Freedom of speech is essential in a liberal democracy, and indeed an informed citizenry is critical to the functioning of a democracy.  But is information in countries like Canada free?  Or is it controlled by publishers for their own profit?

The recent suicide of  internet activist Aaron Schwartz has brought the Open Access movement back into the news, but as this recent article in al-jazeera points out, freedom of access to scholarly articles is about more than just being able to read a news article or a paper published by an academic researcher free of charge.  It can be a life and death issue for people in less free nations. 

The article describes how the government of Uzbekistan created a fictional terrorist group in order to justify the shooting of civilian protesters.  Yet the first article published about the event was posted behind an academic firewall- that is, posted in a journal that only people affiliated with a university could access.  Scholars receive no money for these articles- the only profit goes to the website publishers.  So the article was also published in an open access journal where it has since been used  to help obtain freedom for political refugees.

Aaron Schwartz downloaded articles from JSTOR, an academic digital archives at MIT,  because he believed information should be free.  Before he committed suicide, he faced 4 million dollars worth of lawsuits and 30 years in jail .   

Yes, it costs money to produce websites such as JSTOR.  But who owns information?  If knowledge is power, who should control it?  What is the price of freedom?

Today the Toronto Globe and Mail reported that Edmonton billionaire Daryl Katz donated nearly half a million dollars to the Alberta Progressive Conservative party prior to the last provincial election. This represents nearly a third of spending for the  entire campaign. While election spending rules in Alberta state that no one can donate more than $30,000  to a political party, Katz’s cheque for $430,000 was split into several smaller donations.

Katz, owner of the Rexall chain of pharmacies and the Edmonton Oilers is worth an estimated 3 billion dollars.  He has recently been in the news over the proposed new arena in Edmonton, to which the province has committed $100 million dollars.  Katz has demanded further concessions from the City of Edmonton which could also come from provincial funds for infrastructure.  Has Katz’s financial donation to the Conservative party influenced their decision to subsidize the arena?  The province says no. Does Katz really need money for the arena, based on his assertion that Edmonton is a small market that can’t afford a fancy facility?  The numbers say no. (OK- that isn’t really relevant but makes for some good reading!)

Meanwhile the whole topic of campaign spending is big in the United States, where “super PACs” (political action committees that receive or spend more than $1000) work hard to influence the outcome of an election.   In the U.S. an individual may donate $2,500 to a candidate, $30,800 to a party and $5,000 to a PAC.  The PAC has no limits to spending.  In the run up to the 2006 presidential election in the United States to date , 189 super PACs have spent nearly half a billion dollars to promote their agenda- or to denounce the opposition.

Federally in Canada, an individual can donate no more than $1,100 to a candidate or political party.  Corporations, trade unions, and unincorporated organizations may NOT donate to a political campaign. (Elections Canada)

Most liberal democracies are based on the idea of “one person one vote”, and in theory they give power to the people- not just those with deep pockets.  Do unlimited donations lead to corruption?  What about economic freedom?  Shouldn't you have the right to spend your money to influence others to vote a certain way?  Is it possible that massive campaign spending strikes at the very essence of democracy  Should there be limits to the amount someone can donate to a political party?  

Mr. Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada but you can't vote for him. Even if  you are 18 and legally entitled to vote.  If you lived in the  Calgary Southwest riding, you could have voted for him to be an MP. If you were a card carrying member of the  Conservative Party of Canada, and a delegate to their leadership convention, you could have voted for him to be leader of the party.

The Prime Minister of Canada is the leader of the federal political party that holds the most seats.  We don't vote for our Prime Minister. On November 6,  the people of the United States will be electing their president.  If you were an eligible American voter, could you vote directly for Obama or Romney?  

The President of the United States is not directly elected either.  He is elected by people named "Presidential Electors" through  a process known as the Electoral College.  These people pledge to vote for a particular presidential and vice presidential candidate.  Electors are appointed by the state legislature through various means, varying from state to state.  C Occasionally  "faithless electors" vote for different candidates than those they pledged to support.   Then the regular voters vote the elector ...and it is the elector who votes for president.

There are many differences between the electoral process in Canada and the United States.  Which one do you think is more democratic?