Apolitical Staples

Yet another argument for more restrictive political advertising laws.

Free speech for me but not for thee. Who needs equal treatment under the law anyway? It is not like they would come and shut down blogs for political advertising if they got the chance.

I’m assuming they won’t have much trouble coming up with a campaign targeting a man who calls tax cuts “useless”.

Greg S., you have it all wrong. It’s “free speech for me and those I deem ideologically acceptable”.

Who needs equal treatment under the law anyway?

Exactly, we need to ban all special interest political advertising (and I mean left as well as right). No more union paid leaflets, no more billboards from “non-partisan” groups. Let them donate to political parties under the campaign finance laws, as individuals. Hrumpf.

Why should you have to belong to a political party to express a political opinion? Everyone should have the right to participate in the political process, not just politicians.

But why should the size of one’s wallet dictate the input you get in the political process? How do we ensure that everybody has equal (and full, unfettered) access to the discussion?

Equally of opportunity, not equality of outcome. If you think the NCC will have a bigger voice then get organized and make your voice bigger. You have the same opportunity as they do. Don’t stop an organization from advocating a position just because you disagree with them or they do it well. Anybody can do it with enough passion or if you don’t have the passion don’t regulate the passion out of others.

But why should the size of one’s wallet dictate the input you get in the political process? How do we ensure that everybody has equal (and full, unfettered) access to the discussion?

If you mean full, unfettered access to a discussion about how much honestly earned money should be taken from people with fat wallets and put into the wallets of people who couldn’t be bothered to earn their own money, then the answer is not to have the discussion at all.

This discussion is always based upon the same two assumptions about human nature: (1) people with money could not have earned it except by theft, fraud or some other special and unfair advantage, and therefore cannot be trusted to take care of other people by giving them a job, selling them stuff, performing charitable acts, etc., and (2) people without money are so incredibly ignorant and stupid that they could not possibly better themselves or live fulfilling lives unless someone in the government takes money from rich people and spends it on their behalf. After taking a very generous cut for themselves (plus benefits).

While you discuss the supposed benefits and freedoms of commiting larceny in the name of fairness, the fat wallets concentrate on hiding their income and assets from the jurisdiction with one hand, and with the other hand hiring lobbyists and lawyers in order to turn the inherent criminality of the all-powerful legislatures to their own advantage.

I believe the Supreme Court was right in its reasoning in Harper v. Canada.

The current third party election advertising regime is Parliament’s response to this Court’s decision in Libman. In promoting the equal dissemination of points of view by limiting the election advertising of third parties who are influential participants in the electoral process, the overarching objective of the spending limits is electoral fairness. This egalitarian model of elections seeks to create a level playing field for those who wish to engage in the electoral discourse, enabling voters to be better informed. The Court of Appeal erred in considering the provisions on third party spending limits globally. While the regime is internally coherent, its constituent parts stand on their own and the constitutionality of each set of provisions must be considered separately.

The limits on third party election advertising expenses set out in s. 350 infringe the right to freedom of political expression guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Charter but they do not infringe the right to vote protected by s. 3. The right to meaningful participation in s. 3 of the Charter cannot be equated with the exercise of freedom of expression. The two rights are distinct and must be reconciled. Under s. 3, the right of meaningful participation in the electoral process is not limited to the selection of elected representatives and includes a citizen’s right to exercise his or her vote in an informed manner. In the absence of spending limits, it is possible for the affluent or a number of persons pooling their resources and acting in concert to dominate the political discourse, depriving their opponents of a reasonable opportunity to speak and be heard, and undermining the voter’s ability to be adequately informed of all views. Equality in the political discourse is thus necessary for meaningful participation in the electoral process and ultimately enhances the right to vote. This right, therefore, does not guarantee unimpeded and unlimited electoral debate or expression. Spending limits, however, must be carefully tailored to ensure that candidates, political parties and third parties are able to convey their information to the voter; if overly restrictive, they may undermine the informational component of the right to vote. Here, s. 350 does not interfere with the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process.

See how the Supreme Court perfectly illustrates the 2 major assumptions which underlie socialist ideology:

In the absence of spending limits, it is possible for the affluent or a number of persons pooling their resources and acting in concert to dominate the political discourse, depriving their opponents of a reasonable opportunity to speak and be heard, and undermining the voter’s ability to be adequately informed of all views.

Ah, the inherent and incorrigible evil of people who earn and save money, and the frightening stupidity and helplessness of people who do not! Who will save us? And not just during election campaigns, but always and everywhere?

I obviously think it should be taken further, to include periods between elections as well

By Jove! With heroes like Socialist Greg on the job our freedom (to steal from the rich without having to listen to them whine about it) is safe.

it is possible for the affluent or a number of persons pooling their resources and acting in concert to dominate the political discourse

Or you get the government to provide funding for your interest/lobby group to dominate the political discourse.