[fvc-wat-disc] CPC op-ed on the referendum

[Paul Nijjar]

 	Eleanor forwarded me this press release. I am sending it along 
because it makes even stronger claims than I was with respect to political 
parties campaigning in the referendum -- it says that parties and 
candidates can't even mention the referendum in their literature!

 	Is this true, or is the press release misleading us? Can we track 
down this "Regulation 211"?

- Paul

--
Paul Nijjar - http://www.fairvotecanada.org/WaterlooRegion
Next electoral reform info night: Tuesday July 10, 7pm

----- Original Message -----
From: Mart4
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 6:29 AM
Subject: 'Putting a gag order on Democracy!' Fw: CPC (O) Referendum OP ED: "Loading the Dice on the Referendum"


Forward from mart

IMPORTANT!
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY!

'Putting a gag order on Democracy!'
  - mart
------------------------------------

CPC (O)  Referendum OP ED:
"Loading the Dice on
the Referendum"

============================
----- Original Message -----
From: Liz Rowley  rowley at cpc-pcc.ca
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 4:51 PM
Subject: OP ED article on the
Referendum: CPC (O)

Communist Party of Canada (Ontario)
Parti communiste du Canada (Ontario)

290A Danforth Avenue,
Toronto, ON  M4K 1N6
  Tel: 416-469-2446

July 5, 2007

News Directors, Opinion Page and
Editorial Editors:

The following is an article written by Elizabeth
Rowley, leader of the Communist Party of
Canada (Ontario) regarding the October 10th
Referendum. Ms Rowley can be reached at
416-469-2446, or 416-694-4976.

Loading the Dice on the
Referendum

By Elizabeth Rowley, Leader,
Communist Party of Canada (Ontario)

On July 10th you won't be able to read the
views of any political party, candidate or
incumbent on the subject of the October 10th
referendum on Mixed Member Proportional
Representation - an electoral reform proposed
by the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform.

You won't see anything in candidates' or parties'
election material either.  There will be nothing on
  their websites and nothing in their campaign
advertising.

That's because the McGuinty government has
issued Regulation 211 (an implementation
directive from the government to Bill 155 on
the Referendum) making it illegal for political
parties and their candidates to "campaign to
  promote a particular result in the
referendum"

Regulation 211 defines all written commentary
on the Referendum as third party advertising.
Parties are banned from putting their positions
forward, and candidates who want to express
an opinion in their election material, campaign
ads, or website, must register as Registered
Referendum Campaign Organizers under the law.
They will be required to act as third parties as well
as candidates, will be required to raise and spend
funds as third parties; will be required to file
financial reports with Elections Ontario as third
parties. This is in addition to the Elections Act
requirements for candidates and parties to file
audited financial returns for the election period
with Elections Ontario.

Clearly the intent of Regulation 211 is to ban
political parties, and gag candidates, from
participating in the very significant and
important public debate on MMP leading up
to October 10th.  This is an extraordinary and
possibly unconstitutional limit on free speech
and public debate. In fact, broad and probing
public debate is exactly what is needed in
considering the proposed change to our electoral
system.  The public has a right to know where
the parties and candidates stand before they vote;
and the parties and candidates have a
responsibility to state where they stand.

In view of the fact that the government and
the official opposition voted together last
spring to require a super majority of 60%
for the referendum to pass, the public has
a particular interest in knowing where
these two parties stand.

Subsequently, the government has worded the
referendum question in a confusing way so
that the only possible answer is "yes", as in "
Yes I support this", or "Yes I support that".
That's why opponents of MMP argue that
there isn't a No campaign.   Literally true
perhaps, but cynical, political double-speak
nonetheless.

In fact, concerns about a well-financed
media campaign against MMP in the weeks
leading up to October 10th are well founded.
There are no spending limits for third parties
campaigning in the referendum, and no real
time disclosure of financial contributions to
those campaigns.  Corporations and
individuals opposed to electoral reform are
likely to have very deep pockets, and there
is nothing to prevent them from using the
limitless contribution rule to purchase big
media ads in the last weeks of the campaign.
But the public won't know who financed the
big ad campaigns until 6 months after the
vote is over.

Meanwhile, voting in the referendum is
about to get very difficult for 650,000
students, many of whom will be first-time
voters or on campuses October 10th.
Those living away from home will find it
hard to get on the voters' list, and to get
their referendum (and election) ballots,
despite the hype about getting out the
youth vote.  New requirements for voter
identification put the onus on voters to
  prove their eligibility to vote, while old
requirements refusing students living on
campus the right to vote on campus, leave
students the option of going home to vote
in advance polls or giving their proxy to
  someone else.   Expect long line-ups at
polls, as young and not-so-young voters
try to get their ballots.

So what is this really about?  Why so many
obstacles?  The answer is that the Liberals
(who claim to be neutral) and the Tories
(who claim not to have a position) do not
want to be seen as opposing a popular
electoral reform that, if passed, could
sharply reduce the number of Legislative
seats each will have in future.

The heart of the matter is that MMP will
distribute Legislative seats on the more
democratic basis of the popular vote that
each party receives.   This will end the
century-long practice of majority
governments elected by a minority of voters.
  It will open the door to coalition government
and a more productive Legislature.  And,
despite the 3% threshold, it means many more
votes will be counted, opening the door to
small parties with big ideas, such as the Green
Party and the Communist Party, neither of
which is currently represented.

Polls show that the public supports electoral
  reform in Ontario (and nationally).  Leading
into the election, Ontario's Liberal
government and Tory opposition want to
appear to support democratic reform.  But
their actions don't support their words.

Facilitating democracy would mean rescinding
Regulation 211 which gags candidates and
parties, rescinding the super-majority required
for the referendum to pass, capping third party
spending and requiring real time disclosure so
that contributors financing the referendum
campaigns would be publicly known before
the vote, requiring spending on lawn signs to
be included in candidate and party election
spending limits, introducing new rules to
allow  young people to vote where they live
on election day, and replacing new voting
ID requirements with regular enumeration
and voting cards.

Post-script:  Elections Ontario has just
effectively raised spending limits for
candidates in the October 10th election,
without even a whisper in the Legislature
or the media.  Worth ten to twenty
thousand dollars to Liberal and Tory
candidates, election lawn signs purchased
and planted on or before September 9th
will be excluded as an election expense
because the Writ period begins September
10.  In a 29-day election campaign, money
counts.  Democracy, not so much.

- 30 -
==============================