" I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- VOLTAIRE

Now that the Supreme Court of Canada has made its ruling to uphold the federal government's gag law restricting citizens and citizens groups (not the pejorative "third party" term that politicians like to use) to spending limits during elections, Manitoba's own gag law will likely be passed before the next election.

Section 25 of Manitoba's Election Finances Act, relating to citizens and citizen groups, has not been proclaimed but could come into force on a specified date of Premier Doer's choosing. Under the legislation, citizens and citizen groups will be limited to spend only $5,000 on election advertising, which is a paltry amount compared to the $1 million political parties can spend during a campaign. These limits obstruct freedom of speech and give political parties a monopoly on ideas and debates during an election. It also forces citizens of Manitoba to comply with a new set of onerous rules or face a significant fine up to $50,000.

A gag law that limits citizen group advertising to only $5,000 during elections would likely apply to advertising for referendums as well, thereby undermining the Balanced Budget Act. But the benefit to citizen group advertising complements the electoral process by presenting
new policies and issues outside the limited confines of a three party system. In days gone by, a group of neighbours could meet in someone's living room to talk about toxins in a local stream, and come up with a plan of action to make the plight of the stream an election issue. Citizens could freely pool their money to pay for some flyers or lawn signs or other advertising. Voters could communicate their ideas both to their fellow citizens and to the candidates and parties.

But those days of freedom are over - at least federally.

The $150,000 national spending limit on citizens gives political parties
next-to-absolute control over what happens during a federal election. In
spite of this, groups like the National Citizens Coalition, Environment
Voters, and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation might still play a significant role in the election, largely through earned media. Further, the 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown Constitutional Accord demonstrated beyond a doubt that money doesn't buy voting outcomes; the "yes" side lost in spite of spending more than ten times as much as the "no" side.

Every group which spends $501 or more must file an "election advertising report" with the Chief Electoral Officer, listing the names and addresses of every individual
who donated more than $200. If a group is unable to identify which
donations were made "for election advertising purposes" and which donations were of the regular and ordinary kind, it must report the names and addresses of every person who donated over $200 during the six months prior to the election call. So much for privacy, and so much for freedom.

But the registration requirements are possibly worse than the spending
limits. Imposing bureaucracy on grassroots activism by concerned citizens - with harsh penalties for non-compliance - is a cold, wet blanket which stifles freedom of speech and freedom of association. Rather than risk breaking the law, many Canadians will limit their participation in democracy
to quietly contemplating their voting decision.

The federal Liberals, Manitoba's NDP and the Supreme Court of Canada are wrong to think that Canadian citizens are "third parties" in elections. If anything, citizens should be the "first parties" in an election, able to exercise fully their freedom of expression and freedom of association.