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 Wednesday, November 3, 2010 9:18am - 0 Comments

The Green party wants to ban political advertising from television.

Many countries ban the use of television advertising for political parties, including the U.K., South Africa, Brazil, Belgium, Switzerland, Chile, Sweden, and Ireland. Attack ads are widely recognized to discourage democratic participation and cost an incredible amount of money, creating an enormous imbalance between the different parties.

In order to have open, fair and participatory election campaigns, Canada should ban the use of television for political advertising before and during the writ periods. Current Elections Canada rules limit political party spending on television ads during a writ period, but there are no controls at all on television ads outside a writ period. “We should rely on free access to the airwaves, organized by networks to allow candidates to explain their own views and policies, not attack the character and personal foibles of the opposition,” said May.

Elizabeth May expands on her concerns here.

Tags: advertising, attack ads, election, elections canada, Elizabeth May, green, Green Party

More by Aaron Wherry

http://nottawa.blogspot.com Mark

Because in any open and accessible electoral system, paid television advertising should be the unique purview of well-funded interests and advocacy groups.

Right.
john g

Translation: My party doesn't have the advertising budget to purchase air time in the same amounts as the other established parties so lets suppress free speech to level the playing field.

This is pretty rich coming from her, seeing as how she is little more than a walking talking Anybody-But-Conservative attack ad.

kcm

Wow. An actual person who you can ask questions of, and rilly rilly difficult stuff like that, is as much of a drag on public discourse as vile purile cut and paste character smears.[ regardless of party]

Mike T.

an excellent idea I've long been in favour of. They're expensive and you can't address issues intelligently in a 30 second spot – all they can do is increase brand recognition.

Any benefit of discourse lost could be more than made up for by adding another debate to campaigns.

Blue

You`re not serious.
You really want to see Elizabeth May one more time in a debate. Think about that.
You may be the only one watching.

Al O'Wishes

<i<You really want to see Elizabeth May one more time in a debate. Think about that.

I have, and I do. I think she did pretty good in the debate. So did many others. Here's a review:

Elizabeth May surprised last night as she was the most sober of the opposition leaders. In comparison with other leaders, May brought a calm, number- and fact-referencing persona to the debate and politely corrected leaders as to the “facts” (though many as she saw them). For many Canadians who look at the political landscape and see the same old players locked in a seemingly eternal stalemate, May brought a fresh face to the stage for Canadians to consider. The Green Party leader needed to show Canadians that she deserved to debate on the same stage as the party leaders. Despite real and valid arguments against her inclusion and a childish repeat of her fraud accusation leveled against Harper, last night she didn’t appear out of place. In that, May scored an impressive victory for her cause.

sourstud

Our debates, in their current form, are no better than any of the TV ads.

danby

Honest question.

What do you think would make them better?

sourstud

Well first off, I think it's almost impossible to get any substance out of the things with 5 party leaders up there at the same time. Idealy, there would be a debate with Iggy vs. Harper, another with Layton vs. Harper, and another with Layton vs. Iggy…. but I realize that would make for an impossibly busy debate schedule….

Which is why I'd introduce regional debates. We could have debates for BC, the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes, all held separately. This would be great for informing voters as to a parties priorities for their region.

I also see no reason why, with a much more hectic debate schedule, each party leader would have to show up for each debate. Iggy doesn't want Goodale talking for the party in the Prairies? Fine, he could chose to do it himself, while Harper could send Bernier out to do Quebec. Also there would be no Bloc participation where they don't run candidates, without them being deprived of an audience that they need. These are the people who in the end would be representing the interests of the region anyway, so I don't see why they shouldn't partially be the face of their party in that region.

After the regional debates, we could then have our usual cluster-frag of a national debate. But I think that by "decentralizing" the debates, voter engagement would be increased, and people would have a much better idea of exactly what each party will do specifically for their own region (and we all know that federal politics is increasingly regional in it's demands). It would probably also make for much tougher questions on the candidates, but that's a good thing.

Cue thumbs up.

danby

Very intriguing. Your ideas could open up a lot of dialog and just might increase voter engagement, which is definitely a good thing.
I am certainly in favour of tougher questions that (hopefully) force candidates to reach beyond their repetitive and myopic talking points.
But would the candidates themselves buy in?
sourstud

Harper certainly wouldn't. He *might* relinquish the Quebec debate, but other than that there's no way he'd let anybody else speak for the party.

Iggy would probably send representatives everywhere except Ontario, where he's still liked. I suspect he probably wouldn't send anyone out to the Prairies though.

Layton would be willing to send delegates, but that would be a bad decision as he's by far the best voice his party has, they have nobody else with the same name-recognition, and their message is a little uniform across the country.

Duceppe would do Quebec, and that's it.

Lizzy would be forced to send representatives because her electric campaign bus would render all other options a logistical impossibility.

Emily

We sell politicians like we sell soap…with about the same results.

P.Q.

The same results?? The soap I buy actually cleans things up.

Richard_S_Argent

I actually agree – political television ads literally make me feel dumber for having watched them (and that goes for all political ads from any party).

And hey Conservative friends, if television ads were banned – then the per-vote subsidy becomes much harder to justify!

Mike T.

I think that trade would be reasonable, though would like to see the subsidy reduced rather than eliminated.
Andrew (not PorC)

Indeed. For me, this would be a condition of eliminating the per vote subsidy. I'd also insist campaign spending limits be cut by 75% and that political donations be capped at $200.

Richard_S_Argent

Of course all of this hinges on the belief that the Harper Conservatives proposal to cut the subsidy is part of a principled program and not just taking advantage of an advantageous situation for partisan gain. :)

Mike T.

It would be somewhat satisfying to see the blues in a few years screaming about how it supports democracy…

john g

You would cut the per vote subsidy AND cap donation limits at $200?

That seems awfully draconian. How would you suggest parties fund their operations?

Mike T.

By not buying TV ads!

John D

I have a better idea. We get a panel of nonpartisan Canadians together. They have to review and approve every ad. If they determine it to be too negative or too douchey, it doesn't make it.

Or, you know, we could stop voting for people that belittle our intelligence.

John_Edgar

Yes, but that wouldn't leave us many people to vote for …
sourstud

Really? A panel to decide what is and isn't appropriate political discourse in this country? Let's see how that's working in North Korea….

Out There

The problem with the current rules is that a party with a large war chest – such as today's Conservatives – can monopolize the airwaves and basically force their opinions on the Canadian public.

The Conservative attack ads have been effective because they take advantage of people's evolutionarily ingrained tendency to believe things that are repeated to them often enough. If viewers are told, over and over again, that Michael Ignatieff is an arrogant elitist who is "just visiting", or that Stephane Dion is not a leader, not a leader, not a leader, this becomes the starting point for any debate on the subject. Which means that the Conservatives have successfully defined the framework for discussion.

One could argue that a political party that is more successful in fundraising deserves to have this competitive edge. However, this gives an advantage to political parties that are backed by the wealthy (who can afford to give more money) or by hard-core ideologues. I'm not sure that this is the best thing for the country.

A ban on television advertising outside of an election, or on attack ads of any kind, might force political parties to give voters reasons why they should choose them. At present, the Conservatives can get away with not revealing what they plan to do if they are given an additional mandate.

hollinm

So because a party is successful at fundraising which is the life blood of any political party they should not be allowed to spend there money as they see fit. Thats really democracy in action. Talk about the nanny state.

You suggest that it "gives an advantage to political parties that are backed by the wealthy(who can afford to give more money)…". Have you not heard corporations and unions are not allowed to donate and that individual donations are limited to $1,100. How does that allow someone with money to influence parties/government?

Out There

Have you not heard corporations and unions are not allowed to donate and that individual donations are limited to $1,100. How does that allow someone with money to influence parties/government?

$1,100 is a lot of money for most Canadians – many of whom are living from paycheck to paycheck – if, indeed, they have a paycheck at all. And $1,100, multiplied by a large enough number, is enough to provide a substantial war chest.

So because a party is successful at fundraising which is the life blood of any political party they should not be allowed to spend there money as they see fit.

Yes, that is exactly what I am advocating. Eliminating non-election saturation advertising is a Good Thing.

hollinm

You are right. $1,100 is a lot of money to most people and I suspect even if they had it they would not use it to donate to a political party.

However, individual donations of $1,100 max. do not buy influence. The fact that the Conservatives have the ability to raise money shows individual donors believe in the party and are prepared to support them financially. Would you rather have taxpayers fund political parties even more than they do now?

The fact that the NDP and Libs cannot match the Cons in fundraising is evidence that their supporters are not inclined to support financially. That does not mean a party who is successful at fundraising should be stopped from doing it.

PeteTong

I wonder if Ms. May also wants to ban all television advertising, or maybe all advertising and/or all television.
Blue

While we`re at it could we also ban the use of cellphones in a campaign ? If you need to communicate with someone, what was wrong with sending a letter with Canada Post ? Do we really need airplanes and buses in a campaign ? In the cities candidates should be able to walk or cycle everywhere, and in the country there`s horse and buggys and if you`re in a hurry jump on a freight train. And as for this internet thing, I`ll be glad when that trendy gadget is no longer fashionable.

hollinm

Isn't that Lizzie May's platform?
brooster2

Another thoughtful contribution to the conversation. Thanks for coming.

hollinm

Your welcome.

brooster2

Oh, are you Blue's alter-ego?

NorthernPoV

Imagine that!
Candidates addressing issues instead of throwing media-Molotov-cocktails at each other.

My recipe to restore Canadian democracy:
1) Ban (or at least regulate) all political advertising outside the writ period.
2) Ban the 10%s and the blatant use of gov't communications that promote the governing party.
3) Ban TV ads (as per Lizzie's idea) and provide lots of debate and town hall opportunities.
4) Ban all polling – deprive pols of this tool that dupes and manipulates the electorate.

and then implement some alternative to FPTP – ranking candidates for an instant run-off is my choice.

sourstud

So basically you'd like to keep the electorate completely uninformed, with the exception of debates and town halls?

Personally, I'd rather have my MP working than chasing around all of his potential rivals and making sure he's involved in every public event his opponents are.

The simplest way to solve the TV problem, is to remove the vote-subsidy.

stephen

I respectfully disagree. Of the 4 things listed above, which causes the electorate to be informed?

There would still be the electronic and print media, in the form of news. No one is advocating that news programs/publications not cover political parties. And there is also the internet for people to learn about the individual party platforms.

Also, MPs are already making sure they are involved in every public event. Pierre Poilievre doesnt keep getting elected because he's an intellectual heavyweight. It is because he is very involved in anything that goes on in his riding.

Out There

Do you think in the following election, opposing parties should be able to point out these false promises to the electorate in TV ads or should we just forget about it ?

Given the Conservatives' track record of keeping promises, I'm not sure that this is the best approach for them to take. Does anyone recall income trusts, the fixed election date legislation, or the Conservatives' promise to be more open and accountable?

I suppose that I have no problem with ads that stick to issues. If a party makes a promise and then breaks it, it's fair game. But I'd rather know what parties plan to do going forward – especially if the broken promises in question were made by a leader who has since been removed from his or her position.

Blue

Sure put all the broken promises Out There of the governing Party and let the electorate judge whether their performance is so bad they should be turfed out of office.
And let every party promise the moon and let the electorate decide if they are realistic or even wanted.

But don`t restrict the public`s right to have as much information as possible just because Elizabeth May is broke.
By the way May would not like to hear that talk about the elimination of the vote subsidy—-that`s the only thing keeping the Greens afloat.

Claudia Lemire

What is she going to do with the internet, ban it too, it is at your finger tips any time, any where, while it would be nice to see better ads on TV and by that I mean nicer, it just isn't a good move or idea!
sourstud

I suspect ol' Lizzy is much more interested in banning TV ads altogether. It would kill all the private broadcasters in Canada, and leave only the Green-friendly CBC to promote it's anti-Conservative message. And why not? Unions, NGO's and corporations have political self-interest as well, why shouldn't they also be banned then?

Richard_S_Argent

I find it very hard to believe that political ads account for a majority of revenues for the private broadcasters.

Wait, are you suggesting that May wants to do away with all advertising on television?! That's quite the leap in logic, no?

sourstud

It's a leap, though I don't think an extreme leap in logic. It would be entirely fair, if her proposition were enacted, to ban all environmental NGO's from running television ads, since they'd basically be Green Party election ads. From there, it's not far to see Unions being banned from television advertising, as they pretty much just push the NDP party line. And we all know the Union's won't give any concessions without seeing their corporate masters giving something up in return.

Of course, I don't think any of this will happen. I just think the whole idea is terrible.

stephen

I thought the talking point was that we cant have an election because the economy was too fragile.

Guest

Once again, an illustration of why this little feature isn't titled "Good Idea Alert."
lgarvin

Exactly. And anyone who actually valued our freedoms would never even suggest it…
taylor2in2ontario

What a fantastic idea. The price tag alone justifies the idea of nixing political tele-ads.
john g

This idea might be obsolete soon anyways. Television as an advertising medium is dying.

Does May also suggest that candidates be banned from uploading Youtube videos? Because pretty soon that will take over as the primary advertising medium.
Mike T.

Hasten the day!
Andrew (not PorC)

lol.

'Pretty soon'? People will not voluntarily watch youtube advertisements en masse. Paid advertising on youtube should similarly be restricted.
john g

Really? You might want to check with the Old Spice people on that. Here are the statistics for the Old Spice channel on YouTube.

Profile Name:Old Spice
Channel Views:13,975,770
Total Upload Views:161,030,794

This campaign cost them basically nothing. They'd have had to spend about $5M-$6M in SuperBowl ad costs to get this kind of exposure.

People PVR their shows and skip the commercials, or download them from the Internet with the commercials already removed. The days of the paid 30-second ad on TV are not long for this world.
Andrew (not PorC)

I'll clarify: paid political ads. Sorry john. They are not fun, interesting or technically impressive like the Old Spice campaign was.
Andrew (not PorC)

I'll also say that the old spice campaign is the exception that proves the rule. Rare is the campaign that can grab that kind of attention. Same with the Dos Equis beer Most Interesting Man campaign. It was really effective and got lots of unpaid exposure. These things are exceedingly rare. The vast majority of advertising will have to remain paid.
brooster2

People will seek out ads that go viral on the internet because they're humorous or have appealing special effects. I, for one, would not go looking for some nasty political attack ad that makes me want to shower after I've seen it. I think they degrade the caliber of political discourse and I wouldn't waste download time on them. As it is, when ambushed by one (from any party) on TV, I change the channel.
john g

I certainly do agree with you that it's extremely unlikely that a political ad campaign would garner this kind of exposure unless something truly, uniquely remarkable comes out of somebody's creative department.

But that being said, these things are only rare today because the paradigm shift is still in its early days. We've only really had one election in the YouTube era.

The media already announce when a new batch of ads are ready for air…why on earth would any party with a limited campaign budget pay to air an ad that will probably be skipped by somebody's PVR when they can just dump them on YouTube for free and turn An Unnamed Senior Official loose to leak the new ads to the media?

I'm on a soapbox. Silverfish Hand Catch!
Mike T.

There is other media besides TV.

Such as the one you are viewing now.