There are few signs that better reveal an elected representative's true opinion of his (her) constituents than whether or not they attempt to muzzle voters. Sad to say, it appears most of our federal Members of Parliament are afraid of vigorous public debate, or worse, implacably hostile to the free (and not-so-free) exchange of ideas. Most MPs have this message for Canadians: During elections, zip your lip or tell it to the judge.

Bill C-2 (recently passed by most MPs and now working its way through the Senate,) contains amendments to the federal Elections Act and is another attempt to shut down anyone that might actually demand an intelligent election campaign that speaks to specific and, heaven forbid, controversial issues.

As it is, most elections are run by the politicians for the politicians, especially those at the top. Prospective MPs must stick to script and dutifully mouth non-controversial statements and practice their trained seal routine that will come in handy during their stay in Parliament. Political parties kill multiple trees to produce meaningless motherhood-and-apple pie brochures that tell voters they are in favour of - what else - motherhood and apple pie, and it all rolls out according to plan. Governments pray to coast back into power while opposition parties hope the Prime Minister utters something questionable that might garner them more votes.

At the end, taxpayers write reimbursements - $16.5 million to 801 candidates in the 1997 election - for the privilege of having been fed bland, non-controversial, not-very-specific 'platforms' that promise voters if they really behave, vanilla ice cream will be added to the apple pie.

Am I too cynical Hardly. Bill C-2 will limit so-called 'third-party' spending during elections to a maximum of $150,000, or $498.34 per riding. Political parties can spend almost $25 million, or about $83,000 per riding.

A couple of observations: When politicians talk about 'third parties,' it's a tip-off they want the election sandbox to themselves. (The message is simple: Join a political party and stick to script, or stop speaking.) No messy divisive issues, at least, not any they are not prepared to spin away. Suppose, as is probable, that no party perfectly represents your views but you'd like to push a certain issue (gun control or its opposite, lower taxes or maybe more spending, maybe you're pro-life or pro-choice, whatever.) Thus, your association decides to advertise to try and raise public awareness and maybe get a reaction from the candidates.

Keep dreaming. Your group can spend only what is raised without a tax credit, without reimbursement, and should you succeed in raising decent money, you can only spend 1/166th of what the parties can spend. Bust that $498 limit and you're in court.

Consider this as well. In a country with thirty million people, 498 dollars per riding means citizen groups are limited to nineteenth century technology to communicate with other citizens. (Have fun plastering waybills on bulletin boards.) Meanwhile, subsidized political parties will use your money to advertise on radio, TV, Internet, and in newspapers: in other words, to communicate with Canadians via twenty-first century methods.

One last thought. Canadians spend at least $800 million per year, or over $2.6 million per riding, on pet food. The limits per riding on both political parties ($83,000) and everyone else (498 bucks) serve only the interests of those in power, not vigorous political competition, and certainly not well-publicized and intelligent public debate. Surely political ideas are worth at least what we spend to feed Fido.