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

Idea alert

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, September 25, 2009 10:31am - 47 Comments

Kady is live-blogging the Liberal press conference this morning. Judging from this recently arrived press release, the main point is thus:

To prevent these abuses, the Liberal Opposition committed to ban all taxpayer-funded politicized government advertising under a future Liberal government and close loopholes in the existing federal Communications Policy. The Liberals would also assign an independent body to ensure all government advertising is free of political content.

Silly question. Would this apply to ye olde fashioned ten-percenters?

Tags: democracy, Martha Hall Findlay, Michael Ignatieff, Ottawa, political advertising

More by Aaron Wherry

jarrid

"Silly question. Would this apply to ye olde fashioned ten-percenters?"

I'm in a Conservative riding and I get ten-percenters from some Liberal MP from some other province dishing out negative commentary on the government. The Liberals are cynical hypocrites.

Foreigner

"I'm in a Conservative riding and I get ten-percenters from some Liberal MP…"

Which Liberal MP's, how many and or gong back how long?

I've received over the course of four over a hundred at least (and I've thrown out or sent back quite a few) from Conservative MP's ranging from two ridings over to across the the country.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

I live in Bob Rae's riding and have received at least a dozen since I moved two years ago. One, in particular, from a junior Conservative MP who was elected by fewer Saskatchewan constituents' votes in a general election than Bob Rae received in the by-election.

And of greater relevance? The ten-percenter slagged a policy that wasn't even on the Liberal platform. It wasn't even worth the cheap b/w photocopy paper it was printed on.

Partisan slagging goes all ways. Takes a hypocrite to know one.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

I doubt it. These MP-communications-to-constituents, with the 10% spillover to elsewhere, could probably not be construed as "government advertising." But by all means kill them by any means possible. Kill the hyperpartisan crap the MPs send to their own constituents, too, please.

cwe

Yup. Kill 'em. I'm happy to receive notices from my MP. Not so happy to receive them from any other, including the Prime Minister.

Sigh

Or at least make them pay for their own hyperpartisan crap.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Yes, I implied (perhaps too subtly) that the "killing" was of taxpayer-supported hyperpartisan crap.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Maybe they'll go the whole nine yards and also promise to eliminate taxpayer funding of political parties, which said parties then use to buy political advertising.

*slaps self* Try to keep up, Gaunilon.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Maybe they'll go the whole nine yards and also promise to eliminate taxpayer funding of political parties, which said parties then use to buy political advertising.

*slaps self* Try to keep up, Gaunilon.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Maybe they'll go the whole nine yards and also promise to eliminate taxpayer subsidies for political parties, which said parties then use to buy political advertising.

*slaps self* Try to keep up, Gaunilon.

Old School Liberal

Or the tax deduction for party donations which result in non-Conservatives subsidizing Conservatives?

*slaps self* Try to keep up, OSL. We're talking about Conservatives here; not consistency of principle.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

I'm sure that Gaunilon meant both the $1.95 and the tax credits.

http://intensedebate.com/people/zamprelli4731 Zamprelli

Just take out the word "government" so that anything that is taxpayer-funded cannot be politicized. It would then presumably apply to 10%ers.

(One could argue that the some of the $1.95 per-vote subsidy would no doubt fund partisan ads, and thus do so with taxpayer dollars. The subsidy would have to be eliminated immediately or specifically exempt form the rule until it is eliminated.)

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

Why would it be eliminated ? It's a good thing.

http://intensedebate.com/people/zamprelli4731 Zamprelli

Personally, I always saw it as a temporary policy to ease the transition to a fully member-funded party system – a necessary buffer for a necessary change.

The main philosophical problems I have with the subsidy are that (1) it rewards parties rather than individual legislators, and thus discourages independent thought, and (2) I believe more generally that monies from taxes and political parties should have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

I'm not saying the transition is complete yet, and it would certainly have been too great a shock if it had been eliminated in November as Harper wanted. I also think the limits on individual donations and ban on corporate donations should stand.

But I beleive the consensus should be that once parties have had a chance to adjust to a (fairer and more logical) member-funded model, there will be no need for the subsidy.
http://intensedebate.com/people/zamprelli4731 Zamprelli

Personally, I always saw it as a temporary policy to ease the transition to a fully donation-funded party system – a necessary buffer for a necessary change.

My main issue with it is that I generally believe that political parties and monies collected from taxes should have absolutely nothing to do with one another. I also don't like that it rewards political parties rather than individual legislators, and think the subsidy should at least be split between the MP who got the votes and the party.

I'm not suggesting it should be scrapped right away, and certainly it would have been way too early in November (there would have to be fair, read longer, advance warning). I also think that the limits on individual donations and the ban on corporate donations should stand.

But I do believe there should be an understanding that once the parties have had the time to adapt to a (fairer and more logical) donation-based funding system, there will be no need for a political subsidy to parties that is funded by taxes.

Andrew (not Potter or Coyne)

I’m assuming you also support eliminating all subsidies, including the personal tax deduction for donations, and the refund of campaign expenses? I’d support this too, as well as cutting the the campaign spending limit by another 60%, and count the cost of the leaders tour toward the total (currently paid by the media).

http://intensedebate.com/people/zamprelli4731 Zamprelli

Yup on the refund for campaign expenses.

Agree on the leader's tour.

Not sure what current limit is -is it still too high, even though it was recently imposed?

Personal tax deduction is trickier in my mind. Is it an incentive for citizens to engage, or a way for parties to take from the public purse when they otherwise couldn't? Maybe a bit of both? The public funds flow back to the donor, not directly to the party. The party benefits in the sense the donor has more incentive to give, but that's not quite the same as giving them public money directly. It's close, though. More thinking required on that one…

http://coyne kc

Oh my ears and whiskers, this should make AC happy.

Old School Liberal

You saw At Issue last night too, I take it.

Evalina

Good idea! I'm sick and tired of seeing so called government adds on TV that just promote Conservative propoganda.

wilson

Conservative propoganda or Conservative initiatives?

'Harper gets to wear this recession'
translates into Harper rightfully owns all the initiatives in the Economic Action Plan, no?
It's not as if Liberals contributed in any way to the stimulus spending, no?

Foreigner

Sorry about the garbled comment. Should have proof-read better, but I was in a hurry to challenge this little bit of Conservative misdirection.
Foreigner

What's been particularly galling is the propagandistics synergy that's emerged from showing tax-payer funded and inarguably partisan ads along with Conservative Party funded attack ads on televisions all within minutes of each other. A potent one-two punch, most of it on our dime.

Disgraceful.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/ottawasteph ottawasteph

The government advertising in question has nothing to do with the ten-percenters, which fall under Parliament rules. This is about the Economic Action Plan, the 2009 federal budget's nickname.

The EAP's home page is/was identical to the Conservative Party's home page, same colours, banners, graphics, photos, etc. In addition, many ministers have been using the phrase "Harper Government" in speeches and news releases, e.g. DFO Min. Shea is/was one of the worst offenders.

These actions go against the Government Communications Policy, which forbids the use of public funds for partisan purposes. Before the CPC came to power, PWGSC coordinated government advertising with departments and agencies. Under the new process, departments must coordinate with both PWGSC and PCO. As our PM has been politicizing and overworking the non-partisan public servants at PCO, we are looking at a frightening centralization of power.

In essence, this is worse than the Sponsorship Scandal. Much worse.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/ottawasteph ottawasteph

The government advertising in question has nothing to do with the ten-percenters, which fall under Parliament rules. This is about the Economic Action Plan, the 2009 federal budget's nickname.

The EAP's home page is/was identical to the Conservative Party's home page, using the same colours, banners, graphics, photos, etc. In addition, many ministers have been using the phrase "Harper Government" in speeches and news releases, e.g. DFO Min. Shea is/was one of the worst offenders.

These actions go against the Government Communications Policy, which forbids the use of public funds for partisan purposes. Before the CPC came to power, PWGSC coordinated government advertising with departments and agencies. Under the new process, departments must coordinate with both PWGSC and PCO. As our PM has been politicizing and overworking the non-partisan public servants at PCO, we are looking at a frightening centralization of power.

In essence, this is worse than the Sponsorship Scandal. Much worse.
wilson

"Harper Government"
The media and opposition parties use this term constantly,
it seems to have caught on, eh.

''In essence, this is worse than the Sponsorship Scandal. Much worse.''

This is worse than the government of the day being involved in kick-back schemes, taxpayer cash funnelled thru phony ad contracts, back to party candidates and party coffers?

Give your head a shake.
Unless you are suggesting that municiple, provincial and federal governments are all involved in some kind of scandal…?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

The sponsorship scandal boiled down to a few underlings near the bottom of the pile who were corrupt and eventually arrested for it.

This involves active direction from the PM's office.

Once again it's the difference between incompetence (Chretien Liberals) and malice (Harper Reformists)
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

The sponsorship scandal boiled down to a few underlings near the bottom of the pile who were corrupt, acting against our laws and eventually arrested for it.

This involves active and corrupt direction from the PM's office.

Once again it's the difference between incompetence (Chretien Liberals) and malice (Harper Reformists)
http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

You're right Wilson, the motives behind these EAC ads are transparent and the genius of Stephen Harper is fully accountable for the effective, partisan use of public funds.
Stephen Harper is a man of his word and doubters are risking our fragile economic recovery
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

You're right Wilson, the motives behind these EAC ads are transparent and the genius of Stephen Harper is fully accountable for the effective, partisan use of public funds.
Stephen Harper is a man of his word and doubters are putting our fragile economic recovery at risk.

tobyornottoby

I've always thought that political representatives seek to distance themselves from their constituents with these ten percenters and news conferences and advertising, when they could be a lot more accessible in person. I think they are afraid of what their consitutents actually want and need from government and would rather meet with polite lobbyists.

At its extreme I observed an election in the 1980's in the NorthWest Territories in which competing candidates bought billboards, ads in the community newspaper, ads on the regional radio station and opened offices and held news conferences and rallies in a town so small they could have physically discussed their platform directly with every single voter. Hanging around in front of the post office for a few days would have netted almost everyone they need to get, but instead they chose to spend thousands of media dollars to reach less than a thousand voters.
wilson

'The Harper government has diluted and, in some cases, reversed the direction of accountability and transparency.'

Really, and how did they do that in a MINORITY parliament.
The 150 amendments to the Accountability Act, diluting the thrust of it,
were done by the Opposition parties in committee and the Libeal dominated Senate.

Foreigner

Is there a handy source for those 150 amendments?
tobyornottoby

The Conservative Government rejected a quite sensible amendment by the Bloc and others to clarify the independence of the PBO. The election promise wasn't to have an underfunded parliamentary budget officer reporting to the librarian, it was to have an INDEPENDENT budget office, and then they undermined it, first with weak legislation, and then with the funding squeeze. Take some accountability for the Accountability Act at least, would you?

outlier

Uh no. It was to have a Parliamentary Budget Officer. Not an office. That`s a figment of Kevin Page`s mind.

And it was always intended to be in the Library of Parliament.

Andrew (not Potter or Coyne)

So, PBO was never intended to be independent? Coulda fooled me. PBO was supposed to be modelled on CBO in the USA. A guy beholden to the librarian is nothing resembling the CBO.

http://intensedebate.com/people/ottawasteph ottawasteph

The Access to Information and Privacy Act was amended, but only to add Crown corporations to the list of sources, which has resulted in an unfair advantage for rivals looking into the CBC's classified files.(Corporate espionnage?) The ATIP process has slowed down considerably, with more requests and less resources. The previous Information Commissioner Robert Marleau reported on these shenanigans, before he *ahem* retired.
http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

wilson, could you provide a source?

Or even better, of the 150, can you describe which ones (if any) in anyway served to diminish government accountability?

outlier

It was more like 100 amendments and the Liberal Senators tried to do things like
raise the $1000 donation limit to $2000
delay the bill`s coming into force by one year to allow the Liberals to maximize $5400 donations
Allow political staff to jump the queue into the public service
Removed the Wheat Board from the Access to Informaiton Act and put more restrictions on what could be released.
All these things were blatant attempts to favour the Libral party.
As for a source, you`d have to go back through the transcripts.

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/ottawasteph ottawasteph

The government advertising in question has nothing to do with the ten-percenters, which fall under Parliament rules. This is about the Economic Action Plan, the 2009 federal budget's nickname.

The EAP's home page is/was identical to the Conservative Party's home page, using the same colours, banners, graphics, photos, etc. In addition, many ministers have been using the phrase "Harper Government" in speeches and news releases, e.g. DFO Min. Shea is/was one of the worst offenders.

These actions go against the Government Communications Policy, which forbids the use of public funds for partisan purposes. Before the CPC came to power, PWGSC coordinated government advertising with departments and agencies. Under the new process, departments must coordinate with both PWGSC and PCO. As our PM has been politicizing and overworking the non-partisan public servants at PCO, we are looking at a frightening centralization of power.

In essence, this is worse than the Sponsorship Scandal. Much worse. The Martin government was implementing the recommendations of the Gomery Commission. The Harper government has diluted and, in some cases, reversed the direction of accountability and transparency.

Now let's see what red herring the CPC will use before the House resumes on Monday.

http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

You better back off or that illegal coalition will strip away both the rights and the will of Canadian voters

Lou

Ha – and this is the party that was so freaked out last November when taxpayer support for political parties was threatened. Hypocrits!
RayK

It's my understanding that these so-called "ten-percenters" come from MPs and–thus–would presumably be within the purview of parliament, not the government (a future Liberal government, or any other).
RayK

It's my understanding that these so-called "ten-percenters" come from MPs and–thus–would presumably be within the purview of parliament, not the government (a future Liberal government, or any other).
kcm

I'd rather see pols chasing our votes not soliciting us for cash.Tax payer funding may not be perfect but the alternative is too gruesome to contemplate. If we think there's too much cash available now for partisan, misleading and thoroughly annoying adds just wait till the pols get their mits on the private bonanza. Besides why would we want to become the only major western democracy with no public funding of our political process?
http://intensedebate.com/people/zamprelli4731 Zamprelli

I'm not familiar with other systems, but I'd like to take a look. To which ones are you referring?

I'm all for public funding of the process, like Elections Canada or money for non-partisan (in theory) ads such as the 10%ers, but I don't think parties should get any tax money for partisan purposes. The PMO, Cabinet, individual MPs, the civil service -they all need public funds to conduct their business. But why publicly fund independent private entities like political parties?