Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Pre-Election Spending

You can see the CP Story here.

In a nutshell:
  • The Tories are flying around the province spending money as frantically and carelessly as Richard Pryor in Brewster's Millions.
  • Nothing that the Tories are doing is illegal, though. Subsection 67(1) of New Brunswick's Politcal Process Financing Act defines election expenses (which the Act is partly designed to reign in) as: "all expenditures incurred during an election period for the purpose of promoting or opposing directly or indirectly, the election of a candidate or that of the candidates of a party, including every person who subsequently becomes or who is likely to become a candidate, and includes all expenditures incurred before an election period for literature, objects or materials of an advertising nature used during the election period for such purposes."
  • So the PPFA governs election expenses and also non-election-time advertising spending (s. 67(1) for the former and s.50(1) for the latter). What the Tories are doing is neither.
So, great work by the PCs. Campaigning on the taxpayers' dollars and flaunting both the law and common sense by calling the election a week prior to calling the election. They seem to be developing a certain Martin/Clintonesque penchant for "technical legality" and "plausible deniability". Bravo.

This "blatantly buy 'em" strategy failed the Lord Tories in the Saint John Harbour by-election last fall, so it is somewhat curious that they are back at it.

Both parties are simply attempting to convey their messaging. The Tories want you to know that they are interested in four more years of this dirty little quid pro quo and the Liberals want you to know that they are looking out for you. While the Tories are getting their message out via the government, the Liberals are getting their's out through the media. It's win-win, really (except for the other party, who has neither the civil service nor the print media and its beck and call).

10 Comments:

At 7:14 PM, Blogger Alvy Singer said...

Oh yeah, it certainly is unethical. Very much so.

 
At 8:36 PM, Blogger Spinks said...

As I wrote at nbpolitico, I think we can agree it is unethical. Can we also get agreement that the Liberals would do exactly the same thing if they could?

 
At 8:46 PM, Blogger Alvy Singer said...

Yeah, I would agree with that.

 
At 9:03 PM, Blogger nbpolitico said...

As I wrote over at nbpolitico (:p), I disagree:

other parties have done this sort of thing before but this is a little bit nonsense.

The old expression, "in an election year, if it moves hire it, if it doesn't pave it" did come from somewhere but this is RIDICULOUS.

Lord has essentially called the election. When an election is called, the government does not make funding announcements. The party writes news releases, the government does not. The party rents and runs a bus, the government doesn't use its plane. And so on.

Lord has all but said that the only reason election the election hasn't been called yet is because he doesn't want to hold it on September 11. Fair enough, but if the election call is delayed due to a formality (and it didn't need to be delayed, he could have called a long campaign) then he should not be acting as though there is not an election on.

For Lord to say this is government business as usual because the writ hasn't been dropped is like me saying the results of the election don't matter because Hermiglide Chiasson will still be LG and chief executive and appoint whatever cabinet he likes.

 
At 9:13 PM, Blogger Alvy Singer said...

Aren't we arguing two different points here:

1. This is entirely unethical. Check, we can all agree, right?

2. If given the opportunity, the Liberals would do the same thing. This point is debatable, and it is a little unfair to superimpose our impressions on a fact scenario that doesn't exist.

My impression on question 2: to the extent that it is advantageous opportunism, then yes, the Liberals would do it too. To the extent, however, that it is a tactical error that will blow up in Lord's face, then no, the Liberals would not do something so foolish.

I'm not sure how I feel about which it is: advantageously opportunistic or foolish, but I think the answer to that question holds the key to whether or not the Liberals would act the same way in the same circumstance.

 
At 10:32 PM, Blogger scott said...

This "blatantly buy 'em" strategy failed the Lord Tories in the Saint John Harbour by-election last fall, so it is somewhat curious that they are back at it.

This must be your first general election FPT because if you look back at any administration, either federal or provincial, by-elections have never been kind to the sitting government. So comparing this election to that by-elecyion is realistically like comparing apples and oranges. They are two different things.

 
At 11:42 PM, Blogger Alvy Singer said...

You're right, Scott, that it is a poor idea to compare by-elections and general elections.

Didn't think I did that.

Don't see why you had to impugn my experience in the course of making you otherwise astute comment, though.

That said, keep the comments coming.

 
At 12:12 AM, Blogger scott said...

Very true. I guess it is a trigger happy reflex that I unfortunately developed over the years in petulant city Ottawa and therefore have to weed it out of my dictum. My apologies. As for the blog,,,welcome aboard. I like what i read to far. I'll be in and out during the election, but will cut back on blogging due to a particular campaign I've invested in.

 
At 12:12 AM, Blogger scott said...

btw, I'll add u 2 my blogroll. Cheers.

 
At 12:27 AM, Blogger Alvy Singer said...

Thanks for the link, Scott. I will reciprocate in kind.

I could see you on the campaign trail...

 

Post a Comment

<< Home