Angry in the Great White North

Here is how Elections Canada explains the notion of "third party advertising":

1. I have heard that the Canada Elections Act regulates "third parties". Is that true? What is a third party?

The Canada Elections Act regulates third parties who engage in election advertising. A third party may be a person or a group. The Act defines a group as an unincorporated trade union, trade association or other group of persons acting together by mutual consent for a common purpose. A corporation may also be a third party.

Candidates, federal registered political parties and the electoral district associations of registered political parties are not third parties.

See ss. 319, 349 and 353 of the Canada Elections Act. For the text of the Act, click here.

2. What is "election advertising"?

"Election advertising" is defined in section 319 of the Canada Elections Act. "Election advertising" may be interpreted as a message that is:

• transmitted by any means during an election
• transmitted to any person or persons with whom the originator of the message does not have some common cause or connection, and
• intended to influence how an elector might vote, by promoting or opposing a registered party or the election of a candidate, including a message that takes a position on an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated

However, the above should be interpreted as a general guide. The actual definition of "election advertising" should be reviewed in order to determine if any particular message would constitute election advertising for the purposes of the Canada Elections Act.

Elizabeth May, leader of a group of people called the Green Party who are acting together for a common purpose, is transmitting a message designed to influence people to oppose a registered party:

But before her train from Vancouver pulled into Toronto last night, she called for a form of strategic voting, which she feared might get her in a moose-size mess of trouble with her own party.

May urged Canadians to do all they can to throw Prime Minister Stephen Harper out of office, including strongly suggesting they shouldn't vote Green if another candidate has a better chance at defeating a Conservative.

"We are too close to the edge of a global apocalypse," May said in an interview. "We have got to grab the opportunities we have. And, clearly, the contribution Canadians can make to a global solution is to get rid of Stephen Harper."

"I won't say, `You've got to vote Green if you believe in our policies.' I'll say, `Here's our policies, figure out what you need to do because, frankly, the Green party has to put progress (on climate change) and principle above short-term power.'"

Am I the only one who thinks the Green Party is acting in a manner consistent with the definition of a third party?  A political party avoids that definition because a political party attempts to win power by simultaneously telling people not to vote for the other guy while trying to get those people to vote for the party.

A third party, on the other hand, is not running for office.

The Green Party is skirting the line.  Elizabeth May makes it clear that the under her leadership, the Green Party is not running for office.  Not really.  It is a charade designed to mask their activities as a third party with the single well-defined goal of preventing a Conservative Party win, but with no particular opinion regarding votes cast for the other major parties.

If the Green Party was designated as a third party, all the expenses that have gone to trying to keep people from voting for the Conservatives, that is, the Green Party's so-called election expenses, would have to be reported to Elections Canada, and would be restricted to $150,000 nationwide and $3000 per riding.

If it turned out that the Green Party spent above this limit, criminal prosecution would likely follow.

The underlying assumption in these rules is that political parties are not helping each other, at least not deliberately and over the course of an entire campaign.  If political parties could do this, nothing would stop a well-heeled political party from creating multiple distinct political parties, perhaps in secret, each with its own ability to raise funds and spend them in a campaign.  As each of these sub-parties would simply be acting to support the main party, the main party has broken the campaign finance limits.

It sounds absurd, and yet the Green Party is acting in exactly this manner.

If the Green Party exists only to prevent the Conservative Party from getting votes, the other major parties -- the other major real parties -- are benefiting from this third party spending.  Elections Canada limits that spending to $150,000 so that the impact on a campaign budget of $18 million is minimal.  But by pretending to be a political party, the Green Party can spend and spend and spend.

Not on winning any elections, of course, but on influencing how an elector might vote.

I'm not naive enough to think my theorizing will make any difference.  And I'm pretty sure somewhere there is some element of the legislation that gets the Green Party off the hook.

It might be legal.  It doesn't mean it's right.