I think this is fair.

This isn't an advertising campaign, this is an election for our leaders. It shouldn't be commercialized like Old Navy scarves. Not to mention that no political party should have the advantage by getting air time if another cannot.

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa I think this is fair. This isn't an advertising campaign, this is an election for our leaders. It shouldn't be commercialized like Old Navy scarves. Not to mention that no political party should have the advantage by getting air time if another cannot.

so private citizens SHOULD go to jail for expressing their opinions?

Thats disturbing that anyone would endorse this.

Why should dissent, debate and free speech be silenced during an election? THATS WHEN IT IS MOST NEEDED!!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa I think this is fair.

So it's fair to ban political ads while at the same time allowing corporations to donate billions of dollars to one particular party (the LPC) for their campaign in exchange for political favours?

How typical of you to be advocating for abridging the right to freedom of speech. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

i think the law might be in place so that rich ppl dont get more than one vote each.

I think the idea is fair but needs to be fine tuned. I've attended a few national political forum debates about this issue over the last few years and it's really one of those sticky situations that doesn't really have a good solution yet. I like what they are in theory trying to do but agree that limiting free speech is a negative consquence of how they have gone about it.
I think it comendable that the Canadian government is trying to prevent what is essentially happening across the US... Money is winning elections, not ideas. By forcing voters to hear the issues only from the parties themselves they are then a bit more free from external influences and can educated themselves and form their own opinions based on actual party propaganda.

as for the one vote thing; with big money they can use it to influence others to vote along thier ideological lines. technically no one gets more than one vote. however, on the issue, in constituencies with lower populations votes are worth more. It's a common tactic to spend more of your budget in these areas because you dollar goes further, which undermines that value of voters in larger populated constituencies which cost more per vote.

___________________
Dave (aka: Upgrade- live pa)

quote:

Originally posted by Lightshow i wear sunglasses for the same reason everybody wears them in a club. 1: people look cool in sunglasses 2: it gets awefully bright as the night progresses

*nusty does not wear sunglasses at night, they make it hard to see and you could trip

Last edited by nusty on Dec-10-2005 at 07:45

quote:

Originally posted by Pettiscool i think the law might be in place so that rich ppl dont get more than one vote each.

as far as i know paid advertising includes 5 cent photocopied flyers as well.

Either way the arguement is weak. "rich people" dont have more say just because they pay for an ad. You and i can have reasonable access to our local papers for example. Adspace there isnt hard to afford.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill

And again you're all ignoring the fact that they can simply donate a wad of money to the party and let THEM do the ads.

This law doesn't hurt the "rich people", it only hurts the grassroots support that is usually on a budget and can't make a difference with donation money, but might have enough to put out some flyers or do one or two ads on TV. Which is exactly what the Liberals want, because their support comes from the corporations with billions of dollars, and Conservative support comes from the latter entity.

Harper definitely has the right idea with limiting political donations by corporations. The less that politics can be viewed as a profitable enterprise, the less corruption it will attract. It doesn't matter if you or I put an ad out - that's freedom of speech. What does matter is if Bell and Rogers donate $20 billion to the Liberal party in exchange for assurances that the CRTC won't allow American cellular carriers or cable companies to come in and compete.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

conservatives have no corporate support? wtf? since when? is there a published list of all their sponsors somewhere?

quote:

Originally posted by Pettiscool i think the law might be in place so that rich ppl dont get more than one vote each.

bingo.

a corporation could *easily* promote their own political agenda by having a "private citizen" buy an ad.

this is ripe for abuse...I support the law.

there are other procedures in place for lobby groups and citizen groups to express political opinions than to allow the wealthy to do what the average citizen can not do.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut And again you're all ignoring the fact that they can simply donate a wad of money to the party and let THEM do the ads. ...

are there not regulations on donations and how much money political parties can spend? i.e. Ted Rogers can't give one party a billion dollars and they'd be allowed to spend it on ads.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT bingo. a corporation could *easily* promote their own political agenda by having a "private citizen" buy an ad. this is ripe for abuse...I support the law. there are other procedures in place for lobby groups and citizen groups to express political opinions than to allow the wealthy to do what the average citizen can not do.

this law also restricts going out to a street corner and spending 5 cents per flyer to distribute to people. Perhaps the law should set limits on to how much a private citizen can spend on ads. But to ban them outright is stupid.

Even at that id hold that idea with hesistation. There shouldnt be any limit on free speech.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill