[fvc-wat-disc] CPC op-ed on the referendum
Derek Kraan
derek.kraan at gmail.com
Sat Jul 7 21:04:43 EDT 2007
The relevant sections are, I believe:
Categorization of expenses
>
> *2. *For the purposes of sections 4 to 15, the following rules
> apply in determining whether an amount of expenses is incurred for
> referendum advertising:
>
> 1. An amount that is paid by a referendum campaign organizer
> for referendum advertising is included whether it is paid before, during or
> after the referendum period.
>
> 2. If a combined amount is paid for both referendum
> advertising and other advertising, the amount shall be apportioned according
> to when the advertising appears.
>
Take a close look at 2.2 above.
> Prohibition
>
> *3. *(1) No person or entity shall organize a campaign to promote
> a particular result in the referendum or advertise for that purpose unless
> the person or entity is registered with the Chief Election Officer under
> section 4.
>
> (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of,
>
> (a) pre-referendum advertising; or
>
> (b) referendum advertising if the related referendum
> advertising expense does not exceed $500.
>
Registration
>
> *4. *(1) A referendum campaign organizer shall apply for
> registration under this section immediately after having incurred expenses
> of a total amount of $500 for referendum advertising.
>
...
(6) A referendum campaign organizer may not be registered under this
> section if it is a registered party or constituency association as defined
> in the *Election Finances Act*.
Now, I'm not an expert or anything, but it seems to me that this would
prevent parties registering as referendum campaigns. This therefore means
that they cannot spend over $500 on campaign advertising. As far as I can
tell, they can campaign up to $500 worth, which also means, I'm sure, that
any advertising which is free can be used to mention the referendum
campaign. I don't see anything here about candidates having to keep their
mouths shut.
Prohibition, use of certain contributions
>
> *10. *(1) No referendum campaign organizer shall use a
> contribution for the purpose of referendum advertising unless it is made by,
>
> (a) an individual ordinarily resident in Ontario;
>
> (b) a corporation that,
>
> (i) carries on business in Ontario, and
>
> (ii) is not a registered charity within the
> meaning of subsection 248 (1) of the *Income Tax Act* (Canada); or
>
> (c) a trade union as defined in the *Election Finances Act*.
>
> (2) No referendum campaign organizer shall use for the purpose of
> referendum advertising a contribution that is made during the period
> described in clause 9 (1) (a) if the referendum campaign organizer does not
> know the name and address of the contributor or is otherwise unable to
> determine within which class of contributor referred to in subsection 14 (6)
> they fall.
>
This means that parties cannot contribute to referendum campaigns.
And here's something which may apply to us. Note the time period. July 10 is
this Tuesday.
> Duties of chief financial officer
>
> * 9. *(1) Every contribution that is made to a registered
> referendum campaign organizer shall be accepted by its chief financial
> officer if,
>
> (a) it is made during the period that begins on July 10, 2007
> and ends on January 10, 2008; and
>
> (b) it is made for the purpose of referendum advertising.
>
> (2) Every referendum advertising expense that is incurred by or on
> behalf of a registered referendum campaign organizer shall be authorized by
> its chief financial officer.
>
> (3) The chief financial officer may delegate a function described
> in subsection (1) or (2) to another person, but the delegation does not
> limit the chief financial officer's responsibility.
>
I hope I haven't bored you all and have actually summarized the document in
a sane way (so that you won't be forced to go read it all yourself)
Cheers,
Derek
2007/7/7, Derek Kraan <derek.kraan at gmail.com>:
>
> I've found Regulation 211. It's not easily found - Google hasn't a clue
> where it is.
>
> However, a quick search at www.gov.on.ca will reveal its location:
>
> http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Source/Regs/English/2007/R07211_e.htm
>
> 2007/7/7, Paul Nijjar <pnijjar at sdf.lonestar.org>:
> >
> >
> > 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 -
> > ==============================
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > fvc-wat-disc mailing list
> > fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
> > http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.thinkers.org/pipermail/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org/attachments/20070707/a27ca82c/attachment-0002.htm>
More information about the fvc-wat-disc
mailing list