ted? Enquiring minds want to know.

PolJunkie

My only concern around those pre-writ attack ads is that it clearly favors the political party with the greater coffers. That is as undemocratic as it gets.

If we are going to put limits on how much money should be spent on post-writ campaign ads on the basis that there should be a leveled playing field, that same argument should hold outside of the writ period too.

http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

It is a level playing field. Not Cons fault that supporters of other parties have deep pockets and short arms.

Ted

Is that how we want to have our politics work though JWL? Whoever happens to be up at the moment gets to frame all questions without full information coming to the public?

I would prefer it if we did not go down the path of pushing our political parties to have year round advertising campaigns. That costs money and we taxpayers subsidize that idiocy with the 75% tax refunds (i.e. I pay $100, but it costs me only $25 after refunds so general revenues pay the $75 to the political party of my choice – a subsidy not surprisingly the Cons don’t want to even talk about when they claim they want to end political subsidies).

I also don’t want to start passing a bunch more laws to regulate this. It is the culture that needs to change to make these brazen character assassinations useless or, better yet, backfire.

What I would like to see is better use of public media in this case. As we do in an election, registered political parties are given a block of time for any purpose. I don’t think this happens outside of an election but it should. Give the parties 15 minutes at a set time on CBC TV and radio. Advertise the time so that citizens have the chance to hear a response, if one is to be offered, and make up their own minds, but still allowing one party to mislead Canadians like the Tories have here with their own money.

That to me seems best for our democracy: free expression is not curtailed, but open discussion is not lost because of cash flow.

http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

“Give the parties 15 minutes at a set time on CBC TV and radio.”

I like that idea. They do something similar on BBC and I think it’s a good idea. I also wouldn’t mind if tax refunds and the $1.95 per vote subsidy were eliminated either.

Having no spending limits does not curtail free expression, it helps it. What interest group does not have money to advertise, if they so desired? All these laws are a way to stifle debate, not to enhance it.

Ted

What interest group does not have money to advertise, if they so desired?

JWL, I think that misses the point but underscores the concern. Even if they have the money, is this what we want people to be spending their money on (subsidized by us taxpayers)?

If you are a political party or a special interest group, wouldn’t we want any little bit of money they have to be spent on research and development of good policies and the like, rather than marketing spin? That’s the problem with nefarious ads like Harper’s: there are real issues to address and tackle, instead while outside of an election period, he thinks it is more important for us to talk about how long one must be in Canada before running for PM. Since he is pouring hundreds of thousands of taxpayer subsidized money into his marketing, it forces others to spend money in some kind of response.

That is not enhancing debate at all. A free “market” does not always produce the best democratic result.

Again, I say that not as a reason to curtail spending or call for regulations or limit that market, but to recognize a reality, an imbalance, which is not good for our democracy.

Just like our individual health should not depend on who has the most money, our democracy should not either. We just have to find a way to balance our values of free and open expression, with our values of having equal participation in our democracy. Which is why I lean to giving a small corner of public broadcasting time to each party.

William

First of all , what about the 97% of the people who aren`t listening or watching CBC ? And the use of state-run media-propaganda instruments does not have a good track record for open discussion and human rights in many countries in the past 50 years.

Reducing the freedom of expression and increased regulation does not seem like it would be ” best for our democracy “.

Ted

What reduction and what regulation was I proposing?

Quite on the contrary. I am saying stay away from more regulation, but give the registered political parties a small ability at no cost to tell their own story. It does not have to be only about responding to lies contained in the other parties ads.

As for people not watching or listening to CBC, I’m totally lost on your point. I am saying use the public broadcaster for a public service, like we do during the election, at a time outside the election. If people don’t want to listen, that’s fine, but it gives the public an opportunity to do so if they so choose.
Ted

Oh and on this comment:

“And the use of state-run media-propaganda instruments does not have a good track record for open discussion and human rights in many countries in the past 50 years.”

That’s a bit ridiculous of a response to my suggestion.

I am talking about using the public broadcaster to allow each of our political parties – that includes the opposition – to deliver their message directly to Canadians so that ideas and policies compete for our vote, not just who is the better fundraiser. The government is not controlling the message here so it is not government propaganda.
William

Ted, I don`t know how you missed it but the CBC is Liberal and NDP propaganda.
Ask yourself this—-why do you think the Conservatives are able to raise 3 and 4 times as much money as the Liberals ? Because the supporters of the Conservatives know they will never get a fair shake from the majority of the media in this country and they are willing to dig into their own pockets so that their message gets out there to that large group that don`t follow politics closely.

So your solution is that more public funding go to CBC so that there can be even more of their special type of slanted news. I know why you would like this but I don`t see how this would be ” best for our democracy “.

PolJunkie

jwl, does that mean that you oppose limits on money spent on advertising during the writ period too?

http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

Absolutely. I think spending limits and a few other election laws are the establishment’s way of stopping hoi polloi from participating in elections. Interest groups, or private citizens, should be allowed to publish or broadcast whatever message they want, whenever they want.

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

How does CPC = hoi polloi?

I agree that the restriction on private citizens’ publishing and broadcasting is galling, but you’ll admit that there has to be some way of preventing parties from circumventing the spending limits, if those spending limits are valid.

As per Jenn’s comment above, I’d say that a ban on national advertising would go a long way to solving the problem. Perhaps you could allow no-limit spending by private citizens (and even interest groups) at the local level too.

http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

“How does CPC = hoi polloi?”

It doesn’t, really. Just had a rush of blood to head when I read spending limits. I don’t believe there should be limits on spending for parties, or private citizens, at any time. I prefer a free-for-all when it comes to debate rather than having proscribed limits.

I don’t remember what the case name was but a few years ago the Supreme Court ruled that spending limits were fine because we didn’t want some millionaire to come along and start their own ad campaign because it would bamboozle electorate. And I think that’s outrageous.

avr

Harper v. Canada, in fact. The decision was slightly more nuanced than that, but not by much; the contempt for poor, stupid proles who can’t be trusted to make up their own minds in the face of advertising is fairly evident.

PolJunkie

“Interest groups, or private citizens, should be allowed to publish or broadcast whatever message they want, whenever they want.”

well at least you are consistent but also very wrong. This would result in money becoming a determining factor in election results but something tells me that you are completely fine with that.

http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

I am fine with it because I don’t think money favours one side in this day and age. Unions, environmental groups, ethnic orgs and other interest groups all have plenty of cash to get their messages out.

I am not entirely consistent because I do believe there should be some regs on who/how much can donate to political parties.

Ted

But that response presupposes that it is a good thing that they be forced to spend their money that way instead of, for example, using the little money they have for reducing union dues or doing better environmental research or teaching English classes to new immigrants, etc.
Ted

“I am not entirely consistent because I do believe there should be some regs on who/how much can donate to political parties.”

And there’s the rub, eh?

You don’t question whether these certain regulations give one party and advantage over another or limit other people’s rights to donate as much as they want.
PolJunkie

“I am not entirely consistent because I do believe there should be some regs on who/how much can donate to political parties.”

That makes no sense. Why the double-standard? Since you are ok with third parties spending an unlimited amount of funds in advertising to support the party of their choice, why would you have a problem with them giving that money directly to the party in question?
http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

PolJunkie

I am against unions, special interest groups and companies being allowed to donate to parties because of how much government money goes to them. I am not a fan of government giving money to those orgs and then those orgs ‘donating’ the money back. I think only individuals should be allowed to donate. I should not have written ‘how much’ in that sentence because I believe they should be allowed to donate however much they want.

oompus boompus

The political institutions are pretty corroded already. They essentially consist of a bunch of amoral weasels and rats sitting around scheming to grab the maximum amount of power and money from the other parties and from the public with the least amount of risk and cost.

Of course they should be allowed to say whatever they want about anyone they want. What galls is that they do so for the purpose of winning control over my paycheque, and their rat-like propaganda campaigns are subsidized in proportion to the number of saps who swallow their B.S. and vote for them.

The real danger, I suppose, is that some of their partisan supporters (the ones who actually have a life outside of politics and who possess a shred of decency) will start to see the weasels and rats for what they are, and will deny them their votes. You’ll know that this has started to happen in a big way when in a few years a new law is introduced to make voting mandatory.

P.S. apologies to weasels and rats for comparing them to the people who sit around in back rooms writing political propaganda.