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

Free speech and propaganda (II)

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 8:26am - 95 Comments

In something of a surprise—at least to me as I sat in the gallery waiting for Francine Lalonde’s bill to be debated—the NDP stood Tuesday evening and voted in favour of a Liberal motion that directs an end to the practice of ten-percenters. Those votes, together with those of the Bloc Quebecois, were just enough for the motion to pass by a count of 140-137.

Tags: democracy, government spending, house of commons, Parliament, ten percenters

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

If your goal is to have a representative slice of the population funding parties, then you should really just turn the per-vote subsidy into a head tax.

But if your goal is to have the best possible government, then having those who care and pay attention be the ones who donate to political parties is an advantage, not a disadvantage.

Mike T.

And we stll haven't established that restricting donations to $1 or $10 or relying on voluntary donations generates anywhere near the funds required, which is still the bigger issue than who is engaged or not.

Mike T.

there are plenty of people who pay lots of attention and who care deeply about politics but whose opinion is worth a great deal less than somebody with almost no engagement who still votes. Engagement, esp. to the point of being willing to make a donation is hardly the magic indicator of anything. For example, government by small dead animals would be a disaster, yet they are some of the most committed citizens in the country. There should be some representation of the middle to mitigate the edges.

Your head tax idea is interesting and might allow voters to change the direction of their subsidy between elections. But if it is an actual head tax it is still regressive, and would appear to be limited to actual taxpayers.

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

There should be some representation of the middle to mitigate the edges. Even though they can't be bothered to represent themselves. Ah, freedom. Anyone remember freedom?

Two Hats

I suspect there will unintended consequences to this that the opposition has failed to foresee. For example, "leakage" of householders across riding boundaries where these do not line up with bulk mail distribution areas. Also, the CPC is in a better position than the others to replace the 10%-ers with party mailings — are they subject to the same content restrictions?

kcm

Yeah, i'm not so sure an outright ban is called for. I'm a believer, to a degree anyway, in the principle of public shaming or aversion theory. As these ten % become more and more over the top and or distasteful, to what degree are they really effective? Do they only preach to the choir? The disgusting anti-semetic flyers in liberal ridings targeted at the Jewish community may even have had a unintended negative effect – people were offended, insulted even. But again, maybe i'm just being naive.

http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

The question of corporations (or all organizational) giving is a tricker one. Oddly, despite my free speechish views, I'd seriously consider banning donations entities that do not vote.

Here's why: Corporate officers have a legally binding fiduciary duty to serve their shareholders best interests. If that includes financing an election campaign of someone who will give them a big contract or create favourable policy, arguably they should do it. Taken to the extreme, there is no good reason for a corporation to make political contributions, unless they believe they will see a benefit to their bottom line.

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

I am with you there, YYZ, with direct contributions, but I would not want to restrict their freedom to advertise. Let the reader / listener / viewer hear any and all point of views, with the proviso that the "This is a message from Corporation Limited" is loud and clear, and, here comes the best part, let the voters, considering the self-interested source, decide for themselves how much or little to be swayed by the arguments.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Ah yes, the 4th estate. You are assuming, of course, that the special interest in question is not a major media organization, or even something with which most media organizations sympathize. That's a very dubious assumption.
http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

Indeed, but it goes back to disclosure.

My view here is pretty straightforward. There are lots of reasons why messages can be twisted, lots of inequities (perceived and real), issues with media bias and all that. Naturally a poltician's instinct is to create rules to correct the inequities – some favour per vote subsidies, others favour contribution limits, I favour strict disclosure rules.

To me, this is fundamentally an issue of freedom of speech. If a billionaire climate change activist want to finance a campaign fine. If a billionaire oil baron wants to do it, I'm fine with that too. Just give me their NAME and let me judge for myself.

If we would allow someone to run for a position, then we should allow them to write a big, fat cheque.

See my view on corporate contributions (which gets at your media point) above.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

are you concerned with stopping the possibility of rich folk or other special interests buying the election or are you concerned with just making them do so in a transparent manner. if you are concerned with the former, clearly the US example suggests that transparency in this regard means little.
Mike T.

And I'm more for practical solutions for improvement than vague hyperbole.
http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

Just to be clear, which special interest in the US do you believe bought which elections?

I am saying quite clearly, if voters are tolerant of a special interest "buying" an election, then why should we argue with that? Isn't that democracy?

It has to be supported by appropriate libel and transparency laws, as well as strict rules around government contracts, independant auditors and all of that etc. etc. etc..

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

no. being "tolerant" of something is not democracy. if that is your definition of democracy I have not idea why we are bothering to go through the motions of having a discussion. it will be futile. scores of people are tolerant of things for all kinds of reasons (e.g., they can't actually affect the matter; they will be severely sanctioned for not tolerating it; they are lazy), that is a far cry from being a democratic support of said issue/behaviour/etc.

strict laws of transparency, libel and audit regulations already exist in the US and yet we already know that American election outcomes (and the legislative results that follow) are highly influenced/controlled by special interests $$$ that flow through the lobbyist system. or are you arguing that the American lobbyist regime is impotent in securing electoral and legislative outcomes???

http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

My 1 hour volunteer work is not something I believe in, just trying to make a point that I don't think we shouldn't legislate ways for unnderrepresented groups to have a role in the political process…they already have lots of ways.

However, the notion that you can't raise a lot of money with smallish donations is flawed.
http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

I appreciate your principled stand on this issue and the arguments it produces. I also seem to be in the minority, which is fine, I can accept defeat. However there is nothing vague about my proposed solution and nor is it hyperbolic. But just to clarify

- End political subsidies – do it with fair warning so that parties can plan for it.
- Remove campaign contribution limits. Install aggressive disclosure rules.
- Ban donations from corporations, unions and any entities that cannot vote. Only citizens who are legally eligible to vote should be able to make contributions

I agree with you, this means people with more money are financing campaigns. This does not bother me. Guess what: people with more money finance EVERYTHING. Lots of them are still very good people.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

this paper provides a good overview of the relevant legislation to the operation of Canada's electoral system and it evolution, including legislation that governs parties.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Isn't "freedom" that weird concept that Canadians used to take pride in and fight for back in the bad old days before the government began caring and sharing for everyone? I hear it was pretty awful … people actually had to make decisions and stuff.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

It was worse than that, G. People actually were expected to live with their decisions. Oh, the humanity!
Mickey Shea

I'm mad Harper has said he views this motion as "non-binding" and so he will continue the practice of using our hard-earned tax dollars to pay for his propaganda. Well, this is the guy who views our Constitution and his own Four-Year-Term Election Law as non-binding, and the guy who thinks it doesn't matter what you do, it only matters what you can make people believe you are doing, so I am not surprised. But I really wish he'd stop using our tax dollars for his advertizing–like plastering the country with $150-million-dollars-worth (just for 2009) of Economic Action Plan road signs ($45 million) and ads ($105 million) is going to change the fact he ran up a record deficit of $54 billion–much of it structural, and thus cannot be blamed on the recession–and the unemployment rate is still far worse today than it was 16 months ago. http://www.canadianlabour.ca/national/news/jobs-c…
http://impolitical.blogspot.com/2009/11/5-45-mill…
Mickey Shea

Interesting. Harper has changed his mind: he had said he considered the motion non-binding and would continue the practice, but now he has flip-flopped and has agreed it is "a good idea." I saw a poll in a paper yesterday that asked people to vote for either the stated Conservative position of "they are essential to democracy" or the stated Liberal position of "they are a waste of tax payer money" and 97% had voted for the Liberal position. So I guess maybe Harper saw that poll too, and changed his position.

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

Good. He's learning.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Seriously: to become a libertarian is to renounce responsibility for all your political ideas. One clean break from having to take responsibility as a citizen.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

You mean…. [shudders]… consequences?? I think they call it CONsequences as a sort of dog-whistle from the right-wing Rovian evilmongers who invented it to their base.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

that is rich coming from two harper-fanatics that spend half their time on here saying the liberals, did it first! the liberals did it first!

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

Nice try. Not. I don't believe I have ever used a Liberals-did-it-first argument. Although there is likely a Harper-learned-from-Chretien theme to the occasional post. I can GUARANTEE it has not employed half my time here at Blog Central.

If you think I am a Harper fanatic, I invite you to check out my ID user page, to correct your misimpression.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

I think by "two Harper fanatics" he must be referring to me and my alternate personality.

Actually, now you mention it, I didn't know I was a Harper fanatic. And neither did I.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

indeed myl i must have been confused as to whom i was responding to, besides Gaunilon. apologies extended. you are indeed a hard individual to pin down given your tendency to call them line you see them. there have been more than one day on the boards where I have found myself in full agreement with you on a matter and at total odds with you on another (or vice versa) with whiplash speed. again, sincere apologies.

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

Friendly suggestion for whiplash prevention: feel free to agree with my wisdom at all times.
;)
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

Funny. I thought the solution was the polar opposite.

Sent from my iPhone

Mike T.

If we're looking at alternate measures to save the taxpayer's money, how about reducing the need to fundraise by limiting the amount of advertising and polling a party can do? It hampers two of the biggest moneysuckers parties need money for and would probably raise the level of political discussion. It affects the current situation of most parties fairly equally. It might even make it more likely for parties to stand on principle, rather than constantly calculating and trying to second guess the public.
Mike T.

But we could INCREASE it with other measures! Instead of advertising, more debates! More policy development! Advertising is only one way in which we consume political information, and it is one of the least useful.
http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

I agree their should be more debates and their should be more discussion of policy. I'm not convinced that would happen. Also more debates might mean that the quality of being a good debater is more important than being a good leader (advertising perhaps even more imperfect).

The spot I'm coming from is that political speech has been repressed for centuries and still is in most geographies. I am hesitant to put limits on it other than rules around transparency and disclosure.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

by limiting the amount of advertising and polling a party can do?

Ah, freedom. Does anyone remember freedom?