Foundation News
Gender, culture and religion: Tackling some difficult questions Calgary, Oct 1 - 2, 2010 Registration
Op-eds:
Recent Events:
WEBCAST: Offense, respect, ethics and the law
Alberta’s Bill 205 under fire: big money spending and campaign fairness pivotal issues
November 5, 2009
By Heather MacIntosh
The Alberta government is set to adopt Bill 205 amending the Alberta law on election campaign spending. It is not a wise move.
The Bill regulates contributions for election advertising carried out by organizations and individual members of the public. Contributions to political parties and candidates are already covered by the same statute.
No doubt about it — laws aimed at strengthening democracy, such as those that deal with campaign spending and require the identification of advertisers, are important and badly needed in Alberta. But, Bill 205 fails to adequately address the threat “big money” poses to campaign fairness, and it achieves greater advertising transparency in an unacceptably restrictive way. The bill penalizes individuals and small, grassroots organizations, as well as corporations and trade unions, for spending violations much more severely than the political players themselves. And it’s worrying that the bill was adopted with little public debate or discussion.
How Bill 205 works
In order to avoid penalties, those wanting to advertise must register in advance of taking out campaign advertising with the province’s chief electoral officer and must report to that official after the election is held. The bill does not impose any overall spending limits, but its provisions apply if spending exceeds more than $1,000 – a limit easily surpassed with a few newspaper or radio ads. If the bill’s requirements are not met, the fines are stiff: $10,000 for individuals, and $100,000 for a “trade union, employee organization, corporation or other organization.” By contrast, candidates face much lower fines, of up to $1,000, and parties face up to $5,000.
This is a “third-party advertising” regulation which, in the many jurisdictions with such laws, is aimed at achieving two objectives – limit the influence of big money in elections, and improve the transparency of political advertising, by ensuring that voters know who is putting out which messages. These goals matter greatly in a democracy.
But Bill 205 does not accomplish either objective well. For one thing, the lack of spending limits means that one of the two major objectives of such legislation is scarcely addressed. Despite contribution caps, there is no overall limit on how much these “third parties” can spend. Alberta law also fails to impose spending limits on election advertising by candidates and political parties. But there is no avoiding the issue of spending limits if we are going to address the distorting influence of big money on election campaigns.
On the other hand, Bill 205 does impose the stiff penalties noted above for noncompliance with its other measures. If unions, corporations and individuals are rich, they will not be put off by Bill 205. They will just instruct their lawyers to register and report, and then go on spending as much as they like.
Chilling effect of huge fines
The big concern is the chilling effect of those huge fines on smaller “third parties.” Consider its effect on the ordinary person, small organization or business that has meagre resources and spends enough to trigger the very low minimum spending threshold of $1,000 — but has insufficient resources to comply easily if at all with the reporting requirements.
Think about a group – say, midwives — who never intended to get involved politically but partway through a campaign find that their profession has become a hot election topic. They feel compelled to speak out but, by failing to pre-register with the chief electoral officer, they run the risk of enormous fines if they placed ads. But how could silencing them be appropriate, especially during an election, when political discussion is most needed?
Under Bill 205, ordinary people face huge penalties, when in the very same statute, candidates and political parties are treated much more leniently. How is this fair?
Registration and reporting by third-party advertisers is one way to increase the transparency of political advertising. But the same result can be achieved without the repressive effect of a daunting registration process. Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island avoid this process by simply requiring that all election advertisements include the name of the sponsor.
It is premature to bring this bill forward now, when the provincial government has not yet limited campaign expenditures for candidates and parties, nor tackled the whole tricky area of campaign financing regulation in a comprehensive way.
Unanswered questions
The bottom line is this: Does Bill 205 strengthen the foundations of democracy in Alberta by encouraging fairer elections? Or is the bill itself undemocratic in some important ways? Questions abound, and Albertans should have had the opportunity to be heard on the wisdom of Bill 205 before it became law.
Heather MacIntosh is program director, democratic development and human rights, at the Calgary-based Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership.
Published in the S.E. Calgary News, Nov. 5, Canada Free Press, Nov. 16, Slave Lake Lakeside Leader, Dec. 29, 2009.
Print
Email