Opinions for sale

The Globe and Mail reports on Canada's own pay-for-play story, as a federal contract with the Conference of Defence Associations (renewed by the Cons in 2007) actually requires that the think tank meet annual quotas for media appearances:

The Department of National Defence sets quotas for how many times a year a military think tank it subsidizes must appear in the news media, a contract made public at the request of the NDP shows.

Critics say the five-year, $500,000 deal with the Conference of Defence Associations crosses the line from promoting debate to paying for supportive commentary - especially troubling when the Harper government is trying to sustain public backing for the Afghan mission...

A contract the Conservatives tabled in Parliament this week says the department considers the CDA's key goals to include the need "to consider the problems of National Defence" and "to support government efforts in placing these problems before the public."

The March, 2007, contract says the grant is part of a program to ensure an "independent voice for discussion and debate on security and defence issues outside of the academic sphere." It sets out 13 "expected results" for the CDA, including the requirements to:

"Attain a minimum of 29 media references to the CDA by national or regional journalists and reporters;"

"Attain the publication of a minimum of 15 opinion pieces (including op-eds and letters to the editor in national or regional publications)."

As noted in the article, the CDA's history goes back far before Harper's stay in power. (Though I'd be curious to see where the language requiring the CDA to "support government efforts" comes from, as well as whether the Cons' control over messaging has led to any change in the CDA's focus.)

That said, it's worth noting in particular the Cons' convenient decision that only some types of messages deserve publicly-funded advocacy.

Between the DND itself and the defence industry, there's no lack of voices or dollars with a strong interest in supporting the types of messages which the CDA has generally conveyed. Yet the Cons seem to have no qualms about requiring that the CDA use public money to advocate for its cause.

In contrast, one of the Cons' first acts in power was to go out of their way to prevent any public money from being used for advocacy on women's issues - which results in substantially silencing voices which don't enjoy the benefits of a massive government department or major corporate interests.

It may be worth questioning what role the government should be playing in funding "independent" third-party groups at all (rather than justifying their longer-term visions for themselves). But it's clear that the Cons' selective funding has only made matters worse by ensuring a one-sided "debate". And that should offer reason to distrust both the Cons and the groups they're funding.