Go ahead. Slip on a political T-shirt. Slap on a political bumper sticker. The Supreme Court of sa国际传媒 says it鈥檚 OK. Seven justices of the highest court wisely voted to uphold sa国际传媒鈥檚 law on political advertising while making it clear that ordinary voters can express their opinions freely.
Section 239 of the province鈥檚 Election Act requires sponsors of election advertising during a campaign period to register their name, telephone number and address with sa国际传媒鈥檚 chief electoral officer. The penalty for flouting the law is up to a year in jail and a $10,000 fine.
The law serves a valuable purpose, because we should know who is behind political ads. It鈥檚 the reason the sa国际传媒 Liberals have announced they will release their list of donors every two weeks. The move isn鈥檛 as good as banning corporate or union donations, or putting limits on how much donors can give, but it gives voters more opportunity to see who is backing the party.
Despite the benefits of Section 239, the sa国际传媒 Freedom of Information and Privacy Association challenged it in court because it seemed to cover just about any kind of advocacy, including something as simple as a home-made sign or a bumper sticker. The case wound its way through the court process until it landed before the Supreme Court, which ruled on Thursday.
The association argued that the law effectively banned unregistered advertising, and so violated the right to freedom of expression. The concern is legitimate because we have to be able to wear our political hearts on our sleeves.
The privacy association suggested that anyone who spends less than $500 should be exempted from the law. That would make it clear for everyone, and easier to police.
Even the chief electoral officer told the legislature that the absence of some kind of threshold was causing his office 鈥渃onsiderable confusion and administrative burden.鈥�
The provincial government argued that things such as home-made signs and T-shirts wouldn鈥檛 be covered by the legislation. That鈥檚 reassuring, but when the letter of the law is open to such wide interpretation, we need more clarity.
The Supreme Court has given us that clarity.
鈥淚n my view, the act does not catch small-scale election advertising of this nature,鈥� Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote on behalf of the court.
The act is designed to apply to 鈥渟ponsors鈥� of advertising, and that has a particular meaning.
鈥淚ndividuals who neither pay others to advertise nor receive advertising services without charge are not 鈥榮ponsors,鈥� 鈥� she wrote. 鈥淭hey may transmit their own points of view, whether by posting a handmade sign in a window, or putting a bumper sticker on a car, or wearing a T-shirt with a message on it, without registering.鈥�
This is one of those cases where the group that brought the lawsuit was happy, even though it lost.
鈥淧eople will be able to express themselves in the coming election without fear of jail or fines,鈥� said Vincent Gogolek, the association鈥檚 executive director.
You might not be able to compete with the advertising dollars of a major political party, but you can flaunt your election T-shirt with pride 鈥� and without fear.
