You are mixing up two different things. One has nothing to do with the other. And if you don't consider the Public Service Unions "Overlords" of the Liberals you haven't been paying attention. Its all lobbying for special interests and access.Meanwhile, as DOUGS shits on the Charter of Rights and the democratic process for personal and political benefit, his overlords, the developers, have and continue to enjoy 24/7 control of the levers of power:
How the Ford government’s love of MZOs is increasingly benefiting private developers with ties to PC and local politicians
The province says MZOs are a vital tool to help build projects communities want and people rely on. Premier’s office says “any attempt to link MZOs with political connections” is baseless.www.thestar.com
I guess this type of election and political interference is DOUGS and Butler's preferred option.
DOFO to invoke notwithstanding clause over elections act court ruling
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
So corporate special interests are fine but special interests that speak for workers isn't?
I'm sure that's the way Sanders sees it, right?
All they did was extend by 6 months an existing law. And they have no recourse. It will stand for 5 years. And the parties will have to take responsibility for their own ads.
So you back Ford over the CCLA?
Not surprising, you always do go for corporate influence over the people.
Seeing which democratic process ruled in favor of those who brought it forward and against who attempted to trample on their Charter rights for his own personal and political benefit tells a much bigger story.
And seeing who trampled, stomped, and shat on the democratic process by going nuclear because he didn't get his way, tells the biggest story.
Premier Doug Ford used a tool that no other premier in Ontario’s history has ever used to override Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And he did it for no other reason than to help himself in the upcoming provincial election.
If it weren’t such a violation of our fundamental rights, it would be just pathetic.
And that amounts to saying: “I know I’m trampling on your rights — but I don’t care.”
The government is trying to paint this as “legislation to protect the individual rights of Ontario voters” and protect elections from “big-money political influence.”
But Ontarians won’t fall for that any more than Superior Court Justice Ed Morgan did when he struck down the law, noting that “skepticism of (the) government’s motives is not misplaced where new election procedures are concerned.”
Ford is clearly curtailing how much Working Families can spend trashing him and his PCs in the lead-up to next June’s election.
But it will almost certainly have far wider ramifications and curtail what charities, environmental groups, businesses and others can spend on public information campaigns in the year before a vote.
Ford showed how little he cares about the rights of others or the consequences of his dictatorial tendencies in 2018 when he rushed to the notwithstanding clause as soon as a judge said he couldn’t slash Toronto council in the middle of an election campaign. A higher court overturned that decision so he didn’t have to follow through.
“Invoking the notwithstanding clause, though, means that everyone’s rights are now in danger. Ford stated plainly that he ‘won’t be shy’ about going there again if his will is thwarted. His theory of democracy is simple: I got elected, so I get my way. Full stop.
“Who will be the next group to be brushed aside, their charter rights disrespected and disregarded? Presumably it will be whoever gets in Ford’s way, especially any group that manages to persuade a court that their rights have been infringed.”
To make things worse, this is just one of the ways he’s tried to manipulate the system in his party’s favour.
His government revived the discredited cash-for-access system and offers up ministers to those who can afford to pay $1,000-a-person for dinner or, lately, a Zoom sign-in. That works in the PCs’ favour so it’s presumably an acceptable form of “big-money political influence,” while unions running ads criticizing the government somehow is not.
The government also doubled individual maximum political donations to $3,300 a year and the PC party found ways to double what well-heeled donors can donate.
There is nothing "favorable" about individual donations to parties. The various Teachers and Union Members far outnumber the rich donors by far. They can give less collectively and still give more in totality. Now they can decide who to give to and not be forced to by Unions.
However there is also transparency in this. We know who the donors are and how much. The Union SuperPacs refuse to disclose this. Just hide behind cute names while skirting the spirit of election spending rules. And outfits like Ontario Proud and Ontario 99 both are equally effected.
So why does this law only have to exist in Ontario and no other province?
Again, no one seems willing to actually lay out "this is why we passed it" and "this is what the judge found unconstitutional about it".
Everyone is just parroting the party lines on the issue.
1) The 24/7 access to and control of DOUGS that developers and corporations have certainly put the lie to your claim that there is nothing 'favourable' about individual donations to him and his party.
2) Which orifice expunged your claim that teacher's and union members give more $$$$ in totality than rich donors by far? And which teachers and union members are being 'forced' to donate to a non-DOUGS party?
3) What transparency is there in developers and big corporations have 24/7 access to and control of Ontario through their donations to DOUGS and party?
4) Developer's and big corporations are not affected at all by this. In fact they and their servant DOUGS are the prime beneficiaries and the people of Ontario are the losers of DOUGS abuse of the notwithstanding clause to circumvent the judicial, constitutional and democratic process.
5) Union SuperPacs? You are one seriously deluded dude.
You are asking the wrong why. The Question is why do dark money entities need to have no spending limits on attack ads up to six months before an election? The answer is they don't.
Now they can still spend up to $600,000 one year before. So they either need to spread it out, or wait until closer for impact. Thats it. Thats all that happened.
As to the judge. I think he made a bad ruling. If he had said no time limit, or no funding limit, then he may have a better case. But merely saying a time extention is unconstitutional is dumb. The limiting action exists. Arguing over the time limit really doesn't impede democracy.
I would prefer all entities be required to post all funding at all times if engaged in political action like ads. This makes it a bit better. And affects all sides equally.
All kinds of sputtering opinion there. Now can you give a legit reason why any dark money entity should have unlimited spending privileges up to six months before an election with no donor transparency?
Dense, dense, dense.
1) "Dark money entities"? Conspiratorial hogwash dude.
2) There was NOT, I repeat there was NOT a "no spending limit" for 3rd party advertising in the ACT. There WAS, I repeat WAS and is still is a spending limit of $600,000. Get your facts straight. You are foolish and you do not know what you are talking about.
3) As per the ACT, 3rd party advertisers could spending up to a limit of $600,000 pre-DOUGS circumvention of the law and post.
4) As per our society, our Charter of Rights and Freedom and our democratic processes, this judges ruling is valid and valid until:
a) The loser appeals to a higher court, Ontario Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Canada and these higher courts overturn the lower court ruling.
b) Or the loser, goes back and reworks their shot down changes to the law so that it comports with the Charter.
And that is what competent governments with integrity do.
There was a no spending limit up to 6 months before the election. It has now been extended to one year before. Thats it.
When an entity doesn't have to report where it git its money that's the definition of dark money. What's your definition?
The judge got it wrong.
