In its ruling, the Supreme Court reluctantly recognizes that independent groups have a right to spend money during referendum campaigns. But the Court adds that independent spending should be limited and kept well below the legal spending limit for "Yes" and "No" committees. The Justices believe that independent groups with big advertising budgets can be a threat to political "fairness." When one group expresses itself too much, it violates the Charter of Rights' guarantee of political equality. The Court stops short of advising that we muzzle people with strong vocal cords, but not too far short.

In paragraph 81 of their judgement, the Justices roll out a blueprint for how Quebec can legally mow down grassroots referendum advertising of which the National Assembly does not approve. The message is that "You may place strict limits on independent groups, just don't set the limit at zero." In a gratuitous passage of its judgment that has little to do with the Quebec referendum law, the Supreme Court hints to Ottawa that it would not object to a $1,000 limit on independent advertising during federal elections. Ottawa tried to pass such a limit in 1993 but an Alberta Court of Appeals struck down the law in 1996 for violating freedoms of speech and association. The Supreme Court states that it disagrees with the Alberta Court's conclusion. It can't be long before Ottawa takes the hint and appeals the case to the friendly chambers on Wellington Street.

The Court's ruling is a danger to democracy because it will help established parties to legally crush grassroots movements. Popular expression has never been popular with the people who run a country. Established political parties hate to see citizens grabbing the microphone. Citizen debate stops politicians from hogging glory. If a mother against drunk driving manages to force government to pass stricter laws, she grabs the credit from politicians. Debate also leads to criticism. At least when the debate is run by parties, our leaders can make sure that elections remain pillow fights. Citizens' groups that enter the fray take no prisoners.

In the US, independent groups have managed to block the building of nuclear reactors, have limited the taxes that politicians can grab, and have passed strict measures to protect the environment. In Canada these groups sometimes pop up to thwart the best laid plans of prime ministers. In 1981 the National Citizens Coalition enraged Pierre Trudeau by advertising against and helping to defeat a backroom crony he tried to parachute into a vacant riding. During the 1995 Quebec referendum, Air Canada and Canadian Airlines flew in thousands of Canadians at reduced fares to march in a giant "No" demonstration. The demonstration brought foam to the mouths of provincial government leaders and provoked Quebec's Chief Electoral Officer to declare the airlines had committed a crime by funding electoral speech outside the regulated limits of the campaign.

Fear of loose citizen "cannons" explains why politicians in every country and of every ideological stripe close ranks when it comes to restricting independent groups. In 1974 the US Congress tried to ban these groups from advertising. Their Supreme Court stuck the law down. This has not deterred Congress from trying to pass the law again. In 1983, Ottawa voted almost unanimously, and after less than an hour of debate, to outlaw all election spending by independent groups. An Alberta judge struck the law down. In 1993 Parliament came back and proposed that independent groups be limited to spending $1,000 during elections.

Every one of these assaults in Canada on independent groups has been justified in the name of fairness. Ottawa laid the path for its 1993 restrictions on independent groups by spending $20 million for a Royal Commission on elections. The commission twisted itself into pretzels explaining why free speech was

bad for society. Instead, what society needed was "fair speech" regulated by politicians handing out campaign subsidies. Around the world, leaders of established parties have given the lion's share of subsidies to, you guessed it, established parties, while doing everything to hobble newcomers. A look at the numbers shows you why the established interests are so afraid of political newcomers. Of all US initiative campaigns between 1976 and 1984, the biggest spending side lost two out of three times. Big money is no guarantee of victory. It can even be a sign of weakness. The lesson established parties have drawn is that direct democracy is dangerous. It gives grassroots groups with little money but popular ideas too much say. Best to restrict their spending and allow Parliament-led "Yes" and "No" sides do the talking with the help of "fair" subsidies.

Our leaders get away with writing the rules of the election game in their favour because campaign spending laws seem too removed from the world for anyone but Canadian Public Affairs Channel (CPAC) junkies to worry about. Our complacency may soon change. Any country that accepts the need to restrict speech to keep elections fair will find itself in an impossible situation. A law that limits what independent groups can spend must tighten its screws with every technical advance that brings cheap information to the masses. Restrict independent spending to $1,000 in 1993, and all of a sudden the Internet comes along. Now for $20 a month any citizen can set up his own little TV station (a web site) and advertise. The only way to control forbidden cyberdebates will be to send in the electoral Gestapo to pull the plug. Chief Electoral Officers are glad to play this role. After the 1992 Charlottetown Accord referendum, the Quebec political police charged 11 citizens and groups in that province with violations. Among them was Bombardier which was charged for distributing a "Vote `Yes'" exhortation in its pay cheque envelopes to employees. The Syndicat des travailleurs de l'automobile was charged for distributing a flyer entitled "Quebec Sovereignty: Beyond the Myths." Last week's Supreme Court Ruling will spawn similar abuses of power. Somewhere in those legal chambers a ghost with a goatee and peaked cap is chuckling.