ntt@dciem.UUCP (Mark Brader) (06/29/84)
Note: this article was posted with "Distribution: can". Be sure this line
is included in the header of any follow-ups.
A recent court ruling in Alberta has declared that a section of the new
law on election spending violates our constitutional guarantee of free
speech and expression. I think the thought processes of the people who
drafted that law were mimicking those of some people who write software.
I reconstruct the development as follows:
[1] Let's have a law limiting the amount of advertising in an election.
[2] The natural way to do it is to limit the number of dollars a candidate
can spend on advertising.
[3] Yes, but what if a non-candidate wants to run an advertisement advocating
that some candidate be elected?
[4] Then that is like a campaign contribution, and the candidate should be
made to count it in their limited spending.
[5] But then a non-candidate could spend a lot of money on POOR ads for the
candidate, quickly, and the candidate's campaign would be sabotaged.
Also, what about non-candidates who advertise that you should vote for,
say, candidate A or B but not C or D?
[6] Ah, yes, that's a problem. Oh, I have it! Let us say that before any
advertisement about who you should vote for (or against) is run, the
candidate or candidates that it favors have to approve it.
[7] But what if none of them wants to, like in the first case in "[5]"?
(Ready?)
[8] Hmm, I guess you're right, that's still a problem. I give up.
*This case is too difficult to handle. So let's just make it illegal.*
Only since it was not computer people but legislators talking, the meaning
of "illegal" is, well, "illegal"! I'm just glad this was passed *after*
the new constitution became effective.
Mark Brader