Ontario: 3rd party electioneering getting underway

[Ma Deuce]

Tory faces union ad campaign

Jun 15, 2007 04:30 AM

Ian Urquhart

In the 2003 provincial election campaign, the most effective television ads were not sponsored by any of the political parties.

Rather, they were the "Not this time, Ernie" ads featuring unflattering photos of then-premier Ernie Eves, which were paid for by a coalition of unions calling themselves "working families."

The ads not only tore a strip off Eves; they also allowed Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals to take the high road with a positive campaign, in the knowledge that the dirty work was being done for them by the coalition.

Now we are in a new election cycle, with the vote scheduled for Oct. 10, and the working families coalition is re-forming. It is expected to get the go-ahead at a meeting next week.

Among the participating unions are the building trades, teachers, and Canadian Auto Workers (CAW). The firefighters have also been approached but have not committed to joining the coalition.

All have reasons to be thankful to the governing Liberals for either increasing spending in their area or changing laws and regulations to their liking.

Pat Dillon of the provincial building trades council, a leading figure behind the coalition, said yesterday the advertising campaign would be "a multi-media exercise, which will include TV." But he declined to say how much the coalition plans to spend.

In an internal memo last month to the building trade unions, however, Dillon asked for contributions of $40 per member toward the effort. Given that the building trades have about 110,000 members, that would amount to $4.4 million. On top of that, the CAW has agreed to contribute $300,000, and the coalition is also looking for $100,000 each from the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association and the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation.

If every union follows through, then, the coalition could have a war chest of close to $5 million. That's almost as much as the political parties are allowed to spend on advertising in an election campaign.

(Unlike the federal election law, which places strict limits on so-called "third party" ads, there is no provincial legislation regulating such advertising.)

To help pull together the working family ads, the coalition has hired Arrow Communications, which is headed by Marcel Wieder, a Liberal party insider. The coalition is also talking to Pollara, a market research firm, about doing some polling. Pollara's CEO is Don Guy, the Liberals' campaign director.

But the ads will be designed to educate the public on the issues, said Dillon. "We won't be telling anybody they should vote this way or that way."

Nor did the "Not this time, Ernie" ads in 2003. But the underlying message was clear: dump the Conservative government of the day.

The message this time will be more difficult to craft, given that the Conservatives are out of power and that their new leader, John Tory, is no Ernie Eves or Mike Harris.

Nonetheless, the coalition is clearly aiming to link Tory to Eves and Harris.

"Despite the perception that John Tory is a kinder, gentler conservative, his caucus is as bad or worse than their predecessors," said Dillon in his internal memo.

"Our goal is to make sure the Tories don't get elected here," echoed CAW president Buzz Hargrove in an interview this week. "We're trying to make sure we don't end up with another Mike Harris government."

It appears, then, that Tory and the Conservatives will have more than McGuinty and the Liberals to contend with this fall.

This is bullshit, and this kind of third-party* political advertising should be banned entirely (I might even support a ban on ALL political advertising, but that would never fly anywhere). But I've already made up my mind that I'm not voting for Dalton McShitty's Liberals this fall, and I have a pretty low opinion of most of the organizations behind this (especially the autoworker and public sector unions) so this is one person these ads will have no effect on; not that political ads sway my opinion much anyway, except sometimes against the folks airing them.

*In this context I use the term "third party" to describe organizations other than political parties seeking election, yet are still actively campaigning or advertising for a certain party or candidate.

[aerius]

Fucking unions, it's somewhat upsetting that my union dues are helping to finance this bullshit. In any case, I ain't voting for McGuinty or the crackhead NDP, my vote's going to the Conservatives in the hope that they'll piss off the unions.

[Temjin]

Unions shouldn't be allowed to do this kind of shit. If a union wants to endorse a certain party, they should have to fucking ask for voluntary donations instead of using mandatory union dues.

[Solauren]

As a member of an Ontario Civil Servants union, I agree, this is 100% wrong.

My union is backing a certain party? What fucking proof do you have I support them, asshats? Or they want to do attack ads? What if I like them?

[President Sharky]

Isn't Buzz Hargrove the one that told people in Quebec to vote for the separatist Bloc Quebecois in order to stop the Conservatives from forming government?

[Ma Deuce]

Isn't Buzz Hargrove the one that told people in Quebec to vote for the separatist Bloc Quebecois in order to stop the Conservatives from forming government?

Indeed he was. More recently, he has threatened his union would "take down" GM in '08 if they don't allocate a new product to the Windsor transmission plant (which builds the 4-speed 4T45 automatic transmission, soon to be replaced by the 6-speed 6T40), rather than moving production to Toledo as they planned.

That man makes my blood boil every time he speaks.

[weemadando]

Unions in Australia are pulling some pretty dodgy shit at the moment (and getting investigated by the Electoral Commission because of it) - apparently their plans to make use of electoral rolls in the way that they were intending verges on illegal.

[Darth Wong]

Unfortunately, the idea of banning political advertising by any group, particularly unions, would never fly. I support banning 100% of radio and TV political advertising because it's just psychological conditioning and not a reasonable or beneficial form of political discourse, but that would never fly either.

But it's a lot like the religious folk. Like it or not, these people are able to motivate their supporters. It's not as if anti-union forces in the country don't have any money; why aren't major corporations putting out ads pointing out that the majority of "working families" are not represented or aided in any way by these greedy unions? Answer: because they're too stupid to see past the next shareholders' meeting.

[Elaro]

It's times like these that I wish employees were their own collective bosses, just so we wouldn't have to deal with these assholes.

[weemadando]

Unfortunately, the idea of banning political advertising by any group, particularly unions, would never fly. I support banning 100% of radio and TV political advertising because it's just psychological conditioning and not a reasonable or beneficial form of political discourse, but that would never fly either.

But it's a lot like the religious folk. Like it or not, these people are able to motivate their supporters. It's not as if anti-union forces in the country don't have any money; why aren't major corporations putting out ads pointing out that the majority of "working families" are not represented or aided in any way by these greedy unions? Answer: because they're too stupid to see past the next shareholders' meeting.

Well, the "Exclusive Bretheren" got themselves in some deep shit at the last round of State and Federal Elections here. So much so that most people now see them as a mix between moustache twirling silent movie era villains, insular and inbred morons and just a step away from being the goddamn Branch Davidians. But then again, when you spend hundreds of thousands to create "false" identities to do political advertising through, and slander people wholesale then you have to expect some backlash.

[White Cat]

Unfortunately, the idea of banning political advertising by any group, particularly unions, would never fly.

That already is the de facto rule in federal elections. (Third-party advertising is technically allowed, but the spending limits are so low that it's virtually meaningless.)

[Darth Wong]

Unfortunately, the idea of banning political advertising by any group, particularly unions, would never fly.

That already is the de facto rule in federal elections. (Third-party advertising is technically allowed, but the spending limits are so low that it's virtually meaningless.)

I would actually outlaw radio and TV political advertising even from the main political parties. As I said, they use psychological conditioning techniques; this is not a beneficial form of political discourse. People should go back to newspapers.