The 2012 FDA electoral fairness audit of Alberta's legislative level of government uses new matrices in the audit process as outlined to the Research Methodology section of the report. These matrices are more comprehensive of electoral systems than previous FDA audits, and therefore, the use of the new matrices may result in higher electoral fairness scores. FDA auditors measured Alberta with a 54% overall electoral fairness score. (0% is the lowest score attainable; 50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum and reasonably attainable score.)

1. 2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness
Audit of Alberta’s Provincial Electoral
System
In terms of its legislated process, the Alberta provincial electoral system received an overall
unacceptable electoral fairness score of 52.2 percent (out of a reasonably attainable score of
100 percent). In addition, the Alberta system received two unacceptable passing scores and
two unacceptable failing scores in the four audit sections.
The FDA believes that these scores reflect both a strong core electoral process, and yet
significant deficiencies in the areas of electoral finance and political content of media. The
FDA argues that the Alberta electoral process, in particular, dominance by the premier and
cabinet of the Legislative Assembly, non-regulation of major media, high caps on
contributions and third party spending, inclusion of corporations and unions in the electoral
process, and no campaign expenditure limits, undermines the legitimacy of Alberta's
democracy.
The FDA believes that the Alberta electoral system requires reform in order to create a basis
for an equal playing field for candidates and parties and a broad and balanced electoral
discourse. The FDA believes that the implementation of its reform recommendations will
create an informed electorate, competitive elections, and an Alberta Legislature that more
significantly reflects the voice of the people from its districts.
Electoral Fairness Audit Completed February 28, 2012.
Updated April 13, 2012. Updated June 28, 2012.

2. Prepared by Mr. Stephen Garvey, Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, University of British Columbia
and Master of Philosophy in Environment and Development, University of Cambridge.
Purpose of Alberta Electoral Fairness Audit:
The purpose of the Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA)’s electoral fairness audit (the
“Audit”) is to determine a comprehensive grade for electoral fairness in Alberta at the legislative level
of government. This Audit is an extension of the FDA’s global audit of electoral fairness involving all
countries that hold political elections. The purpose of the global audit is to quantify electoral fairness,
establish benchmarks for electoral fairness, identify areas of democratic advancement and progression,
and encourage democracy reform where needed.
The goal of the FDA's Alberta report is to give the people of Alberta and other stakeholders an
informed, objective perspective of the Alberta provincial electoral system and provide
recommendations for reform of the system. Albertans may want to use this information as a way to help
determine their 2012 electoral choices. The release of the FDA Alberta report just prior to the 2012
Alberta Election coincides with this initiative.
The views in this electoral fairness audit are the views of the FDA only. The FDA’s members are in no
way affiliated with Elections Alberta or any of Alberta's registered/non-registered political parties. The
Audit is an independent assessment based on objectivity, transparency and non-partisanship. The FDA
assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors in the measurement and calculation of its audit
results or inaccuracies in its research of relevant Albertan legislation.
About the Foundation for Democratic Advancement:
The Foundation for Democratic Advancement is a non-partisan and independent democracy reform and
advocacy organization. The FDA's reforms center on increasing the voice of people in constituencies.
Members of the FDA embrace the following principles: progress, innovation, objectivity, and
transparency. The FDA's mission is to advance fair and transparent democratic processes wherever
elections occur, thereby bringing the people to the forefront democratic discourse. (For more
information on the FDA visit: www.democracychange.org)
© 2012, Foundation for Democratic Advancement
All rights reserved.
Foundation for Democratic Advancement
728 Northmount Drive NW
P.O. Box 94, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, T2K 1P0
An online version of this report can be found at: www.democracychange.org
For further information and/or comments please contact the FDA at info@democracychange.org

3. Table of Contents:
Introduction 5
Chapter 1: Electoral Finance 6
Chapter Summary 6
Introduction 6
Audit Results 7
Analysis 13
Chapter 2 Political Content of the Media 15
Chapter Summary 15
Introduction 15
Audit Results 16
Analysis 19
Chapter 3: Candidate and Party Influence 21
Chapter Summary 21
Introduction 21
Audit Results 22
Analysis 40
Chapter 4: Voter Influence 42
Chapter Summary 42
Introduction 42
Audit Results 43
Analysis 59
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 3

4. Chapter 5: Overall Audit Results 61
Chapter 6: Analysis 63
Chapter 7: Conclusion 67
Chapter 8: Recommendations 69
References 72
Definition of Key Terms 75
History of the Alberta Political System 78
Research Methodology 82
Appendix 1: Alberta Legislation Excerpts on the Four Audit Sections 86
Electoral Finance 86
Political Content of Media 94
Candidate and Party Influence 97
Voter Influence 122
FDA Audit Team And Associates 126
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 4

5. Introduction:
The FDA audit of Alberta's electoral legislation is based on non-partisanship and objectivity.
The audit process entails three major components:
1. Research of Alberta's electoral legislation.
2. Audit of the legislation based on audit team consensus, and FDA matrices and scoring
scales.
3. Analysis of findings.
The value of scores in the FDA matrices are based on fundamental democratic principles of
legislative neutrality, political freedom, and political fairness, and the comparative impact of
variables on democracy. For example, if there is no electoral finance transparency then this result
will impact other sections such as the legislative process, because without financial transparency,
it will be difficult to enforce electoral finance laws and prevent and discover electoral finance
wrongdoing. Consequently, according to the FDA scoring system, zero financial transparency
will result in a zero score for legislative process as well.
The FDA research component is objective, because it is simply a compilation of the legislative
and financial data for Alberta.
The FDA audit component is both objective and subjective. It is objective when determining yes
and no facts, such as does province A have caps on electoral contributions—yes or no? It is
subjective because of the predetermined scores for each audit section, and the scores given for
each section. The FDA acknowledges that there is no absolute scoring system.
The FDA minimizes subjectivity through non-partisanship, the predetermination of scores based
on consensus of FDA auditors, the application of core democratic concepts such as electoral
legislative neutrality, political freedom, and political fairness, and the valuation of the
comparative impact of variables on democracy. In addition, the FDA has a minimum quorum of
five experienced auditors during audit sessions. For further discussion of the FDA methodology
please see the Research Methodology chapter on page 83.
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 5

6. Chapter One: Electoral Finance
Chapter one will focus on the FDA research and audit results of Albertan electoral finance laws
with respect to the electoral fairness.
Chapter Summary: Alberta received an unacceptable failing score of 47.7 percent (out of a
reasonably attainable 100 percent score) for the fairness of its electoral finance legislation. The
FDA measured deficiency in 52.3 percent of the Alberta legislation. The FDA found electoral
fairness in the following: public transparency of electoral finances, caps on contributions to
candidates, parties, and constituency associations, caps on third party spending, and reasonable
legislative process to enforce electoral finance laws. The FDA found electoral unfairness in the
following: no candidate and party expenditure limits, caps on contributions to parties that are not
reflective of Alberta per capita income and income inequality, and no laws that disallow
corporations and unions from making electoral contributions and spending as third parties. The
level and areas of electoral unfairness measured by the FDA suggest that electoral finance reform
is necessary in order to encourage an equal candidate and party playing field, a broader and more
balanced electoral discourse, and ultimately a more informed electorate.
Introduction:
This chapter focuses on the Alberta electoral finance laws and the FDA's audit of them in terms
of electoral fairness. Based on the political concepts of egalitarianism and political liberalism,
the FDA audit team audits electoral finance laws according to their equity for registered
candidates and parties, and equity for voters (see Definition of Key Terms and Research
Methodology for more explanation). Also, based on the concepts of 'one person, one vote' and
'government of the people, by the people, and for the people', the FDA auditors assume that a
people's representative democracy will disallow corporations and unions from making electoral
contributions and spending as third parties, because corporations and unions are not people. The
FDA does not associate electoral expenditures directly with free speech, nor does the FDA
believe that freedom alone comprises an optimal people's representative democracy. The FDA
believes that freedom must be balanced with equity, so that the most powerful (economically and
politically) do not dominate and the will of people from districts is reflected in the representative
government. The FDA audit team audits from the standpoint of a people's representative
democracy.
The FDA electoral finance audit focuses on the following sub-sections:
1. electoral finance transparency;
2. contributions to candidates and parties;
3. caps on contributions to candidates and parties;
4. campaign expenditure limits;
5. caps on third party spending;
6. legislative process.
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 6

7. The FDA chose these sub-sections because they represent core areas of electoral finance. Based
on the concept of political liberalism (as defined in Research Methodology), electoral finance
transparency is weighted the highest due to its importance in preventing corruption and fraud,
and informing the public on the sources of candidate and party funds. The FDA audit of electoral
finance includes research of Alberta's electoral finance legislation and the application of the
research to the FDA matrices. Matrix scoring is based on an overall score of 0 to 10 out of 10.
What follows are the audits results for each sub-section of Alberta's electoral finance legislation.
It shows the matrix question, the individual audit scores, and the research findings:
Electoral Finance Transparency
Are candidate and party finances transparent to the public?
2.0 out of 2.0
Legislative Process:
The Chief Electoral Officer may examine all financial statements and affairs of all
political candidates, election campaigns and registered third parties (Election Finances
and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 4).
All records must be maintained for a period of at least three years (Election Finances and
Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 10.1).
All documents filed with the Chief Electoral Officer are public records and available
upon request during normal business hours (Election Finances and Contributions
Disclosure Act, Article 11).
Any campaign funds not used are held in trust, to be used during the next election.
These funds may be transferred to the registered party that supported the candidates bid
for election in the previous election. If the candidate is not nominated for the following
election, he is to transfer these funds to the registered party or candidates that supported
his bid in the previous election. If funds cannot be transferred, they are transferred to the
Crown (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 12).
All contributions must be deposited in the account registered with the Chief Electoral
Officer (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 14).
Every candidate, constituency association and political party must have a chief financial
officer who is not eligible for election and is appointed prior to the party registering with
the Chief Electoral Officer. Contributions may only be accepted by the chief financial
officer or another person who is deemed authorized to accept contributions, according to
the records of the Chief Electoral Officer (Election Finances and Contributions
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 7

8. Disclosure Act, Article 29, 31).
A third party must register if it has or plans to incur expenses of $1,000 or more, or
makes advertising contributions of $1,000 or more (Election Finances and Contributions
Disclosure Act, Article 9.1).
Contributions to Candidates and Parties
Are contributions restricted to citizens?
Are contributions disallowed by foreigners, public institutions, and charities?
Are anonymous contributions set at a reasonable level?
0 out of 0.5
0.5 out of 0.5
0.5 out of 0.5
Research Findings:
No Party or Candidate may accept contributions unless they are registered. Requirements:
must be non-profit, funds must be deposited within a financial institution in a registered
account, must file a report of contributions and expenditures at the end of each tax year
(before April 1) (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 6).
No contributions to registered parties, constituency associations, and candidates from
non-Alberta corporations and trade unions, public post-secondary institutions, prohibited
corporations, school boards, Métis settlements, municipalities, and provincial
corporations (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Definition of
prohibited corporation).
No contribution of funds may be made if said funds do not belong to the contributor or
originate out of province. During a campaign period, a provincial party may accept a
maximum $150 per candidate from a registered federal political party (Election Finances
and Contributions Disclosure Act, Articles 34, 35, 36).
Anonymous contributions are not allowed in excess of $50. Those in excess must be
returned to the contributor. If this cannot happen, it must be paid into the general revenue
fund through the Chief Electoral Officer (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure
Act, Article 21.1).
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 8

9. Caps on Contributions to Candidates and Parties
Are there caps on contributions to candidates and parties?
Are the caps on candidates' and parties' contributions reflective of mean total income?
Are there caps on contributions by candidates to their own campaigns?
Are the caps on candidates own contributions reflective of mean total income?
0.25 out of 0.25
0.0811 out of 1.0
0.25 out of 0.25
0.5 out of 0.5
Research Findings:
Alberta's 2009 mean total income is $35,250 (Statistics Canada, 2011).
In any year contributions may not exceed $15,000 for a registered party and $1,000 for a
registered constituency association (only during a campaign period) and $5,000 in
aggregate for registered constituency associations of each registered party (Election
Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 17).
In any campaign period, contributions may not exceed $30,000 to registered parties less
any contributions made that calendar year, and $2,000 to any registered candidates (only
during a campaign period) and $10,000 in the aggregate to registered candidates of each
registered party (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 17).
Contributions to a candidate may only be made during an election period (Election
Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 17).
No party or candidate may knowingly accept contributions greater than these limits
(Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 19).
Goods, services or gifts that do not exceed $50 are not considered contributions, and are
not to be transferred, but are recorded under the gross amount (Election Finances and
Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 12).
Contributions other than money must be valued at market value at the time of the election
(Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 44.31).
The unanimous decision of the FDA audit team is that 10% of personal mean income is a
reasonable limit to contribute to candidates and parties.
10% of average income is $3,525.
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 9

10. The maximum contribution is $40,000.
3525/40000 = .0881
0.0881 out of 1.0 (FDA Audit Team, 2012).
Registered candidates own contributions to their own campaigns are subject to the
contribution limits to registered candidates ($2,000 limit) (Election Finances and
Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 17).
Based on the 2009 Alberta mean total income of $35,250 (Statistics Canada, 2011), the
FDA auditors think that $2,000 is a reasonable limit on contributions by candidates to
their own campaigns. The FDA auditors believe that candidates would likely be more
willing to contribute to their own campaigns than to others, and that if candidates did not
have personal financial resources to cover the $2,000 limit, they have the opportunity to
raise electoral monies through contributions from citizens and corporations and fund
raising events. Further, a $2,000 difference in campaign contributions by candidates, for
example, will likely not determine the election results for a particular constituency (FDA
Audit Team, 2012).
Campaign Expenditure Limits
Are there campaign expenditure limits on candidates and parties?
Are there public subsidies or other financial instruments for candidates and parties?
0 out of 0.5
0 out of 0.25
Research Findings:
There are no electoral expenditure limits on registered candidates and parties (FDA
researchers could find no Alberta legislation that placed direct limits on electoral
expenditures). In contrast, the Canadian federal electoral system has candidate
expenditure limits on each constituency based on location and size of population, and
expenditures limits on political parties based on the number of candidates endorsed by
each party (FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Canada, Electoral Finance, 2011).
FDA researchers could find no legislation on public subsidies, ergo, conclude that there
are no provincial subsidies of candidates, parties, or third parties.
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 10

11. Caps on Third Party Spending
Are there caps on third party spending?
If there is third party spending, is it restricted to citizens only?
If there are caps on third party spending, are they attainable, reasonably, by all adult citizens?
Are there public subsidies or other financial instruments that create an equal level of third party
spending?
0.25 out of 0.25
0 out of 0.5
0.0294 out of 0.25
0 out of 0.25
Research Findings:
Alberta's 2009 mean total income is $35,250 (Statistics Canada, 2011).
Third party expenditure is limited to $15,000 in one calendar year and $30,000 in year of
an election less any expenditure made that year (Election Finances and Contributions
Disclosure Act, Article 44.2(3)).
Those who may not register as a third party are: individuals that are not permanent
residents of Alberta; corporations that do not carry out business in Alberta; registered
charities; prohibited corporations; and trade unions or organized labor groups not defined
by the Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act (Election Finances and
Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 9.1).
No advertising contribution may be made or used unless it is by someone registered as a
third party and subject to the same limits (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure
Act, Article 44.2).
The FDA assumes that all corporations and unions can afford the $30,000 expenditure.
$30,000 limit on third party expenditure in election year.
10% of income equals 3,525.
3525/30000 = .1175
0.1175 out of .25 (max score) = 0.0294
(FDA Audit Team, 2012).
There are no provincial subsidies of candidates and parties, and third parties (FDA
researchers could find no legislation on public subsidies).
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 11

12. Legislative Process
Is legislative process to enforce the electoral finance laws?
Is there an effective legislative process to enforce electoral finance laws?
0.25 out of 0.25
0.15 out of 0.75
Research Findings:
Alberta has comprehensive laws and regulations for the enforcement of the Alberta
Election Act. There are established fines and persecution through the Provincial Courts
that covers both offenses and violations to the Election Act and electoral corruption.
However, the Chief Electoral Officer is only person who has the power to proceed with
prosecution under the Election Act (Election Act, Articles 154-184).
The maximum fine for contraventions for registered parties is $10,000 and $1,000 for
registered candidates and constituency associations. The maximum fine for a general
offence is $10,000 for corporations and trade unions, and $1,000 for individuals.
Maximum fines for third party advertising violations are $10,000 for an individual and
$100,000 for corporations and unions. There are no prison sentences for electoral
infractions in Alberta. (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Articles 45-
53).
Based on low general fines of $10,000 for corporations (except for third party fines), low
fines for registered candidates and individuals, and no prison sentences, the FDA auditors
determine a 20% score. (The FDA auditors assume that a fine $200,000 and/or 1 or more
years imprisonment is effective against corporations, and $5,000 fine and/or 1 or more
years imprisonment is effective against individuals).
20% of .75 = .15
The Court may order parties to bear their own costs for an appeal and/or recount.
Depending on the situation, costs may be paid by the Crown in right of Alberta (Election
Act, Article 148.1).
Finances Act does not apply to leadership conventions within political parties (Election
Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 2).
Finances Act does not apply to leadership conventions within political parties (Election
Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 2).
Total score for the electoral fairness of electoral finance: 47.7 percent out of 100 percent.
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 12

13. Analysis:
Alberta received a score of 47.7 percent for the electoral fairness of its electoral finance
legislation (see pie below). Based on FDA scoring scales, the score is 2.3 percent below the
minimum passing score of 50 percent. This reflects unacceptable scores overall in electoral
finance legislation. Auditors found that public transparency of electoral finances could be a
catalyst for reform of others areas of Alberta's electoral finance legislation. Barring this potential
for reform, the FDA found that Alberta has a large area of electoral finance deficiency (52.3
percent); illustrated by high caps on contributions to parties and third party spending, no
campaign expenditure limits, and no laws that disallow corporations/unions from contributing
and spending as third parties.
High caps on contributions and third party spending allow Alberta corporations/unions and
wealthy Albertans to disproportionately influence electoral discourse. With no equitable
campaign expenditure limits, candidates and parties have unequal electoral funds, which again
can create an imbalanced electoral discourse, and ultimately impact how Albertans' vote. There
are no measures in the electoral system to create equitable electoral finances for candidates and
parties. Consequently, there has been gross electoral finance disparities over the last two
provincial elections, in which the PC party has had more than double the campaign finances
compared to all the other parties combined (Public Interest Alberta; Lisac, 2004). To illustrate, in
the 2008 Alberta general election, the PC Party had 36 percent more political contributions than
all the other parties (seven) combined ($2,285,789 to $1,463,593) (Foundation for Democratic
Advancement, 2012). The FDA finds this inequitable political environment antagonistic to a
broad and balanced electoral discourse and informed electorate.
Further, with no campaign expenditure limits, the FDA argues that the Alberta electoral system is
rewarding candidates and parties who can raise the most money and have the ability to raise
funds. The FDA believes that fund-raising and the ability to raise funds are not necessarily an
indication of popular support; rather, they are an indication of voter influence. This is likely
linked to high income inequality, and is therefore skewed to the wealthier segments of society.
Moreover, larger, more established political parties, due to their experience, network, and
resources, have an advantage over small and new parties in fund-raising.
The FDA believes that the following reforms will create a political environment based on issues
and backgrounds rather than financial interests and fund-raising capabilities: reasonably
attainable caps on contributions to parties, no corporation/union contributions or third party
spending, and a reasonably attainable expenditure limit on campaign finances. To argue that
contributions and third party spending should not be restricted because they are an extension of
freedom of speech and popular support (see US Supreme Court, Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission, January 21, 2010), begs the question as to why they are needed, if the
popular support is determined by the electorate on Election Day? The FDA argues that equating
speech with electoral spending assumes erroneously that fund raising is necessarily linked to
popular support. Further, unlimited freedom to contribute and spend electorally may limit the
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 13

14. freedom of speech of others who are not able to contribute and spend, thereby their voice may be
overshadowed, for example, by the voice of powerful money interests.
The pie illustrates the level of fairness of the Alberta legislation on electoral finance.
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 14

15. Chapter Two: Political Content of Media
Chapter two will focus on the FDA research and audit results of Albertan laws on political
content of media and with respect to electoral fairness.
Chapter Summary: Alberta received a score of 45 percent for the electoral fairness of its media
laws. The score means that 55 percent of Alberta's media laws are unsatisfactory. The FDA found
electoral fairness in the following areas: legislative freedom of media, and disclosure
requirements on electoral surveys/polls. The FDA found electoral unfairness in the following
areas: no requirement for impartial and balanced political coverage before and during the
campaign period, and no media ownership concentration laws or equivalent. The level and areas
of electoral unfairness measured by the FDA suggest that media reform is necessary in order to
encourage a broad and balanced electoral discourse, an equal playing field for candidates and
parties, and ultimately a more informed electorate. The FDA argues that Alberta's media
legislation deficiencies result from a disparity between media freedom and political equality.
Introduction:
This chapter focuses on Alberta's media laws and the FDA's audit of them. Based on the concepts
of egalitarianism and political liberalism, the FDA audit team examines media laws according to
the standard of impartial and balanced political coverage before, during and after a campaign
period (see Definition of Key Terms and Research Methodology for further explanation). Based
on the concepts of 'one person, one vote' and 'government of the people, by the people, and for
the people', the FDA assumes that impartial and balanced political coverage by media supports
democracy by promoting a broad and balanced electoral discourse and a more informed
electorate. The FDA demands balance between media freedom and equity of media coverage so
that the most powerful media and government players do not dominate electoral discourse.
The FDA's media legislation audit focuses on the following sub-sections:
1. impartial and balanced political coverage;
2. media ownership concentration laws;
3. surveys/polls;
4. freedom of media;
5. press code of practice/conduct.
The FDA chose these sub-sections because they represent core areas of the political content of
media. Based on the concept of political liberalism and the importance of freedom of expression
in a democracy, freedom of media is weighted the highest of the five sub-sections. The FDA's
audit of media includes research of Alberta's media legislation and then application of the
research to the FDA matrices. The matrix scoring is based on an overall score of 0 to 10 out of
10.
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 15

16. What follows are the audit results for each sub-section of Alberta's media legislation. It shows
the matrix question, the individual audit scores, and the research findings:
Impartial and Balanced Political Coverage
During the campaign period, is the media (private and public) required legally to
publish/broadcast impartial/balanced coverage of registered candidates and parties?
0 out of 2
Outside of the campaign period is the media required legally to publish/broadcast
pluralistic/balanced coverage of registered parties?
0 out of 1
Research Findings:
There is no provincial requirements that radio and television broadcasters have to be non-
partisan and balanced in their electoral coverage (1986 Radio Regulations, Article 6;
1987 Television Broadcasting Regulations).
Alberta press is guided by freedom of the press and a non-enforceable Code of Practice
through the Alberta Press Council (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; Alberta
Press Council, Code of Practice).
Media Ownership Concentration Laws
Are there media ownership concentration laws?
0 out of .5
If there is no requirement legally of media plurality, impartiality, and balanced content or media
ownership concentration laws, are there any other laws that are effective in causing a plurality of
political discourse before and during an election period?
0 out of 1
Research Findings:
Alberta has no media concentrations laws, which would support plurality of electoral
discourse. FDA researchers could find no media concentration laws. (In Norway, France,
and Bolivia, there are media ownership concentrations laws which support the plurality of
electoral discourse (FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Reports on Norway, France, and
Bolivia, 2011).)
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 16

17. Surveys/Polls
Are there reasonable public disclosure requirements on surveys and polls in terms of their
methodology, data, and funder?
.5 out of .5
Research Findings:
Election surveys must include information regarding: who sponsored the survey, who
conducted the survey, the date it was conducted, the population that the sample was
drawn from, the number of people polled, and the margin of error (Election Act, Article
135.2).
If recognized statistical methods are not employed in a survey, this must be made clear
(Election Act, Article 135.3).
No new election survey results that have not been already released may be released
during the 'blackout period' 24 hours before the election (Election Act, Article 135.4). (In
Bolivia, election propaganda including polls and surveys are not allowed 48 hours prior
to the Election Day (FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report on Bolivia, 2011). In France,
there is no commercial political advertisement 3 months prior to an election period;
election propaganda during a campaign period must allow candidates adequate time to
respond (FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report on France, 2011). In Egypt (under
Mubarak), polls and surveys are not allowed 7 days prior to the Election Day (FDA
Electoral Fairness Audit Report on Egypt, 2011).
Survey results previously released to the public prior to the ‘blackout period’ can be
transmitted again to the public (Election Act, Article 135.4).
Freedom of the Media
Is the freedom of the media (including journalists) established through constitutional or
legislative law?
4 out of 4
Research Findings:
Television broadcast licensees may not broadcast anything which contravenes the law or
exposes anyone to discrimination based on race, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation,
age, or disability. They also may not broadcast anything false or misleading (1987
Television Broadcasting Regulations, Article 5).
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 17

18. Radio broadcasters must maintain a program log for one year, which will contain content
and subject information for each program or advertisement aired. This log must be made
available to a commission if requested (1986 Radio Regulations, Article 8).
There is freedom of the Alberta press, radio, and broadcasters (Canadian Charter on
Rights and Freedoms).
There are no legislative restrictions on the journalistic profession in caring out their work
The FDA could find no legislative provisions that guarantee the access of journalists to
government sources, representatives, or officials.
Press Code of Practice/Conduct
Does a Code of Practice/Conduct that supports impartial, balanced electoral coverage guide the
press?
0 out of .25
Research Findings:
Alberta press is guided by freedom of the press and a non-enforceable Code of Practice
through the Alberta Press Council (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; Alberta
Press Council, Code of Practice).
There are no provisions in the Alberta Press Council’s Code of Practice that require non-
partisan and balanced electoral coverage (Alberta Press Council, Code of Practice).
The Alberta Press Council’s Code of Practice has provisions for a right of reply, but the
Code is not enforced by the Council. Council does not monitor press companies, assumes
they have their own codes of practice, and does not tell them what to publish (Alberta
Press Council, about page on website).
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 18

19. Analysis:
Based on the FDA scoring scales, Alberta scored 45 percent for the political content of media, 5
percent below the minimum passing score of 50 percent. The score reflects more electoral
unfairness than electoral fairness in the political content on media. The results demonstrate a
large area that could compromise Alberta’s election results in the coming election.
Based on legislated freedom of the media and disclosure requirements on survey/polls, the FDA
scored 45 percent electoral fairness in media legislation. FDA matrices weigh freedom of
expression the highest due to its relevance to democracy. In the media section, freedom of the
media represents 40 percent of the total score and Alberta received full percentage points in this
area. However, FDA Freedom and Democracy podcasts (2011) revealed that freedom alone
cannot guarantee democracy. Without monitors to ensure equality, freedom of the media will
allow the most powerful and wealthy individuals and organizations to dominate the political
process. The FDA concludes that Alberta does not monitor freedom of the media in order to
guarantee equality.
There is no legislative requirement in Alberta for impartial, balanced or pluralistic political
media coverage. There are no media concentration laws or equivalent to encourage a pluralistic
media and prevent significant concentration of media ownership. There are no public subsidy
measures to help encourage balanced campaign coverage, and ultimately, balanced electoral
discourse. The Alberta Press Council's Code of Practice does not mandate impartial/balanced
political or campaign coverage. These findings suggest that Alberta's media is susceptible to
partisan, imbalanced political and campaign coverage, and limited coverage from few sources. A
media network with significant ownership rights in television, radio, and the press could
dominate the Alberta electoral discourse, just as a media ownership oligopoly with similar
viewpoints could do likewise. Alberta legislation allows for this possibility, as demonstrated in
the 2004 Alberta Provincial Election. Election coverage mentioned the the Progressive
Conservatives 58% of the time, the Liberals 16% of the time, and the NDP only 12% of the time
(Wesley and Colborne, 2005).
The FDA argues that an electorate that is informed in the platforms of all relevant political
parties will greatly impact the outcome of the election. It is essential for Alberta's democracy to
have, at minimum, balanced and pluralistic campaign coverage. There are public policy options
available; as illustrated by media ownership concentration laws in Norway, France, and Bolivia,
or legal requirements for fair and balanced political coverage and public measures to ensure fair
and balanced campaign coverage in Venezuela (FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Reports on
Norway, France, Bolivia, and Venezuela, 2011).
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 19

20. The pie illustrates the level of fairness of the Alberta legislation on political content of media.
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 20

21. Chapter Three: Candidate and Party Influence
Chapter three will focus on the FDA research and audit results of Albertan laws on candidate
and party influence and with respect to the electoral fairness.
Chapter Summary: Alberta received a score of 51 percent for the electoral fairness of its
legislation on candidate and party influence. The score indicates that Alberta's laws on candidate
and party influence scored slightly higher than satisfactory in areas overall. The FDA found
electoral fairness in the following areas: reasonable length of the campaign period, reasonable
and fair process to determine electoral boundaries, reasonable registration requirements of
candidates and parties, electoral complaints process for candidates and parties, fair presentation
of candidates on ballots, scrutineers at polling stations, disclosure requirements on surveys/polls,
legislated freedom of speech and assembly, public transparency of electoral finances, caps on
contributions to candidates, parties, and constituency associations, caps on third party electoral
spending, reasonable legislative process to enforce the Election Act, and reasonable voting
procedures including voter assistance, protection, and registration requirements. The FDA found
electoral unfairness in the following areas: no candidate and party expenditure limits, caps on
contributions to parties that are not reflective of Alberta per capita income and income inequality
data, no laws that disallow corporations/unions from making electoral contributions and
spending as third parties, no proportional representation, and a less reasonable government
process. The FDA argues that these areas of electoral unfairness may allow some parties an
unfair financial advantage over other parties through their access to wealthy segments of Alberta
society and/or their ability to raise funds. The FDA believes that in the areas of electoral
unfairness, reform is necessary in order to encourage equal levels of candidate and party
influence, broad and balanced electoral discourse, and an informed electorate.
Introduction
This chapter focuses on Alberta laws pertaining to candidate and party influence. Based on
concepts of egalitarianism and political liberalism, the FDA audit team examines election laws
according to their equity for registered candidates and parties (see Definition of Key Terms and
Research Methodology for further explanation). Based on the concepts of 'one person, one vote'
and 'government of the people, by the people, and for the people', the FDA auditors assume that a
representative democracy supports equitable treatment of candidates and parties. The FDA
argues that political freedom alone does not guarantee a democratic process, but that democracy
also requires political equality.
The FDA's candidate and party influence audit focuses on the following sub-sections not
including relevant sub-sections from other audit sections:
1. Campaign period;
2. methodology for determining winners of districts;
3. electoral boundaries;
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 21

22. 4. process of government;
5. registration of candidates;
6. registration of parties;
7. electoral complaints;
8. electoral lists and ballots;
9. scrutineers;
10. candidates and party campaign advertisements.
The FDA chose the sub-sections above and relevant sub-sections from other sections because
they represent core areas of candidate and party influence. Based on the concepts of
egalitarianism and political liberalism (as defined in Research Methodology), freedom of speech
and assembly, electoral finance transparency, and process of government have the highest
weight. The FDA audit of candidate and party influence includes research of Alberta's legislation
pertaining to candidate and party influence and then application of the research to the FDA
matrices. Matrix scoring is based on an overall score from 0 to 10 out of 10.
What follows are the audit results for each sub-section of Alberta's candidate and party
legislation. It shows the matrix question, the individual audit scores, and the research findings:
Campaign Period
Does the length of the campaign period allow reasonably and fairly all registered candidates and
parties enough time to share their backgrounds and policies with the voting public?
.2 out of .2
Research Findings:
The election campaign period is 28 days (Election Act, Article 38.1 (2) and 39).
The longer the campaign, the more electoral finances are required, and therefore, the
longer campaign favors larger, more established parties over smaller and new parties
(FDA audit team, 2012).
Based on the rationalization that this is a provincial election and with a provincial
population of 3,584,304 (per municpalaffairs.gov.ab.ca), 28 days is a reasonable time
frame for all parties to express to the public their platform and ideologies (FDA Audit
Team, 2012).
Methodology for Determining Winners of Districts
Is the determination of election winners based on first-past-the-post?
0 out of 0
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 22

23. Research Findings:
The elections of provincial constituency seats are based on first-past-the-post. The
Alberta electoral system is devoid of proportional representation (Election Act, Article
138).
First-past-the-post election methods determine the outcome of Alberta elections as stated
in the Election Act. First-past-the-post is deficient as compared to proportional based
systems in capturing the popular vote. The matrix score for first-past-the-post is 0. This
matrix sub-section does not evaluate the merits of coalition governments versus non-
coalition governments or minority governments versus majority governments (FDA Audit
Team, 2012).
Electoral Boundaries
Is the process for determining electoral boundaries reasonable and fair for all registered
candidates and parties?
.2 out of .2
Research Findings:
Alberta electoral districts are divided by law into 87 electoral divisions with a population
within 25 percent of the provincial population average and not below 25 percent the
average population excerpt under special considerations. The Alberta Legislature
determines the electoral boundaries within the parameters of Alberta law, and the
Canadian Charter on Rights and Freedoms. Citizen recourse against the Alberta
Legislature in cases of unreasonable electoral divisions that favor a particular political
party is to file a lawsuit and publicly expression their views (Electoral Boundaries
Commission Act; Proposed Electoral Division Areas, Boundaries, and Names for Alberta,
Interim Report to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, Introduction, The
Law).
Process of Government
Within the structure of government do political representatives individually and as government
bodies have reasonable say in the formation of government policy, legislation etc.,?
.125 out of 1
Research Findings:
The Alberta government is comprised of a legislative assembly and no senate
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 23

24. (unicameral). The legislative assembly is made up elected officials. The leader of the
party with the most seats in the assembly is the Premier. All provincial legislation must be
approved by the Lieutenant Governor, Alberta’s representative of the Queen. Major
decisions are made by Alberta cabinet, which is chaired by the Premier and comprised of
MLAs from the political party with the majority of seats in Assembly. For bills to pass
they need at least simple majority of the Assembly. Bills that have the support of the
Alberta cabinet likely pass, while bills that do not have support of the Cabinet likely do
not pass (Service Alberta, Structure of Government; Legislative Assembly Act, Article 7
Bills and Acts; The Citizen’s Guide to Alberta Legislature, Powers of Government and
Making Law).
Based on the rationalization that the process is currently monopolized by the winning
party with as little as 12.5% of popular support, the FDA thinks a fair process would
ensure that the dominant party have obtained at least 50% plus one vote of the popular
vote, if not, then “another process of government should be proposed”, is reasonable.
Another process of government would ensure that the will of the people, as reflected in
the electoral vote, is reflective by the distribution of political power in the Legislative
Assembly.
In the 2012 Alberta provincial election, there are 8 registered parties, and based on this, a
minimum win and control of the Alberta Legislature is 12.5% of the Alberta popular vote.
The score 1 times 12.5% equals 0.125 (FDA Audit Team, 2012).
Registration of Candidates
Are the registration requirements of candidates reasonable and based on reasonable popular
support rather than finances?
.2 out of .2
Research Findings:
A candidate must necessarily be: a Canadian citizen; 18 years old; a resident of Alberta
for six months continuously up to polling day; registered under section 9 of the Election
Finances Act; and nominated by 25 or more electors. Candidates must not be: a prison
inmate; or a member of the senate or House of Commons (Election Act, Article 56;
Alberta Election Act, Article 59).
Candidates must be nominated to be on the electoral lists. Candidates need at least 25
signed support by eligible electors in the electoral division and make a deposit of $500
(Election Act, Articles 56-61).
The FDA auditors think that the registration of candidates are reasonable. As with the
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 24

25. registration with parties, the FDA thinks that there should be a reasonable democratic
barrier of entry for candidates and parties. The requirement of popular support of 25 or
more electors is more than reasonable and if anything low. The FDA does not support
money as a registration requirement because it is not necessarily reflective of popular
support. Yet, candidates are required to make a $500 deposit. The FDA accepts this
deposit as reasonable on grounds that it is at a modest level, and it makes up for the
support of just 25 electors (FDA Audit Team, 2012).
Registration of Parties
Are the registration requirements of parties reasonable and based on reasonable popular support
rather than finances?
.2 out of .2
Research Findings:
For political parties to be registered, they need a party name approved by the Chief
Electoral Officer and have signatures of support from at least 0.3 percent of the number
of electors eligible to vote at the last general election or by having endorsed candidates
for at least half of the electoral division in the province at an upcoming general election
(Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article; Elections Alberta).
Parties must be registered with the Chief Electoral Officer. The Chief Electoral Officer
may not register the party if the name of the party is likely to be confused with another or
a former party, or name or abbreviation is unacceptable to the officer for “any reason”
(Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 7).
The registration of Alberta parties are based on either 0.3 percent popular voter support or
having endorsed candidates in half of the Alberta electoral divisions. There is no financial
component to registering a party. The FDA thinks that a democratic barrier of entry for
parties is important to keep out less serious parties and parties with minimal popular
support. The barriers of 0.3 percent of popular support or having at least endorsed
candidates in 50 percent of the districts are fair and democratic barrier to entries.
Venezuela for example has a barrier of entry for parties of 0.5 percent popular support,
and the FDA supports this as a reasonable democratic barrier. The barrier has to be
reasonably high to prevent less serious and unpopular parties, and yet at the same time
not too high to prevent, for example, new emerging popular parties.
Total population of Alberta: 3,584,304
0.3% of Alberta population equals 10,753.
Total eligible voters in the 2008 Alberta provincial election: 2,252,104
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 25

26. 0.3% of eligible voters equals 6,756 number of required support.
Or per the law requiring endorsed candidates at least half of the electoral divisions,
equates to, in terms of registration cost, 42 candidates out of 87 possible candidates (87
total electoral districts) times $500 per candidate equals $22,000 (FDA Audit Team,
2012).
Electoral Complaints
Do candidates and parties have mechanisms in which to file complaints for electoral
wrongdoing/fraud?
.2 out of .2
Are there reasonable mechanisms to enforce candidate and party electoral complaints?
.05 out of .1
Research Findings:
An application may be submitted for a judicial recount of the ballots. There are only two
qualifying bases for this request: ballots were incorrectly rejected or not counted, or the
certificate of return does not reflect the number of votes for that candidate (Election Act,
Article 144).
A judge of the Court of the Queen’s Bench gives the results of a recount (Election Act,
Article 147).
If the results are not accepted after a recount, a decision by a judge of the Court of the
Queens Bench may be appealed. The court may order the parties to bear their own costs
for the appeal and/or recount. Depending on the situation, costs may be paid by the
Crown in Right of Alberta (Election Act, Articles 148, 148.1).
Candidate has the right to inspect all election documents, with the exception of the
ballots, up to 30 days following the election (Election Act, Article 152).
Chief Electoral Officer oversees the election and may conduct an investigation (Election
Act, Article 4.2).
Candidates and parties have a right to make a legal petition against the election results or
the election of a specific candidate. The petition may be filed with a Alberta judiciary
centre within 30 days after election results are deemed published or if the matter pertains
to eligibility of the candidate’s nomination any time during the continuation of the
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 26

27. Legislative Assembly. The petitioner must make a $1,000 deposit to cover fees of the
respondent. Also, there is an appeals process for petitions (Election Act, Articles 185-
201).
There is no process for candidates and parties to file electoral complaints during the
election period (FDA researchers could no find process in Alberta Election Act).
There is a comprehensive electoral complaints process for candidates and parties.
However, the complaints process is focused on after the election. The FDA believes that
the complaints process should occur during the election as well to help protect the
integrity of the actual vote, and protect candidates and parties from unlawful electoral
acts. Bolivia's complaints process includes both before and after an election. However,
the FDA acknowledges that a complaints process before an election needs to have
safeguards against frivolous electoral complaints (FDA Audit Team, 2012).
Electoral Lists and Ballots
Are electoral lists presented on ballots in a fair, equitable way for all registered candidates and
parties?
.1 out of .1
Research Findings:
Names of candidates are printed in size 10 font including their given name, middle name,
initials or nickname or any combination of them. Names are listed in alphabetical order
based on surname (Election Act, Article 79).
Scrutineers
Are candidates and parties allowed scrutineers at polling stations?
.1 out of .1
Research Findings:
Candidates may appoint up to four scrutineers to represent the candidate at each polling
station or observe the election on the candidates’ behalf (Election Act, Article 79).
The following may not be involved with the counting of ballots: individual who are not
qualified to vote; individuals who have been convicted of an indictable offense
warranting a punishment of greater than 2 years imprisonment in the previous 10 years;
candidates; official agents; members of parliament; members of the legislative assembly;
and judges (Election Act, Articles 24, 29).
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 27

28. Candidate and Party Advertisement
During the campaign period, do candidates and parties have equal access to radio, television, and
print media for political advertisement, and equal cost of political advertisement?
.1 out of .2
During the campaign period do candidates' and parties' political advertisements in media include
a public subsidy component to ensure an equality of political advertisement in the media?
0 out of .2
Outside of the campaign period, do candidates and parties have equal to radio, television, and
print media for political advertisement, and equal cost of political advertisement?
0 out of .2
Research Findings:
Posters are not allowed to be displayed or distributed at polling stations or in the building
containing the polling station. If posters are present, a returning officer may cause it to be
removed, and is not liable for damage caused by the removal (Election Act, Article 135).
No landlord or person acting on the landlords’ behalf may prohibit a tenant from
displaying election posters on the premises of his or her unit (Election Act, Article 135.5).
During an election, radio and television broadcasters will provide time for programs,
advertisements or announcements of a partisan political nature, equitably for all
accredited political parties and candidates represented in the election (1986 Radio
Regulations, Article 6; 1987 Television Broadcasting Regulations, Article 8).
There are no provisions for equitable time for election propaganda outside of the 30 day
election period (1986 Radio Regulations; 1987 Television Broadcasting Regulations).
Although Alberta has measures for equitable media access for electoral advertisement for
all parties during the campaign period, there are no measures for equitable cost of
electoral advertisements nor any public subsidies for electoral advertisement. Further,
outside the campaign period, there are no measures for equitable access to media for
political advertisements or equitable cost of political advertisements. The score of .1 out
of .2 reflects the equitable access and yet no measures for equitable cost of electoral
advertisements (FDA Audit Team, 2012).
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 28

29. Impartial and Balanced Political Coverage
During the campaign period is the media (private and public) required legally to
publish/broadcast impartial/balanced coverage of registered candidates and parties?
0 out of .5
Outside of the campaign period is the media required legally to publish/broadcast
pluralistic/balanced coverage of registered parties?
0 out of .5
Research Findings:
There are no provincial requirements that radio and television broadcasters have to be
non-partisan and balanced in their electoral coverage (1986 Radio Regulations, Article 6;
1987 Television Broadcasting Regulations).
Alberta press is guided by freedom of the press and a non-enforceable Code of Practice
through the Alberta Press Council (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; Alberta
Press Council, Code of Practice).
Media Ownership Concentration Laws
Are there media ownership concentration laws?
0 out of .1
If there are no requirements legally of media plurality, impartiality, and balanced content or
media ownership concentration laws, are there any other laws/regulations which are effective in
causing a plurality of political discourse before and during an election period?
0 out of .2
Research Findings:
The FDA maintains that media concentrations laws support plurality in electoral
discourse; however, FDA researchers could find no media concentration laws in Alberta.
(In Norway, France, and Bolivia, there are media ownership concentrations laws that
support the plurality of electoral discourse FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Reports on
Norway, France, and Bolivia, 2011).)
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 29

30. Surveys/Polls
Are there reasonable public disclosure requirements on surveys and polls in terms of their
methodology, data, and funder?
.1 out of .1
Research Findings:
Election surveys must include information regarding: who sponsored the survey, who
conducted the survey, the date it was conducted, the population that the sample was
drawn from, the number of people polled, and the margin of error (Election Act, Article
135.2).
If recognized statistical methods are not employed in a survey, this must be made clear
(Election Act, Article 135.3).
No new election survey results that have not been already released may be released
during the 'blackout period' 24 hours before the election (Election Act, Article 135.4). (In
Bolivia, election propaganda including polls and surveys are not allowed 48 hours prior
to the Election Day (FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report on Bolivia, 2011)). In France,
there is no commercial political advertisement 3 months prior to an election period;
election propaganda during a campaign period must allow candidates adequate time to
respond (FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report on France, 2011). In Egypt (under
Mubarak), polls and surveys are not allowed 7 days prior to the Election Day (FDA
Electoral Fairness Audit Report on Egypt, 2011).
Survey results previously released to the public prior to the ‘blackout period’ can be
transmitted again to the public (Election Act, Article 135.4).
Freedom of Speech and Assembly
Is the freedom of speech and assembly established through constitutional or legislative law?
1 out of 1
Research Findings:
Citizens have freedom of expression and assembly before, during, and after the election
campaign period (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms).
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 30

31. Electoral Finance Transparency
Are candidate and party finances transparent to the public?
1 out of 1
Legislative Process:
The Chief Electoral Officer may examine all financial statements and affairs of all
political candidates, election campaigns and registered third parties (Election Finances
and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 4).
All records must be maintained for a period of at least three years (Election Finances and
Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 10.1).
All documents filed with the Chief Electoral Officer are public records and available
upon request during normal business hours (Election Finances and Contributions
Disclosure Act, Article 11).
Any campaign funds not used are held in trust, to be used during the next election.
These funds may be transferred to the registered party that supported the candidates bid
for election in the previous election. If the candidate is not nominated for the following
election, he is to transfer these funds to the registered party or candidates that supported
his bid in the previous election. If funds cannot be transferred, they are transferred to the
Crown (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 12).
All contributions must be deposited in the account registered with the Chief Electoral
Officer (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 14).
Every candidate, constituency association and political party must have a chief financial
officer who is not eligible for election and is appointed prior to the party registering with
the Chief Electoral Officer. Contributions may only be accepted by the chief financial
officer or another person who is deemed authorized to accept contributions, according to
the records of the Chief Electoral Officer (Election Finances and Contributions
Disclosure Act, Article 29, 31).
A third party must register if it has or plans to incur expenses of $1,000 or more, or
makes advertising contributions of $1,000 or more (Election Finances and Contributions
Disclosure Act, Article 9.1).
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 31

32. Contributions to Candidates and Parties
Are electoral contributions restricted to citizens?
0 out of .2
Research Findings:
Albertan citizens, corporations, and unions can make electoral contributions to candidates
and parties (FDA Audit Team, 2012).
Are electoral contributions disallowed by foreigners, public institutions, and charities?
.1 out of .1
Research Findings:
No contributions to registered parties, constituency associations, and candidates from
non-Alberta corporations and trade unions, public post-secondary institutions, prohibited
corporations, school boards, Metis settlements, municipalities, and provincial
corporations (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Definition of
prohibited corporation).
No contribution of funds may be made if said funds do not belong to the contributor or
originate out of province. During a campaign period, a provincial party may accept a
maximum $150 per candidate from a registered federal political party (Election Finances
and Contributions Disclosure Act, Articles 34, 35, 36).
Are anonymous electoral contributions set at a reasonable level?
.1 out of .1
Research Findings:
Anonymous contributions are not allowed in excess of $50. Those in excess must be
returned to the contributor. If this cannot happen, it must be paid into the general revenue
fund through the Chief Electoral Officer (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure
Act, Article 21.1).
Based on the 2010 Alberta per capita income of $70,826 and in 2008, the bottom 32.4%
of Albertans earned between $0 and $39,999, the FDA auditors find that $50.00 as a limit
on anonymous contributions is more than reasonable (FDA Audit Team, 2012).
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 32

33. Caps on Contributions to Candidates and Parties
Are there caps on contributions to candidates and parties?
.1 out of .1
Research Findings:
“In any year” contributions may not exceed $15,000 for a registered party and $1,000 for
a registered constituency association (only during a campaign period) and $5,000 in
aggregate for registered constituency associations of each registered party (Election
Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 17).
“In any campaign period”, contributions may not exceed $30,000 to registered parties less
any contributions made that calendar year, and $2,000 to any registered candidates (only
during a campaign period) and $10,000 in the aggregate to registered candidates of each
registered party (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 17).
Contributions to a candidate may only be made during an election period (Election
Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 17).
No party or candidate may knowingly accept contributions greater than these limits
(Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 19).
Goods, services or gifts that do not exceed $50 are not considered contributions, and are
not to be transferred, but are recorded under the gross amount (Election Finances and
Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 12).
Contributions other than money must be valued at market value at the time of the election
(Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 44.31).
Are the caps on candidates' and parties' contributions reflective of per capita income levels and
income inequality data?
.047 out of .2
Research Findings:
Based on the rationalization that 57.9% of Albertans (greater than the majority) makes
below $80,000 per capita income (Statistics Canada, 2009, 2011), a great majority of
Albertans do not have an equal opportunity to be involved in a fair democratic process.
The FDA’s rationale is that considering the per capita income in Alberta and the statistics
regarding the income disparity, it is reasonable to state that the $30,000 cap is high.
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 33

34. Since average Alberta income in 2010 is:
$70,826 (Statistics Canada, 2011).
With the rationalization that 10% of personal income can be used to contribute to
candidates and parties (based on the unanimous decision of the FDA audit team).
10% of average income is $7,082.60
For a $30,000 contribution cap, the percentage of Albertans that can afford this is 23.6%
of the population. 76.4% of the Alberta population cannot afford the $30,000 cap.
23.6% of .2 equals .047 (FDA Audit Team, 2012).
Are there caps on contributions by candidates to their own campaigns?
.1 out of .1
Research Findings:
Registered candidates own contributions to their own campaigns are subject to the
contribution limits to registered candidates ($2,000 limit) (Election Finances and
Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 17).
Are the caps on candidates own contributions reflective of per capita income level and
.1 out of .1
Research Findings:
Based on the 2010 Alberta per capita income of $70,826 and in 2008, the bottom 32.4%
of Albertans earned between $0 and $39,999 (Statistics Canada 2009 and 2011), the FDA
auditors think that $2,000 is a reasonable limit on contributions by candidates to their
own campaigns. The FDA auditors acknowledge that candidates would likely be more
willing to contribute to their own campaigns than otherwise, and that if candidates did not
have personal financial resources to cover the $2,000 limit, they have the opportunity to
raise electoral monies through contributions from citizens and corporations and fund
raising events. Further, a $2,000 difference in campaign contributions by candidates, for
example, will likely not determine the election results for a particular constituency (FDA
Audit Team, 2012).
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 34

35. Campaign Expenditure
Are there campaign expenditure limits on candidates and parties?
0 out of .1
Research Findings:
There are no electoral expenditure limits on registered candidates and parties. FDA
researchers could find no Alberta legislation that placed direct limits on electoral
expenditures. (In contrast, the Canadian federal electoral system has candidate
expenditure limits on each constituency based on location and size of population, and
expenditures limits on political parties based on the number of candidates endorsed by
each party (FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Canada, Electoral Finance, 2011).)
Are there public subsidies or other financial instruments for candidates and parties?
0 out of .2
Research Findings:
FDA researchers could find no legislation on public subsidies, ergo; it concludes that
there are no provincial subsidies of candidates and parties, and third parties.
Caps on Third-party Spending
Are there caps on third party spending?
.1 out of .1
Research Findings:
Third party expenditure is limited to $15,000 in one calendar year and $30,000 in year of
an election less any expenditure made that year (Election Finances and Contributions
Disclosure Act, Article 44.2(3)).
If there is third party spending, is it restricted to citizens only?
0 out of .2
Research Findings:
Those who may not register as a third party are: individuals that are not permanent
residents of Alberta; corporations which do not carry out business in Alberta; registered
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 35

36. charities; prohibited corporations; and trade unions or organized labor groups not defined
by the Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act (Election Finances and
Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 9.1).
No advertising contribution may be made or used unless it is by someone registered as a
third party and subject to the same limits (Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure
Act, Article 44.2).
If there are caps on third party spending, are they attainable, reasonably, by all adult citizens?
0 out of .1
Research Findings:
Based on the rationalization that corporations should have an equal vote as citizens, and
individuals make much less than corporations and unions, this is stating that an individual
has a similar vote to those of corporations and unions. This is untrue based on the fact
that corporations and unions make substantially more money than individuals and only
individuals are allowed to vote. Having a cap for individuals, corporations, and unions is
unfair, especially to the 57.9% of Albertans making less than $80,000 per year.
The FDA assumes that all corporations and unions can afford $30,000 electoral
expenditure. Based on previous results, only 23.6% of Albertan individuals can afford
$30,000 (FDA Audit Team, 2012).
Are there public subsidies or other financial instruments that create an equal level of third party
spending?
0 out of .1
Research Findings:
FDA researchers could find no legislation on public subsidies; ergo, it concludes there are
no provincial subsidies of candidates and parties, and third parties.
Legislative Process
Is there a reasonable legislative process to enforce electoral laws?
.5 out of .5
Research Findings:
It is a corrupt practice to offer money, an office, any gift of valuable consideration,
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 36

37. employment, or a loan of any kind in exchange for a vote or promise of a vote, or as a
reward for declining to vote (Election Act, Article 172).
Court may order the parties to bear their own costs for the appeal and/or recount.
Depending on the situation, costs may be paid by the Crown in right of Alberta (Election
Act, Article 148.1).
Finances Act does not apply to leadership conventions within political parties (Election
Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, Article 2).
Alberta has comprehensive laws and regulations on the enforcement of the Alberta
Election Act. There are established fines and persecution through the Provincial Courts.
The enforcement covers the offenses/violations to the Election Act and electoral
corruption. However, the Chief Electoral Officer is only person who has the power to
proceed with prosecution under the Election Act (Election Act, Articles 154-184).
Voter Registration Requirements
Are the voter registration requirements reasonable?
.1 out of .1
Research Findings:
Voters must be a Canadian citizen, at least 18 years of age, a resident of Alberta for at
least 6 months as a date fixed by the Chief Electoral Officer, and ordinarily a resident in
the electoral division and subdivision for which the name of the person will be included
on the list of electors (Election Act, Article 16).
Voter Protection
Are there reasonable processes that protect voters in carrying the act of voting?
.1 out of .1
Research Findings:
Polling booths must be arranged in such a way that the voter is screened from observation
(Election Act, Article 91).
All election officials must take an oath of secrecy and aid in maintaining the secrecy of
voting. Any breach of secrecy must be reported to the Chief Electoral Officer (Election
Act, Article 93).
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 37

38. Electoral officers have the authority of a justice of the peace and are responsible for
maintaining peace and order at the polling stations. They may request assistance of peace
officers or any persons present to aid in maintaining peace and order (Election Act,
Article 94).
Immediately after a vote is cast, a record is made beside that voters name indicating that
he has placed his vote (Election Act, Article 103).
No one shall interfere or attempt to interfere with a voter or a voter's ballot, attempt to
prevent a person from voting, attempt to obtain information regarding who a voter voted
for while at a polling place, or enter the voter's booth while a voter is marking his ballot
(Election Act, Articles 105-106).
You may not attempt to remove your ballot or anyone else’s ballot from a polling place.
The punishment for doing so is to forfeit the right to vote in the election (Election Act,
Article 107).
If an individual returns their ballot indicating that they do not wish to mark it, they have
forfeited their right to vote in the election. Their ballot will be marked “declined” by the
deputy returning officer, and the individual will leave the polling place (Election Act,
Article 107.1).
Voter Assistance
Are there reasonable processes to assist voters with the act of voting?
.1 out of .1
Research Findings:
An interpreter may be provided by the returning officer if voter does not speak or
understand English to translate and/or answer questions about voting procedure (Election
Act, Article 78).
Polling stations are open from 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on both the advanced poll and on the
polling day (Election Act, Article 88).
Deputy returning officer must assist a voter who due to physical incapacity or inability to
read requests assistance. The officer may mark the voter’s ballot but only in the presence
of a poll clerk. If the voter is blind and does not wish to be assisted, a blind voter template
will be provided with instruction regarding its use. Also, if the voter is accompanied by a
friend, the friend may assist the voter by marking the voter’s ballot. The voter and friend
will be required to take an oath before voting, and officer will record the type of
assistance required, whether by friend or template (Election Act, Article 96).
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 38

39. Provided a treatment centre or supportive living facility houses at least 10 eligible voters,
it must be contacted by a returning officer to decide whether a mobile polling station will
be provided to the facility. If a mobile poll is to be provided, the number of said polls,
their format, and fixed hours for their operation must be established. A deputy returning
officer and poll clerk must be employed for each poll (Election Act, Article 120).
Citizens Living Abroad
Are there reasonable processes which allow citizens living abroad to vote?
.05 out of .1
Research Findings:
Citizens who live abroad may vote by special ballot (Election Act, Article 116).
Albertans living abroad temporarily can vote via special ballot. Albertans who live abroad
and are not ordinarily a resident in an electoral division cannot vote. The score of .1 out
of .2 reflects the fact that Albertans living abroad on a permanent or semi-permanent
basis are not entitled to vote. The FDA supports the right of voting for Albertans who live
abroad (FDA Audit Team, 2012).
Inclusion of Minorities
Are there reasonable measures that support the political representation of minorities and
disadvantaged groups of people?
.08 out of .1
Research Findings:
There are no laws and regulations that guarantees or supports political representation of
minorities in the Legislative Assembly (FDA Researchers, 2012).
Based on the rationalizations that Alberta has gone through a significant progressive
history of their democratic processes, that there is significant ethnic diversity within the
province, every adult citizen has the right to form a party, and all other points we have
made such as about the process of government, special balloting, and no serious
contending minorities and measures to allow them to vote, there is still no process for
ensuring that minorities have political representation in the Alberta Assembly. As a result,
the FDA audit team determined a score .08 (FDA Audit Team, 2012).
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 39

40. Total score for the electoral fairness of candidate and party influence: 51 percent out of 100
percent.
Analysis:
Alberta received a score of 51 percent for candidate and party influence. Based on the FDA
scoring scales, the score is 1 percent above the minimum passing score of 50 percent. Results
indicate that Alberta's legislation on candidate and party influence scored slightly above
satisfactory in areas overall. The FDA found electoral fairness in the following areas: reasonable
candidate, party, and voter registrations requirements, fairness of electoral boundaries, allowance
for scrutineers, reasonable voter protection and measures, and freedom of speech and assembly.
The FDA found electoral unfairness in the following areas: no candidate and party campaign
expenditure limits, no legal requirement on the media for impartial and balanced electoral
coverage, weak process of government which allows monopolization by the Alberta cabinet, no
proportional representation, no media ownership concentration laws, high cap on contributions to
parties, and no laws which disallow corporations/unions from contributing to candidates and
parties and spending as third parties. As in the previous sections, the FDA measured a large zone
of unfairness that may allow some candidates and parties to have significant campaign
advantages over other candidates and parties.
As mentioned in the Definition of Key Terms, impartiality, balance, and equity define electoral
fairness. When looking at legislation, FDA auditors need to determine its equity in relation to all
registered candidates and parties. This is not a straightforward requirement. For example,
although Alberta's high cap on contributions applies to all candidates and parties, a high cap will
likely favor those who have connections to wealthy segments of Alberta society, and who have
an ability to raise more funds. Alberta has no campaign expenditure limits for candidates and
parties, which will likely favor large, more established parties over small and new parties,
through the larger parties' greater ability to raise funds. The FDA argues that equitable laws need
to replace these areas of favoritism and unfairness in Alberta's electoral process. For example, the
FDA recommends campaign expenditure limits that reflect the financial capability of all
registered candidates and parties, and caps on contributions and third party spending that is
reflective of Alberta's per capita income and income inequality data.
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 40

41. The pie illustrates the level of fairness of the Alberta legislation on candidate and party influence.
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 41

42. Chapter Four: Voter Influence
Chapter four will focus on the FDA research and audit results of Albertan laws on voter
influence and with respect to the electoral fairness.
Chapter Summary: Alberta received a score of 65 percent for the electoral fairness of its
legislation pertaining to voter influence. The score means that Alberta's laws on voter influence
have more than satisfactory scores in areas overall. The FDA found electoral fairness in the
following sections: reasonable length of the campaign period, legislated 'one person, one vote',
freedom of expression and assembly, reasonable voter registration requirements, existing
electoral complaints process, special ballots for citizens unable to vote on election day, public
transparency of electoral finances, caps on contributions to candidates, parties, and constituency
associations, caps on third party electoral spending, reasonable legislative process to enforce
electoral finance laws, disclosure requirements on electoral surveys/polls, reasonable process to
determine electoral boundaries, and reasonable registration requirements of candidates and
parties. The FDA found electoral unfairness in the following sections: no campaign blackout
period, no provisions for inclusion of minorities in the Legislative Assembly, no candidate and
party expenditure limits, high cap on contributions to parties, no laws which disallow
corporations/unions from making contributions and spending as third parties, no requirement for
impartial and balance political coverage before and during the campaign period, no media
ownership concentration laws or equivalent, no proportional representation, and undemocratic
process of government. The level and areas of electoral unfairness measured by the FDA suggest
that voter influence reform is necessary in order to encourage more equity for voters during the
campaign period, broad and balanced electoral discourse, and a more informed electorate.
However, since the voter influence received the highest score of the fours audit sections, this
suggests that reforms for voter influence is less necessary, especially in consideration of the
multi-application of sub-sections. Consequently, media and electoral finance reform will have
significant impact on the electoral fairness of both voter influence and candidate and party
influence.
Introduction:
This chapter focuses on the Alberta laws pertaining to voter influence. The FDA audit team
measures Alberta's laws according to their equity for voters based on concepts of egalitarianism
and political liberalism (see Definition of Key Terms and Research Methodology for further
explanation). The equity of voters entails not only equal value of votes, but also equitable
opportunity for voter influence prior to and during the campaign period, and reasonable means to
take advantage of these opportunities. The FDA acknowledges that perfect equal opportunity and
means to take advantage of opportunity are very likely not attainable. For example, it is
inconceivable how government and society can ensure that all voters have the same education,
income, intelligence, leisure time etc. However, the FDA is interested in the overall equity of
Alberta legislation pertaining to voter influence. Does the legislation promote equity within
reasonable bounds? Are there areas of the legislation that clearly favour certain voters?
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 42

43. The FDA voter influence audit focuses on the following sub-sections not including relevant sub-
sections from other sections:
1. blackout period;
2. value of a vote;
3. freedom of speech and assembly;
4. voter registration requirements;
5. voter electoral complaints;
6. voter protection;
7. voter assistance;
8. citizens living abroad;
9. inclusion of minorities.
The FDA chose these sub-sections above and relevant sub-sections from other sections because
they represent core areas of voter influence. Freedom of speech and assembly is weighted the
highest based on the concept of political liberalism. The FDA audit of voter influence includes
research of Alberta's election law and then application of the FDA matrices. The matrix scoring
is based on an overall score of 0 to 10 out of 10.
What follows are the audits results for each sub-section of Alberta's legislation on voter say. It
shows the matrix question, the individual audit scores, and the research findings:
Campaign Period
Does the length of the campaign period allow reasonably and fairly all registered candidates and
parties enough time to share their backgrounds and policies with the voting public?
.2 out of .2
Research Findings:
The election campaign period is 28 days (Election Act, Article 38.1 (2) and 39).
The longer the campaign, the more electoral finances are required, and therefore, the
longer the campaign favours larger, more established parties over smaller and new
parties. Based on the rationalization that this is a provincial election and with a provincial
population of 3,584,304 (municpalaffairs.gov.ab.ca), 28 days is a reasonable time frame
for all parties to express to the public their platform and ideologies (FDA Audit Team,
2012).
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 43

44. Blackout Period
Is the length of the campaign blackout period reasonable?
0 out of .2
Research Findings:
There is no campaign blackout period. FDA could find no campaign blackout period in
the Alberta legislation. Elections Alberta confirmed this finding on February 9, 2012.
There is a blackout on new surveys released 24 hours before the Election Day.
During the 'blackout period' 24 hours before the election, no media or individual can
release new election survey results. Election Act, Article 135.4. (In Bolivia, election
propaganda including polls and surveys are not allowed 48 hours prior to the Election
Day (FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report on Bolivia, 2011). In France, there is no
commercial political advertisement 3 months prior to an election period; election
propaganda during a campaign period must allow candidates adequate time to respond
(FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report on France, 2011). In Egypt (under Mubarak), polls
and surveys are not allowed 7 days prior to the Election Day (FDA Electoral Fairness
Audit Report on Egypt, 2011).)
Survey results released to the public prior to the ‘blackout period’ can be transmitted
again to the public during the ‘blackout period’ (Election Act, Article 135.4).
There is no blackout period as indicated by the score of 0. The purpose of a blackout
period is to allow voters time to process information on candidates and parties (FDA
Audit Team, 2012).
Value of a Vote
Are the electoral (numerical) value of votes the same for all eligible voters?
.5 out of .5
Research Findings:
An elector/voter has only one vote (Election Act, Article 110).
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 44

45. Freedom of Speech and Assembly
Is the freedom of speech and assembly established through constitutional or legislative law?
2 out of 2
Research Findings:
Citizens have freedom of expression and assembly before, during, and after the election
campaign period (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms).
Voter Registration Requirements
Are the voter registration requirements reasonable?
.2 out of .2
Research Findings:
Voters must be a Canadian citizen, at least 18 years of age, a resident of Alberta for at
least 6 months as a date fixed by the Chief Electoral Officer, and ordinarily a resident in
the electoral division and subdivision for which the name of the person will be included
on the list of electors (Election Act, Article 16).
There are no unreasonable restrictions on the registration of voters (FDA Audit Team,
2012).
Voter Electoral Complaints
Is there a reasonable electoral complaints process for voters?
.1 out of .2
Research Findings:
Voters have the right to make a legal petition against the election results or the election of
a specific candidate. The petition may be filed with a Alberta judiciary centre within 30
days after election results are deemed published or if the matter pertains to eligibility of
the candidate’s nomination any time during the continuation of the Legislative Assembly.
The petitioner must make a $1,000 deposit to cover fees of the respondent. In addition,
there is an appeals process for petitions (Election Act, Articles 185-201).
The FDA researchers could not find any process in Alberta Election Act for voters to file
electoral complaints during the election period.
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 45

46. The electoral complaints process is restricted to after an election. The FDA auditors
deducted .1 from the score, for not having an electoral complaints process prior to the
Election Day. The FDA believes that the complaints process should occur during the
election as well to help protect the integrity of the actual vote, and further protect voters
from unlawful electoral acts. Bolivia's complaints process includes both before and after
an election. Although the FDA acknowledges that a complaints process prior to the
Election Day needs to have safeguards against frivolous electoral complaints (FDA Audit
Team, 2012).
Voter Protection
Are there reasonable processes that protect voters in carrying the act of voting?
.2 out of .2
Research Findings:
Polling booths must be arranged in such a way that the voter is screened from observation
(Election Act, Article 91).
All election officials must take an oath of secrecy and aid in maintaining the secrecy of
voting. Any breach of secrecy must be reported to the Chief Electoral Officer (Election
Act, Article 93).
Electoral officers have the authority of a justice of the peace and are responsible for
maintaining peace and order at the polling stations. They may request assistance of peace
officers or any persons present to aid in maintaining peace and order (Election Act,
Article 94).
Immediately after a vote is cast, a record is made beside that voters name indicating that
he has placed his vote (Election Act, Article 103).
No one shall interfere or attempt to interfere with a voter or a voter's ballot, attempt to
prevent a person from voting, attempt to obtain information regarding who a voter voted
for while at a polling place, or enter the voter's booth while a voter is marking his ballot
(Election Act, Articles 105, 106).
You may not attempt to remove your ballot or anyone else’s ballot from a polling place.
The punishment for doing so is to forfeit the right to vote in the election (Election Act,
Article 107).
If an individual returns their ballot indicating that they do not wish to mark it, they have
forfeited their right to vote in the election. Their ballot will be marked “declined” by the
Foundation for Democratic Advancement / 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Alberta 46