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

Add another name to the unCanadian list

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 12:22pm - 41 Comments

Liberal Senator Dennis Dawson wants to extend election spending limits on political advertising to cover at least some of the time between elections. Steven Fletcher, the minister of state for democratic reform is intrigued by the idea and interested in investigating it further unimpressed.

Steven Fletcher, the Conservative minister of state for democratic reform, immediately slammed the bill as an anti-democratic and “un-Canadian” assault on free speech … “It certainly seems like it will severely limit freedom of speech and that’s un-Canadian and hurts our democracy,” Fletcher said in an interview.

Tags: attack ads, Dennis Dawson, Steven Fletcher

More by Aaron Wherry

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

It’s not that they’re McCarthyites, it’s that they’re too dumb to think of some other line of attack and just take the easiest line available.

Gary

Dawson’s suggestion actually is stupid, yes? Do we limit third parties’ ability to spend on political talk too? If not, expect unregulated proxies to sprout up to do the parties’ ad work for them, but more sneakily. If so — if even outside commentators will have their budget controlled by the feds — time for talk radio, CBC and Maclean’s to get out of the news business.

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

Yeah, I agree about Dawson’s suggestion. Look at the jungle of PAC’s etc. that they have in the States, all to skirt some amendment to some regulation. I’m already rather galled that third parties (e.g. me, not that I have the money) can’t propagandise at election time. By this logic, however, we should again allow corporations and unions to contribute to political parties.

madeyoulook

By this logic, however, we should again allow corporations and unions to contribute to political parties.

No, that’s not logic at all. Restricting contributions to humans (I would EVEN add “eligible voters” as a further restriction) makes perfect sense.

Restricting the right of individuals, corporations, unions and the Sudbury Rotary Club to express themselves makes zero sense.

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

Please inform your friends & enemies of why restricting contributions to humans makes perfect sense.
madeyoulook

Please inform your friends & enemies…

My enemies are trying to blow up pizzerias and commuter trains, and hopefully they suffer an oops moment, alone, away from anyone else, soon. I doubt they have much interest in my political-party funding ideas. As for my friends, well, you may be the only one who cares, but I will do my best to honour your request:

Only eligible voters may run for office. In my oh-so-humble (but solicited!) estimation: Only eligible voters should be members of political parties. Only eligible voters should be permitted to fund political parties. Cut out the forced theft from taxpayers. Cut the tax credit to that of a charitable contribution, or cut it altogether. Raise the limit to something more reasonable than (what is it now, a little over $1000 a year?) per person. But don’t raise it so high as to invite corrupting influences.

You want to support a political party, but you are not an eligible voter? Why don’t you become one first?

A union making its point in favour of a particular issue because it is in the name of its members: fine. An endorsement of a party might even make sense. Direct funding? Forget it. Its members can feel so moved individually if they wish; their dues should not end up directly in a party’s coffers just because the union boss said so. Same deal for corporations, etc.

All a long-winded way of saying: Because it’s the humans who vote.
http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

That’s an excellent argument, MYL. I would never have taken you for a Socialist but I’m pleased to see you’ve jumped out of the cake.

But, logically: political parties are organisations. Unions / corporations are organisations. Why should only one type of organisation be allowed to dispose, politically, of its money as it sees fit? It seems to me the logic of your argument — which, as I say, is excellent — would be that political activity should be undertaken by individuals not by organisations. Therefore we should do away with the party system.

But even then, if we’re talking rights and privileges and (below) whatnot, why should a multi-millionaire be more restricted, via the $1100 (or $5000 or whatever it might be) spending limit, than a pauper like me? Isn’t it his money to do with what he wants?

Sorry to pose all these questions but I genuinely don’t grasp what the real first principles are supposed to be in these spending/fundraising debates. Outcomes? Free speech? Freedom from government interference? For my part I agree with Mike T. below, that ads and the money you need for them are themselves the problem and should be eliminated not regulated.
madeyoulook

Now I am a socialist? Really? Central control of the means of production has to do with my “give political power only to the voters” how, exactly?

Making stuff up does not favour your line of argument, Jack.

As for the rest. Political parties are organizations of individuals with a common political purpose. Corporations exist to maximise shareholder value, and unions defend their members’ interests with respect to their working conditions. Keeping ORGANIZATIONS, which do not have the same freedoms as their individual members, from corrupting politics in no way prevents INDIVIDUALS from exercising their individual rights to associate and support the party of their choice.

And, in my happy world, the organizations STILL have the right to make their own case on their own dime, as long as they stay out of the political parties. Let’s hear what the Conference Board of Canada and the Council of Canadians and the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Canadian Islamic Conference and Wal-Mart and the CAW have to say about what the ideal number of billions our deficit shold be this year (or NAFTA, or Meech Lake, or acid rain, or seal hunting, or the nutritional labelling of food, or the legalization of marijuana). In fact, we already do: have a look at the op-ed pages. Canadians can handle it, we can sift the info through the of-course-you-would-say-that bias filter. Enjoy the symphony (or cacophony) of ideas in the concert hall of democracy.
sf

On the one hand I agree with MYL, because unions and corporations are not democratic organizations. Most of the time they are donating money (in the case of unions the money was taken directly from employees) they are not representing their employees or shareholders at all.

But, on the other hand, I’d prefer to see no restrictions whatsoever, mostly because once there are a set of restrictions in place, then people use that as a justification for more. Hence the unending clamors for more and more restrictions on speech every day.

madeyoulook

The “easiest one available” does have the virtue of being correct, of course. Really, is it so hard to say “I value freedom of speech” WITHOUT a “but” following along to immediately disprove the initial assertion?

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

Using terms like “unCanadian” is not “correct,” it’s stupid. It’s a slur on your opponent that could easily be avoided by just saying “unconstitutional” vel sim.

You really love your “I value freedom of speech” line, eh, MYL? Do you have it embroidered on your pillow?

madeyoulook

Jeepers, people, read what the man said: IT’s unCanadian. IT’s hurtful to democracy. And, well, it IS. The idea. Not the man.

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

For my part, MYL, I would still consider myself Canadian even if we lived under an oppressive feudal system. For me, “Canadian” is not (like “American”) tied to a particular set of values, it’s a description of where I was born and what my nationality is. Neither statements nor people can be unCanadian if they’re . . . Canadian.
madeyoulook

So, it’s treason for a Calgarian to go to Washington to speak out in favour of freedom of expression, and it’s wrong to call an infringement of freedom of expression an un-Canadian idea. This will need some work.

If all you’ve done is parse the meaning of “Canadian” to mere geography, my friend, we part here.
http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

What is incompatible about being a Canadian and having secret treasonous thoughts? Actually, to commit treason you have to be a Canadian, so by definition treason is not unCanadian.

I’m sorry, MYL, but I can never accept the equation of nationality with a particular political philosophy. Canada is not a philosophical kingdom or cult in which only the philosophically correct can have a share; it is a country that my ancestors were among the first to clear and farm, and I reserve to myself the moral right to take whatever political stance I wish, and to do so (in my own mind, at least) on behalf of my country. My loyalty is to the Crown, not to any particular expression of values: because values shift, but my loyalty is unchanging and inherent.
sapphireandsteel

A Calgarian? It always makes my skin crawl when someone brings regionalism into an argument to prove a weak theory of national identity. How about trying your argument without using a petty wedge for a change?
http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

“A Calgarian?”

MYL is just trying to cite He Who Cannot Be Named Without Sending the Discussion Into a Spiraling Grudge Match, whom I had at one point blamed for . . . something or other. MYL is actually an Ontarian running a fashion design business on Queen St., as far as I can deduce.

http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

Remarkable how all these clever cogs think democracy is threatened because of a few ads. And I don’t understand how they propose to ban ads before elections if we don’t know when elections are to be held.

Or does the Senator propose to ban all advertising, ever, in the name of ‘democracy’ … aka trying to help my side because our supporters can’t be bothered to support us so we have to punish everyone else to make it ‘fair’.

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

Partisanship aside, jwl, don’t you think there’d be some virtue to banning political advertising holus bolus? Namely that it would make MP’s the conduits for political propaganda again. Merely to reach people with the party message, MP’s would have to get out there and spread the word, shake the dust off their feet, etc. Also it would force people to read the newspapers / watch TV news in order to find out what was going on. (Ideally they might even show up to an All Candidates Debate; ideally these could be held as half-day debates in a park on a stage or something, instead of in some chlorine-soaked community centre gym.) I think there is a fundamental difference between political face-time and just blaring out propaganda, and the former is infinitely more democratic than the latter.

Mike T.

It also would make the playing field more level in terms of who gets to make serious bids for election if you couldn’t spend advertising money at all. (Which is the most practical answer to the ‘it doesn’t really affect anything’ argument – if it weren’t useful, people wouldn’t go millions of dollars into debt to do it.)

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

Good point! That way jwl, say, could run as a Libertarian candidate and, given his charm, have a good chance of getting elected; as it is, he couldn’t afford lawn signs, an organisational office (phones etc.), and couldn’t get TV ads out there to legitimise his candidacy. (This is what advertising does, of course: it’s not about conveying information, it’s about saying “Our company / party is important enough to be on TV, you can afford to admire us” — which is why I find the “free speech” line a bit hard to swallow — ads are not free speech, they’re free BS).

Brad

According to the academics, political parties provide the following benefits to society, among others:

- they help clarify/simplify the choices electors make at election time.

- they pre-select candidates locally and at the leadership level

- they provide a portal for activists to participate in policy development and governance overall

Advertising has become the primary means for parties to communicate with the electorate. 300+ constituencies, with 35 million people +/- occupying them, no matter how much dust they shake off their boots, candidates aren’t going to have a chance of a meaningful exchange on the issues and, frankly, electors don’t seem to want to spend the time at the doorstep. So advertising, in my humble opinion, is an important means of expression.

However, limits can be defended on principle. If you set the limit at a level high enough that an effective job can be done, but low enough that the richest guy doesn’t get a chance to drown out the others, you effectively allow freedom of speech, without allowing wealth to tip the balance. Since it has been demonstrated that spending does affect outcomes, this seems reasonable to me.

Political parties, unlike third party advertisers, are accountable for their ideas and for their spending. Therefore, I believe it is legitimate to argue that limits there that are different – probably lower – for third parties are justifiable. Not all will agree, but I don’t think it is radical to argue it.

JM, I share your qualitative estimation of most advertising, but disagree about their status as free speech. As always, we simply have to consume them with the appropriate condiment to their content.
http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

That’s a very convincing case, Brad. Well argued!

http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

I think banning ads is one way to disenfranchise people. I have three good friends who are apolitical and would rather have hot pokers jammed into their eyeballs than talk about politics. All three of them have asked me about those ads – 2 thought the insinuations were outrageous and the other just thought it was interesting that Iggy spent so much time abroad but doesn’t know what to think about it.

Banning ads/speech is way for small sliver of society to control debate and I think it’s outrageous. I prefer the American free-for-all than the highly regulated system we have. It is more interesting and generates debate. Just look at the comment totals at Macleans on the subject of Iggy ads – easily the most since The Madness of last autumn.

Seems to me many people want to make politics/elections as dull as possible while wondering why people are losing interest.

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

“I have three good friends who are apolitical and would rather have hot pokers jammed into their eyeballs than talk about politics.”

That’s just it, isn’t it? Our culture of political attack ads, the juvenile delinquency of the House, the lack of any change whatsoever, it all flows from that fact.

I can see why we have to allow people like your friends to vote — the universal franchise, etc. — but I don’t see why we have to bend over backwards to cater to their disinterest. It doesn’t make them worse people or worse citizens, but it does make it hard to take their views seriously. Why should we want people who don’t follow politics to participate more?
Mike T.

it wouldn’t control the debate. it would elminate the advertising that so often takes place at the expense of the debate.

Bruce

There is one reason only for Senator Dawson to bring forward a bill such as this, Liberal fund raising sucks big time. So if they can’t compete they want to change the rules and move the goal posts, talk about pathetic.

sapphireandsteel

Uh Bruce, welcome to 2009, things have changed. Liberal fundraising has improved and you’re talking points are so stale.

Bruce

Liberal fund raising has improved from being moribund to pathetic, wow.

I can hardly wait for the federal political parties financial reports to be filed in July, then we’ll see the true motivation behind this ill conceived and ill thought out bill by Senator Dawson, such bills introduced in the Senate never go anywhere anyway.

Another thing is that the “truth ads” are very effective according to NDP’s Brad Lavigne, why would the NDP or the Bloc support this bill when the Conservatives ads hurt only Iggy and the Liberals and they don’t cost those parties a penny?

oompus boompus

If you want everything in the country to be managed centrally as a vast socialistic commons, then the most important thing is to manage everyone’s property and lives for them in a fair and equal way. After all, nobody wants to be unfair.

To think, speak or act on one’s own individual impulse is to automatically be different from everyone else, which makes it impossible for everyone to be treated equally and fairly.

In order to ensure equality and fairness in a socialistic commons, it is therefore an absolute requirement to control everyone’s thoughts, speech and actions.

Hence, the larger that government becomes, the greater the need to limit thoughts, speech and actions.

That’s why you have the CRTC, the criminalization of “hate” speech, restrictions on speech during elections, restriictions on speech outside of elections, restrictions on election reporting, and everything else that’s coming down the pipeline (look to UK and N Korea to see the future).

Sure it’s harsh, and unconstitutional, and totalitarian. But it’s absolutely necessary. Anything else would be unfair.
Sisyphus

Freedom of speech is fine. It’s free.

Advertising is paid. Them that’s got it, gets it.

They are not the same.

One’s democracy. One’s plutocracy.

T.Thwim

That’s actaully a reasonable definition in my eyes.

They can talk all they want.. they just can’t pay for it.
oompus boompus

Either you got your computer for free and you get free electricity and internet, or I guess you’re a plutocrat. In the interest of fairness and democracy, please refrain from making any further political comments electronically.

But feel free talk all you want. It’s free.

Sisyphus

Just a l’il ol’ part of the vast socialistic commons.

shane

Remember when Steven Fletcher sued autopac?
Tom

I continue to get a tremendous kick out of the fact that the most relevant piece of constitutional case-law in Canada about this issue is the SCC case “Harper v. Canada”
George Pringle

The Bill states 3 months prior and can only apply to the 3 months prior to a scheduled election which would be July, August & September of 2012.

BC has such a law but also assigns a limit to the party and each candidate. The candidate has $80,000, I don’t recall what the limit for the central party.

So this would have no effect on the current ads whatsoever.
sf

Dawson’s suggestion is one of the dumbest I’ve ever heard.

If election dates are fixed, then all it is doing is extending the election period, not covering the time between elections.

If election dates are not fixed, then it’s incredibly stupid. Nobody knows when the election will happen, so nobody knows if then can advertise or not. If the opposition tries advertising, then the government can time the election so that they have an advantage during the election period.

Most of all, it IS a restriction on free speech. Unquestionably. And I’m getting sick of people claiming that banning political debate is somehow a good thing.
Joan Tintor

Nice hit on a guy in a wheelchair, Shane.

Remember when Obama said he would adhere to spending limits, then changed his mind because he had access to lots o’ cash?

Terry S

Remember when Stephen Fletcher was appointed to his cabinet post he said his job was to implement X3 Senate reform and nothing else. Twenty+ PMSH Senate appointments later and he hasn’t resigned. The man has no honour and no sense of democracy.