I recently experienced a slight case of "gag law déjà vu".

It occurred while I was reading news reports concerning the fundraising success of a political advocacy group called Ontario Proud.

In case you missed this story, it seems Ontario Proud raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from corporations, money which was then used to pay for a multi-media ad campaign aimed at defeating former Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne.

My strong suspicion is that this news will cause something of a panic within establishment and media circles.

Indeed, I predict we'll soon be hearing strident and anguished calls from the Liberals and from pundits and from editorialists decrying the way "Third Parties" are using money to corrupt our political system.

And this is where my sense of déjà vu comes in.

You see, I heard such anguished arguments against "Third Parties" about 30 years ago, when I was working for a political advocacy group called the National Citizens Coalition.

Only back then, it was the NCC which was the bad guy because we had spent lots of money during elections to promote a particular point of view, i.e. "more freedom through less government."

For instance, during the 1988 federal election (yes, I'm that old) we spent close to $750,000 to support the North American Free Trade deal.

At any rate, our ads upset a lot of powerful people and to make a long story short, the federal government eventually enacted what we called a "gag law," a law which severely restricted how much money "Third Parties" could spend on political ads during elections, effectively muting their voices.

My sense is history will soon repeat itself, and before long we'll be hearing calls for new gag laws to restrict or regulate the activities of groups like Ontario Proud.

And that makes me sad.

It makes me sad because, for one thing, I believe gag laws infringe on freedom of expression, which in my view is a core freedom in any democratic society.

Simply put, citizens or groups should have the right to express opinions.

Seems like a no-brainer.

Plus, here's another reason for opposing gag laws: they will inevitably create a system whereby only professional politicians will have a voice during elections.

Indeed, I'd argue the actual purpose of gag laws is to give political parties a monopoly on election debate, i.e. to eliminate the competition that might spring up from outside groups.

After all, political parties often don't want pro-life groups, or environmental groups or taxpayer advocates or unions to raise issues which might make them uncomfortable.

It's easier just to silence them.

And, by the way, this is non-partisan stance.  Keep in mind, after the 2014 Ontario provincial election; the Ontario Progressive Conservatives were all keen to stifle the left-wing group the Working Families Coalition, because it had blitzed the airwaves with anti-PC ads.

But what politicians (and other supporters of gag laws) sometimes forget, is that the word "democracy" doesn't mean "rule by political parties" it means, "rule by the people."

And for democracy to thrive the people need to become involved in the process.

In short, they should do more than just vote every three or four years, because then we risk apathy setting in.

This is why we should be encouraging independent organizations and groups to make their voices heard during elections.

The more the merrier.

My point is, political parties should not be the only vehicle for democratic activism.

People who don't happen to support any political party should have a voice as should people who think no political party is advancing an issue they care about.

Yet, sadly, the growing trend is to use state power to block citizen activism and to treat politics as the exclusive preserve of political parties.

Even using the term "third parties" to describe independent, non-political party groups implies they are unwanted interlopers, rudely invading what should be a private affair.

So, sadly, the end result of all this will be that, for citizens, politics will become nothing but a spectator sport.

That's a bad game for democracy.

Photo Credit: CBC News