Editorial cartoon of an oversized campaign flyer shaped like a gavel casting a dark shadow over small papers
Cartoon: a campaign accusation drops like a gavel while the accountability line nearly disappears.
The issue is not whether campaigns may criticize opponents. The issue is whether a party asking for trust can make the attack loud and the accountability line tiny.

Global News reported that the BC NDP is defending election mailouts aimed at Conservative candidate Dr. Brennan Day after criticism over both the claims in the flyers and the visibility of the authorization line. According to Global, one mailout criticized Day over his record as a doctor and a politician, while the required party authorization appeared in very small print at the bottom.

That is a serious transparency problem even before Elections BC reviews anything. Election advertising is not anonymous graffiti. Elections BC’s authorization-statement guide says most provincial election advertising must identify the authorizing financial agent and provide a B.C. phone number, mailing address or email address. The agency’s local-election guidance states the basic democratic principle even more plainly: although there may be no exact size rule, sponsorship information must be clear and readable.

The NDP response, as reported by Global, was to say all BC NDP ads are authorized according to the Election Act and to defend the material as part of a broader argument about Day’s record. Voters can judge that defence. But they should not miss the core point: a party that chooses hard-edged mail must also make ownership of that mail obvious to the ordinary person reading it at the kitchen table, not just to someone hunting for fine print.

Global also reported that Day said he filed a complaint with Elections BC. That does not prove the NDP broke election law, and no one should pretend it does. A complaint is not a ruling. But it is enough to put the mailout into the accountability lane, because Elections BC’s false-statement and misrepresentation page says the Election Act restricts certain objectively false disinformation during regulated periods and that investigations may begin on the agency’s own initiative or in response to a complaint.

The political history makes the optics worse for New Democrats. Global recalled that the NDP faced a mailout controversy in the 2020 provincial campaign after Liberal candidate Margaret Kunst said authorization lines had been covered on some flyers; Elections BC later fined the BC NDP $200 for sponsoring election advertising without an authorization statement. That past penalty does not decide the current complaint. It does make the new fine-print defence harder to sell.

Campaigns are free to argue. They are free to compare records, criticize policies and ask voters to reject an opponent. But when a governing party sends a personal attack through the mail in the final stretch of an election, it should meet a higher standard than “technically there if you squint.” The accusation is the loudest thing on the page. Accountability should be visible too.

British Columbians do not need Elections BC to settle the basic political question before they vote. If the NDP believes its claims are strong, it should stand behind them in print voters can actually see.

Sources and records