Opposition Slams Ford Government 40 Millionen US-Dollar vor der Wahl pro-ontario ad blitz

From Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004

>Per Iacobucci, Bastarache, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ.:  The current third party election advertising regime is Parliament’s response to this Court’s decision in Libman.  In promoting the equal dissemination of points of view by limiting the election advertising of third parties who are influential participants in the electoral process, the overarching objective of the spending limits is electoral fairness.  This egalitarian model of elections seeks to create a level playing field for those who wish to engage in the electoral discourse, enabling voters to be better informed.

>Under s. 3, the right of meaningful participation in the electoral process is not limited to the selection of elected representatives and includes a citizen’s right to exercise his or her vote in an informed manner.  In the absence of spending limits, it is possible for the affluent or a number of persons pooling their resources and acting in concert to dominate the political discourse, depriving their opponents of a reasonable opportunity to speak and be heard, and undermining the voter’s ability to be adequately informed of all views.  Equality in the political discourse is thus necessary for meaningful participation in the electoral process and ultimately enhances the right to vote.

>While the right to political expression lies at the core of the guarantee of free expression and warrants a high degree of constitutional protection, there is nevertheless a danger that political advertising may manipulate or oppress the voter.  Parliament had to balance the rights and privileges of all the participants in the electoral process. 

>Section 350 also meets the proportionality test.  First, the third party advertising expense limits are rationally connected to the objectives.  They prevent those who have access to significant financial resources, and are able to purchase unlimited amount of advertising, to dominate the electoral discourse to the detriment of others; they create a balance  between the financial resources of each candidate or political party; and they advance  the perception that the electoral process is substantively fair as it provides for a reasonable degree of equality between citizens who wish to participate in that process.

The auditor general has called Ford’s ads highly partisan, and so they might be considered a constitutional infraction, given what the SCC has said about political advertising before.