NationStates Jolt Archive

As I came across this article I was struck about the differences between how the two nation look at campaining

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/04/15/rcmp-tories.html

As far as I know there are no limits to what can be spent during an American campain for either party.

What do you all think, should there be limit on campain spending.

I understand the logic here is Canada, by limiting how much each aprty can spend it ensures that each party has an equall chance to get their message out (As there are more then two). I would like to hear everyone opinion regardless where they are from or political view.

This is not a political debate about left or right policy

Yes, I think that's a good thing. Helps fighting the "I'm rich I win" system.

Yes, I think that's a good thing. Helps fighting the "I'm rich I win" system.

Ok but what about freedom of speech, and basic fundmental of any democracy.

I think the main difference between Canada and the US is that one is Canada, and the other is the US, and is further south.

Ok but what about freedom of speech, and basic fundmental of any democracy.

They can say whatever they want, only on a limited number of annoying ads.

They can say whatever they want, only on a limited number of annoying ads.

True, but you are placing limits on that speech.

True, but you are placing limits on that speech.

They seem to be reasonnable enough so that population didn't want to change them in a century. Diffamation, amongst other things, aren't needed for a good debate.

They seem to be reasonnable enough so that population didn't want to change them in a century. Diffamation, amongst other things, aren't needed for a good debate.


Diffamation in Canada is rare, and watered down at best.

I believe that it was the 92 election where the conservative show a picture of the main oppenent Jean Chretien Face, asking Canadians if this was a face of man they wanted to be their leader. (He had stroke years before and part of face had been left paralyized). There was a public backlash as a result, the Liberal won, and Jean Chretien held power for believe 12 years.

As far as I know, there were limits on how much of your personal money you were allowed to spend on campaigns in the US, but those limits were struck down by the USSC as unconstitutional. What right does the government have to tell you how to spend your money?

Diffamation in Canada is rare, and watered down at best.

I believe that it was the 92 election where the conservative show a picture of the main oppenent Jean Chretien Face, asking Canadians if this was a face of man they wanted to be their leader. (He had stroke years before and part of face had been left paralyized). There was a public backlash as a result, the Liberal won, and Jean Chretien held power for believe 12 years.

It's rare because it's illegal.

What right does the government have to tell you how to spend your money?

They have the right to make you spend your money only in ways that will not harm other people. Like buying the services of an assassin, that's illegal.

It is considered a harm to the public in general that the richest people would be the ones with the most chances of success because they can afford to put their picture in every bar's bathroom. Also, there's only so much annoyance the population is willing to endure.

Also, in canada they don't campaign for their elections years in advance. Tommorrow they could anounce there will be a Canadian election in May, 2008.

As far as I know, there were limits on how much of your personal money you were allowed to spend on campaigns in the US, but those limits were struck down by the USSC as unconstitutional. What right does the government have to tell you how to spend your money?

So in theory, whoever has more money and a better chance to getting their word out then.

I am trying to pick a side, but examine all points

I think the main difference between Canada and the US is that one is Canada, and the other is the US, and is further south.*

*except for one of the freak states.

Also, in canada they don't campaign for their elections years in advance. Tommorrow they could anounce there will be a Canadian election in May, 2008.


Given the current we could be hearing about an election soon.

Why do you think the world's leaders are all rich? Because for millions of years it has been that way, and we are so used to that mentality that we cannot see that the man in the office we put him in does not care about us, and that one of us would do a better job.

Money does not equal speech, as money is not free.

I think the main difference between Canada and the US is that one is Canada, and the other is the US, and is further south.

Where I live is the only place in the world where Canadians come north of the border. They come north of the border to get to Mexicantown, where they eat tacos.

Money does not equal speech, as money is not free.

Pretty much the defination of money.

As I came across this article I was struck about the differences between how the two nation look at campaining

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/04/15/rcmp-tories.html

As far as I know there are no limits to what can be spent during an American campain for either party.

What do you all think, should there be limit on campain spending.

I understand the logic here is Canada, by limiting how much each aprty can spend it ensures that each party has an equall chance to get their message out (As there are more then two). I would like to hear everyone opinion regardless where they are from or political view.

This is not a political debate about left or right policy
Having previously worked in Canadian politics, I like the Canadian rules. I also think the Conservatives didn't break the rules.

The Bloc Quebecois used to run an amusing funding scam where they would pay their staff with teh expectation that the staff would donate that money back to the party. Then the staff would claim those donations and receive huge tax savings (75% at the time).

So, the party gives you $50, and you then give the party $100. The government then pays you $75 for having made the donation.

The net result is a $25 payment from the government to the donor, and a $50 payment from the government to the party. Neither the donor nor the party paid a cent.

Elections Canada made a new rule prohibiting this sort of thing after the Bloc had used it for 9 years. When I worked at the Reform Party, I proposed a similar plan to the party executive, but they thought it would look bad if news of it was leaked.

Elections Canada made a new rule prohibiting this sort of thing after the Bloc had used it for 9 years. When I worked at the Reform Party, I proposed a similar plan to the party executive, but they thought it would look bad if news of it was leaked.

How enterprising of you.

Having previously worked in Canadian politics, I like the Canadian rules. I also think the Conservatives didn't break the rules.

The Bloc Quebecois used to run an amusing funding scam where they would pay their staff with teh expectation that the staff would donate that money back to the party. Then the staff would claim those donations and receive huge tax savings (75% at the time).

So, the party gives you $50, and you then give the party $100. The government then pays you $75 for having made the donation.

The net result is a $25 payment from the government to the donor, and a $50 payment from the government to the party. Neither the donor nor the party paid a cent.


The campaign may not be out a cent, but the "payments" would still show up as a campaign expense. You could raise a lot of money that way, but you still couldn't spend over the legal limit.

The issue with the Conservatives is how much money they spent, not how much they raised. By getting local campaigns to buy advertising on behalf of the Centre they have been accused of overspending the limit.

For one thing, I find Canada's people to be, on average, far more politically apathetic. We have government scandals and politically correct censorship here that might raise riots or at least get all the prime time coverage in America, yet most people seem to know little and care less. The US may have low voter turn out as well, but people still get worked up over politics more than in Canada. Up here, its like most people don't know, and the rest don't care. The US government might be more likely to screw you over, but the Canadian Government is far more likely to get away with it if they try. I honestly don't believe that there can be a more apathetic nation in the history of mankind, and that's not really an exageration, by much.

I personally suspect that the difference stems from the two country's different histories. US politics has a much more violent past. It includes an initial revolution, a brutal civil war, and multiple presidential assassinations. Canada has none of that, and while those events in US history were deplorable tragedies, I think they've contributed to a greater understanding of what the stakes are in politics. America as a country has been to political hell and back, more than once, and its people have often had to fight for their rights and freedoms. Canada has not.

(In case anyone's wondering, I'm speaking from personel experience. I have dual US/Canadian citizenship, and have lived in Canada for 5 and a half years, America for 13.)

Yes, I think that's a good thing. Helps fighting the "I'm rich I win" system.Which has never been proven to work or Romney would be the nominee and Perot would have won.

I think it's best that you can spend what you want. Limits can kill lesser-known candidates that usually have better policies.

Liberal in the US = Conservative in Canada.

I hear milk comes in bags in Canada.

I hear milk comes in bags in Canada.

yep, it looks like this:

http://static.flickr.com/51/128389322_be5f183849.jpg

:O

This obviously accounts for all political and cultural differences.

I think it's best that you can spend what you want. Limits can kill lesser-known candidates that usually have better policies.

Up to 2006, only the two largest parties were able to raise or borrow enough money to acheive the spending ceiling. Lesser-known candidates were in no danger of being "killed" by not being allowed to spend enough.

As I came across this article I was struck about the differences between how the two nation look at campaining

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/04/15/rcmp-tories.html

As far as I know there are no limits to what can be spent during an American campain for either party.

What do you all think, should there be limit on campain spending.

I understand the logic here is Canada, by limiting how much each aprty can spend it ensures that each party has an equall chance to get their message out (As there are more then two). I would like to hear everyone opinion regardless where they are from or political view.

This is not a political debate about left or right policy

There should absolutely be a limit on campaign spending.

There was something called the McCain–Feingold Act. This is still far away from spending limits. It was meant to eliminate blatant corruption and favors. Such as insurance companies paying for a majority of a candidates adds. In return the candidate would approve tax cuts or a bill saving insurance companies billions and reducing there liability to clients. - just an example no actual historic relation

Now candidates are simply put on the board of these companies or given comfy retirement positions when candidates/politicians end there political careers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act

As far as I know, there were limits on how much of your personal money you were allowed to spend on campaigns in the US, but those limits were struck down by the USSC as unconstitutional. What right does the government have to tell you how to spend your money?

Ah, Chretien

"'Dis military is need ZERO 'elicopter..."

Yes, I think that's a good thing. Helps fighting the "I'm rich I win" system.

That strategy really helped Rockefeller and Perot didnt it?

They have the right to make you spend your money only in ways that will not harm other people. Like buying the services of an assassin, that's illegal.

Actually, it only becomes illegal once the assassin kills someone. Hiring him is not the crime, its only when the murder is done that it is a crime (I think, Lawyer types, feel free to call me out on this).

True, but you are placing limits on that speech.

Limits on free-speech already exist (human rights commission etc.) to protect Canadian citizens, so as long as we're already doing it, why not? It makes our system a bit less corrupt.

Also, culturally the US and Canada are fairly the same, I think the real difference comes in our political culture which are off by quite a bit (and not just with the left/right wing thing although that is the big one). I'm a Canadian, in case anyone cares.

For one thing, I find Canada's people to be, on average, far more politically apathetic. We have government scandals and politically correct censorship here that might raise riots or at least get all the prime time coverage in America, yet most people seem to know little and care less. The US may have low voter turn out as well, but people still get worked up over politics more than in Canada. Up here, its like most people don't know, and the rest don't care. The US government might be more likely to screw you over, but the Canadian Government is far more likely to get away with it if they try. I honestly don't believe that there can be a more apathetic nation in the history of mankind, and that's not really an exageration, by much.

This is strikes me as being true, but on the other hand the scandals are what Canadians seem to vote on. The entire Conservative platform last election was based on the Liberal sponsorship scandal.

Actually, it only becomes illegal once the assassin kills someone. Hiring him is not the crime, its only when the murder is done that it is a crime (I think, Lawyer types, feel free to call me out on this).

There was a fuss near where I live about that, actually. A Torontonian (I think) was arrested for attempted murder (I think) for hiring to some people to kill his wife. As you can no doubt tell, I am hazy on the details.

:O

This obviously accounts for all political and cultural differences.

I will never understand you Americans and your unbagged milk. What does it do, pool on the floor?

The campaign may not be out a cent, but the "payments" would still show up as a campaign expense.
not if the payments are made outside election writ periods. There's no limit to how much parties can pay their non-campaign staff.
The issue with the Conservatives is how much money they spent, not how much they raised. By getting local campaigns to buy advertising on behalf of the Centre they have been accused of overspending the limit.
And I think they found a cute loophole. The local constituency associations have their own spending limits, but there are no rules that their paid advertising needs to differ from the paid advertising of the party generally.

I will never understand you Americans and your unbagged milk. What does it do, pool on the floor?
I haven't seen bagged milk in Canada since 1981.

I haven't seen bagged milk in Canada since 1981.

He could still be living in 1981?

And I think they found a cute loophole. The local constituency associations have their own spending limits, but there are no rules that their paid advertising needs to differ from the paid advertising of the party generally.

Well I believe that is the complaint that was made by elections Canada, in the local adverstisement were too close to that of the national adds. But you do bring up the valid point, in that there is no distinction between the two.

The fact that both members of the opposition and the fact that the press was there even before the RCMP does suggest that there may be more going on and that there very may be nothing more then a political tool.

Actually, it only becomes illegal once the assassin kills someone. Hiring him is not the crime, its only when the murder is done that it is a crime (I think, Lawyer types, feel free to call me out on this).

May I introduce you to a little term we like to call "conspiracy"?

Ah, Chretien

"'Dis military is need ZERO 'elicopter..."

No, a proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof, and when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven

He could still be living in 1981?
He is Ontarian.

Diffamation in Canada is rare, and watered down at best.

I believe that it was the 92 election where the conservative show a picture of the main oppenent Jean Chretien Face, asking Canadians if this was a face of man they wanted to be their leader. (He had stroke years before and part of face had been left paralyized). There was a public backlash as a result, the Liberal won, and Jean Chretien held power for believe 12 years.
Just to set the record straight:

A birth defect leaves Chrétien with a misshapen mouth and without hearing in his right ear. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/chretien/funfacts.html)

I haven't seen bagged milk in Canada since 1981.
We have bagged milk here in Ontario (http://www.canadiandesignresource.ca/officialgallery/?p=952):

One of the first things that a visitor to Canada will notice in the home of most families is the liters of milk that is bought in plastic bags. This packing was adopted to reduce waste and to reduce the resources needed to ship the product but in the end the cultural eccentricity that this embodies is defining.

http://www.canadiandesignresource.ca/officialgallery/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/store4.JPG

There was a fuss near where I live about that, actually. A Torontonian (I think) was arrested for attempted murder (I think) for hiring to some people to kill his wife. As you can no doubt tell, I am hazy on the details.
Peter Demeter conspiracy to commit murder, back in the 70's.

For one thing, I find Canada's people to be, on average, far more politically apathetic. We have government scandals and politically correct censorship here that might raise riots or at least get all the prime time coverage in America, yet most people seem to know little and care less. The US may have low voter turn out as well, but people still get worked up over politics more than in Canada. Up here, its like most people don't know, and the rest don't care. The US government might be more likely to screw you over, but the Canadian Government is far more likely to get away with it if they try. I honestly don't believe that there can be a more apathetic nation in the history of mankind, and that's not really an exageration, by much.

I personally suspect that the difference stems from the two country's different histories. US politics has a much more violent past. It includes an initial revolution, a brutal civil war, and multiple presidential assassinations. Canada has none of that, and while those events in US history were deplorable tragedies, I think they've contributed to a greater understanding of what the stakes are in politics. America as a country has been to political hell and back, more than once, and its people have often had to fight for their rights and freedoms. Canada has not.

(In case anyone's wondering, I'm speaking from personel experience. I have dual US/Canadian citizenship, and have lived in Canada for 5 and a half years, America for 13.)
Yea......our "apathy" has kept us from:

"a revolution, a brutal civil war, and multiple presidential assassinations" and "a much more violent past".

And an understatement:

"America as a country has been to political hell and back, more than once".

Hurray for apathy!! :D

BTW, I believe that our rights and freedoms are damn awesome!!

Peter Demeter conspiracy to commit murder, back in the 70's.

Nah, I'm pretty sure I'm thinking of something way more recent than that.

I hear milk comes in bags in Canada.

Milk comes in bags in every country I've been too. Although it's been a while since I've been to the U.S., do they only have milk cartons now?

For one thing, I find Canada's people to be, on average, far more politically apathetic. We have government scandals and politically correct censorship here that might raise riots or at least get all the prime time coverage in America, yet most people seem to know little and care less. The US may have low voter turn out as well, but people still get worked up over politics more than in Canada. Up here, its like most people don't know, and the rest don't care. The US government might be more likely to screw you over, but the Canadian Government is far more likely to get away with it if they try. I honestly don't believe that there can be a more apathetic nation in the history of mankind, and that's not really an exageration, by much.

I personally suspect that the difference stems from the two country's different histories. US politics has a much more violent past. It includes an initial revolution, a brutal civil war, and multiple presidential assassinations. Canada has none of that, and while those events in US history were deplorable tragedies, I think they've contributed to a greater understanding of what the stakes are in politics. America as a country has been to political hell and back, more than once, and its people have often had to fight for their rights and freedoms. Canada has not.

(In case anyone's wondering, I'm speaking from personel experience. I have dual US/Canadian citizenship, and have lived in Canada for 5 and a half years, America for 13.)
Ya but Jean Chretien put a guy in a headlock once lol
o and he nearly hit a guy with a statue
"# In 1995, a man breaks into the prime minister's official residence armed with a pocketknife. The prime minister prepares to defend himself with an Inuit statue."