In a democracy, citizens have multiple issues to consider in elections. Some issues are temporary but the ability to debate ideas in the first place results from a prior set of rights. It is those core freedoms - such as free political speech - that ought never to be trampled on by any party at any time.

But earlier this year, many Members of Parliament voted to do just that. Bill C-2, which contained amendments to the federal Elections Act, severely restricts spending by so-called third parties, and was passed with Liberal, New Democrat and Bloc votes; the Alliance and Conservative parties opposed the law. (The current law restricts citizens' groups to $150,000 in total throughout the country or $3,000 per riding and is only temporarily suspended thanks to the National Citizens' Coalition and an Alberta judge.)

Gag laws have a short and ignoble history in Canada; it was federal Conservatives who first attempted to restrict the rights of citizens to advertise during elections, an attempt shot down by the courts. Subsequent federal Liberal and provincial NDP laws gagging citizens have also been declared unconstitutional.

Those who favour gag laws argue, vaguely, that Canadians will somehow be captive to "big money," or that special interests will capture the electoral process and twist the unsuspecting minds of their prey - perhaps akin to UFOs snatching bodies and performing various experiments on unsuspecting victims.

Like all wacky conspiracy theories, a little history and fact-checking helps dispel the paranoia. Proponents of gag laws often refer to the 1988 election where pro and anti-free trade forces traded election-time ad punches over the issue. They argue that a later report on the subject, the 1990 Lortie Commission, proved that citizen groups influenced voter intentions. Propagandists who push such rubbish have not kept up with the academic or judicial opinions on the issue.

Earlier this year, when a BC court struck down the provincial NDP gag law, University of British Columbia Professor Richard Johnston, who authored the study upon which the Lortie Commission based its report, disavowed his own work and said he mistakenly reversed the statistical data.

As for money, the tidal wave of cash gushing around during elections does indeed occur, but from tax-deductible and taxpayer-reimbursed political parties who surf such waves, usually on corporate and labour donations. Suppose, as is probable, that no party perfectly represents your views, but you want a certain issue highlighted. The law's backers assume that the 99 percent of Canadians who do not belong to political parties should either join one or zip their lip during elections.

Gag law proponents also assume Canadians are intellectual lightweights, and must be protected from new ideas, conveniently, by a monopoly of political parties. Tragically, elections are rarely about ideas and in part because of the survival instincts of those seeking public office. Most parties and candidates stick to well-rehearsed safe scripts. They kill umpteen numbers of 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 courtesy of the political party spin doctors.

If some politicians want to campaign in such a fashion, that is their prerogative. But citizens deserve to have their own freedoms protected in the process - including the right to advertise their views in an attempt to persuade others, even if such efforts are unsuccessful. Aristotle said that speech is what separates man from beast. During this election campaign, voters should ask candidates whether they favour blurring that distinction.