Further to my first note, what follows is what I sent Elections BC after
further reflecting on their outrageous note.
---David

----- Original Message -----
From: David Schreck
To: Western, Nola EBC:EX
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: Strategic Thoughts Website

Upon further reflection on your unfortunate email of April 17th, I am not at
all sure that complying with your "deemed" position is in the public
interest. I hereby request that you bring this note to the attention of the
Chief Electoral Officer. Unfortunately, Mr. Patterson's email is not
listed, thereby I have copied electionsbc@gems3.gov.bc.ca asking that this
note be brought to his attention.

The abuse of the Elections Act so as to regulate free speech by an
unregulated bureaucracy is a threat to the public interest. It is essential
to read my argument with the understanding that, we are talking about $35.
If past use is any reasonable pattern, or failing that if the rates posted
by Netnation (see http://netnation.ca/products/ezsite.cfm for evidence of
their 0.06/MB rate) during the election period about $35 will be spent on my
site. No government, or "independent legislative agency", should have the
power to regulate any citizen's spending of $35 to express a personal
political opinion. You are asking that in order for me to spend my usual
$35 per month, that I have a lawyer witness my signature on a registration
form, that I submit an expense form and that I subject myself to an audit.
It seems to me that your request is unreasonable.

Your email of April 17th mentioned application of Section 231 of the
Elections Act with respect to my website. That section reads:

"Election advertising must identify sponsor
231 An individual or organization must not sponsor or conduct any election
advertising unless the advertising

(a) identifies the name of the sponsor or, in the case of a candidate, the
name of the financial agent,

(b) if applicable, indicates that the sponsor is a registered sponsor under
this Act,

(c) indicates that it was authorized by the identified sponsor or financial
agent, and

(d) gives a telephone number or mailing address at which the sponsor or
financial agent may be contacted regarding the advertising."

Every page of my website includes an "About Me" button which satisfies the
aforementioned requirement, although I content that the Act does not apply
to my website.

I draw your attention to Section 233 of the Act which reads:

"Prohibition against certain election advertising on general voting day
233 (1) On general voting day, an individual or organization must not
conduct election advertising by publishing it in a newspaper or magazine or
on radio or television.

(2) An individual or organization must not sponsor or agree to sponsor
election advertising that is or is to be conducted on general voting day by
a means referred to in subsection (1), whether the publication is done
within British Columbia or outside British Columbia."

Note that nowhere in this section does it refer to Internet websites. I
content that is because Internet websites are not captured within the
meaning of the term "election advertising".

In Section 238, Election Advertising is defined as advertising of a certain
description. Of course, the Act does not define advertising. One common
definition of advertisement is "a paid notice that tells people about a
product or service." That definition stands in contrast to an expression of
opinion as one would find in a letter to the editor. I contend that my
website is no different than a letter to the editor. It is certainly not a
"paid notice" and the cost of approximately $35 a month to me of operating
it is no different than the postage and stationary costs an active citizen
could occur in expressing opinions. In particular I would draw your
attention to high volume websites sites such as CNN where you will notice
the difference between opinions expressed on the site as compared to paid
advertisements on the site.

For Elections BC to take the position that it "deems" my site or any site to
be within the meaning of "Election Advertising" is in fact a gross violation
of freedom of speech. I am not talking here about the cases that have been
tested in the courts with respect to whether an individual has the right to
spend an unlimited amount on a personal point of view. I share the concern
that the drafters of the Act had with respect to such spending being a
potential loophole in election expense regulation. What I am referring to
is the unwarranted interference by Elections BC in minor expenditures that
differ in no significant respect from the use of one's personal telephone,
letters to the editor or other common means of expression. It is simply
outrageous that Elections BC would "deem" an expense of $35 to be captured
by the Act as requiring registration as an Advertising Sponsor.

The purpose of this note, apart from an effort to bring uncontrolled
bureaucracy to its senses, to ask under what Section of the Act is Elections
BC given the authority to "deem" a website an "Election Advertising"?

---David Schreck
See http://www.StrategicThoughts.com