Thanks for the feedback on the question of "Is there too much money in politics?"
Keep it coming, please. I would first like to correct an obvious error I made, pointed out by Jass
, regarding how the Supreme Court might have ruled if the appellant and respondent had been reversed. I stated that they were deferring to Parliament's way of defining electoral fairness. That is incorrect.
From the text of the dissent
comes this: "Common sense dictates that promoting electoral fairness is a pressing and substantial objective in our liberal democracy, even in the absence of evidence that past elections have been unfair."
There is no reason to believe that if it was Democracy Watch
asserting this objective (and their interpretation of it), in defiance of Parliament, that the ruling would have been any different.
But back to the money = speech issue. Consider the following two statements:
1) Money is speech, and restricting the former necessarily means restricting the latter
2) The more money you have, the more of a voice you have
Jass believes these are two statements of the same principle. I do not believe that is the case. When money and thus speech are restricted, you are denying people or groups the ability to say their piece in the manner they so choose. The second statement equates the quantity of speech to its quality or effectiveness. As I said in the original post, this relationship is not linear, or even mathematical.
More money means the ability to reframe, rework, and repeat your message. It does not assure effectiveness - but just because there's no linear correlation is not in itself a reason to restrict my fundamental freedom to speak in the manner (or frequency) I see fit. I don't think that's splitting hairs, either - some might disagree.
(and the Monger, kind of
) brings up
the 1988 Free Trade election as an example of the need for spending restrictions
. Which is interesting, because I was going to bring it up as an example of why such restrictions are a terrible idea.
I have a decent recollection of that election campaign. I was 15, and did a project on it for Social Studies 10 (summarizing platforms, visual aids, etc.). Three months previous, I had never heard of Mel Hurtig, Maude Barlow, or Bob Whyte, but I got a quick and comprehensive introduction to them thanks to the free-trade debate. I won't claim to recall who had more and better ads, but I certainly recall that there were a lot of TV/radio spots and full-page newspaper ads from all sorts of groups on both sides of the issue. The Business Council on National Issues, Concerned Citizens Coalition, the Canadian Auto Workers, etc. etc. - even the most barely curious voter would have had absolutely no trouble getting information and opinion on free trade from a cavalcade of sources.
Of course, this could not happen in 2004. The Canadian Auto Workers would have to donate to the NDP or Liberals (what? major restrictions as well? Oh), or rely on friendly media to attend to them and pass on their message unchallenged. I simply cannot fathom why this is fairer or more democratic.
Again, I ask, where is the evidence that the '88 election was swayed by the quantity
of advertising by big business? Why would it have been pressing and substantial to limit both their speech and that of the unions, in the name of fairness?
I guess that brings me to my last point, regarding the media. The second sentence in the Charter says that Canadians have the freedom of the press and other media of communication
. It makes no mention of "impartial", or "balanced", or even "wise" for that matter. So I fail to see why on earth the proprietors and employees of newspapers and broadcasters should be afforded freedoms that ordinary citizens are not, simply by virtue of their scale. Is there a "fairness" difference between Andrew Coyne endorsing the Conservatives on the front page of the National Post, and me buying an ad in the same space saying the same thing?
Most of us, including the Supreme Court, have not addressed this blatant contradiction, presumably because we see large media as relatively unbiased and benign (or at least, close enough). But many would dispute this notion, and regardless, why should a claim of impartiality garner an organization special rights?
If I wanted to flaunt the intent but not the letter of the Elections Act spending restrictions, I'd produce a nice, glossy magazine lambasting the Liberals and mail one free to every house in Canada. Maybe it would only be 4 pages long. Maybe it would bear a striking resemblance to a advertising flyer. But if it had, in small print on the back, "The Aldini Times, news & editorials, published by Jerry Aldini", would I not be bulletproof?
Speech restrictions are both immoral and unenforceable, though chilling, which is maybe the point.
I may have more - again, keep the feedback coming.