Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
The biggest problem with our democracy is that multi-billion dollar companies and taxpayer funded organizations are allowed to spend limitless amounts of money influencing the electorate while organizations like the NCC are not allowed to use their money to influence the electorate.

The media is exempt from the rules simply because they CLAIM to be unbiased in their reporting.

The solution seems pretty simple to me. Why do we need rules about who can advertize and who cannot? By the same token, why should advocacy groups be protected from taxation?

Example: In the last provincial election in BC, the Teacher's Federation and the Nurse's Union spent more on advertizing than any of the political parties. While they didn't say "Vote for the NDP!" (since that would tie them into the NDP's advertizing) they did have much to say against the Gordon Campbell Provincial Liberals. Such advertizing is inherently negative but legal. If someone wanted to provide an alternative view, it would have to be attacking the NDP without lauding the Liberals. What a curious restriction!

Example: David Suzuki's foundation is a non-profit and therefore pays no taxation yet is permitted to use it's money to influence the electorate. He walks close to the edge of partisanship but avoids an all-out embrace to protect his tax-free status. What possible purpose is there to giving groups like his Foundation tax-free status? Their sole raison d'etre is fund raising. Any possible environmental benefits are purely coincidental yet they exert influence on voters.

-Mac
Duck Tory





Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 826
Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3
votes: 4

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2007 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spreading democracy is ONE way to make sure this world move forward. However People tend to horder their own Civil Liberties in a time of war, they refuse to share it based on Ignorance, Racism and downright selfishness.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2

Goto page Previous  1, 2  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Should we be spreading democracy?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB