You are either In or you are Out - Right Now

And, if I was Matt Damon, I would take the ticket and say "in." What are we going to steal?

This is the perfect issue to illustrate how my liberalism and libertarianism are at odds. I don't know if the Conservatives violated the Elections Act or not - that is an evidentiary matter and, according to them, based on a legal interpretation of the campaign spending provisions of the Act. As one of Canada's few experts on the matter, I sluff it off and say "maybe they did, I don't know what their legal position is because I haven't read their claim, but either way - its a stupid provision that they are supposedly violating. I think dumb laws should be ignored. Lots of them are."

The Freedom of Speech, the Freedom of Association and the ability for ME to do with my property as I choose should always trump spending limits which are randomly precise in how they are set. They are regionally inconsistent and don't account for such rudimentary things like "market value" of advertising dollars.

Spending limits don't expand debate by making the space more affordable - in fact, spending limits make advertising time in major media MORE expensive at the bottom end as the retailers of that space realize that their product has a limited market to those with the most money. Canada is also far from the spending circus of the US Presidential system - yet we are far more tightly regulated in this regard. Thank you Jean Chretien (L - I imposed "legal" campaign financing limits, but not "illegal" ones) Somewhat ironically, Uncle Steve (C - I'm surprised Elections Canada even has funding at his point) made it harder despite being the namesake of the leading case hoping to expand those freedoms.

While the first tenants of Buckley v. Valeo may continue be true (money equals speech), in my opinion, it doesn't follow that limiting speech allows for more effective participation in the process.

The Supreme Court doesn't agree with me. Those Jerks. They don't even give a passing glance to these specific freedoms when determining the validity of spending limits and political financing - the look to section three and "effectively participating in the process."

And there is the rub - should the test for "effectively participating in the process" rest with the individuals who are trying to effectively participate in the process? What is good for Mr. Figueroa (Communist Party of Canada) and Mr. De Jong (Leader, Ontario Greens) who both argued for a broader definition of "Party" status under their respective acts in order to secure additional funding should also be good for whatever Tory, Liberal, Dipper or Bloqhead wants to spend more money. Their effective participation is based on what they think they need to do in order to effectively participate in the process. Similarly, their prospective voters are the beneficiaries of this Charter intervention - more information can only increase a voter's ability to effectively participate in the process. The Supremes convincingly made that point in Figueroa, and then completely ignored it when writing Harper. Those Jerks.

So, where does that leave us? Candidates, like Lobbyists, are more tightly regulated than guns. Parties, like Candidates, spend money to make their campaigns more attractive to voters. Some Candidates have problems securing funding. They should be able to spend their own limit in their riding notwithstanding the source of those funds. Because, if they aren't allowed to spend the legal limit- their prospective constituents are not, to use the court's words, able to as effectively participate in the process.

Solution - ban spending limits.

More likely solution - ensure local candidates have the authority to make expenditures that THEY want to make. In our democracy, it is a fools errand to suggest that local spending to put up posters of a national leader is somehow "local." Yet it would be fine under the Commissioners' narrow view.