Canadian Supreme Court upholds election "gag law"

[White Cat]

Link

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld rules that limit how much lobby groups can spend during election campaigns. It's a decision that will have a direct impact on the upcoming federal election.

At issue were rules in the Canada Elections Act that set limits on how much lobby and special interest groups can spend during an election campaign to support the candidates they like or attack the ones they don't.

Opponents to the so-called "gag law" said they were an affront to free speech that stifle independent voices and thereby violate the Charter of Rights. They also argued that the spending limits were too low.

I'm opposed to the law in question. For one thing, what the above article doesn't mention (although other aritcles did) is that the law restricts not only the ads that are for/against candidates , but ones that just talk about issues that are discussed during the election. Basically, it says that politicians are the only ones who are allowed to get their views out in any significant fashion.

But what really pissed me off about the decision was a line from this article:

The majority [of the Supreme Court] said that while the election advertising restrictions violate constitutional free-speech guarantees, the breaches are justified.

...

Excuse me?

The Supreme Court agrees that the law is unconstitutional, but they supported it anyway!?

[Darth Wong]

I'll say the same thing about this that I said about campaign finance laws in the US: quit your whining. Soft campaign-finance laws allow monied special-interest groups to monopolize public discourse; that's why they're bad.

[Plekhanov]

This law doesn’t violate free speech so much as the right of a few moneyed interests to artificially boost the effect of their speech. The law doesn’t actually stop people from expressing themselves it just stops them drowning everybody else out.

[MKSheppard]

I'll say the same thing about this that I said about campaign finance laws in the US: quit your whining. Soft campaign-finance laws allow monied special-interest groups to monopolize public discourse; that's why they're bad.

And we all know the media is unbiased and always acts in the best interests of the pubic

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I'll say the same thing about this that I said about campaign finance laws in the US: quit your whining. Soft campaign-finance laws allow monied special-interest groups to monopolize public discourse; that's why they're bad.

And we all know the media is unbiased and always acts in the best interests of the pubic

That just means the media and the corporations have unfair advantages.

Time to level the playing field: I applaud the Canadian court decision. One person, one voice, one vote, and no, a corporation is not a person.

[neoolong]

I'll say the same thing about this that I said about campaign finance laws in the US: quit your whining. Soft campaign-finance laws allow monied special-interest groups to monopolize public discourse; that's why they're bad.

And we all know the media is unbiased and always acts in the best interests of the pubic

Frankly, I'd like to keep the media well away from my pubic area.

Assuming that the law did violate the Consitution, are they actually allowed to do it anyway without some type of amendment?

[muse]

And the problem with this law is...? Well I guess the rich lobby groups can no longer blanket the media with ads in hopes of swaying the vote. Wait, that's good thing, unless you happen to be one of those rich-ass lobby groups who have no business dicking around with our politics anyway.

[Glocksman]

And the problem with this law is...? Well I guess the rich lobby groups can no longer blanket the media with ads in hopes of swaying the vote. Wait, that's good thing, unless you happen to be one of those rich-ass lobby groups who have no business dicking around with our politics anyway.

As I understand it, White Cat's problem was this:

The majority [of the Supreme Court] said that while the election advertising restrictions violate constitutional free-speech guarantees, the breaches are justified.

It violates constitutional free-speech guarantees, but it's OK anyway?

If this law violates your constitution (I'm assuming the court is referring to rights enumerated in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms), did Parliament invoke the 'notwithstanding' clause?

If so, the quoted comment makes sense. If not, the court was derelict in not striking the law down as unconstutional.

[Durandal]

I'm more than willing to sacrifice my ability to contribute stupid amounts of money to politicians in order to ensure that large corporations and lobby groups don't control the government.

[White Cat]

Sorry I keep responding to stuff several days late...

As I understand it, White Cat's problem was this:

The majority [of the Supreme Court] said that while the election advertising restrictions violate constitutional free-speech guarantees, the breaches are justified.

It violates constitutional free-speech guarantees, but it's OK anyway?

If this law violates your constitution (I'm assuming the court is referring to rights enumerated in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms), did Parliament invoke the 'notwithstanding' clause?

Parliament would only need to use that if they and the Supreme Court disagreed on the issue (i.e. they could use it if the Court struck down the law). Both before and after this decision, Parliament has the power to repeal the "gag law" whenever it wants, through normal means.

It's worth noting that in the past twenty years, the Supreme Court has struck down two separate laws which were very similar to this.

To expand on what I said before, there is a big problem with saying this law will "keep the rich from dominating public debate". (One columnist described the law as creating "not a level playing field, but an empty one".)

Under this law, the following groups can promote their views in a significant manner during an election.

• Politicians

Wheras without the law, the following groups can do so:

• Politicians
• Rich people
• Poor/middle-class people who pool their money

Of course, the law still wouldn't stop rich people from influencing politicians directly.

And there's also the matter of votes like the Charlottetown Accord, where the Yes side outspent the No side by something like thirteen to one, but the No side still won.