To understand why B.C. premier Gordon Campbell’s Liberal government wants to limit third-party advertising before and during next year’s election campaign, political commentator David Schreck suggests looking back to 2005.

And political pundit Norman Ruff suggests looking to Burma.

From a near rout four years earlier, the NDP staged a massive comeback in the 2005 provincial election, winning 33 seats against the Liberals’ 46 seats. It was a feat that Schreck credits partly to the heavy amount of print-media, radio, and TV advertising produced by public-sector unions that were critical of B.C. Liberal policies. The B.C. Teachers’ Federation, for example, spent about $1.5 million during the campaign period, according to the former NDP MLA.

Schreck noted that had seven more seats gone to the NDP for the magic number of 40 out of the province’s 79 constituencies, now–Opposition leader Carole James would have been the premier. But that is not all, Schreck said. If one were to add up the victory margins posted by the B.C. Liberals in the seven constituencies where they had the slimmest leads over the NDP, these would constitute only about 2,600 votes.

“The Liberals had a near-death experience in 2005,” Schreck told the Georgia Straight. “They came very, very close.”

Under Bill 42, introduced by Attorney General Wally Oppal, such advertising by groups other than political parties would be constrained. Also known as the Election Amendment Act of 2008, the measure aims to limit third-party advertising to $150,000.

But the limit wouldn’t apply only during the 28-day campaign period prior to the May 12, 2009, election. Bill 42’s spending cap would also cover the 60-day period before the start of the campaign, and, according to Schreck, this would cover the legislative assembly’s session wherein the budget and other legislation would be tabled by the government.

Schreck also pointed out that the bill expands the definition of election advertising to include messages that take positions with respect to an issue that is associated with a political party or a candidate.

“You have to ask how can it be so stupid as to bring in legislation that’s such a fundamental violation of rights, knowing it’s going to fail in the courts,” he said.

Schreck said that Bill 42 indicates that the B.C. Liberals are “either fixated on overkill or they have a problem with their own self-confidence”, noting that the party has been consistently leading the NDP in opinion polls.

The bill is included in the raft of measures that the Liberals want to pass by the end of the legislature’s spring sitting on May 29.

Kyle Braid, vice president of the polling firm Ipsos Reid, told the Straight that one year before the next election is a long time for the NDP to play catch-up in the polling game.

“In the last election, they made a lot of ground compared to where they were in 2001, so there’s room to grow,” Braid said about the NDP’s performance in the 2005 election. “They’re going to need some defining issue that they haven’t found yet. There’s still a lot of time.”

It’s not that there’s a shortage of issues to use against the B.C. Liberals, Schreck said. For one, the province has the worst record on child poverty in Canada, he said. The minimum wage has been frozen for years. The number of homeless people is on the rise. Low-income families, particularly single-parent families, continue to face challenges because of welfare cuts during the first term of the Campbell administration. As well, there’s the fact that thousands of workers have lost their jobs in the forestry sector.

If passed into law—and unless it’s declared unconstitutional by the courts—Bill 42 would reduce the accountability of the B.C. Liberal government going into the next election, according to Norman Ruff, a former political-science professor at the University of Victoria.

“It’s certainly an attempt to shut down criticism,” Ruff told the Straight. “It’s a gag law. There’s no two ways about it.”

When Oppal introduced the measure on first reading on April 30, the attorney general stated that the spending limits on election advertising by third parties will “ensure fairness and balance”.

However, Ruff asserts that the bill is not the type that one would normally associate with a democratic country like Canada. “It’s the kind of thing one associates with Burma,” he said.

What else is in Bill 42?

> A political party can only spend up to $1.1 million in the 60-day pre-campaign period before the May 12, 2009, election.

> Each party can use up to $4.4 million during the 28-day campaign period.

> Individual candidates can shell out up to $70,000 during the 60-day period before the start of the campaign, and another $70,000 during the campaign period.

> Spending limits will be indexed to inflation.

> Landlords and strata corporations may limit the display of election posters on their premises.

> To register to vote, one must produce a federal- or B.C.-government ID with the applicant’s name, photograph, and place of residence.

> In the absence of such ID, a prospective voter must produce two documents authorized by the chief electoral officer indicating the applicant’s name, and at least one must specify place of residence.

Source: Bill 42