Third-party ads vexxing critics
Third-party messages that have popped up in city prompt transparency concerns
Parties across the political spectrum weighed in Monday on the propriety of third-party advertising in the lead-up to the municipal election period as attack ads fly in all directions from a range of often anonymous entities.
Groups like United for Change Surrey and Vancouver Deserves Better Than Ken Sim have slammed candidates ahead of the Sept. 22 start to campaigning. That is the date that third-party advertising rules under the new Local Elections Campaign Financing Act kick in, and Elections B.C. can step in to regulate the conversation.
Among those running attack ads is a veiled group that has slammed Vancouver mayoral candidates Ken Sim and Kennedy Stewart while renting roadside digital ad space to plug Hector Bremner. The group dubbed itself Vancouverites for Affordable Housing, but a grassroots group by the same name has steadfastly claimed it had nothing to do with the ads.
A phone number posted on the group’s ads has been disconnected and at least some of the messaging, including its Facebook page, appears to have been taken down.
Bremner’s camp has previously stated it did not know who paid for the advertising, and on Monday Tim Crowhurst, the Yes Vancouver party’s secretary, suggested it didn’t matter. “I don’t really care,” Crowhurst said. “As long as it’s saying nice things about us.”
His take was there was a “pentup demand” among people who used to be involved in previous elections and who are frustrated by the new legislation and wanted to do something to help. He balked at claims that “big money” might be behind the advertising, stating: “Some people bought a couple of billboards and (they’re) not even done up very nicely.”
Pete Fry, a candidate with the Green Party of Vancouver, said the new regulations left a loophole where third-party advertisers don’t need to identify themselves in advance of the campaign period.
“There’s no restrictions on how much money they can raise, there’s no obligation to declare where the money is coming from, and there’s no limits on how much they can spend,” Fry said.
Fry contrasted pre-election period work by groups like the Vancouver and District Labour Council with that of anonymous groups.
“It’s quite transparent. Everybody knows who the VDLC is, they know what unions they’re representing, it’s fairly clear. When we talk about these weird pop-up groups … nobody knows who they are, just that they have a lot of money. That’s certainly concerning, especially given how much money from the development industry was pouring into local politics,” Fry said.
Rajesh Jayaprakash, a candidate for People First Surrey, said there’s a whole campaign industry going on that could “poison our democracy.”
He said Elections B.C. should be enabled to bring greater transparency to the pre-election period. Barring that, parties must do what they can toward that goal, he said.
“At the end of the day, the money trail should need to be disclosed before the people go to the polling booths,” he said.
Mike Witherly, with the NonPartisan Association, said the billboard issue was disappointing and that it appeared to be an attempt to get around the finance rules and did not do a lot for transparency.
“I don’t know if this stuff is going to make a big difference at the end of the day, but having less transparency isn’t good for any election, for any party, for anybody, ever.”