As "impolitical" pointed out back here, some of the more retarded conservative pundits have decided to make this a "free speech" issue:
Free political speech is essential to political freedom. And isn’t political freedom the reason we have these elections in the first place?
Sadly for Frum and the rest of his brain-damaged colleagues in the Wank-o-sphere, "impolitical" gives us part deux:
As you listen to Pierre Poilievre and other conservatives like David Frum tell you that the in-and-out transfers of national Conservative money to local candidates were grounded in the principles of free speech, keep this in mind:
In documents filed in Federal Court, where the Tories have mounted a case against the Chief Electoral Officer, the freedom of speech argument is not mentioned.
Rather, the party insists that advertising claimed by local candidates benefited those candidates, and all was done in accordance with federal statutes.
The free speech argument is all for public consumption to make it seem like they have a stirring constitutional argument in play. It's not.
BY THE WAY, there's an old lawyer joke that goes:
"Your Honour, my client is innocent since he wasn't there. But even if he was there. he didn't do it. And if he did it, it was an accident. Besides, that son-of-a-bitch had it coming."
I'm sure you can appreciate the logical inconsistencies in the above, with someone trying on a number of mutually contradictory defenses to see which one might fly. The parallels should now be obvious:
"We didn't break any election spending laws. But if we did, they were stupid laws."
Yeaahhhhh ... you guys might want to decide which horse you want to ride here, 'cuz you can't ride both of them at the same time.