Quotulatiousness: Liberals accuse Tories of violating the Canada Elections Act

January 18, 2006

Liberals accuse Tories of violating the Canada Elections Act

In a news release on the Liberal Party website, the Blogging Tories blogroll is described as "an initiative of the Conservative party, rather than of individual Canadians." This might mean the blogroll would be in contravention of part of the Canada Election Act:

There are strict spending limits for political parties during election campaigns. And there are also limits on how much other groups (third parties) can spend during elections. Under the third-party financing legislation, it is illegal for a third-party to evade election spending limits by splitting itself into two or more groups.

Stephen Harper opposes third party spending limits. He has challenged this legislation at the Supreme Court, and has said that if elected, he will repeal the legislation that limits how much third parties — such as lobby groups — can spend during elections.

Perhaps Mr. Harper should practice what he preaches.

Has someone not pointed out to these guys that there are also Liberal and NDP blog-groups? If not, they'll be in for a nasty surprise of their own if this petition to the Chief Electoral Officer goes any further.

Hat tip to Damian Penny for the link.

Posted by Nicholas at January 18, 2006 12:43 PM

Comments

Small Dead Animal also has an item on this story. I love the title: The Captain Has Just Turned On The Tinfoil Hat Sign Posted by: Jon at January 18, 2006 01:15 PM

Kate might mind where to place the tin foil. If a blogger group were organized or incited by a party it might break the law. Bloggers are not immune from law except for what some might say. Posted by: Alan at January 18, 2006 04:32 PM

err..."despite" I meant. Posted by: Alan at January 18, 2006 04:33 PM

"Incited", Alan? Is that the right word? If funds were provided, or in-kind contributions made, then the Chief Electoral Officer should be investigating. Mere accusations with no evidence should not trigger any activity on the part of Elections Canada. Of course, if it gets plenty of press attention (which it seems bound to do), then it's probably considered worthwhile by the Liberals regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. Or are the Blogging Dippers next in the cross-hairs? Posted by: Nicholas at January 18, 2006 04:50 PM

Let's consider the hypothetical that some of the research presented by leading members of any Blogging X-party group was prepared by party central and fed out that medium in return for beer and pizzas and handshakes from elder statesmen. Are these in-kind sorts of relationships? That is my only point. The idea that because the medium is a blog that some how it is pure is odd. Turn it around. Why the hell would parties not try to co-opt the medium of the hour? Posted by: Alan at January 18, 2006 07:26 PM

The idea that because the medium is a blog that some how it is pure is odd.

Sorry, have I given the impression that that's my opinion? Blogs are about as far from pure as you can get and still be able to identify it by overall shape and characteristics! ;-)

Are these in-kind sorts of relationships?

Damn it, Alan, you're the lawyer . . . I don't think so, but I have no legal background. Just because I happen to think that A is A doesn't in any way influence the courts to hold the same belief! ;-) Posted by: Nicholas at January 18, 2006 11:52 PM

Sorry. I was not meaning to say it was your opinion but I do think that there is an assumption that they are amateur which is what I wanted to highlight. They are actually very prone to being co-opted and could be co-opted in a way that breaks the Elections Act while still being presented as amateur. Posted by: Alan at January 19, 2006 01:52 PM

They are actually very prone to being co-opted and could be co-opted in a way that breaks the Elections Act while still being presented as amateur.

I yield to your deeper knowledge of the relevant legislation. If the Act can be used to further bludgeon private individuals' right to express their opinions on political matters, then the law is truly an ass. But that practically goes without saying. Posted by: Nicholas at January 19, 2006 02:15 PM

But should organizations with regulated communication rules be able to go around the rules just because they use this medium of blog rahter than radio ad? Posted by: Alan at January 19, 2006 03:38 PM

I'm not sure we're both talking apples here. If I, a blogger, get links to juicy bits of information from someone who is a member of Party X, if I choose to publish the information, does the Act presume that this is the equivalent of an ad? In the same case, if my source is not just a member, but an active campaign worker, does that change the situation? In the same case again, if my source is a paid agent of Party X, does that then cross the line? Does money or monetary equivalents have to change hands, or is any information subject to this potential embargo? Posted by: Nicholas at January 19, 2006 03:51 PM

I am among the layity on Federal election law but I thought the accusation was that the blogging Tories were linked to the party so closely as to be indistinguishable in parts at least. Certainly some of the research was very well done and beyond the means of individuals. If those individuals are party members and the posts are co-ordinated as part of the campaign, is this still amateur blogging? Posted by: Alan at January 19, 2006 04:09 PM

Certainly some of the research was very well done and beyond the means of individuals.

A very back-handed compliment, to be sure! ;-) If what you're implying is true, and the Chief Electoral Officer reads the Act to be as restrictive as possible, it will have the absolute effect of killing political blogging in Canada. Right now that might sound like a good thing to the big boys in the Liberal campaign HQ, but the boot will certainly be on the other foot if the result of the election is a minority for anyone other than the Crooks . . . blogging, by its nature is better suited to opposition than to supporting the government (IMO, at least). Didn't the National Citizen's Coalition make some noise about how the gag law, having been crafted to muzzle them, has had the effect of muzzling organizations friendly to the Crooks this time around? Have I mentioned that I think the current law is flat-out wrong, and that it should be re-written? That we can be seriously debating whether a blogger is running the risk of violating the law just for stating an otherwise harmless political opinion is ludicrous . . . we lose far more than we gain by restricting rights to free speech. But I repeat myself. While I still can. Posted by: Nicholas at January 19, 2006 04:23 PM

As the one who actually pays the bills to host this blog, I can confirm that I am not getting any sort of payment from any of the political parties. As for in-kind stuff, though... I am pretty certain that Belinda Stronach winked at me once when I bumped in to her at Upper Canada Mall in Newmarket. Or maybe that wasn't her. If it wasn't her, then no, there's no in-kind stuff going on, either. Which is too bad, really. Humph. Posted by: Jon at January 19, 2006 04:37 PM

I can't speak for illegalism and can only rely on the rule of law. It is not about people or even third party folks but the rules that regulate parties themselves. You may wish things were otherwise but they are not so, as with the folks who run Money Market learned today - hey, maybe the law does apply to me. Posted by: Alan at January 19, 2006 07:11 PM