CANADIAN ELECTIONEERING SPEECH DECISION

The Canadian Supreme Court issued a landmark electioneering speech decision yesterday. In a 6 to 3 ruling in the case Harper v. Canada, the Court upheld spending limits on "third party" (non-candidate, non-party) election advertising and deferred to parliament's authority to regulate in this area. Law professor Allan Hutchinson writes in defense of the Court's ruling ("The court shushes the rich"):

Since classical Athens, the continuing electoral challenge has been to separate finance from franchise, and money from mouths. The Supreme Court reiterated the idea from earlier litigation that it is simply undemocratic for economic clout to skew political emancipation. While the rich are as entitled to be heard as anyone else, they deserve no greater hearing. A flourishing democracy, therefore, needs to control as much as facilitate the impact of economic inequality on public debate.

. . .

The substance of the Supreme Court's decision might be contended by many. But let's hope that most can agree that the court has put the decision back where it belongs. Those who want less or no limits on election spending can take their cause to our pre-eminent forums for democratic debate and decision-making -- Parliament and the provincial legislatures. The court's decision is a win-win for anyone committed to the primacy of democratic politics.

Other commentators were more critical of the Court's ruling. The National Post calls the decision a "body blow to free speech," the Calgary Sun calls yesterday a "black day for Canadian democracy," and the Globe and Mail writes that the Court "got it dead wrong" and "fumbled a fundamental freedom." The Toronoto Star's Chantal Hébert writes:

At a time when the main parties are going out of their way to cloud their policies, muting outside voices may well fog the picture rather than enhance its clarity.