According to the federal Liberals, Canadian voters are stupid. How else does one explain their attempt to re-introduce a gag-law on citizens and citizen group election spending It's just one of the changes to be proposed when the Liberals table sweeping amendments to the
Canada Elections Act
later this spring.
Media reports suggest that the feds will seek to ban the publication of public opinion polls 48 hours prior to election-day and limit the ability of citizen groups or unions to communicate their message during an election campaign. On the other hand, the feds will probably seek to increase the amount of money taxpayers reimburse back to candidates and parties. This "election welfare" cost taxpayers $24 million for the 1997 general election.
Yet it is the banning of polls and the gag-law which are truly obscene. Last year the Supreme Court struck down the 72-hour poll ban (in effect during the 1993 and 1997 elections) as "gravely insulting" to voters. No kidding! To think that polls dramatically sway voters one way or the other is ludicrous. If it were true, why would we even bother with the pretense of democracy and the massive expense of elections at all Why not just continually poll 1,000 Canadians on a regular basis and select MPs and implement policy according to the latest poll results
As insulting as this is to our intelligence, the government's persistence to once-again instill a "gag-law" is even worse. The courts have repeatedly struck down these laws as unconstitutional.
The government wants to keep "big money and influence" from distorting the democratic process. So let's get this straight. If the CTF wishes to spend $100,000 during a campaign to support or oppose a candidate, policy or idea, it's bad. But if a political party does the same thing, that's okay If you buy this - well you probably saw Elvis talking to the Martian tourists at the grocery store last week as well.
There is not a shred of convincing academic evidence which can point to advocacy spending directly affecting the outcome of a vote or perception of a government. If this were true, then Mike Harris and Glen Clark would both be running about 90% approval ratings in the polls given the mounting amounts of tax dollars (in Ontario's case, $87 million and climbing) they are spending on thinly veiled partisan advertising.
Moreover, recent experience suggests an inverse relationship between spending and electoral success. Remember the Charlottetown referendum in 1992. The YES side outspent the NO side by a ratio of 13 to 1, but the accord was defeated in a majority of Canadian provinces. And don't forget Kim Campbell's Tories in 1993: they dropped a cool $20 million and elected a whopping total of two MPs.
The real reason that the gag-law is being promoted by the Liberals is that they think you're stupid and susceptible to advertising. Advertising will manipulate you and skew the democratic process. But partisan ads from political parties will inform you and strengthen the democratic process. Oh, I just saw Elvis again!
The gag-law is politics - of the politicians, by the politicians, for the politicians. Groups such as the CTF exist outside the partisan process to advocate ideas and to change the partisan system. To frame our 80,000 supporters by using the pejorative term "third party" is offensive. Citizens, citizen groups, unions, chambers of commerce, they all have a fundamental constitutional right to freedom of expression.
Rest assured, the CTF will exercise this right in the next election and we will not hesitate to break any so-called gag-laws - you can count on it!