![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldThe Conservative Party, the CBC has noted, is pushing back at accusations that the Conservative Party masterminded a national robocalling campaign aimed at discouraging voter turnout by pointing to a Liberal MP in the southwestern Ontario city of Guelph who himself authorized robocalling.
I have to agree with Valeriote. As annoying as I find robocalls in principle, and keeping in mind that using a fake name for the robocalling account does not strike me as the best thing to do, the distinction he makes between robocalls made with the intent of informing people about stated policies of candidates and robocalls made with the intent of misleading people about voting locations and thus deterring them from voting is an important one.
One very interesting thing about the Conservatives' response to the accusations of robocalling directed against the party is that it seems--from the media coverage I've seen, at least--to be targeted against the Liberal Party, even though the New Democratic Party (now the opposition) and the Liberals have both made sustained high-profile attacks on the Conservative Party over the robocalling. It's Liberal Party misdeeds, past and present, that the Conservative Party is focusing on. The NDP, in contrast, is getting off lightly.
Is the Conservative Party trying to destroy the Liberal Party, its long-time rival for power, concentrating its fire so as to put it down permanently? The NDP and the Liberal Party are both to the left of the Conservative Party, but the Liberal Party is easily the most centrist of the two. Are Conservative Party strategists hoping that if they destroy the Liberal Party, a more strongly left-wing NDP won't be able to capture enough Liberal voters to prevent the Conservative Party from being Canada's natural party of government?
(And if the Conservative Party really is linked to robocalling, it's worth noting that the Liberal Party fared catastrophically in the past election, losing some seats by hundreds or even dozens of voters. One good way to make the Liberal Party seem no longer viable would be to go after potential Liberal voters in relatively marginal seats.)
Thoughts?
Key documents in Guelph robocalls investigation Conservative MPs have seized an opportunity to push back on the robocalls controversy after a Liberal MP admitted his campaign made an automated call of its own that didn't identify who paid for it.
Frank Valeriote, who was re-elected in Guelph, Ont., May 2, 2011, confirmed that one of his campaign volunteers made a robocall before the election that told people to vote Liberal because the Conservative candidate was anti-abortion. Valeriote said he approved the call and admitted the volunteer who placed the call gave a fake name.
Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro said in question period Monday that the calls were dishonest.
"We now know that the member for Guelph, Mr. Speaker, in fact paid for illegal robocalls that concealed the fact that the calls came from his Liberal campaign. They used a bogus number, Mr. Speaker, a fictitious character, they broke the CRTC regulations, they broke Elections Canada laws," said Del Mastro, parliamentary secretary to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
[. . .]
According to the Elections Act, campaigns must identify who paid for advertising. The law doesn't specifically mention robocalls, but a spokesman for Elections Canada, asked whether the Valeriote campaign call was legal, pointed to the rules for campaign advertising.
The Liberals say Elections Canada has interpreted robocalls differently in the past. In a news release, the party said the agency last spring said on its website that live or automated messages sent to specific phone numbers and email addresses don't count as advertising.
Valeriote says the call doesn't qualify as advertising because it was clarifying his pro-choice position.
"This was a legal, issue-based called directed to a certain group of people who have been misinformed throughout Guelph about my position on abortion over a number of days, leading up to the call on Saturday," he said after question period.
I have to agree with Valeriote. As annoying as I find robocalls in principle, and keeping in mind that using a fake name for the robocalling account does not strike me as the best thing to do, the distinction he makes between robocalls made with the intent of informing people about stated policies of candidates and robocalls made with the intent of misleading people about voting locations and thus deterring them from voting is an important one.
One very interesting thing about the Conservatives' response to the accusations of robocalling directed against the party is that it seems--from the media coverage I've seen, at least--to be targeted against the Liberal Party, even though the New Democratic Party (now the opposition) and the Liberals have both made sustained high-profile attacks on the Conservative Party over the robocalling. It's Liberal Party misdeeds, past and present, that the Conservative Party is focusing on. The NDP, in contrast, is getting off lightly.
Is the Conservative Party trying to destroy the Liberal Party, its long-time rival for power, concentrating its fire so as to put it down permanently? The NDP and the Liberal Party are both to the left of the Conservative Party, but the Liberal Party is easily the most centrist of the two. Are Conservative Party strategists hoping that if they destroy the Liberal Party, a more strongly left-wing NDP won't be able to capture enough Liberal voters to prevent the Conservative Party from being Canada's natural party of government?
(And if the Conservative Party really is linked to robocalling, it's worth noting that the Liberal Party fared catastrophically in the past election, losing some seats by hundreds or even dozens of voters. One good way to make the Liberal Party seem no longer viable would be to go after potential Liberal voters in relatively marginal seats.)
Thoughts?
