British Columbia’s largest public-sector union— the B.C. Government and Services Employees’ Union— is facing a $3.2 million fine levied by Elections B.C. because of a TV ad the union aired that happened to coincide with last April's byelections in Chilliwack-Hope and Port Moody-Coquitlam.

At the core of the dispute is what the B.C. government deems to be third-party election spending and the psychic skills that the Elections Act demands of any group considering advocacy work when there's a seat or two vacant in the B.C. legislature.

There's also the needling issue of how to divvy up the cost of ads on Global or CTV when they might be seen by viewers in Hope, B.C. during a campaign. In the BCGEU case, Elections B.C. is applying the full cost of the advertising aired across the province to the two byelections in question.

It's an arcane accounting rule that is only one of the many ways available to the government when it wants to stack the deck in its favour over third parties speaking up during an election.

So what other tools do they have at the ready to muffle the masses?

Strict spending limits. Under B.C.'s Elections Act, third-party spending is limited to $3,000 per electoral district and $150,000 province-wide.

Don't even begin to imagine that there's some rhyme or reason for that $3,000 limit; by setting a uniform limit across districts instead of per registered voter the B.C. government tossed the concept of a level playing field out the window.

As well, the act requires everyone register with Elections B.C., file an advertising disclosure report if they spend over $500, and require them to disclose the amount of contributions they received starting six months before the election is called.

And if that doesn't scare off those pesky do-gooders, write rules that are so convoluted that most groups will likely wave a white flag before even trying to decipher what they mean.

For instance, the B.C. Elections Act defines “election advertising” as “the transmission to the public by any means…of an advertising message that promotes or opposes, directly or indirectly, a registered political party or the election of a candidate, including an advertising message that takes a position on an issue with which a registered political party or candidate is associated.”

Heady stuff that: “by any means”, “directly or indirectly”, “takes a position on”, “is associated.” How does a group account for the cost of an existing web page that may overnight become “election advertising” during a pre-campaign or election period because it might “indirectly” promote or oppose a political party “associated” with an issue?

Part of an existing church's website may be deemed “election advertising” eight months from now and its costs tallied against that church's spending limit, even if words like “vote,” “elect” or “re-elect” are nowhere to be found on it, but “poverty” is.

Don't believe it? None of those BCGEU ads told anyone how to vote. And the campaign itself started months before the byelections were called.

Of course, the government will argue it's the principle that counts. And they're right. Reasonable limits should be placed on the election spending of third parties so that the wealthy don't drown out other voices and other voices have a reasonable chance to communicate with voters.

But principles are principles. You don't cherry pick when and where they apply.

Yet, that's exactly what the government did last summer in the HST referendum when, with a stroke of the legislative pen, they did away with spending limits and disclosure requirements regarding the identity of donors and the amount of their donations.

Everyone was free to spend with wild abandon. And some did.

Not surprisingly for a government that is so intent on muzzling its citizens, they also want to regulate third-party spending in the weeks before a writ is dropped.

They failed the first time around when the courts said such a restriction was unconstitutional, but that hasn't stopped the government from trying again to put a legislative sock in the mouths of community

In September, the B.C. Court of Appeal will hear arguments in the Constitutional reference sought by the government on their second kick at this can.

But before the government went to the Court of Appeal, it would have been a far better idea to go back to the drawing board to draft election legislation that is consistent across all elections and with rules that are not so convoluted as to require a PhD in Comparative Literature.

Dermod Travis is the executive director of IntegrityBC. IntegrityBC is an Intervenor in the B.C. government's court reference. IntegrityBC has posted all relevant court documents to the reference on its website.