Senators turned down a proposal allowing them to charge taxpayers up to $54,000 annually for sponsored posts on Twitter and LinkedIn.According to Blacklock’s Reporter, a committee hesitated, not because of the cost, but because of a rule forbidding "partisan activity."“Every senator has a voice,” said Sen. Tony Loffreda (QC). “We are here to speak and sometimes be partisan, let’s face it. Sometimes, we have a reason to be partisan and we should be. I think we are opening up a can of worms and I don’t mind paying for it myself.”A Senate Subcommittee on Communications suggested that senators should be allowed to charge for sponsored posts on social media, but with one important condition, the messages in these posts must be politically neutral.“Paying for social media can give you advantages that a free account does not on Twitter or whatever,” said Sen. Larry Smith (QC), chair of the subcommittee. “More people see your posts if you pay.”“The financial implications are fairly minor,” said Smith. “Paying for Twitter, LinkedIn, and YouTube Premium would run you about $570 a year. The administration can handle processing the additional expense claims.”There are currently 94 senators. The cost of full take-up would run to $53,580 annually. “You may have to change how you use social media if you take the money,” cautioned Smith.“Senate administration rules state Senate resources may be only used for parliamentary functions of senators or in the service of the Senate,” said Smith. “That means some types of partisan activity like fundraising and commercial activity would not be permitted if the Senate pays for your social media.”Sen. Pierre Dalphond (QC) said he supported sponsored tweets at taxpayers’ expense. “Let’s put ourselves in the perspective of the reader, those who read these tweets,” said Dalphond. “They don’t care if it is paid by the Senate or by the senators, it is a senator making comments.”Other senators objected. “I just think it’s extremely dangerous to start monitoring senators’ social media and then for someone to decide what they posted on their social media is somehow inappropriate,” said Sen. Judith Seidman (QC). “There can be all kinds of motives to decide that. Who will decide that? We really should think very carefully about what we are doing here.”Sen. Rosemary Moodie (ON) stated that she often finds social media posts very unacceptable or offensive.“Currently, we have no oversight,” said Moodie. “The Senate has no oversight of what we as senators do or staff do on social media. This has been tested.”“There are abusive postings, there are vexatious postings,” said Moodie. “Choose whatever word or language you like. The fact is, right now, the Senate has no control. So why would we engage in paying for and supporting activity we have no control over as an organization?”
Senators turned down a proposal allowing them to charge taxpayers up to $54,000 annually for sponsored posts on Twitter and LinkedIn.According to Blacklock’s Reporter, a committee hesitated, not because of the cost, but because of a rule forbidding "partisan activity."“Every senator has a voice,” said Sen. Tony Loffreda (QC). “We are here to speak and sometimes be partisan, let’s face it. Sometimes, we have a reason to be partisan and we should be. I think we are opening up a can of worms and I don’t mind paying for it myself.”A Senate Subcommittee on Communications suggested that senators should be allowed to charge for sponsored posts on social media, but with one important condition, the messages in these posts must be politically neutral.“Paying for social media can give you advantages that a free account does not on Twitter or whatever,” said Sen. Larry Smith (QC), chair of the subcommittee. “More people see your posts if you pay.”“The financial implications are fairly minor,” said Smith. “Paying for Twitter, LinkedIn, and YouTube Premium would run you about $570 a year. The administration can handle processing the additional expense claims.”There are currently 94 senators. The cost of full take-up would run to $53,580 annually. “You may have to change how you use social media if you take the money,” cautioned Smith.“Senate administration rules state Senate resources may be only used for parliamentary functions of senators or in the service of the Senate,” said Smith. “That means some types of partisan activity like fundraising and commercial activity would not be permitted if the Senate pays for your social media.”Sen. Pierre Dalphond (QC) said he supported sponsored tweets at taxpayers’ expense. “Let’s put ourselves in the perspective of the reader, those who read these tweets,” said Dalphond. “They don’t care if it is paid by the Senate or by the senators, it is a senator making comments.”Other senators objected. “I just think it’s extremely dangerous to start monitoring senators’ social media and then for someone to decide what they posted on their social media is somehow inappropriate,” said Sen. Judith Seidman (QC). “There can be all kinds of motives to decide that. Who will decide that? We really should think very carefully about what we are doing here.”Sen. Rosemary Moodie (ON) stated that she often finds social media posts very unacceptable or offensive.“Currently, we have no oversight,” said Moodie. “The Senate has no oversight of what we as senators do or staff do on social media. This has been tested.”“There are abusive postings, there are vexatious postings,” said Moodie. “Choose whatever word or language you like. The fact is, right now, the Senate has no control. So why would we engage in paying for and supporting activity we have no control over as an organization?”
