What's to prevent retroactive election financing reform legislation in BC?

20 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
What's to prevent retroactive election financing reform legislation in BC?
Issues Pages: 
Regions: 
NorthReport

The Liberals are fond of bragging that they raised many millions of dollars from BC's corporate elite since the May 9 '17 election, but what's to prevent John Horgan from making the legislation retroactive and force the bot and paid for Liberals to reimburse their corporate masters?

Actually it is essential we do this if we want to in any way level the financial playing field for the inevitable next election which may be sooner than we think

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
what's to prevent John Horgan from making the legislation retroactive and force the bot and paid for Liberals to reimburse their corporate masters?

Convention and  common sense.

NorthReport

What is it about the word "convention" that makes one think right-wingers

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

No law can be retroactive, North.  THAT'S what prevents it.

NorthReport

!!

NorthReport

Ken you need to move into today's world and stop living in the 19th century

Why do you play the right wingers game, seriously!

That's utter nonsense what you are spouting as legislation can be whatever legislators deem it to be as long it is constitutional

I must have missed the section in the constitution that says nothing can be retroactive

NorthReport

So included with Horgan's first piece of legislation should be the requirements for all parties to refund any and all donations that don't pass the smell test
In other words make the Liberals refund the millions they have received since May 9 or would people prefer the Liberals with Kevin Falcon as Leader buy another election

The left is so beaten down with defeat they can't see the forest for the trees it seems

NorthReport
NorthReport

Perhaps the NDP can have a look at this on Friday, eh! 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Perhaps the NDP can have a look at this on Friday, eh!

Who voted it down???

What corrupt, business-lovin', 1% supporting, anti-democratic bastards chose to kill this bill??

NorthReport

This should be the number one, the number two, and the number three issue for John Horgan come Friday morning

BC Liberals vow to Ban Big Money

 

https://dogwoodbc.ca/bc-liberals-vow-ban-big-money/

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

If they wanted to ban it then they could have voted in favour of it a few days ago, but didn't.

If nothing else, I hope that if you want to portray the Liberals as "playing power games", you'll also include Horgan voting AGAINST something he believes, in order to play a power game.

NorthReport

Without a doubt attempting to stop the Liberals from continually buying elections should be legislation number one for Johnny boy and his merry gang of 44 

Caissa

Retroactive legislation would get thrown out by the courts.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Caissa wrote:

Retroactive legislation would get thrown out by the courts.

However severly restricting how much can be spent, even in pre-election periods, would mean the impact of the current Liberal war chest would be negated.

JKR

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Caissa wrote:

Retroactive legislation would get thrown out by the courts.

However severly restricting how much can be spent, even in pre-election periods, would mean the impact of the current Liberal war chest would be negated.

Good point.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

What if parties couldn't directly spend anything at all on campaign advertising?

I'm thinking, what if there were no TV commercials, no radio commercials, no billboards.  Just each party's web page, and those voters interested enough to visit them?  Sure, that 0.1% of the electorate who has no internet access, and cannot make it to the local library, might be in the dark, but evidently it's not like full-page ads, or television commercials, are really intended to fairly inform anyone anyway.

And if everyone has zero dollars they can blow on slick ads, what could be more egalatarian than that?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

That is a way to get the voter turnout to drop off. If political parties are not allowed to advertise then what about third party advertsing?  If its allowed then the people running for office will be at the mercy of third parties defining them with no rebuttal. If third parties are also barred then oit leaves the media. How do you propose policing the media to ensure they have balanced and broad coverage of all the issues and parties running? Or are you saying that at the end of the day people like Keith Baldry get to speak during an election but not people seeking office.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
That is a way to get the voter turnout to drop off. If political parties are not allowed to advertise then what about third party advertsing?

Shit can it too.  Sorry I forgot to mention that.  Just, simply, no political advertising (outside of their web page) at all.

Quote:
How do you propose policing the media to ensure they have balanced and broad coverage of all the issues and parties running?

I don't think we could police them for equal air time.  So what if we also forbade "editorials" or "op eds"?  I know it won't ever happen, but still.  What if some party's best hope to be chosen was a web page that clearly outlined their policies and beliefs?  And what if the other party's only hope was a web page with better policies and beliefs, and not some saturated attack ad with plenty of "scary" photos and some horror movie sound effects?