Existing methods of disciplining and controlling candidates are ineffective.

It is difficult to envision how this ban could be effectively implemented without compromising the principles of free speech and unfettered political discussion that lie at the core of western democratic liberalism. If side proposition pursue a broadly construed ban on negative tactics by candidates, campaign groups and the media, free and open debate is likely to be endangered. Democratic political parties are diverse and plural entities. Even the most authoritarian or charismatic candidate cannot hope to have complete control and oversight over every member of his campaign team. Under the widest interpretation of the resolution, a careless comment by an over-enthusiastic party activist could breach a negative campaigning ban as surely as an ad hominem attack advert. Indeed, such comments are much more likely to be made on the door step than they are in the press. This being the case, how would the activities of a candidate’s staff be policed? Would they be subject to constant surveillance? If so, by whom? How would the impartiality of regulators be guaranteed? Moreover, if a supervising body were given the wide ranging powers necessary to implement the resolution, how would the proposition prevent the leaking- accidental or otherwise- of confidential government and opposition information? The functions of the state are closely bound up with the activities of party politics, especially in federal nations such as America, which operate partisan civil administrations. Similarly, who should decide when an independent campaigning group is “too closely aligned” to the ideals and objectives of a particular political party? Within the American republican party there are a wide range of views on issues considered controversial by political conservatives. Former Republican VP Dick Cheney voiced support for same-sex marriage while in office. By contrast, 2012 republican presidential nomination candidates Herman Cain and Michelle Bachman have stated their opposition to reforms that would make same-sex marriage more accessible in the US. Does criticism levelled against Cheney by Christian “family” interest groups allow them to be defined as independent of the Republican party? Comparably, is praise for Cheney’s position by LGBTQ interest groups a reliable indicator that they support other republican policies? Clearly it does not. It should also be noted that a ban would be almost impossible to enforce on the internet. The multi-jurisdictional nature of much web content (videos or articles authored in one country may be hosted by services operating under the law of another) renders any attempt to control on-line political commentary meaningless. Short of adopting wide-scale, Chinese-style internet censorship systems, the growth of online attack campaigning[i] renders the proposition meaningless. Side proposition assume that the news media operate without directing any critical attention to the subject matter of their stories. They portray the press as vulnerable to subversion by campaign managers able to leak or cleverly position attack stories. Even if side proposition can provide examples of this type of misdirection, it would be damaging to tackle flawed editorial policies by using the law to limit journalists’ right to comment and speak freely on political events. Where there has been a failure of safeguards that ensure that objective coverage of significant events remains objective, regulatory bodies should review the standards of journalists work – as they currently do under the status quo. This would provide the press with the flexibility to continue reporting on important issues, while refining the way in which they do so. Even if the legal mandate is enforced by an impartial, neutral observer, appointments to this body are likely to become politically fraught, precisely because it would be the ultimate arbiter of the limits and rules that would be applied to an election. [i] “Dose of Venom for Candidates Turns Ads Viral”. New York Times, 20 March 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/us/politics/21ads.html