Madmen politics

Is it time to talk about limits on political advertising, legislated or voluntary?

Late yesterday, the Senate held second reading of a bill to limit spending on political ads -- outside the election-campaign period. It's Senator Dennis Dawson's bill, and I'll put some of his speech, and the elements of his proposed legislation, at the end of this post.

This is an issue that has particular significance at this very moment. We're not in an election yet, so Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats and everyone else are absolutely free to blow thousands, millions of dollars on advertising. Once a campaign starts, probably this weekend, they will all be subject to the same limits. 

Some people are expressing worries that the Conservatives will deliberately delay going to the Governor-General's residence so that they can have a few more days to bombard the airwaves with their no-limit ads. 

I'm wondering if this whole business of negative ads, in between elections, could be a sleeper issue for a political party. The Green Party thinks so.  Would Canadians be keen to see an end to these things?

Apparently the TV networks used to have a rule against running political ads between elections -- a rule that's obviously been abandoned. (I learned this from Robin Sears, who was talking on Cross-Country Checkup a few weeks back; have not seen anything written about it.)   Meanwhile, Advertising Standards Canada, in the last election campaign, gently reminded Canadians that political parties are exempt from the voluntary code that governs private-sector advertising. (Which is why you don't see Tim Hortons running ads attacking the patriotism of Starbucks customers.) Maybe a political party or two might want to opt in to the standards? As a gesture of good faith/integrity? 

Any outright ban on negative ads would probably collide with   Charter rights over  freedom of expression. Senator Dawson's bill doesn't propose a ban -- he just wants those outside-campaign ads to be included in the legislated limits on advertising  during election campaigns. Here's basically how it would work, according to the backgrounder: 

Bill S-227 would amend the Canada Elections Act to address advertising expenses incurred by a registered political party during a 3-month period immediately prior to a general election campaign.  The Bill would bring those expenses within the definition of an “election expense”, so that they are counted against the limits imposed on party advertising during an election.  It would not ban political party advertising, nor would it affect in any way third party advertising.  While the expenses would count for purposes of election spending limits, they would not be eligible for reimbursement by taxpayers.  Thus, there is no draw on public funds.

And here's a sampling of what Sen. Dawson had to say about his bill during yesterday's debate in the red chamber. The bill doesn't have a hope in heck of getting through before the next election, but maybe for next time?? 

 

Clearly, if a party can engage in an advertising free-for-all blitz campaign immediately prior to visiting the Governor General, there is a loophole in the current legislature.... 

 

For decades now, political parties have always waited the election call before launching their official campaign. But now, the Conservatives are trying to impose on Canadians permanent campaigning the same way it is done in the United States....  The Canadian way is to debate ideas, not to throw money around all year long to try to discredit your opponents. The Canadian way is also to work and govern between each election, not to spend most of your time campaigning against the other political parties.  Canadians are expecting their parliamentarians to develop and work on legislature, not on electoral ads on a permanent basis. The core question of this debate is the following: Do we want to be in permanent electoral mode as the Conservatives are trying to do, or do we want to preserve the Canadian tradition of having fair elections, where ideas prevail over money?  

 

Comments

[Debbie]

Sounds like a great piece of legislation. I hope that it will go forward no matter what party happens to hold the reins of power. One way that all these pre-election advertisements would get less play is if the print media refused to pay them any attention. How many of the ads in the last couple of months have made it onto the television? I have seen a couple of the Conservative ads but nothing from the Liberals, NDP, and Green Parties, but they have all been written about in the papers. Do the parties rely on the print media to do their advertising for them just by writing about them? The cynical part of me wonders if any of this would be an issue if the Liberals had the money to do the advertising and if Sen. Dawson would have brought this forward.

[John Devereaux]

Of course it was written by the broke-ass LPC!

LPC: "Waaaaah! We can't get million dollar cheques from powercorp anymore! Let's legislate our problems away instead of going to our so-called supporters who can't even pony up five bucks!"

[Burpnrun]

Susan: Yes, political ads will have a powerful place in a campaign. But, more central to the campaign is a simple question, "Mr Ignatieff: Coalition or not?". No more waffling, shading, avoidance and equivocation. "Coalition or not?"

I truly believe we will not have an election if Mr. Ignatieff answers this key question truthfully.

[John Roszell]

It is time for not only the negative personal ads to go, but also the ads that only attack the opponents platform without providing insight into their own policies. Requirements such as for every minute of "critique" ads that a party chooses to run, they must provide equal time to specifically discuss their platform will help to remove the overpowering negative focus that Canadian elections have begun to develop. Furthermore, this will also help generate actual conversation on party policy within the public dialogue. Also, Canada has a national broadcaster for both radio and television, so there is not even a need for parties to have to purchase time on the waves; it can be provided by the arms-length government media. While this might pose a logistical problem if Canada begins to develop a large number of smaller political parties like in European countries, it currently would not be difficult for the CBC to accommodate equal access for the 5 parties currently recognized by the federal debates. We as a country have the means to provide the media access for our political parties and the awareness that negative campaigning does not generate meaningful debate; we simply need the resolve to act before our elections turn into the multi-billion dollar childish name-calling that we are now witnessing in the US.

[Dave Munro]

Thank you for your words and ideas and mostly thanks for bringing this to our attention. The other thing I could add to the argument is that Canadians have always been know to want to work together for the greater good, something the Conservatives have clearly shown they can't.

[michael mulrooney]

I believe Senator Dawson's bill would be welcomed by many Canadians if it ever became the law. It seems fairly clear that Harper has been campaigning since the beginning of the year, obeying the letter of the election funding law while contravening it's spirit. And so we all have to sit and listen to all the spin about what a terrible person Iggy is, while remaining uninformed about important stuff like the cost of the new prisons and fighter jets, how to fix health-care, etc. Maybe this legislation would reduce the amount of partisan noise that we have to endure.

[Gabby in QC]

Who needs ads when a party has writers like the owner of this blog to advance its cause on a daily basis, both as a blogger and as "the Star's Senior Writer in Ottawa"? Plus let's not forget guesting on political panels. And how is that oh so subtle campaign carried out? By attacking her would-be prime minister's adversary, the actual PM.

And the owner of this blog is the one lamenting the marketing of political parties -- "the value vs. values" approach?
Laughable.

[Andrew B]

I am a well educated 25yr old male, yet out of all of my friends I am the only one who reads the newspaper. This means any time I wish to speak politics with any of them the first thing they spout out is how Iggy would be a terrible leader, yet they have no idea Harper and his pals were found in contempt of parliment, or even what that really means. They cannot mention any policy that the conservatives have, yet are hell bent on voting for them. They almost always mention the carbon tax and how it will be a bad thing for them but yet again have no idea what it actually is. This is all due to the way advertisments are moving, no information, just spouting crazy out of context lies, and it does not seem to matter. I would love if this bill made it through, and if advertising were less attack and more information. Unfortunately the ad's work, I hope though that the other parties keep it clean and attack us with a clear vision of a future with them.

[Eliza Grey]

I personally would love to see limits on these type of ads. I think they should be governed by the same rules as any other ads are. Why should political parties basically be allowed to circumvent the rules of advertising?

[Dave Stewart]

I hate election ads during elections let alone the onslaught we've been suffering these last few months.
As far as attack ads are concerned they should be banned. The constitution's handling of freedom of speech should apply to individuals, not organizations.
If we are stuck with them I would suggest that backdating by 3 months be the minimum. I would suggest that all advertising that is done by the parties outside an election be deducted from their election budgets for a prior period of a year.
We also need rules about government advertising of programs. Granted the government should be advising Canadians of the programs available to them but the latest ones we've seen seem to be Conservative ads thinly disguised as public service ads.

[Jennifer Tupper]

How about also prohibiting third party special interest groups from advertising for or against any political party? If they are receiving tax dollars, then they shouldn't have the ability to advertise for or against any political party. If you aren't a stable or necessary enough organization to justify a budget from any sitting government, then keep your nose out of it!

[Fareed]

Since the Harper regime came to power we have seen more and more of a drift to American style politics in Canada. Key Conservative party functionaries not only have no respect for the opposition party members but there is an actual dislike or disdain for them. The attitudes you would find among many Conservative staffers and MPs towards their opposition counterparts almost borders on the type of attitude you would find among supporters of cults. This is not dissimilar to the way things are among political party supporters/staffers in the US (more so on the Republican Party's side then the Democratic side) and it is something I and other Canadians do not want for Canada.
--
There use to be a time when Canadian political parties could disagree on key issues yet still find a way to work together for the benefit of all Canadians. After all, politics is about compromise. There were even friendships between opposition MPs. Such is not the case now.
--
What we have seen since the start of the Harper years is a government which has no desire to work with the opposition but only find ways to impose its ideological agenda on all Canadians even though less then 40% of Canadians voted for them. And one of the ways they have been doing that is to import political strategies and tactics used by the Republicans in the US. One of those strategies is to bring American style attack ads to Canada.
--
While the Conservatives weren't the first to use attack ads in Canada they have certainly been the first ones to use the American style of character assassination of a political opponent. And if a party has to use character assassination as a political tactic then it means that party is not only morally bankrupt but it is also bankrupt of ideas. Sadly, this first salvo by the Conservatives will mean retaliation of a similar sort by the other parties. And the result will be Canadian politics sinking even deeper into a world of slime -- a place where politics in Canada exists in the minds of many Canadians.

[David]

I for one am getting tired of the ads for "Canada's Economic Action Plan".

[Dave K]

I mute all ads as a reflex action and will only turn up the volume if the print seems to be of any real substance, so far I have not heard any of the Conservative ads and heard very little of the Liberal's efforts.
On the point of coalition; asking for a declaration ahead of time is silly. Any party leader who states ahead of time that he/she is going to form a coalition is admitting defeat before the ballots are even cast. There is nothing wrong with coalitions, they are formed of legally elected candidates who's leaders have the right to do deals. I suspect the Conservatives would be singing another tune if they could get anyone to work with them but as long as Mr Harper is the leader this is unlikely, hence their frantic opposition to the concept.

[Tracy Gartner]

I don't want to see any type of attack ad in our country. If a party can't run an ad on what they can do for our country, they should not be able to run them at all. We can make up our minds on the leaders and that does not have to be based on lies, hate, and slander.

[Cam]

yeah Debbie, if you want your taxpayer dollars spent like this just send the Cons another donation. The rest of us don't want our money spent that way. It's our money, not the Conservative Party's.

[Ontruth]

Nothing seems to be a problem unless the Conservatives do it. Then all of a sudden, it becomes something of paramount importance.

[Andrew]

I think the campaign ads being run by the Conservative party and Liberal party are disgusting. Campaign ads should be focused on what the party running the ad intends to do if elected into office, not discrediting other parties.

The job of investigating and reporting lies and mistrust of government powers should be the job of the media.

[denialawareness]

Debbie @ 11:17 AM gives us an example of a fine Conservative position: "Of course it was written by the broke-ass LPC! LPC: "Waaaaah! We can't get million dollar cheques from powercorp anymore! Let's legislate our problems away instead of going to our so-called supporters who can't even pony up five bucks!" Exactly how can that be construed as intelligent argument? We are richer, so we are better?? We can use tax-payers' money, so we can spend as much as we want? What is your point, please?

And John Devereaux, I have a question for you. You say,
"But, more central to the campaign is a simple question, "Mr Ignatieff: Coalition or not?". No more waffling, shading, avoidance and equivocation. "Coalition or not?"I truly believe we will not have an election if Mr. Ignatieff answers this key question truthfully." Are you saying that Harper does not absolutely and completely want this election? What about the fact that the only persuasive argument he's got is the economy and that will begin failing once the subsidies and hand-outs are history - which is soon. This is his only chance to try to get a majority. You are implying that Harper did not purposely construct a budget that the other parties will most certainly oppose (and then refuse to amend it) in order to have an election. I disagree with you.

[MacJack]

Hallelujah!

I sent my first ever e-mail to my MP earlier this week asking for an election and urged a vote of non- confidence. I also asked why none of the parties in the House had introduced legislation to limit these partisan ads of all varieties outside any election campaign. It should not be permitted.

Despite all the bull about not wanting an election, the offensive and endless ads we have been subjected to since the last general election tell another story. They should be banned. I hope someone speaks to this on the campaign trail and the legislation gets re-introduced in the next sitting.

[MissFitz]

how do you govern a time before and unplanned (and therefore unscheduled) election? there's a loop-hole if you can't 100% predict if a minority government will fall and an election be called.

[Don]

Advertising is not communication. If a politician or political party wants my vote, they should be willing to come to my house and engage me in a discussion - defend their position and hear my idea. If Canadians refused to vote for anyone who doesn't come to talk to them in person (town hall, door-to-door) the quality of political discussion, policy and, yes... politician would have to improve.

[Bruce Mclean]

I'm more concerned about a biased media that will attack one party constantly, and avoid criticizing the other.If the bill covers that, fine, otherwise forget it.

[Peter Davis]

I would love to see the people collectively punish the parties that engage in negative underhanded campaigning. Then we wouldn't need this legislation. Here's to hoping.

In the meantime I support the legislation.

[susan]

Why is Harper Very proudly talking about the Coalition he is in with the USA France and England if Coalitions are a bad thing.Please answer that one creepy tories that can be talked into being the turkey at their own Thanksgiving

[terrenaut]

I suppose it is a good idea, but determined political parties will always find the loophole. I live in Peter Van Loan country, and for the last few years we have been inundated with personal attack ads on Ignatieff, weekly. These flyers appear in the mailboxes regularly, disguised as "information updates", and we, the taxpayers pay for them. Despite our protests, despite sending them back clearly marked "This is NOT information I want, please stop sending", the barrage continues. I just don't see any way to control it with piecemeal regulations, when what is needed is a sea-change in the way that taxpayers view the dissemination of such information, at any time. I would like to see public attitudes change, so that a politician who engages in such practices is deemed to be incompetent and nasty, rather than given a pat on the back for being a "player".

[scunny]

Let's see if we Canadians have wised up over the past couple elections, eh?

Fool us once, shame on HARPER - fool us twice, shame on we fat and happy, distracted Canadians.

Maybe its time for us to be a little more aware and engaged when it comes to the bombardment of partisan miss-and-diss information we now face before and during election campaigns. If we each try to remember to consciously react negatively to the advertiser each time we are burdened with yet another ominously scripted CON job in the media, maybe we can foster a grass roots remedy to the problem all by ourselves.

Of course, it is not just one party which treats Canadians as frightened, easily malleable sheep, but the most currently powerful among them obviously sees us that way. And if STEPHEN HARPER is successful in his third attempt to overtly mislead Canadians, who is to say we are not the fools he and his doughy band of sycophants believe us to be?

LET'S VOTE WISELY, EH? And please encourage our families, friends and neighbours to do the same. ( :-)

[Canadians Voting for Change]

First past the post got us into this mess. Vote for change on May 2!

Join our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/pages/Canadians-Voting-For-Change/123769107685294 and spread the word.