Why is it controversial? The ad was published in the North Bay Nugget on September 23rd, 2008 (during the writ period) and it doesn’t appear to contain the words “approved by the official agent for Anthony Rota”. If my eyes do not deceive me, this would be in contravention of s.320 and s.321 of the Elections Act.
Those sections are,
320. A candidate or registered party, or a person acting on their behalf, who causes election advertising to be conducted shall mention in or on the message that its transmission was authorized by the official agent of the candidate or by the registered agent of the party, as the case may be.
321. (1) No person shall knowingly conduct election advertising or cause it to be conducted using a means of transmission of the Government of Canada.
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), a person includes a group within the meaning of Part 17.
This appears to be an ad authorized by Anthony Rota as an MP. If that’s the case, he’s advertising himself (he’s now a candidate) using his MP office.
UPDATE: Rota’s campaign explains that the ads were bought prior to the writ drop. According to them, this makes it legal. Since Rota couldn’t have known when the writ period was going to be, this is an understandable oversight. However, according to my reading of the law, the act is clear on these two sections. Rota should have cancelled the ads. I wouldn’t accuse Rota of cheating because of this. Instead, I’d chalk it up to an unfortunate coincidence that could be interpreted as a violation of the Act.
Elections Canada disagrees and claims that the content doesn’t appear to be election advertising. Then again, Elections Canada is quite a subjective arbiter on what constitutes election advertising and in who’s name elections advertising is done (MP/candidate and federal/local). I suppose the Prime Minister now has the green light to circumvent the spending limit by buying the back page of every single paper in the country (with taxpayer money, natch) to say “Hi, I’m the PM” and as long as he doesn’t say “Vote for me, I’m the PM”, it’s all good.
Stephen Taylor is a scientist, political analyst and a blogger. Taylor writes here regularly and is the founder of bloggingtories.ca. Taylor has contributed to Macleans, CTV, talk radio and has been a featured speaker on new media at numerous events including the Western Standard Cruise and the Forum for Public Policy. In December 2008, Taylor organized Rally for Canada, a series of rallies held coast-to-coast to protest the proposed coalition government.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:19 am
The media will be all over this story, nailing this Tory candidate's ass to the wall.
Oh, wait a second, he's a Liberal. Hmmm.
Well then…
Hey, how about them Buffalo Bills, eh?
September 29th, 2008 at 8:58 am
This is an outrageous abuse of tax payers money and at the same time a clear breach of election finance law. Will Elections Canada look the other way because it is Liberal? Remains to be seen.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Oh well, it was just a little oversight. Ooops. My office volunteers are just so enthusiastic – youth. Gotta love 'em. Hey, I'll get right on that one and take care of this silly little issue. Heh heh. Kids, gotta love 'em.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:44 am
If he had a full page ad congratulating some hobby group with his name in huge block letters with his picture and “your member of Parliament” would it count as an ad? Of course.
Name and image recognition are valuable to a public figure seeking (re)-election.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:52 am
BTW, Stephen, In my riding of St. Paul's I have seen several Jack Layton signs, including a large one on a grassy hill right beside Carolyn Bennett's constituency office. Anyone who lives in the riding and hasn't seen it, go check it out! It isn't a sign for NDP candidate Anita Agrawal, these are Jack Layton signs, the ones that are run in his own riding. As well, there's a Layton sign along Mount Pleasant Rd., on cemetery property, which I believe is owned and run by the city gov't… Is it even legal for the NDP to be doing any of these things?
September 29th, 2008 at 11:34 am
He's thanking them for “co-operation”? what does that mean?
September 29th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Rota responds – Rota sets the record straight on opponent's false accusations.
I would be very happy to see Rota unseated, but I'm not sure if this is going to do it.
September 29th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
In my riding the same NDP guy who ran provinicially is now running federally. H eis using his provincial signs – how is that counted from an election spending standpoint. Does election spending cover transferred property?
September 29th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Ad doesn't violate law – Elections Canada
http://www.nugget.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1224620
September 29th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
When was the ad bought? That is the critical question you don't bother to ask, no surprise. Not when it was published.
September 29th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
With due respect, I sincerely doubt that this constitutes political advertising. Perhaps it ought to, but under the current regime it almost certainly doesn't. If it did, all of the Conservative Party non-incumbent mailings would also be advertising, as would the benches all over Winnipeg with Rod Bruinooge's name and face on them (paid for out of his constituency budget), as would anything with a candidate's name on it.
September 29th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
So, Stephen Harper could buy a 4 page spread in the Toronto Star to say thanks to our Olympic athletes in his capacity as PM, paid for with taxpayer dollars. As long as he buys before the writ period even though he schedules it for running during one, that's ok?
Rota should have cancelled the ad when the writ dropped. But it's an understandable oversight.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Actually, Devin, all MPs have a budget for those mailings and can send them out provided we are not in election mode. No matter the party, those mailings are within policy guidelines. Anything after the writ is dropped must come from the party's finances and not the taxpayer-provided funds.
September 29th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
This will dominate the CBC election coverage for a solid week. Oh – did you say Liberal candidate? Nothing to see here….
September 29th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
This is my riding. Although technically Rota will be able to get away with not violating EC regulations, he is definitely taking advantage of the soft media, and sleepy nature of the local electorate. One wonders why the Nugget didn't question the ethics of printing that during the election.Our athletes will still be here after Oct. 14.
…well no we really don't have to wonder.
Rota 'proudly' brought Bob Rae to the city a few weeks ago. He really should have made Rae apologise to the families in our city that have no doctor.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Liberal Garth Turner seems to be doing the same kind of thing in Halton:
http://www.haltoncompass.com/page05.html
September 30th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Cheap shots, Stephen. Must be an election going on.
No – it is not as simplistic as you try to spin it. If he has been doing this for years at the same time of year and it mentions nothing about really anything political, how can you honestly say that this is “election advertising” because it is only “election advertising” that is not allowed.
As for the spin you give on Harper: he did it throughout August and the first week of September with sudden “policy announcements”, a raft of advertisements for new government programs, all on the public dime, not to mention the very clearly permitted party advertising.
I'd say nice try, but this is weak, even for you.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
http://repossessinghalton.blogspot.com has got all the dirt as well. Some of Garths gang online are saying its nothing but a smear but still… its an ad running during an election. Its wrong.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Admittedly, I'm a partisan, and by no means a Liberal. That said, how hard would it have been for Rota to just admit he should have pulled the ad, an administrative error, will pay back the cost, etc.. yadda yadda. Acting like a wounded animal and lashing out about Harper's fixed election date just makes him look scared. The polls are not in Liberal favour, and this riding could be a real barometer of what's happening nationally. Most people from NB would say that Rota is a decent guy, even if they don't agree with his politics, so not sure how the polls will go.
Rota and Sinicrope got into a good scrap on this tonight at the all-candidates debate. Seems that the verdict is still out on whether this is was legal, and any consequences. Knowing both candidates, they've probably lawyered up, so you can bet we haven't heard the last. Stay tuned.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Well, from what I understand and personal experience, these people can behave scummy like anyone else. In fact, I've sent one of the close family members over to collection recently because he didn't believe in keeping agreements or standing by his word. We all have to understand that politicians are inherently greedy, power hungry and self-centred and will therefore do quite literally anything to get what they think they deserve. It must be an inbred character flaw as it generally spans siblings. Rota's ad in the paper is just another example of twisting the rules to suit an end goal. Legally, he may or may not have contravened the acts, however ethically it appears it was most definitely contravened and a lack of ethics is the root of these problems. Unfortunately “it's” back in office and apples fallen from the same tree are generally similar in “taste” even if not so in appearance.
October 16th, 2008 at 1:56 am
Well, from what I understand and personal experience, these people can behave scummy like anyone else. In fact, I've sent one of the close family members over to collection recently because he didn't believe in keeping agreements or standing by his word. We all have to understand that politicians are inherently greedy, power hungry and self-centred and will therefore do quite literally anything to get what they think they deserve. It must be an inbred character flaw as it generally spans siblings. Rota's ad in the paper is just another example of twisting the rules to suit an end goal. Legally, he may or may not have contravened the acts, however ethically it appears it was most definitely contravened and a lack of ethics is the root of these problems. Unfortunately “it's” back in office and apples fallen from the same tree are generally similar in “taste” even if not so in appearance.